Abstract
From 2002 to 2004, a public high school in Japan provided Home Economics lessons for freshmen using non-native varieties of English for instruction. Offering a content course using non-native varieties of English was a significant step in the Japanese education scene since the need for students to be familiar with non-native varieties of English is essential, given the fact that non-native speakers outnumber native speakers of English in the world. This study focused on questionnaire data gathered from the high school freshmen over three years and analyzed the data in terms of satisfaction, listening comprehension, teachers’ speech rate, and students’ written comments. Finally, several pedagogical implications are presented based on the findings. It is hoped that this paper will be of use for both researchers and practitioners to critically evaluate the current English teaching programs at high school in Japan and to change them to a more “Englishes-conscious” classroom.

Keywords: Englishes, non-native speaker, content-based instruction, Japanese high school

Introduction
Background
According to Crystal’s estimate (1997), the number of speakers of English as a first language ranges from 337 million to 450 million, while the number of speakers of English as a second language ranges from 235 million to 350 million and the number of speakers of English as a foreign language is estimated to be as low as 100 million and as high as 1000 million.

Those who have learned English as a second language are known to use “institutionalized varieties” such as Singaporean English and Indian English, and those who have learned English as a foreign language are known to use “performance varieties” such as Japanese English and Brazilian English (Kachru, 1982). Given the numerical and sociolinguistic reality, the need for Japanese students to become more familiar with both performance and institutionalized varieties is essential from the practical point of view because there are more likely to engage in English communication with non-native speakers of English than with native speakers. Thus it is wise to pay due attention to non-native varieties of English in addition to native varieties in classroom settings.

Researchers, such as Suzuki (1975), Honna and Takeshita (1999), and Matsuda (2002), have claimed that it is important for Japanese students to be exposed to and to become familiar with non-native varieties of English. One of the main reasons is that native varieties of English have been the only models in the English classes in Japan, regardless of the sociolinguistic reality of English. Honna and Takeshita (1999) indicate that the domination of native varieties of English in EFL classrooms may foster students’ negative attitudes toward non-native varieties of English.

In this context, Onomichi Higashi High School, a prefectural school in Hiroshima, decided to provide a course of content-based instruction taught entirely in English by non-native teachers as part of their special English program from 2002 to 20041. In the year 2002, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Sports, Culture, and Technology (MEXT) designated 18 high schools as schools which place a special emphasis on English education, and Onomichi Higashi High School was one of them. These schools, called Super English Language High Schools, do not have to follow the national guidelines and they can implement innovative English education. While what is offered is up to the individual high schools, MEXT encourages the schools to offer courses taught in English, send students on overseas exchange program, and consult with local university researchers periodically as they carry out their English program.

The special course offered at Onomichi Higashi High School was Home Economicsfor freshmen who entered the school in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Offering the course in a non-native variety of English was probably the first such attempt in the history of Japanese public high schools, making it worthwhile to document how the course was conducted and how students reacted to it during the three-year experimental period２.

The course syllabi and other basic information are available in Kenkyu kaihatsu jisshi houkokusho (Onomichi Higashi High School, 2005). Therefore, this paper will exclusively focus on the high school students’ responses to Home Economicstaught in English by non-native speakers and discuss several pedagogical implications based on the findings.

Brief Course Description
Home Economics was offered in English at Onomichi Higashi High School in the second semester of 2002, 2003, and 2004. Students met once a week for an English-mediated class3. In the same week, students had a follow-up class in Japanese. In 2002, the course comprised eleven 50-minute classes in English, and eleven 50-minute classes in Japanese. In 2003, the course comprised nine 50-minute classes in English, and nine 50-minute classes in Japanese. In 2004, the course comprised six 50-minute classes in English, and six classes in Japanese. The number of classes per year gradually decreased because of a short study-abroad program introduced in early December from the second year, as well as smaller budgets for the content-based course for 2003 and 2004.

For the first two years, the course was taught by the same Filipino teacher who was a former university teacher in the Philippines. Another Filipino teacher was in charge for the third year. Both teachers are former associate professors in science in the Philippines. The class was assisted by an Indonesian teacher in the first year, a Malawian teacher in the second year, and a Sri Lankan teacher in the third year. All of them spoke completely in English, and taught through lecture and hands-on experience.

