Abstract
Despite widespread negativity regarding the appropriacy and applicability of the communicative approach to Asian classrooms, educational bodies in this region appear resolutely intent on pushing through with its introduction. As such, the majority of local language practitioners handed the task of implementing this directive are going to require training if they are to expand their teaching repertoire to incorporate this approach. This paper reports on a regional teacher training programme for Japanese teachers of English developed and delivered by the British Council in partnership with a local Board of Education designed to facilitate the integration of Communicative Language Teaching into high school classrooms. Context specific issues are highlighted, programme development in light of these constraints is outlined, participant feedback is presented and discussed, and preferred options for similar programmes are offered.

Introduction
In 2002, as part of the Japanese government's attempts to help prepare the nation for the rapid advances of globalisation, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) presented a strategic 5-year plan aimed at cultivating "Japanese with English Abilities" (MEXT, 2002). In harmony with this plan, a Course of Study for Foreign Languages (MEXT, 2003) has been developed which provides broad curriculum guidelines espousing the following key objective for junior high schools - "to develop students' basic practical communication abilities such as listening and speaking, deepening the understanding of language and culture, and fostering a positive attitude toward communication through foreign languages." Similarly, the major objective for senior high schools is "to develop students' practical communication abilities such as understanding information and the speaker's or writer's intentions, and expressing their own ideas, deepening the understanding of language and culture, and fostering a positive attitude toward communication through foreign languages."

Responsibility for the planning and implementation of these MEXT programs in accordance with stated guidelines is left in the hands of prefectural Boards of Education (Kobayashi, 1993). Consequently, the Gifu Prefectural Board of Education (Gifu PBofE) was proactive in approaching the British Council to request the development and delivery of a short teacher training programme for Japanese teachers of English (JTE's) to assist the integration of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) into high schools in Gifu Prefecture.

CLT in context
The past 20 years have seen the communicative approach to language teaching become the dominant paradigm and established practice in classrooms in Western cultures. In broad terms, CLT focuses primarily on teaching the meaning, functionality and use of language in a learner-centred manner utilising 'real-life' tasks, situations and roles in order to develop learners' communicative proficiency in English, and this instructional system is becoming more and more universally conceptualised, by teachers and institutions alike, as equating to effective language teaching (Yoon, 2004).

Nevertheless, the communicative approach is not without its detractors. Swan (1985a) refers to it as a 'dogma' which over-generalises its application, exaggerates its effectiveness, misrepresents other approaches and methods, and lacks terminological clarity. In addition, he states that communicative syllabuses are typically simplistic, the overriding concern for authenticity is unwarranted, and he condemns the absence of mother-tongue use as an aid to learning (Swan, 1985b). Furthermore, the suitability of the communicative approach, a largely Western language teaching approach (Reed, 2002), to other cultures and its attempted introduction with little thoughtful concern for the particular teaching environment into which it is being applied has been strongly questioned (Ellis, 1996; Hu, 2005).

Irrespective of these criticisms, the progression towards CLT is certainly evident in Japan where educational institutions are looking to impose a communicative approach to language teaching on the current high school system in which learners typically leave school after studying English for 6 years with no communicative capability in the language (Ellis, 1997). However, the adoption of this teaching approach in Japan raises context specific concerns in relation to three key areas - teachers, learners, and administrators.

Teachers
JTE's are accustomed to a strong tradition of teaching and learning English where language is introduced in a teacher-fronted manner with little input from learners, analysed and explained in depth in Japanese through sentence-by-sentence grammar translation (Norris-Holt, 2002), and practiced orally utilising an audiolingual approach (Sakui, 2004). Therefore, they find it difficult to comprehend what CLT entails and how best to implement it in their classroom (Sakui, ibid.), and common misconceptions prevail such as CLT engenders difficulties with regard to classroom management and discipline in large classes (Gorsuch, 2001), it means not teaching grammar, and it is only related to teaching speaking and doing role-plays (Thompson, 1996).

