Communicative Language Teaching
and its Cultural Appropriateness in Japan
Takako Tanaka
..., teaching method, although important, is just one aspect of
language teaching. Every teaching situation involves the interaction
between a given teaching method, the students, and the wider
socio-cultural context of learning. If this interaction is not a happy
one, learning is unlikely to be effective, no matter how good the
credentials of the teaching method may be in theoretical terms.
Teaching method needs therefore to be chosen not only on the basis
of what seems theoretically plausible, but also in the light of the
experience, personality, and expectations of the students involved.
(Tudor, 1996b, p. 276-7)
Introduction
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is a teaching method. It has
had a tremendous impact on the teaching of English worldwide and regards
language as communication tools and sets the goal of language teaching
as communicative competence 1, a term first coined by Hymes (1971)
(Johnson & Morrow, 1981; Richards & Rodgers, 1986, 2001). Indeed,
CLT has been a very influential teaching methodology worldwide since
the communicative movement in the West arose in the 1980s. Richards
and Rogers (2001) rightly note that it “marks the beginning of a major
108
Takako Tanaka
paradigm shift within language teaching in the twentieth century, one
whose ramifications continue to be felt today” (p. 151). Therefore, CLT has
attracted considerable attention among second language researchers around
the world. As Spada (2006) states, “CLT is undoubtedly the most researched
approach to second/foreign language teaching in the history of language
teaching” (p.271). Despite the dominance and positive attention attributed
to CLT, several issues concerning this method have been raised in different
parts of the world. These issues include ideological/cultural imposition
(e.g. Canagarajah, 1993; Pennycook, 1994), the degree of practicality of its
application to EFL situations where students must take grammar-based tests
(e.g. Li, 1998), and the suitability for non-native teachers (e.g. Medgyes,
1988). Also, in addition to these concerns about educational appropriateness,
numerous studies, conducted in non-Western countries (e.g. Coleman, 1996;
Ellis, 1996; Holliday, 1994), have questioned its ‘cultural appropriateness’
in their contexts.
The purpose of this paper is to examine how CLT can be implemented
into Japanese educational practices and their associated learning patterns.
First, I will explain the Japanese socio-cultural context. This will involve an
attempt to define the various meanings of the word ‘culture’ in relation to the
Japanese culture of learning and in CLT. Then, in terms of its implications
for implementing CLT, and with reference to relevant studies, I will discuss
classroom culture and a culture of learning, as well as the influence that the
Japanese culture places on conformity. Finally, I will offer some suggestions
as to how CLT might be implemented in a Japanese context.
Communicative Language Teaching and its Cultural Appropriateness in Japan
109
2. CLT and English language education in Japan:
The socio-cultural context
In 1989 and 1990, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science, and Technology (MEXT) introduced CLT methodology into
junior and senior high schools with the intention that the perceived poor
listening and speaking ability of Japanese students of English could be
improved. This orientation was further promoted in the 1998 revision. Due
to this curriculum innovation, less emphasis was placed on grammar and
vocabulary, and new oral-aural communication courses were introduced.
These new ‘communication-oriented” classes are mostly task-based, and
the students are expected to engage primarily in listening and speaking
activities2.
However, introducing CLT has been met with widespread dissatisfaction
among teachers, since it is considered incompatible with the exam-oriented
atmosphere of their professional environment (e.g. Gorsuch, 2000). The
exams themselves do not help in this respect, as they are not designed to
assess communicative ability. For example, Nakata (1990) describes the
difficulty of putting CLT into practice in Japan and suggests reasons such
as the nature of the syllabus design, the entrance examination system, the
communicative incompetence of Japanese teachers of English, and the large
class size.
