Bob AshcroftSoka University

Teaching in Cultures Averse to Uncertainty

37th JALT Annual International ConferenceSaturday 19th November 2011National Olympics Memorial CentreYoyogiTokyo

Overview

1. Educational Scaffolding2. EFL: A Cultural Interface3. Measuring Culture4. This Research5. Scaffolding to Avoid Uncertainty

Educational Scaffolding

• Lev Vygotsky

• More Knowledgeable Other (That’s us!)

• Gradually Removed

Scaffolding in EFL

• Advice

• Feedback

• Examples

• Materials

• Instructions

• Activities

• Goals

• Assessment

Teachers: What Kind & How Much

Culture and EFLEFL ═ inter-cultural interface:

Cultural differences can cause different classroom expectations of teachers and students. The best way to reduce the effect of these inter-cultural incompatibilities is by understanding their sources.

(Richards & Lockhart, 1996 )

Teachers need to consider:

• Cultural variation• Potential problems• Teaching solutions

Measuring Culture

Geert Hofstede (1980)

• How?

Questionnaires116,000 employees same company40 countries

• Results:

Individualism/CollectivismPower DistanceMasculinity/FemininityUncertainty Avoidance (UA)

UA in Japanese EFL Classrooms

(Hofstede, G.J. et al., 2002)

TEACHERS STUDENTS British 35 Irish 35 Australians 45 Americans 46 Canadians 47 New Zealanders 50

Japanese 92

UA in Japanese EFL Classrooms

(Hofstede, 1986)

TEACHERS STUDENTS

•cope with ambiguity

•find rules inhibitive

•loose codes of conduct

•tolerance of diversity

•structure and

predictability

•strict codes of conduct

•prefer absolute truths

Research Questions

• What is the classroom impact of low UA teachers with high UA students?

• Are teachers adapting their teaching to manage these differentials?

Methodology

Semi-structured Interviews:

A planned framework, but which also allows interviewees to contribute longer answers and digressions.

(Mills, 2001)

• Interviews Recorded• Clarified the Research Purpose• Between 20 -35 minutes

Methodology

1 week before the interview:

• Definition of UA

• A summary of current research on UA 

• “Are UA differentials between you and Japanese students the source of different classroom expectations?”

• “How do you adjust your approach to account for these differences?”

Methodology

Interviewees

• 9 Native-speaker EFL Teachers (UK, USA & Canada)

•  Master’s TESOL/TEFL or Applied Linguistics

• Same Tokyo University

• Aged between 32 and 60

• Between 5 and 14 Years Teaching at Japanese Universities

• 20-25 Student EAP Classes

Results

UA impacts the following: • Accuracy / Fluency Preferences

• Student / Teacher- Centredness Preferences

• Flexibility / Formality Preferences

Results

TEACHERS STUDENTSDIFFERENCES

Fluency & communication Accuracy & correction

PROBLEMS

Teacher frustrated: quiet, shy, unresponsive students

Students expect feedback relating to form, not content

Students don't see the communicative applications of English

SOLUTIONS

Rapport building

Visits from post-sabbatical seniors

Preparation + practice → communicative activities

Individual → Pairs → Small Groups → Whole Class

Assign Roles

TBL

Exposure to non-standard Englishes

1. Accuracy versus Fluency

Results

TEACHERS STUDENTSDIFFERENCES

T ═ facilitator not controller Prefer Teacher-centered Classes

Want active participation Compulsive note-takers

Want student collaboration

Encourage critical thinking

PROBLEMS

Teacher frustration: Students lacking initiative, shy, uncooperative

Stalled activities

Student Confusion / Panic

SOLUTIONS

Realistic Goals – break tasks down into achievable steps

Incremental handover of initiative

Modeling

Preparation + practice → communicative activities

Individual → Pairs → Small Groups → Whole Class

2. Student versus Teacher- Centredness

Results

TEACHERS STUDENTSDIFFERENCES

Improvisation Transparent activity / class / course objectives, aims and

content

Flexibility Visible measures of achievement

Deviation from lesson plan Formal codes of class conduct

PROBLEMS

Teacher frustration: students inflexible

Anxiety → demotivation

SOLUTIONS

Clear Instructions

Modeling

Start of course: Detailed syllabus and schedule

Start of Class: Objectives and H/W on the whiteboard

3. Flexibility versus Formality

Results

• Most teacher adaptations are examples of Scaffolding

• Scaffolding reduces Uncertainty (McKenzie,

1999)

• Providing well-scaffolded activities is particularly important in high UA cultures like Japan

A Scaffolded Exercise

Reading Journal

• A model

• Clarifies expectations

• Achievable activities in manageable steps

• Clear instructions

Conclusions

• Different levels of uncertainty avoidance of Japanese students and foreign teachers can lead to problems:

o Accuracy / Fluencyo Student / Teacher- Centrednesso Flexibility / Formality

• Teachers adapt their teaching in order to deal with such problems.

• Scaffolding reduces uncertainty, and is therefore particularly relevant to teaching here in Japan.

THANKS FOR LISTENING!

ANY QUESTIONS?

Works Cited

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences. International differences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 1O, pp.301-320.

Hofstede, G.J. et al. (2002). Exploring Culture. London: Inter-cultural Press.

McKenzie, J. (2000). Scaffolding for Success. [Electronic version] Beyond Technology, Questioning, Research and the Information Literate School Community. Retrieved January 17, 2011, http://fno.org/dec99/scaffold.html

Mills, J. (2001). Self-construction through conversation and narrative in interviews. Educational Review, 53, 285-301.

Richards, J.,C. & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.