The aim of this course was to study home economics and do actual cooking, as well as to learn some table manners. (See Appendix for course topics and instruction modes). After each 50-minute class, the teachers, the second author who stayed and observed the teachers and the students during the class, and a Japanese teacher of Home Economics met and discussed ways to improve the class. Then, the Japanese Home Economics teacher reviewed the content in Japanese with the students in the same week and gave a preview for the forthcoming lesson.

Method
Participants
Participants were high school freshmen in the Global Education Course at Onomichi Higashi High School4. The number of the participants were 39 (28 females and 11 males) in 2002, 40 (30 females and 10 males) in 2003, and 40 (35 females and 5 males) in 2004. All the participants took an English proficiency test developed by Benesse Corporation two months prior to the start of the courses to ascertain that their scores were above the national average for high school freshmen5.

Procedure
Data were collected over one semester each from September to December of 2002, 2003, and 2004 through a questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered in Japanese immediately after each class. The questionnaire included the following questions: 1. How much were you satisfied by today’s class? (satisfaction); 2. How much English did you understand today? (listening comprehension); 3. How was the speed of the teacher’s English? (speech rate). Concerning the first two items, students circled responses from 0 % to 100 % at 10 percent intervals (i.e. 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 100%). As for the third item, students chose from among four options; too fast (=1), fast (=2), fair (=3), and slow (=4). Besides these items, students were asked to write comments in Japanese about the day’s class. All the directions were in Japanese, and approximately five minutes were allowed for the students to fill out the questionnaire. During the class, the second author stayed and observed the teachers and the students over the semester.

Findings
The questionnaire data were tabulated to calculate the means in terms of satisfaction, listening comprehension, and speech rate for each class. The data from 2002 are given in Tables 1 and 2. As seen in Table 1, the average percentage for satisfaction was 73.9, ranging from 61.8 to 86.1 percent. The average percentage for listening comprehension was 70.8, ranging from 58.7 to 80.3 percent. The average for speech rate was 2.7, ranging from 2.6 to 2.9.

Table 2 summarizes the students’ comments obtained from each class in 2002. Only comments made by five or more students are presented. Numbers in parentheses represent the number of students. The most frequent comments over the semester were related to “fun/enjoyable” (77). Among them are: Very enjoyable (29), It was fun (25), and I enjoyed our presentations (13). The second most frequent comment related to “delicious” (55). Among them are: Spicy but tasty (24), Food was delicious (20), and Very tasty (15). I could understand because the teachers spoke slowly (25) was another common comment.

Table 1: Means for Satisfaction, Listening Comprehension, and Speech Rate in Home Economics, 2002

	satisfaction	listening comprehension	speech rate
1st class	66.4 (80)	58.7 (50)	2.6 (3)
2nd class	68.1 (70)	66.2 (80)	2.7 (3)
3rd class	81.8 (80)	75.1 (80)	2.8 (3)
4th class	61.8 (80)	61.1 (60)	2.6 (3)
5th class	68.6 (70)	65.9 (70)	2.6 (3)
6th class	63.1 (70)	68.5 (70)	2.7 (3)
7th class	80.0 (100)	72.3 (80)	2.8 (3)
8th class	86.1 (100)	78.2 (100)	2.8 (3)
9th class	70.0 (70)	73.0 (70)	2.8 (3)
10th class	82.4 (100)	79.2 (80)	2.9 (3)
11th class	85.1 (100)	80.3 (100)	2.8 (3)
average	73.9	70.8	2.7

Note: Satisfaction and listening comprehension were rated from 0% to 100% by 10 percent intervals; Speech rate was rated from 1 (very fast) to 4 (slow); Figures in parentheses indicate modes.