Furthermore, JTE's often express consternation regarding the imposition of a communicative approach as they perceive it is not appropriate to their teaching environment (Holliday, 1994) - such as with the concept of the teacher-as-facilitator being the model for student/teacher relationships (Ellis, 1996); feel guilty about not being "up-to-date" and teaching in a communicative manner (Swan, 1985b); are comfortable with teaching English in accordance with the way they themselves were taught; and lack confidence in their English and/or practical teaching ability to introduce and persevere with a communicative approach in the classroom.

Moreover, previous attempts to teach English utilising a greater range of 'communicative activities' have met with limited success and heightened teachers concerns as to the appropriacy and likely success of a shift towards a communicative approach in Japan. One such attempt has been the introduction over 15 years ago of team-teaching with a native-speaker Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) which, it was hoped, would "ensure better and more frequent classroom interaction and lead to an improvement in the students' communicative competence" (Tajino & Walker, 1998:113). Unfortunately, despite the professed benefits of team-teaching such as the opportunity to develop intercultural understanding, problems exist with regard to this initiative and CLT at the practical level due to a number of factors. These include teachers having little training in how to team-teach with a native-speaker (Tajino & Tajino, 2000), making it difficult to effectively plan and exploit communicative activities as a team; and untrained and inexperienced ALT's (Crooks, 2001), who can provide little or no theoretical rationale nor practical insights for making classes more communicative.

Another scheme to promote communicative proficiency started in the early 1990's with the introduction of aural/oral communication lessons based on a series of dialogues presented in textbooks. However, these lessons do not form part of an integrated syllabus, and a typical oral communication lesson actually involves reading, analysis, drilling and repetition of the given dialogues with the majority of the class still conducted in Japanese. Also, the relatively low value teachers place on these lessons is apparent in their use of these periods for extra grammar-oriented lessons rather than for designated oral communication activities (Juppé, 2000).

Learners
High school learners in Japan exist in a non-English speaking environment with very little opportunity to use English for communication. Little intrinsic or extrinsic motivation exists to actively participate in learning which focuses on developing communicative ability in a language that few learners perceive a need for. In addition, young learners may be unable or unwilling to allocate sufficient cognitive resources to actively communicating in another language as they are already struggling to deal with the complexities of their native language. Allied to this, communicative competence does not hold the same importance in Japan, as the focus for learners is on preparing themselves to meet the challenges of the rigid requirements of high-stakes university entrance exams which concentrate on testing lexical and grammatical knowledge rather than use of English (Law, 1995; Miller, 1998).

Administrators
While educational bodies in Japan are enthusiastic about promoting a shift in focus to developing learners' communicative proficiency, they have yet to provide any documented guidance for teachers nationwide on actually how to integrate CLT into their classrooms. As such, a clear void exists between policy rhetoric and classroom execution. In addition, the range of English study textbooks chosen by MEXT and from which high school administrators must select from have changed little in their exam-focused presentation of material, and their contents fail to clearly correlate with MEXT's Course of Study for Foreign Languages. Also, these textbooks constrict possible exposure to and use of English by typically containing copious amounts of supporting text in Japanese, and focusing on topics or concepts often alien to high school-aged learners. Moreover, the imposition of rigid schedules that dictate textbook coverage for each lesson (Sakui, 2004) does little to facilitate flexibility in the approach to and amount of English teaching and learning.

Programme development
In light of the issues outlined above, it was decided to not only use the course as a medium through which to clearly acknowledge the primacy of the particular context in which Gifu PBofE JTE's are operating, but also to encourage these JTE's to adopt a more eclectic vision of teaching and draw on a broader range of techniques to create greater opportunities and motivation for learners to engage in communication in English. Such an approach seems eminently preferable in the given context, as it respects the value of both 'old' and 'new' approaches to teaching while encompassing local knowledge and classroom realities.

In addition, it was considered important to avoid giving participants the impression that the training was prescriptive in nature; that CLT was the most effective approach with regards to language teaching and learning and had to be utilised in every lesson; and that their existing teaching practices and experiences were being undervalued. Rather, it was hoped that through demonstration, reflection, and opportunities for practice with their own textbook material, participants would begin to become more aware of the possibilities of CLT within the contextual constraints identified.