3. Classroom culture and a culture of learning
No one would deny there are cultural differences. At the same time,
however, using the term ‘culture’ often involves stereotyping, prejudice and
110
Takako Tanaka
the possibility of overgeneralisation (Holliday, 1994). Therefore, in this paper,
‘culture’ refers to what Scollon and Scollon (1995) call anthoropological
culture, which means any of the customs, worldview, language kinship
systems, forms of social organisation, and other taken-for-granted dayto-day practices of a people which constitute a population as a distinctive
group, while recognising that “[all] cultures incorporate competing sets of
beliefs and practices which tend to invalidate stereotypical notions held by
those outside the culture” (Cogan, 1996, p.104).
The classroom may be a special environment set for learning and
teaching, but what happens within is a reflection of the world outside.
As Bowers (1987, pp. 8-9 cited in Holliday 1994b, p.15) suggests,
“the classroom is a microcosm which, for all its universal magisterial
conventions, reflects in fundamental social terms the world that lies outside
the window.” Also, LoCastro (1996) argues that “classroom practices
reflect attitudes and beliefs about language and language learning that are
embedded in the socio-cultural context” (p. 43). Therefore, any analysis of
classroom practice must engage with the wider circumstances in which it
is situated. That is, cultural expectations and social structures are central
to the success of a given teaching strategy. In fact, some scholars have
argued the importance of considering classroom culture as an influential
factor in teaching and learning. For example, Tudor (1996b) states that this
concept “encapsulates many of the beliefs and attitudes of the society in
question, but they are perceived and experienced by the specific group of
learners concerned” (p. 142). Also, Holliday (1994b) claims that it “provides
tradition and recipe for both teachers and students in the sense that there
are tacit understandings about what sort of behaviour is acceptable” (p. 24).
This culturally influenced aspect of a classroom is referred to as a ‘culture
Communicative Language Teaching and its Cultural Appropriateness in Japan
111
of learning’ (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996), which has to do with the beliefs and
expectations people have as to what constitutes “good” or “appropriate”
teaching in a given culture. In fact, this hidden aspect of culture is well
represented in the metaphor ‘cultural iceberg,’ which means many aspects
of culture such as beliefs and values are hidden below the surface of our
consciousness (Hall & Hall, 1990).
4. Culture of learning in Japan and that of CLT:
Culture of conformity
A number of studies (e.g. Coleman, 1996; Holliday, 1994a, 1994b;
Kramsh & Sullivan, 1996; Shamim, 1996) have drawn attention to the
importance of cultural factors in determining learning and teaching
approaches in specific contexts. The effectiveness of a given method has
often been analysed from an exclusively psycholinguistic perspective,
and socio-cultural factors have been neglected (Tudor, 1996b). As a
result, almost all “TESEP” (tertiary, secondary and primary) countries
(Holliday, 1994b), namely, those outside what Kachru (1990) calls “the
Inner Circle”, have simply imported a methodology invented in “BANA”
(British, Australasian and North American) countries, rather than creating or
developing a methodology derived from their own cultures—a methodology
that might be better suited to their own sociocultural contexts. This is due to
a widespread belief in the innate superiority of Western teaching practices
to local ones (Pennycook, 1994). Holliday (1994b) also warns of the danger
of naively accepting BANA practice as superior and uncritically adopting
the ethnocentric norms inherent in Western English language teaching
methodologies, without proper research into their effectiveness. Otherwise,
112
Takako Tanaka
doing so entails the risk of “tissue rejection” (Holliday, 1994b) which means
that “even well-intentioned curriculum innovations may fail to take root in
their host institution” (p. 232).
