Professional Identities of Local Japanese Teachers of English (JTEs) Vis-à-Vis their Foreign Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs)

ABSTRACT

The team-teaching approach between local language teachers (non-native English-speaking teachers: NNESTs) and foreign language teachers (native English-speaking teachers: NESTs) has been implemented in a number of countries. Japan is no exception. Team teaching in Japan—conducted by local Japanese teachers of English (JTEs) and foreign assistant language teachers (ALTs), particularly through the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program—has received high acclaim both domestically and internationally. Nevertheless, empirical studies on these team teachers’ identities remain insufficient. The purpose of this article is to describe and elucidate the identities of one cohort of those team teachers in Japan: those of the JTEs through the lens of their relationships with their ALTs. Data were gathered via narrative interviews from eight JTEs who differed in terms of demographic variables. The findings underscored that JTEs predominantly perceive their professional reflexive identities as (a) inadequate language teachers and (b) overworked caregivers, shedding light on the nuanced dynamics within this collaborative teaching paradigm.

KEYWORDS:

• ALTs
• JTEs
• language teacher identity
• professional development
• team teaching

Introduction

Identity pertains not only to what we think, do, say, and feel but also to our qualities, values, philosophies, personalities, appearances, and expressions. Pennington and Richards (2016) contended that the concept of identity can be understood as the distinct combination of attributes that are associated with a specific individual relative to the perceptions and characteristics of others. These perceptions are based on dimensions of identities that stem from differences amongst humans that hold social significance and meaning within various cultures. Hence, identity seems to simultaneously encapsulate a person’s biological attributes (e.g., appearance), innate capacities (e.g., knowledge), and sociocultural features (e.g., lifestyles). It is a metaphorical catch-all term to characterize all that we are. Danielewicz (2001) observed that “every person is composed of multiple, often conflicting, identities, which exist in volatile states of construction or reconstruction, reformation or erosion, addition, or expansion” (p. 10). Taken together, one could define identity as the private and public sense of who one is, which is multifaceted, malleable, and unpredictable. In the field of language education, early identity research concentrated primarily on language learner identity. This line of inquiry raised awareness about how language learners ascribe value to their learning and how their aspirations for their futures are shaped and reshaped by said learning. This concept was notably explored within immigrant contexts (e.g., Birdsong, 1999; Cervatiuc, 2009; Norton, 1995). More recently, there has been increasing interest in the application of this line of investigation to language teacher identity. Leibowitz’s (2017) work, along with those of other researchers in the field, epitomized how teacher identity can be beneficial to researchers because it “treats teachers as whole persons in and across social contexts who continually reconstruct their views of themselves in relation to others, workplace characteristics, professional purposes, and cultures of teaching” (Olsen, 2008, p. 5). Specifically, employing the concept of identity in research has been shown to be advantageous for understanding an ongoing process of becoming and being a teacher (Clarke, 2008). The concept of language teacher identity and its studies are therefore both highly valuable and greatly relevant to this article, particularly its focus on local Japanese teachers of English (JTEs) and the formation of their professional identities through their connection to foreign assistant language teachers (ALTs) in Japan.