As such, mini-lessons were developed within a framework of 'pre-', 'while-' and 'post-' stages to demonstrate less teacher-centred ways in which high school textbook reading and listening exercises could be exploited, with participants becoming 'students' during the demonstrations. This approach aimed to expose participants to a weak form of CLT where examples of communicative activities related to textbook materials are: topic/text-related pre-task interaction in pairs/groups; pair/group collaborative task completion; inter-pair/group feedback; and topic/text-related post-task interaction in pairs/groups.

Following each demonstration, an opportunity was provided for participants to reflect, and give and receive feedback on what they had just experienced with regard to the how and why of the teaching procedure. Such reflective practice is beneficial for teachers for a number of reasons including furthering self-awareness and knowledge through personal experience, gaining a clearer understanding of their own actions and the reactions they provoke in themselves and in learners, and developing a disciplined approach to utilising their current and past knowledge and experiences to generate new or revise existing techniques and concepts, and evaluate and test them in their given teaching context (Brookfield, 1995; Thiel, 1999).

Having experienced the mini-lesson, and reflected on the three stages and associated teaching procedures, participants are in a much more knowledgeable and confident position from which to then work in groups to prepare their own mini-lesson (with the support of the trainer) by applying procedures previously demonstrated to their chosen textbook material. Finally, a chance for participants to explain their mini-lesson to members from different groups was included to enable participants to share ideas as well as discuss their teaching context and previous experiences with peers. Importantly, participants would have a record of practical examples of ways in which to make their textbooks more communicative that they could use for referral on return to their workplace.

To cater for broader aspects of classroom teaching in accordance with the requirements of the Gifu PBofE, sessions were included in the course schedule to introduce and practice a range of activities related to introducing grammar using a variety approaches; controlled, semi-controlled and freer speaking practice; and implementing classroom procedures (e.g. setting up tasks, drilling, and error correction).

As such, the main objectives of this programme determined in conjunction with the Gifu PBofE were to: introduce the notion of CLT; demonstrate and practice approaches to making textbook activities more communicative; demonstrate and practice classroom activities and techniques; encourage reflective teaching practice; and enable participants to share ideas and experiences with their peers.

In line with these objectives, the following 4-day schedule was devised with morning sessions lasting 2.5 hours and afternoon sessions being 3 hours in duration:

Programme implementation

The programme consisted of 11 training courses held in 11 training centres throughout Gifu Prefecture over a 4-week period in July/August 2004. Due to the large number of participants and time and budget restraints, all training courses were 4 days in length, with 5 ½ hours training each day.

Participants
273 JTE's from junior high schools and senior high schools throughout Gifu Prefecture attended the training course. Of the 273 teachers, 147 were Junior High School (JHS) teachers (64 female and 83 male), whose teaching experience ranged from 2 years to 22 years. The remaining126 were Senior High School (SHS) teachers (67 female and 59 male), with from 6 years to 24 years of teaching experience. Between 20 and 29 teachers (typically half JHS and half SHS) attended each of the 11 courses.

Each training course was conducted in English by one of five highly qualified (Cambridge/RSA DELTA and TEFL Masters degree qualification) and experienced (minimum of 5 years teaching English including teaching of Japanese JHS and SHS classes) 'native speaker' teacher trainers from the British Council.

Programme Evaluation
Feedback to determine the degree of satisfaction with the British Council programme was gathered from the 273 participants utilising a post-course questionnaire administered at the end of the 4th day of each course. The questionnaire contained questions related to each session's contents and materials, and participants provided a rating by selecting from a five-point Likert-type scale. This type of feedback was selected to enable a large number of respondent's data to be collected and processed in a time-effective manner. In addition, if a participant selected 'Poor', 'Satisfactory' or 'Good' for any session, they were asked to provide written comments as to why they had made that selection. These comments were collated to identify common areas for possible programme revision. Furthermore, participants were given the opportunity to write general comments regarding the training in order to discover any broader aspects of note.