A number of studies (e.g. Coleman, 1996; Shamim, 1996; Tsui, 1996)
have identified and examined the contradictions and difficulties experienced
by Asian students due to the conflict between their culture of learning and
that of CLT. For example, CLT conceives of teachers as facilitators and
resource-persons, whereas Asian students sometimes expect the teacher
to assume the role of authoritative expert; while CLT imagines students
as active, egalitarian participants in a learning process that involves open
negotiation, Asian students might be more accustomed to environments in
which they play a more passive role, as recipients of knowledge transmitted
by the teacher; finally, the “collectivist” social ideals of classrooms in many
Asian settings do not harmonize well with the individualistic emphasis
of CLT. Of these several conflicts, the cultural conflict regarding the
expected roles and relationships between teachers and students has been
extensively discussed (e.g. Cogan, 1996; Cortazzi, 1990; Ryan, 1995). The
roles of teachers and students are regarded as one of the most important
components in teaching methodology, and these are variously reflected
in different methodologies (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, 2001). Indeed,
teachers and learners are the main participants in the classroom—an
assertion that justifies the need for further and more serious examination of
this issue. However, notwithstanding the importance of the teacher-learner
relationship, I will focus my discussion on the role of learners3 as those who
directly experience what happens in the classroom, and on their experiences
as a direct influence on learning process and outcome.
In CLT, learners are expected to be negotiators and active participants
Communicative Language Teaching and its Cultural Appropriateness in Japan
113
(Breen & Candlin, 1980). Also, they are expected to interact more with each
other than with the teacher (Richards & Rogers, 2001 ) and to express their
own original thinking. The learner, say advocates of CLT, can no longer
be seen as an empty vessel, which a teacher can arbitrarily fill with new
knowledge or behaviour, as was the tendency, according to critics, of earlier
grammar-translation and direct methods, and structural or audio-lingual
approaches (Holliday, 1994b). Also, CLT expects learners to be actively
engaged in various forms of activities such as pair and group work and to
learn to negotiate meaning through them (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983;
Littlewood, 1981). This is what Howatt (1984) calls the ‘strong’ version of
CLT, meaning “language is acquired through communication” and “using
English to learn it” (p. 279). Thus, the active role of the learners is essential
in CLT, since lesson success is dependent upon how much the learners
actively participate in the class.
This expected role for a student in CLT is very different from the one
traditionally accepted, and therefore can be highly problematic in Japanese
junior and senior high school classrooms. As LoCastro (1996) states, the
Japanese education system puts Confucianist emphasis on the general
good at the expense of individualism. In essence, the Japanese classroom
convention is for lessons to be teacher-fronted, teacher-centered, and based
on a lecture method employing grammar translation; the teacher is expected
to do most of the talking, as the learners listen passively. During each lesson
the learners note down every word of the lecture (or as much of it as they
can) to faithfully reproduce it in the examinations. They rarely answer
voluntarily and will only talk if asked by the teacher (Rohlen & Ketendre,
1996). This style of pedagogy does not give priority to creativity and
focuses on the reproduction of learnt material in examinations as a measure
114
Takako Tanaka
of successful teaching and learning. Also, since the teacher is the authority,
unexpected learner talk is regarded as disruptive behaviour and is held
to reflect a lack of teacher control. This is reflected in Japanese students’
tendency of being quiet4 in class and asking questions individually after
class.
Japanese students are accustomed to playing a passive role which
contrasts with what is expected in CLT classrooms, as Ike (1995) claims
that they feel more comfortable when they are buried within a group and
try not to attract too much attention to themselves. In fact, based on my
teaching experience, many teachers have shared stories about the discomfort
the students display when required to ‘perform’ language tasks. Rather than
stimulating authentic communication, these activities often generate selfconscious, hesitant and inaudible responses.