Table 2: Students’ Comments on Home Economics Classes, 2002

	Students’ comments
1st class	Very enjoyable.(17); I could understand the class because the teachers spoke slowly.(13)
2nd class	It was fun.(16); I could understand the class because the teachers spoke slowly.(12); I look forward to the next cooking class.(10)
3rd class	Very tasty.(15); Very enjoyable.(12); It was good that I could speak English with the teachers as we cooked.(6)
4th class	It was difficult.(9); I could understand the importance of nutrition.(5)
5th class	It was good that I could learn some table manners.(11); It was fun.(5)
6th class	It was fun.(9); I enjoyed learning with a card game.(5); I look forward to the next cooking class.(5)
7th class	I was glad to learn how to fold a napkin.(8); It was good that I learned some table manners.(6)
8th class	Food was delicious.(20)
9th class	I look forward to cooking chicken curry next time.(9); It was difficult to listen to and understand the recipe.(9); Fun.(6)
10th class	Spicy but tasty. (24); Fun.(5)
11th class	I enjoyed our presentations.(13); I am sad because this was the last day of this course.(9)

Note: Comments made by more than five students were recorded; Figures in parentheses indicate the number of students; Multiple comments were allowed and counted separately.

The data gathered from each class in 2003are displayed in Tables 3 and 4. As indicated in Table 3, the average percentage for satisfaction was 68.6, ranging from 52.5 to 84.1 percent. The average percentage for listening comprehension was 65.2, ranging from 53.1 to 76.9 percent. The average for speech rate was 2.6, ranging from 2.5 to 2.9.

Table 4 shows the students’ comments on the class in 2003. The most frequent comments made by students were: It was fun (43), followed by I look forward to cooking next week/time (39), and Food/Fish was delicious (26). Comments related to “understanding” such as I could understand table manners (14) and I could understand Philippine culture (6) were also

Table 3: Means for Satisfaction, Listening Comprehension, and Speech Rate in Home Economics, 2003

	satisfaction	listening comprehension	speech rate
1st class	52.5 (60)	53.1 (50)	2.5 (3)
2nd class	63.8 (70)	64.1 (70)	2.6 (3)
3rd class	65.5 (70)	64.5 (70)	2.6 (3)
4th class	84.1 (90)	76.9 (90)	2.7 (3)
5th class	64.3 (70)	58.1 (50)	2.7 (3)
6th class	71.1 (70)	65.8 (50)	2.6 (3)
7th class	61.1 (50)	57.4 (50)	2.7 (3)
8th class	77.4 (90)	74.1 (90)	2.7 (3)
9th class	77.5 (70)	72.6 (50)	2.9 (3)
average	68.6	65.2	2.6

Note: Satisfaction and listening comprehension were rated from 0% to 100% by 10 percent intervals; Speech rate was rated from 1 (very fast) to 4 (slow); Figures in parentheses indicate modes.

Table 4: Students’ Comments on Home Economics Classes, 2003

	Students’ comments
1st class	I could understand Philippine culture.(6); It was fun.(6); I could not understand English well.(5)
2nd class	I could understand table manners.(14); It was fun.(9); Table manners were difficult.(6)
3rd class	I look forward to cooking next week.(9); It was difficult to understand.(6); It was fun.(6)
4th class	It was fun.(22); I could speak English a lot.(10); Food was delicious.(9).
5th class	I look forward to cooking next week.(10); Words were difficult.(10);
6th class	It was my first time to cook Malawi food.(7); Cooking was fun.(6)
7th class	I look forward to cooking next week (17); I could not understand well.(7)
8th class	Food was delicious.(14); Cooking was fun.(11)
9th class	This course was fun.(12); Group presentations were good.(9); I miss this course.(5)

Note: Comments made by more than five students were recorded; Figures in parentheses indicate the number of students; Multiple comments were allowed and counted separately.

The data gathered from each class in 2004are presented in Tables 5 and 6. As seen in Table 5, the average percentage for satisfaction was 70.9, ranging from 56.8 to 81.5 percent. The average percentage for listening comprehension was 64.4, ranging from 50.0 to 77.3 percent. The average for speech rate was 2.2, ranging from 1.8 to 2.5.

Table 6 summarizes the students’ comments on the class in 2004. The most frequent comment made by students was It was fun (34). Then comes the negative comment I couldn’t understand the content and the cooking expressions well (28). Comments such as Delicious (17), I enjoyed the last cooking (15), I could understand Philippine and Sri Lankan cultures (14), and I could learn cooking expressions (13) also showed high frequency.