Six months after attending the training programme participants were also required by the Gifu PBofE to submit a written report regarding its contents and how they have modified their approach to teaching accordingly, prepare and deliver an observed demonstration lesson incorporating practical teaching skills covered during the training, take a TOEIC test to assess any language improvement, and present a training plan detailing personal teaching aims for the future (the Gifu PBofE has resolved to keep these components of performance evaluation confidential and they are unavailable for inclusion in this article).

Feedback Results

Contents

Written comments collated regarding the contents of the training indicated that a number of participants had difficulty making a link between the contents of the training sessions and their own particular teaching situation, struggled to comprehend the techniques introduced over the four days, and wanted more time to be spent on each session to consolidate understanding.

With respect to training materials utilised, written comments highlighted that some participants wanted a greater number of examples of classroom activities in the handouts, and felt that the handouts were rather basic and did not contain enough useful detail.

General written feedback

Written comments regarding broader aspects of the training reflected participants:

1. rediscovered or enhanced enthusiasm for teaching

"I was highly motivated through the 4-day course. More communicative language teaching is important and effective, I think."

"Thank you for the four days. At first I was very nervous and unwillingly joined this course. But I learned many things from the teachers and had many chances to use English, so I enjoyed it. I'm going to try to improve my lessons as hard as I can."

"I was reluctant to attend the course, but teaching areas are new and helpful to me. Most of the methods I will adopt and use."

2. motivation to experiment with new ideas and activities in their classrooms

"My English lessons are not communicative. The grammar and translation method makes my students tired and bored, so I'd like to try to make my lessons more attractive. It might be difficult, but I'd like to as much as possible."

"I've wanted to teach English to my students in all English, but I couldn't do it. After this course, I feel I will be able to. Now I think I'll try."

"This course was very impressive. I can have confidence in changing my way of rather traditional teaching. There are so many suggestions and much advice worth trying."

3. satisfaction with the training course contents and approach

"When we were university students we only studied about theory of education. We didn't have any practical training, so this training was very useful for me."

"I got a lot of hints to make my class more communicative and to make my daily classes better and more effective."

"Learning through activities was very effective and interesting for us teachers during four days of teacher training."

4. concern for improving their English ability

"This course is a very good opportunity to brush up our English."

"After the seminars I had joined before, I thought I had to study English more. But after this course, I feel I want to study English more."

"I enjoyed this course like a student. Nowadays, I have tended to lose my interest toward English. Joining this course I feel like studying English much more. Good motivation."

Furthermore, other written comments indicated participants' general desire for English language training; discrete courses for JHS or SHS teachers; and sessions focusing on classroom English, motivating learners, and team-teaching.

Discussion
Feedback gathered highlights that the response of participants to this short training programme has been positive in terms of individual session content and materials. At least 80% of participants rated the content of each session as either 'Very good' or 'Excellent'. For those who rated the course lower than this, written comments show they had difficulty grasping concepts and relating aspects of the training to their particular classrooms and learners. One reason for this may be that as some of the JHS teachers had only limited teaching experience, they had not yet fully come to terms with those aspects of language teaching that are the norm in their high schools. Another reason could have been because the style of teacher training was not what they had experienced before as, typically, teacher training for JTE's is achieved through lecture-based courses. As a result, reflecting on procedures and techniques in activities in which they were in the role of 'students' and linking new practices to their own classrooms situation might have been beyond several of the participants.

With respect to each session's materials, 'Very good' or 'Excellent' was chosen by over 90% of participants. Lower ratings were accompanied by written comments expressing a desire for handouts to include a greater number of examples of classroom activities. This feedback could have again been from less experienced JHS teachers, or were just general requests from several participants. Other comments mentioned the material needed to be more challenging. This was probably because a few teachers were familiar with parts of the training as a result of personal study and/or classroom experimentation.