It could be argued that, in Japanese classrooms, this attitude reflects
the so-called ‘culture of conformity’. People are socialised from an early
age in the family and their first language speech community, and culture
is deeply embedded (Carson, 1992 ; Miller, 1995). Culturally, Japan is
a group conscious country and conformity is more highly regarded than
individuality. According to Rohlen and Ketendre (1996), studies in child
socialisation have found that Japanese mothers tend to make more use of
outside forces in showing disapproval of their children’s behaviour than
their western counterparts. Indeed, from an early age this is manifested
in parents’ warnings to their children that conspicuous behaviour invites
ridicule, or they are “being watched” by an unidentified, seemingly
ubiquitous “someone.” Also mothers also typically invoke the Japanese
concepts of hazukashii (“ashamed”) or okashii (“strange”) to emphasize to
their children that their behaviour does not meet with normal expectations
Communicative Language Teaching and its Cultural Appropriateness in Japan
115
(Rohlen & Ketendr, 1996). Consequently, Japanese people grow up very
conscious of other people’s reactions. Indeed, conformity is the norm in the
society. Matsumoto (1988) notes that “[w]hat is of paramount concern to a
Japanese is not his/her own territory, but the position in relation to the others
in the group and his/her acceptance by those others” (p.405). Also, Mao
(1994) expresses a similar view that “Japanese tend to be more aware of
the connections they have as members of their social groups, and therefore,
they tend to be more conscious of the consequences of their actions on other
members of their groups” (p. 467). Thus, Japanese people tend not to like to
behave differently from others, and tend to be concerned about or influenced
by how other people behave, or think of them.
The culture outside the classroom affects the students’ behaviour in the
classroom. In the school context, this conformity is mediated through the
relationships which students develop with teachers, and more significantly
with their peer group. While the influence of peer pressure has been
identified in a wide variety of cultures, the Japanese emphasis on conformity
clearly intensifies its effect. Related to the culture of conformity, the findings
from Sasaki’s (1992) study indicate that Japanese junior high school students
preferred activities such as watching a video, listening to tape recordings or
repeating after the teacher to those such as performing a dialogue or making
a conversational skit in front of other classmates. Also, lack of participation is not exclusive to Japanese classrooms.
According to a study of student responses to teacher questions (White &
Lightbown, 1984) conducted in Canada, for example, out of an average
of 200 questions asked in a fifty-minute lesson 41 percent received no
response. However, this phenomenon is particularly pronounced with Asian
students, who are generally considered to be more reserved and reticent than
116
Takako Tanaka
their Western counterparts (e.g. Chaudron 1988; Sato 1982). In this respect,
it can be assumed that asking Japanese students to initiate utterances in a
classroom involves a significant cultural re-orientation.
5. Suggestions for implementing CLT in Japanese classrooms
Language teaching is a complex social and cultural activity; educators
must understand the socio-cultural context in which language teaching is
situated and must acknowledge that learners are psychologically complex
individuals. As Allwright (1996) has suggested, “teachers and learners
cannot simply choose between the pedagogic and the social pressures and
opt to allow themselves to be influenced by one set of pressures rather
than the other” (p.223). Thus, while research indicates that interaction is
very important in learning a second language (e.g. Ellis, 1994), the crucial
significance of cultural factors should not be disregarded.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the inappropriateness of
CLT in the Japanese culture will negate the theory itself and the possibility
of its introduction to and effective use in English language classrooms
in Japan. In order to reconcile CLT and cultural practice, it is very much
needed to “adapt rather than adopt CLT into their English teaching” (Li,
1998, p.696). Understanding the difficulty of maintaining the delicate
balance between the social and pedagogic is vital in order to develop a
pedagogy more appropriate to local conditions, as “no teaching approach
will work unless it is accepted by both teachers and students” (Tudor,
1996b, p.278). With the problematic issues discussed in the previous section
in mind, I will make a few suggestions that might help Japanese learners of
English benefit as much as possible from this approach.