Multiple regions around the world, including Brazil (Corcoran, 2011), China (Wang, 2014), Hong Kong (Carless, 2006), Slovenia (Alderson et al., 2001), South Korea (Heo, 2019), Taiwan (Islam, 2011), and Thailand (Moore, 2017), have adopted the team-teaching approach between local language teachers (non-native English-speaking teachers: NNESTs) and foreign language teachers (native English-speaking teachers: NESTs). Japan is no exception. Since its inception in 1987, team teaching in Japan conducted by JTEs and ALTs through the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program has received high acclaim both domestically and internationally (Hiratsuka, 2022, 2023). It has created a “foreign language classroom in which students are engaged in communicative activities” (Brumby & Wada, 1990, p. vi) and is, to this day, “one of the world’s largest exchange programs” (Metzgar, 2017, p. 2). Currently, there are also numerous dispatch companies and other programs, such as Interac and Altia Central, which employ ALTs from overseas for English education in Japan on behalf of institutions like local boards of education. A significant number of scholars have vigorously inquired into the topics of JTEs and ALTs, their team-teaching practices, and the JET program thus far. However, early discussion on these topics mainly revolved around descriptive explanations of team teaching and the advantages and/or shortcomings of respective teachers (e.g., Brumby & Wada, 1990; Hiratsuka, 2013; McConnell, 2000; Tajino & Tajino, 2000; Wada, 1996; Wada & Cominos, 1994). Similarly, empirical studies concentrated chiefly on the general practices of team teaching (e.g., Adachi et al., 1998; Gorsuch, 2002; Hiratsuka, 2015; Igawa, 2009; Roloff-Rothman, 2012; Tajino & Walker, 1998) as well as on the roles and relationships of team teachers (e.g., Hiramatsu, 2005; Hiratsuka, 2017a; Johannes, 2012; Machida & Walsh, 2015; Mahoney, 2004; Miyazato, 2009; Ogawa, 2011). As much as it is necessary and useful to focus our attention on the granular aspects of individual team teachers, such as their native and non-native speaker statuses or the division of labor between them, there is an urgent need for a more holistic exploration into the whole gestalt of team teachers—who they are to themselves and in relation to their students, colleagues, community members, and critically to their teaching partners. To the best of my knowledge, there is scant research heretofore that explicitly inspected and elucidated upon the complex professional identities involving team teachers in Japan, across both historical time and social space. One exception is an exploration by Hiratsuka (2022) that illuminated the meanings and perspectives of particular phenomena that ALTs experience within their specific social settings from their own individual points of view. In doing so, Hiratsuka (2022) distinguished the multiple identities that the 22 participating former ALTs had constructed and reconstructed over time. This intricate ALT identity was found to be composed of two predominant categories (i.e., foreigner and dabbler) and six incumbent sub-identities (i.e., celebrity, sojourner, English expert, assistant, greenhorn, and Japanese novice). Therefore, it was highlighted in the inquiry that the participating ALTs viewed themselves as foreigners who were ostensibly different from local Japanese people and as sojourners who were socially segregated and thus felt less need to abide by Japanese social norms or practices. Although this present article is also closely connected to the topic of language teacher identity in the Japanese team-teaching context, it distinctly differs from Hiratsuka (2022) in that (a) the participants are eight in-service JTEs, as opposed to 22 former ALTs in the case of Hiratsuka (2022), and (b) the focal point of the study is JTEs’ professional identities in juxtaposition with their ALTs, as opposed to ALTs’ comprehensive identities within both the professional and private spheres as in Hiratsuka (2022).

JTE identities

Identities are complex and embedded within society at large while simultaneously being configurated within internal and external relationships. In other words, they consist of “cognitive, social, ideological, and historical” domains—“both inside the teacher and outside in the social, material, and technological world” (Barkhuizen, 2017, p. 4). In order to bring some form of understanding to this multifarious concept of identity, Benson et al. (2013) created a taxonomy that organized identity into six facets (i.e., embodied, reflexive, projected, recognized, imagined, and identity categories and resources).

Germane to this study, one of the facets outlined by Benson et al. (2013), reflexive identity, concerns the one’s perception of the self. This identity integrates self-concept, self-chosen attributes, and one’s beliefs about those attributes. Put differently, reflexive identity comprises who one thinks one is in conjunction with several different personal attributes one possesses, such as images, feelings, skills, and capacities (Harré, 2001). Reflexive identity, or “inner self” (Benson et al., 2013, p. 21), is thus one of the most vital components of one’s whole identity because what one thinks who one is influences all aspects of one’s thoughts, behaviors, and emotions and these, reciprocally, impact our views of self (Revelle, 2012). For instance, JTEs who regard themselves as highly proficient speakers of English might act differently in team-taught classes with their ALTs than those who deem themselves to have poor English language skills. Within the scope of this study, the other facets of identity proposed by Benson et al. (2013) were not considered for the following reasons: (a) embodied identity—the intention of this research was not to examine the physical or mobile characteristics of JTEs; (b) projected identity—observation research methods were not employed in this study; therefore, it was not possible to analyze JTEs’ semiotic representations of themselves to others; (c) recognized identity—only JTEs were enlisted as participants, thereby limiting the exploration of how they are perceived by others (cf. Hiratsuka & Castellano, 2023); (d) imagined identity—the aim of this investigation was to understand JTEs’ views of themselves at present, rather than focusing on their future possibilities; and (e) identity categories and resources—this study did not prioritize pre-established social categories or semiotic resources such as gender, age, social class, and professional and social roles (cf. Benson et al., 2013). Note that these aspects were deliberately excluded from the study to maintain a specific research focus.