Of course, while the feedback is very useful as input for revising content and materials for future training, it is important not to read too much into responses as a measure of the success of the training programme as it does not reflect to what extent it actually encouraged participants to begin to modify their existing beliefs and values, and assume a more eclectic vision of teaching on return to their classrooms. Despite this limitation, what the feedback does seem to support is the development and delivery of training that questions the universal application of the communicative approach and instead embraces a paradigm shift towards a context-based approach as propounded by Jarvis and Atsilarat (2004). That is, when contextual factors (in this case those related to teachers, learners, and administrators) are understood, openly acknowledged, and given primacy over a theoretical model and instructional system, then the reaction of participants to this kind of training programme is enthusiastic and affirmative.

Moreover, it is particularly important that the notion of a paradigm shift is embraced by expatriate teacher trainers who are developing and conducting the training, as they are likely to have gained teaching qualifications and experience in a different culture and environment, may have contradictory philosophies regarding the nature of effective teaching and learning, and usually have comparably limited experience of language teaching in the given local context.

This raises the matter of whether this type of training programme should indeed be developed and delivered exclusively by expatriate teacher trainers. On reflection, a preferred option may be to have both 'senior' JTE's who are still actively teaching and receptive to 'new' perspectives and expatriate teacher trainers work together in equal partnership to develop and deliver such training. In this way, instead of having expatriate teacher trainers rely on their perhaps limited knowledge of the local context to develop a training programme at the behest of high school administrators, direct access to local and up-to-date knowledge of the teaching context is available and is granted priority, and the experiential knowledge of CLT of expatriate teacher trainers is selected, adapted, modified, or rejected to fit that context. This partnership could overcome any sense of dissatisfaction regarding contents and materials mentioned in written feedback for this training programme, give greater kudos to the training, and would circumvent the possible interpretation of training programmes determined by high school administrators and 'outside agents' as unrealistic and irrelevant. An additional benefit of this concept may be that 'senior' JTE's could offer on-going, localised training and support over an extended period to junior colleagues and, indeed, simultaneously to ALT's, thereby building stronger teaching relationships through shared knowledge and understanding which in turn could promote more effective team-teaching.

Other issues arising in relation to the development and delivery of this training programme are also worthy of mention. Firstly, JHS and SHS JTE's at schools near one of the training centres were accordingly grouped together. Although the programme was designed to cover areas common to both environments, it would be preferable (should time and budgets be available) to have separate training programmes for JHS JTE's and SHS JTE's. Aspects of CLT general to both groups could still be dealt with, but also JHS specific and SHS specific elements could also be catered for.

Secondly, while this training programme indirectly offers participants a limited opportunity to advance their English language ability by being conducted completely in English, written feedback from participants indicates that it may be preferable to at first provide JTE's with a discrete language improvement programme. This suggestion is based on recognition of three factors that are fuelling JTE's desire for maximising their English language proficiency. These factors are: to enhance their self-esteem and professional status; the move towards a teaching approach which accentuates the use of English in the classroom; and the establishment by MEXT of TOEIC targets for JTE's. A CLT methodology course only caters for elements of the second of these three factors and is therefore highly likely to be considered of secondary importance by JTE's. As a consequence, they may channel their enthusiasm, motivation, and self-development in another direction, thereby hindering attempts to integrate CLT.

Furthermore, it is likely that more informed and context-sensitive CLT training could be delivered by determining teachers' beliefs prior to implementing this kind of training programme. A cost-effective and administratively efficient option for collecting this kind of baseline information where large numbers of participants are involved is the use of attitude scales (Karavas-Doukas, 1996). Supported by interviews enabling elaboration on responses, attitude scales could provide data regarding those aspects of CLT in which they will require more extensive guidance, input and explication. It would also be of value to administer this kind of scale post-training and examine to what extent the training led to participants' modifying their attitudes and beliefs.