Communicative Language Teaching and its Cultural Appropriateness in Japan
117
1) Teachers must realize that there exists cultural conflict between the
traditional classroom practice and the one which CLT presupposes,
and should try to adjust their way of teaching considering the
expected conflict with which learners will be faced as they adopt
the new roles described in the previous section. This does not mean
teachers are alone responsible for this cultural re-orientation in
the classroom. However, CLT postulates that teaching is learnercentered, and teachers should be responsive to learners’ needs and
interests (Finocchario & Brumfit, 1983); it is also crucial for teachers
to understand the concept and principle of CLT and to adapt their
teaching in culturally appropriate ways. Moreover, considering the
teacher as an authoritative figure in a traditional Japanese classroom,
the teacher should, at least, take initiative to successfully implement
this approach rather than denying this teaching method because of its
cultural conflict. Teachers’ positive attitudes toward the role change (for
example, showing their willingness to facilitate learner-centeredness)
will positively influence those learners. As Li (1998) rightly states,
citing Taylor (1983), “teachers using CLT should avoid adopting a
teacher centered, authoritarian posture” (p.679).
2) On implementing CLT in Japan, teachers should employ what
Holliday (1994b) and Howatt (1984) call the “weak” version of CLT,
rather than the “strong” version. According to Howatt, this version
of CLT provides learners with more chances to use the language for
communicative purposes and can be described as “‘learning to use’
English” not “‘using English to learn it’” (p.278). Holliday (1994b)
also suggests this version puts an emphasis on learning about how
118
Takako Tanaka
language works, for example, in written texts. Here, learners are
expected to work on language problems collaboratively and they do
not have to engage in actual communication using the target language.
Employing the weak version of CLT will enable the teacher to
employ a more communicative way of teaching grammar such as
grammar-consciousness-raising tasks (Fotos, 1994). That is, the “weak”
version will be more easily tailored to each classroom depending upon
cultural appropriateness and the contextual needs, particularly in a
context such as Japan where more grammatical knowledge is required
for university entrance examination.
3) In a CLT classroom, students must be made to feel secure, nonthreatened and no pressure for making mistakes. In CLT classrooms,
as opposed to the traditional language classroom, learners are expected
to actively participate in activities in a pair/group. Therefore, a good
classroom atmosphere is essential for successful implementation of
CLT. In addition, teachers should consider how a pair/group will be
formed as group dynamics influence the learning process and product
(Dörnyei & Murphy, 2003).
6. Conclusion
We need to recognise that the classroom is a place for students not only
to study the target language but also to develop their relationship with the
teacher and peers. Consequently, students are inevitably very conscious
of others, and are quite anxious about falling outside of their culture of
learning. This is especially so in Japan where great importance is attached
Communicative Language Teaching and its Cultural Appropriateness in Japan
119
to conformity. However, this is not to suggest that differences do not exist
between individual students and between classes. Each classroom is unique
in the particular dynamics that exist among the participants in the lesson.
These and other socio-cultural factors need to be considered when new
teaching approaches are proposed, and western methodologies need at least
to be tailored to suit local circumstances. In short, teachers must develop a
“locally appropriate version of the communicative approach” (Tomlinson,
1990, p. 36).
Notes
  1 Many suggestions have been made in terms of components of communicative
competence (e.g. Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Canale & Swain, 1980).
  2 As Richards and Rogers (1985) state, CLT has no single advocate and leaves “much
greater room for individual interpretation and variation than most methods permit”
(p.83). Consequently, there are various interpretations (see Spada, 2006).
  3 In CLT, teachers are not regarded as authoritative figures. Instead they are
expected to play a role as a ‘facilitator’, ‘independent participant’ in classroom
activities, ‘organiser’, ‘guider’ and ‘researcher’ (Breen & Candlin, 1980, p.99).
Also, Richards and Rodgers (2001) interpret the roles as ‘needs analyst’, ‘counsellor’
and ‘group process manager’ (pp.167-8).
  4 Japanese students’ use of silence is another cultural issue in a classroom (see
Harumi, 2000).
References
Allwright, D. (1996). Social and pedagogic pressures in the language classroom: The
role of socialisation. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp.
209-228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford
120
Takako Tanaka
University Press.
Breen, M.P., & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in
language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 89-112.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom:
Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
27, 601-626.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Carson, J. C. (1992). Becoming literate: First language influence. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 1(1), 37-60.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and
learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cogan, D. (1996). Classroom cultures: East meets West. In In Gene van Troyer, S.