Despite a great deal of attention by researchers on the topic of team teachers, empirical studies on JTE identities—not to mention how JTEs perceive themselves vis-à-vis their ALTs—remain insufficient. Notwithstanding, the following studies are relevant to the issues of JTEs’ identities to some extent. Gorsuch (2002) obtained questionnaire responses from 884 high school JTEs in order to delve into the implementation of team-taught classes in their curriculum. It was revealed that the JTEs taught most of the required English subjects alone without inviting ALTs. It was also revealed that the JTEs who rated their English-speaking skills as high had more team-taught classes with their ALTs and were more willing to accept communicative activities in the classroom. According to Moote’s research (2003), which involved a small number of JTEs and ALTs, it was discovered that the JTEs exhibited a reluctance to invest extra effort in preparing for team-taught lessons. This reluctance was especially pronounced in cases where the school’s administrative structure did not allocate a specific co-planning period. Furthermore, the research indicated that JTEs lacked confidence in their ability to communicate in English with ALTs, which posed an additional obstacle to their collaborative lesson planning. To examine the teachers’ perceptions of their team-teaching practices, Hiramatsu (2005) recruited eight JTEs and one ALT from an academic high school and carried out individual interviews and class observations. Her main findings concluded that (a) there were rigid team-teaching routines and team teachers’ roles, (b) teachers grappled with conflicting tension between the need for communicative English and the need for their students to pass their exams, and (c) opportunities for teachers to cultivate collegiality were scarce (see also Hiratsuka, 2015). She requested, based on the results, that JTEs and ALTs have more opportunities for mutual engagement so that they can develop cross-cultural awareness and foster proper professional relationships. She also advocated a plan to hire ALTs who excel in teaching as full-time teachers in order for Japanese students to capitalize on their competence and expertise. Igawa (2009) surveyed 74 JTEs and 31 ALTs from both senior high schools and junior high schools so as to capture the impression of teachers about their team teaching. The results underscored that (a) both the JTEs and ALTs considered team teaching to be contributing positively to students’ cross-cultural understanding and (b) the English communicative abilities of JTEs and the teaching skills of ALTs were key factors determining the quality of team teaching.

Central to Miyazato’s study (2009) were the team-teaching relationships between JTEs and ALTs in two high schools. Her qualitative case study zeroed in on power-sharing and illustrated that although less proficient in English, the JTEs played the role of language/cultural/psychological mediators for students due to their familiarity with the background of their students and the culture of their immediate classes, school, and community. In contrast, the ALTs were granted full autonomy in the classroom because of their language ability despite their assistant status. It was argued that the social complexities within these power relationships might have negatively affected the team teachers and their classes. The crux of Hiratsuka’s (2013) was the perceptions of student learning in team-taught classes. A notable result of the study was that the participating team teachers and students (two JTEs, two ALTs, and four students from two high schools) had ambivalent opinions in regards to the purpose of team teaching (e.g., whether they are a meaningful learning opportunity or a break from JTEs’ solo classes) and the learning goals (e.g., whether the focus should be on testing or communication). Machida and Walsh’s study (2015) included 37 JTEs from elementary schools as participants. The JTEs expressed concern about working with ALTs because they considered ALTs to be poorly qualified to teach elementary school students and that there is a lack of mutual understanding between them and ALTs.

As discussed above, in its current state, the literature on team teachers and their team teaching in Japan leaves a lot to be desired, particularly because (a) the focus of the previous studies has been, by and large, on one aspect (e.g., perceptions about team teachers, their practices in the classroom, or their role divisions), and (b) the studies oftentimes viewed the findings as fixed entities without taking into account the shifting feelings and experiences of the participants or those surrounding them (e.g., their teaching partners) in their idiosyncratic sociocultural contexts. Hence, my attempt in this study is to fill the gap in the literature by explicating the nature and the contents of JTEs’ professional identities (i.e., who they are) in relation to their ALTs. The guiding research question underpinning this study was: What professional identities of JTEs emerge when examined through their relationship with their ALTs?