Conclusion
To address the MEXT strategy aimed at improving the communicative competence of Japanese high school learners of English, the Gifu PBofE and the British Council have instigated a training programme designed to facilitate the integration of CLT into existing English language courses. Recognising potent contextual constraints that exist with regard to teaching and learning traditions and administrative aspects, the training programme incorporates an approach which extols primacy of context and a weak form of CLT, and aims to encourage reflective practice and promote a more eclectic view of language teaching.

While feedback indicates that participants have responded positively to this training programme, higher priority may need to be given in future to initially providing language improvement training and, subsequently, separate JHS and SHS CLT methodology courses developed and delivered through local and expatriate teacher trainers in collaboration. Nevertheless, it is apparent at this early stage that Gifu JTE's who attended the training are now more optimistic about taking the first steps towards making their classrooms more communicative.

References

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crooks, A. (2001). Professional development and the JET program: Insights and solutions based on the Sendai City Program. JALT Journal, 23, 31-46.

Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach? English Language Teaching Journal, 50(3), 213-218.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gorsuch, G. (2001). Japanese EFL Teachers' Perceptions of Communicative, Audiolingual and Yakudoku Activities: The Plan Versus the Reality. Education Policy Analysis Archive 9(10). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n10.html

Holliday, A. (1994). The house of TESP and the communicative approach. English Language Teaching Journal, 48(1), 3-11.

Hu, G. (2005) CLT is best for China' - an untenable absolutist claim. English Language Teaching Journal, 59(1), 65-68

Jarvis, H. & Atsilarat, S. (2004). Shifting paradigms: from a communicative to a context-based approach. Asian EFL Journal. December 2004. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/december_04_HJ&SA.php

Juppé, R. (2000). Regressing forward - resurrecting upper secondary AOC courses in Japan. Tokyu Kasei Tsukuba Women's University. Periodical 4, 83-97.
http://64.233.179.104/search?
q=cache:8yPbmGSdZdsJ:www.kasei.ac.jp/library/kiyou/20
00/6.JUPPE.pdf+oral+communication+in+japan+juppe&hl=en

Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers' attitudes to the communicative approach. English Language Teaching Journal, 50(3), 187-198.

Law, G. (1995). Ideologies of English language education in Japan. JALT Journal, 17, 213-224.

Miller, T. (1998). Comparing the "fit" between communication-oriented teaching and the ELT landscape in Japan. Paper presented at the Temple University Japan colloquium on Applied Linguistics, Tokyo, Japan.

MEXT (2002). Developing a strategic plan to cultivate "Japanese With English Abilities". http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm

MEXT (2003) Course of Study for Foreign Languages. http://www.mext.go.jp/english/shotou/030301.htm

Norris-Holt, J. (2002). An investigation of Japanese high school students' attitudes towards the study of English. Second Language Learning & Teaching 2. http://www.usq.edu.au/opacs/sllt/2/Norris-Holt02.htm

Reed, J. (2002). The Pedagogical Challenges for Western ESL Teachers in Asia. Contact 28(4). http://www.teslontario.org/new/publ/contact/Fall2002.pdf

Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. English Language Teaching Journal, 58(2), 155-163.

Swan, M. (1985a). A critical look at the communicative approach (1). English Language Teaching Journal, 39(1), 2-12.

Swan, M. (1985b). A critical look at the communicative approach (2). English Language Teaching Journal, 39(2), 76-87.

Tajino, A. & Tajino, Y. (2000). Native and non-native: what can they offer? English Language Teaching Journal, 54(1), 3-11.

Tajino, A & Walker, L. (1998). Perspectives on Team Teaching by
Students and Teachers: Exploring Foundations for Team Learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11(1), 113-119.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:LRgV6uQV76IJ:
www.channelviewpublications.net/l
cc/011/0113/lcc0110113.pdf+Perspectives+on+Team+Teaching+tajino&hl=en

Thiel, T. (1999). Reflections on critical incidents. Prospect, 14(1), 44-52.

Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. English Language Teaching Journal, 50(1), 9-15.

Yoon, K. (2004). CLT Theories and Practices in EFL Curricula. A Case Study of Korea. Asian EFL Journal. September 2004. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/september_04_yke.php