Table 5: Means for Satisfaction, Listening Comprehension, and Speech Rate in Home Economics, 2004

	satisfaction	listening comprehension	speech rate
1st class	73.3  (80)	56.0 (60)	2.0 (2)
2nd class	63.0  (80)	61.5 (60)	2.3 (2)
3rd class	72.8  (80)	65.3 (80)	2.4 (2)
4th class	81.5 (100)	76.0. (80)	2.3 (2)
5th class	56.8  (50)	50.0 (40)	1.8 (2)
6th class	77.8  (80)	77.3 (80)	2.5 (3)
average	70.9	64.4	2.2

Note: Satisfaction and listening comprehension were rated from 0% to 100% by 10 percent intervals; Speech rate was rated from 1 (very fast) to 4 (slow); Figures in parentheses indicate modes.

Table 6: Students’ Comments on Home EconomicsClasses, 2004

	Students’ comments
1st class	I could understand Philippine and Sri Lankan cultures.(14); It was fun.(6)
2nd class	It was fun.(10); It was easy to understand table manners through demonstration.(9); I could understand the class better than last time.(6)
3rd class	I could learn cooking expressions.(13); I look forward to the next cooking class.(9); It was fun.(6)
4th class	Delicious.(17); It was fun.(12)
5th class	I couldn’t understand the content and the cooking expressions well.(28)
6th class	I enjoyed the last cooking.(15); Food was spicy. (10)

Note: Comments made by more than five students were recorded; Figures in parentheses indicate the number of students; Multiple comments were allowed and counted separately.

Discussion
For discussion, Table 7 presents the average percentages for satisfaction, listening comprehension, and speech rate over the three years.

Table 7: Average Percentages for Satisfaction, Listening Comprehension and Speech Rate in 2002, 2003, and 2004

	2002	2003	2004
satisfaction	73.9	68.6	70.9
listening comprehension	70.8	65.2	64.4
speech rate	2.7	2.6	2.2

   The average percentages for satisfaction were maintained at a high level during the three years, suggesting that the students were fairly satisfied with the course. It should be noted that hands-on experiences always recorded 80 percent or more satisfaction (See Appendix for instruction mode). In contrast, lectures generally scored low percentages, and most notably, the lowest percentages were all found in the lectures (61. 8 percent in 2002, 52.5 percent in 2003, and 56.8 percent in 2004, respectively). In short, their psychological satisfaction seems to derive mainly from their actual cooking and eating rather than lecture-oriented classes.

The average percentages for listening comprehension were also relatively high, but the average percentages went down year by year from 70.8 through 65.2 to 64.4. This decrease corresponds with the ratio of lectures per course. To be more specific, three full lectures were given out of eleven classes in 2002; four full lectures out of nine classes in 2003; three full lectures out of six classes (See Appendix for instruction mode). It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that students had difficulty in comprehending English through lectures.
As for the teachers’ speech rate, 2002 and 2003 indicated almost the same speed, each marking 2.7 and 2.6. That is, the teacher’s English was rated as not so fast. However, 2004 saw the average teacher’s speech rate at 2.2, meaning the students thought that the teacher talked relatively fast. This speech rate difference, which might have contributed to the lowest listening comprehension in 2004 besides the high ratio of lectures, probably comes from the fact the teacher in 2002 and 2003 was different from the teacher in 2004.

It is widely believed that listening comprehension involves two operations; top-down processing and bottom-up processing (Peterson, 1991). The former is driven by listeners’ expectations and understanding of the nature of text and the nature of the world (e.g., rhetorical conventions and previous knowledge), and the latter is driven by the sounds, words, and phrases which listeners hear. If this is the case, the overall success of this course primarily rests on the rather simple content centering around hands-on experiences in which students could utilize top-down processing efficiently, compensating for their relative lack of linguistic knowledge. Furthermore, the teacher’s slow rate of English helps to activate bottom-up processing as identified in 2002.

Conclusion
Home Economics was characterized as a “fun and delicious” course. It achieved relative success in giving students a sense of satisfaction. This owes to the fact that the students were comfortable with the teachers’ English and the content of the course. Also, hands-on experiences appeared to be an effective way to boost both students’ satisfaction and listening comprehension, while their satisfaction and listening comprehension were always low when lectures were conducted.

The first pedagogical implication drawn from this study is that the courses which do not require heavy cognitive load, like Home Economics, seem to be appropriate to be taught in a second language (also, see Takagaki & Tanabe, 2003). As far as instruction modes are concerned, classes which emphasize hands-on experiences are likely to be more successful than lecture-oriented classes.

