Possible differences related to school type

Although teachers broadly agreed that most objectives listed in Table 4.6 can be addressed to some extent, the SD values suggest wider differences of opinion in this part of the questionnaire than were apparent in Section I. There is some evidence to suggest this may be partly explained by factors relating to teaching context.

Not all teachers provided full details of the school they were teaching at, and this revealed a certain lack of clarity in the questionnaire that was not picked up at the piloting stage. Section V included an open-ended question, which asked teachers to give details of their school – for example, whether it was a junior or senior high school, public or private, or had some other special status, such as being attached to a university. I thought this open-ended question format would economize on space and also invite teachers to provide other potentially useful information about their school. However, although all respondents provided

some information, specific details about the school level (JHS or SHS) or the

administration (private or public) were sometimes missing. In retrospect, rather than the open-ended question format, a checklist made up of closed items might have resulted in more complete data concerning teachers’ schools.

Notwithstanding the missing data, 13 teachers indicated they were teaching at junior high schools, and 25 at senior high schools; 30 teachers described their schools as public (indicated by any of the prefixes 公

立, 国立, 県立, 府立 or 市立), and 12 teachers as private (私立). The large discrepancies in the sizes of these sub-groups meant it was not possible to use a procedure like the Mann-Whitney test to establish the statistical significance of any differences between them (Robson, 1994), but a simple comparison of mean scores suggests school type might have some bearing on what teachers believe can be accomplished in terms of teaching for citizenship.

Figure 4.1 compares the mean scores for JHS and SHS teachers for the eight teaching objectives where differences between the two groups were most noticeable (differences in mean scores of more than 0.25). There are two objectives – learning about current affairs (item 11) and raising awareness of Japan’s international activities (item 21) – that SHS teachers appear to view as more achievable than JHS teachers do. On the other hand, JHS teachers appear to see more scope for addressing a range of citizenship-related objectives, including the development of knowledge and skills for intercultural communication (items 17 and 1), promoting respect for human rights (item 7), and learning about global issues (item 4).

Graph 4.2 provides a similar comparison for teachers at public and private schools

Figure 4.1 Teaching for citizenship: JHS and SHS teachers compared

Figure 4.2 provides a comparison of teachers at public-sector schools and teachers at private schools. In this case, there were just four objectives where there were noticeable differences in the mean scores of the two groups (again, differences in excess of 0.25), with private-school teachers providing the higher score in each case. It is hard to tell whether these data reflect increased

opportunities for private-school teachers to address these objectives; that was a possibility I wanted to explore further with teachers in the interviews.

Figure 4.2 Teaching for citizenship: Public- and private-school teachers compared

4.1.4 Section III findings

Section III of the questionnaire invited teachers to reflect more generally on the links between citizenship education and English teaching (RQ1 ii). It also included some items that touched on the question of how JTEs might go about teaching for citizenship (RQ2): for example, asking about opportunities provided by authorized textbooks (item 6) and by Integrated Studies (item 7).

Table 4.8 lists the mean scores and SD values for the 10 items in Section III. The data suggest that the purposive approach to sampling was successful in locating English teachers with an interest in citizenship education. 85% of

respondents agreed or strongly agreed that JTEs have a role to play in citizenship education, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed that they did personally. On the other hand, more than two-thirds of teachers (68%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the first statement, that there is no connection between English- language teaching and education for citizenship. Many teachers seemed less sure about how to respond to item 4, which suggested that social studies is the place for teaching citizenship rather than English classes; but although 28% neither agreed or disagreed with this statement, it was still rejected by 44%.

More mixed results were found regarding contextual factors that might affect JTEs’ ability to teach for citizenship. Overall, teachers tended to agree that authorized textbooks have recently been addressing more citizenship-related issues (item 6). Opinion on Integrated Studies (item 7) was divided: half the teachers agreed that it has provided JTEs with increased opportunities for citizenship teaching, while 24% disagreed, and a further 26% were undecided. The degree to which JTEs can influence textbook selection and the way

Integrated Studies is utilized varies considerably between schools, and the range of different responses may reflect this.

The suggestion that English teachers might be too busy trying to cover the curriculum for them to concern themselves with teaching for citizenship (item 5) elicited more differences of opinion than any other closed-ended item in the questionnaire. 32% of the teachers disagreed with the statement – 15% strongly – but as many as 43% of respondents agreed. This was surprising given the more optimistic responses found elsewhere in this section – for example, the

Table 4.8

Survey results 4: Results for Section III

Scores reflect the extent of teachers’ agreement with 10 statements on a Likert-type scale, where 5=Strongly agree 4= Agree 3=Neither agree or disagree 2=Disagree 1=Strongly disagree

Statement Mean

(n=46) SD

1. There is no connection between English language teaching and

education for citizenship. 1.76 1.12

2. Some skills that students acquire in English language classes are

important for good citizenship. 4.28 .89

3. English language teachers have a role to play in education for

citizenship. 4.28 1.05

4. Citizenship education belongs in subjects like social studies, not in

English language classes. 2.17 1.14

5. English teachers have their hands full trying to cover the existing

curriculum; they don’t have time to think about citizenship education. 3.11 1.30

6. Ministry-approved English language textbooks are touching more

upon citizenship issues these days. 3.61 .95

7. Integrated Studies has provided opportunities for English teachers to

address citizenship issues in school. 3.35 1.20

8. Your school would be against the inclusion of citizenship teaching

objectives in English language classes. 1.82 1.01

9. As an English teacher, you yourself can play a role in citizenship

education. 4.15 .97

10. Parents would support the inclusion of citizenship teaching objectives

fact that 80% of teachers felt they personally could play a role in citizenship education. It may be that although many teachers envisage such a role for

themselves, the pressure they feel under to cover the language curriculum means they believe they have less time and energy for teaching citizenship than they would like.

Differences in teaching context may help to explain some of the diverging opinions observable in this section. For example, private school teachers were more likely to agree with item 5 than teachers in public schools. While eight of the 12 private school teachers (66%) agreed that English teachers

are too busy with other aspects of the curriculum for them to worry about

citizenship teaching, only nine of the 30 public school teachers (30%) agreed. As described in 3.6.5.2, I combined data from the items in Section III to create a single multi-item scale that indicates how optimistic teachers are

concerning the prospects for addressing citizenship-related teaching objectives in high-school English classes in Japan. On a scale ranging from 1 (very

pessimistic) to 5 (extremely optimistic), the mean level of optimism for all 46 teachers was 3.84, with a standard deviation of 0.66. This suggests that as a whole, the sample of teachers tends towards optimism, but again, it may be that teachers from certain types of school see more possibilities for combining citizenship teaching and English than others do. The relatively small sample size makes comparisons difficult in this respect, but, as Figure 4.3 illustrates, whereas public JHS and SHS teachers displayed similar levels of optimism (4.33 and 4.18 respectively), the 11 teachers from private high schools (JHS and SHS levels combined) appear noticeably less optimistic (just 3.39). More than half of private-school teachers were unable to agree with statement 9 – “as an English teacher, you yourself have a role to play in citizenship education” – whereas almost 90% of teachers in publicly run high schools agreed they did have such a role.

Figure 4.3 Teaching for citizenship: Comparing school types for levels of optimism