Cornwell & H. Morikawa (Eds.), On JALT ’95: Curriculum & evaluation (pp. 104108). Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Coleman, H. (Ed.). (1996). Society and the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the language classroom.
In B. Harrison (Ed.), Culture and the language classroom (pp. 54-65). London:
MacMillan Publisher.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In
H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-206). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei , Z., & Murphy, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom..
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach? ELT
Journal, 50(3), 213-218.
Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The functional-notional approach: From
theory to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fotos, S. S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use
through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
Gorsuch, G. J. (2000). EFL educational policies and educational cultures: Influences
on teachers’ approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly, 34(4), 675-
Communicative Language Teaching and its Cultural Appropriateness in Japan
121
709.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Harumi, S. (2000). The use of silence by Japanese learners of English and its
pedagogical implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Education,
University of London, London, UK.
Holliday, A. (1994a). The House of TESEP and the communicative approach: the
special needs of state English language education. ELT Journal, 48(1), 3-11.
Holliday, A. (1994b). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson
(Eds.), The Communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 5-26). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ike, M. (1995). A historical review of English in Japan (1600-1880). World Englishes,
14(1), 3-11.
Johnson, K., & Morrow, K. (Eds.). (1981). Communication in the classroom. Essex,
UK: Longman.
Kachru, B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes, 9(1),
3-20.
Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50(3), 199212.
Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’
perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea.
TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Locastro, V. (1990). The English in Japanese university entrance examinations: a
sociocultural analysis. World Englishes, 9(3), 343-354.
Locastro, V. (1996). English language education in Japan. In H. Coleman (Ed.),
Society and the language classroom (pp. 40-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory :‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of
Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.
122
Takako Tanaka
Markee, N. (1997). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness
phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.
Medgyes, P. (1988). Queries from a communicative teacher. ELT Journal, 40(2), 107112.
Miller, T. (1995). Japanese learners’ reactions to communicative English lessons. JALT
Journal, 17(1), 31-53.
Nakata, Y. (1990). Language acquisition and English aducation in Japan: A
sociolinguistic approach. Tokyo: Koyo Shobo.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language.
London: Longman.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd
ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rohlen, T. P., & Letendre, G. K. (Eds.). (1996). Teaching and learning in Japan. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Ryan, S. M. (1995). Student behaviour: Whose norms? In Gene van Troyer, S.
Cornwell & H. Morikawa (Eds.), On JALT 95: Curriculum and evaluation (p.112116). Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Sasaki, I. (1992). Nihonjin EFL Chuugakusei no Gakuryoku to Fuan ni tsuite (Japanese
EFL Junior High School Students’ Ability and Anxiety). Kantou Koushinetsu Eigo
Kyouikugakkai Kenkyuu Kiyou, 7, 11-22.
Sato, C. (1982). Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford
(Eds.), On TESOL ’81 (pp. 11-24). Washington, D.C: TESOL.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural communication. Cambridge:
Blackwell.
Shamim, F. (1996). Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology. In
H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 105-121). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Spada, N. (2006). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future
prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), Kluwer handbook of English
language teaching (pp.259-276). Amsterdam: Klewer Publications.
Tomlinson, B. (1990). Managing change in Indonesian high schools. ELT Journal, 44,
Communicative Language Teaching and its Cultural Appropriateness in Japan
123
25-37.
Tsui, A. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. M. Bailey &
D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices From the Language Classroom (pp. 145-167). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tudor, I. (1996a). Teacher roles in the learner-centred classroom. In T. Hedge & N.
Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy and practice (pp. 271-282). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Tudor, I. (1996b). Learner-centredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tudor, I. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
White, J., & Lightbown, P. (1984). Asking and answering in ESL classes. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 40(2), 228-244.