Second, teachers should attempt to speak at a slower rate to promote students’ bottom-up processing, especially at the initial stage of a course. As identified in 2002, many students appreciated the Filipino teacher for speaking slowly.
Third, some useful listening strategies must be taught to help with students’ listening comprehension (Mendelsohn, 1995). For example, students need to learn to focus on key points in lectures and make informed guesses instead of trying to catch every word the teacher says. Likewise, they should be taught that stressed words are usually more important than unstressed words to determine the essence of the meaning of an utterance. These strategies are expected to help students’ listening comprehension as well as note-taking.

Finally, it would be beneficial for the students to study basic linguistic features of non-native varieties of English, such as Philippine English, before the start of the course or during the course. For instance, Filipino speakers of English tend to replace / f /with / p / (e.g. pact for fact), have no aspiration of /p, t, k/, and lack release of all final stops (Gramley & Pätzold, 1992). Knowing these features may help students improve listening comprehension, as well as help raise students’ awareness of non-native varieties of English. As a matter of fact, it was a little surprising that no students complained that the teachers were not native English speakers. This is a sign that these high school freshmen have not developed a sense of primacy about native-varieties of English. If so, introducing non-native varieties of English to this age group can be helpful to further facilitate healthy attitudes toward non-native varieties of English.

The teaching implications above should be implemented carefully due to the following limitations. First, the findings should not be generalized out of one school’s research as reported here. Second, it would have been better if other data sources, such as interviewing students, had been utilized to triangulate the data and make the findings more valid. Third, it is impossible to determine the extent to which the use of non-native English varieties contributed to the findings compared to that of native varieties. Fourth, it is also not clear as to what aspects of their overall English proficiency these courses helped to develop if at all.

 Nevertheless, the attempt of offering content-based instruction in a non-native variety of English was considerably ambitious and significant in the history of high school English teaching in Japan, where even content-based instruction by native English speakers is still almost non-existent. We hope that the present three-year survey will be of use for researchers and practitioners to critically examine the current Anglophile English teaching programs at high schools in Japan and elsewhere and to gear them toward a more “Englishes-conscious” classroom.

Notes
1. Content-based instruction is defined as teaching subject matter in a second language to provide students with opportunities for second language acquisition (Snow 1991).
2. In 2002, Politics and Economics, as well as Home Economics, was offered in non-native variety of English (For details, see Takagaki & Tanabe, 2003). The course was closed afterwards because the instructor returned to his home country and no substitute teacher was available.
3. Classes were generally conducted once a week, but occasionally once in two weeks.
4. The students were also enrolled in regular English courses concurrently.
5. Benesse’s English Proficiency Test consists of listening, reading, and writing, and the total score is 800. In 2002, the freshmen’s average score was 376 versus a national average of 374. In 2003, the freshmen’s average score was 466 versus a national average of 390. In 2004, the freshmen’s average score was 495 versus a national average of 407.

References
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gramley, S. & Pätzold, K.M. (1992). A survey of modern English. New York: Routledge.

Honna, N. & Takeshita, Y. (1999). On Japan’s propensity for native speaker English: A change in sight. Asian Englishes, 1(1), 117-137.

Kachru, B.B. (1982). The other tongue: English across cultures. Oxford: Pergamon.

Matsuda, A. (2002). International understanding through teaching world Englishes. World Englishes, 21(3), 436-440.

Mendelsohn, D. J. (1995). In D. J. Mendelsohn and J. Rubin (Eds.) A Guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 132-150). San Diego: Dominie Press.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. 2002. http.//www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901 /index.htm.

Onomichi Higashi High School. 2005. Kenkyu kaihatsu jisshi houkokusho.

Peterson, P.W. (1991). A synthesis of methods for interactive listening. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 2nd Edition (pp. 106-122). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Snow, M. A. (1991). Teaching language through content. In Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language 2nd Edition (pp.315-328). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Suzuki, T. (1975). Tozasareta gengo, nihongo no sekai. Tokyo: Shincho Press.

Takagaki, T. & Tanabe, N. (2003). Students responses to content-based instruction conducted in non-native varieties of English at a Japanese public high school. Asian Englishes, 7(1), 60-73.

Appendix (see PDF file)