Methodology

The participants

This study reports on an academic endeavor that interrogated the professional reflexive identities of JTEs in association with their ALTs by drawing on individual narratives of eight in-service JTEs in elementary and secondary schools. Participants were chosen by two recruiting strategies: (a) convenience sampling, an approach through which participants are selected based on their accessibility to the researcher, and (b) snowball sampling, a technique whereby the initial research participants who were recruited by the researcher subsequently nominate further participants from amongst their acquaintances (Morgan, 2008; Patton, 2002). To avoid potential ethical issues and unintentional biases, no JTE with whom I had previously worked or anyone who was employed at those schools where I had previous worked was recruited. In the end, eight JTEs participated in this study, and they differed in terms of demographic variables—for example, their gender, age, length of team teaching with ALTs, school level, and location (see Table 1; all names are pseudonyms).

Table 1. Participants in the study.

Name	Abe	Hara	Ito	Nakata
Location	Eastern Japan	Eastern Japan	Eastern Japan	Western Japan
Type of school	Junior high	Senior high	Senior high	Elementary
Gender	Female	Female	Male	Female
Age	33	48	41	25
Degree received	English language teaching	English language teaching	English linguistics	English language teaching
Previous overseas experiences	Traveled to Australia and North America	Traveled to UK	Traveled to Asia and North America	Lived in NZ for one year
English proficiency	Advanced	Advanced	Advanced	Advanced
Total years of teaching	9	25	19	1
Total years of team teaching with ALTs	9	25	19	1
Name	Ohtani	Shimizu	Ueno	Yasuda
Location	Eastern Japan	Eastern Japan	Eastern Japan	Western Japan
Type of school	Elementary	Senior high	Senior high	Junior high
Gender	Male	Male	Male	Male
Age	60	47	48	28
Degree received	Education	English literature	English linguistics	English language teaching
Previous overseas experiences	Traveled to Asia, Europe, and North America	Traveled to Asia, Europe, and North America	Traveled to North America	Lived in NZ for one year
English proficiency	Intermediate	Advanced	Intermediate	Advanced
Total years of teaching	37	23	25	4
Total years of team teaching with ALTs	22	23	25	4

Data collection and data analysis

In the field of language education, the use of narratives, as well as narrative inquiries as a whole, began to gain wide traction around the turn of the century and have become more common in recent times (Barkhuizen, 2013). This upsurge in the popularity of narrative inquiry comes as no surprise, given that human beings have always lived with stories, whether being the tellers or the receivers of them. From this, humans “shape their daily lives by stories of who they and others are and as they interpret their past in terms of these stories” (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006, p. 375). Narrative inquiry serves as a potent tool particularly when the aim of the research is to transfer and share knowledge and memory in a way that does justice to the participants’ lived experiences, relationships, and inner worlds. I decided to adopt a narrative inquiry approach in this study by utilizing narrative interviews. In this approach, researchers can think about, study, and understand narratively the experiences of the research participants’ lives that are usually only known internally by those participants and are therefore difficult for others to observe and record otherwise (Clandinin & Huber, 2010). Moreover, narrative inquiry enables research participants to take responsibility for what and how they disclose their inner selves during the interview. Because of this freedom, these interviews frequently yield extensive and elaborate narratives that facilitate the revelation of the deeply ingrained subtleties in their intricate identity construction (Chase, 2005). Within the present study, the participants were interviewed, online or face-to-face, in Japanese (the mother tongue of the participants and myself). Upon the completion of mutual introductions, the participants were prompted with their initial interview question: “Could you tell me your stories about the experiences you have had with ALTs, both professionally and personally?” The duration of each interview was approximately 50 minutes, with a few exceptions that varied between 40 minutes and two hours. The interviews were captured through the utilization of a digital voice recording device.

The transcribing and translating tasks were promptly executed subsequent to each interview. Following the guidelines of Bogdan and Biklen (2016), I and one of my colleagues, who is a seasoned qualitative researcher, conducted a content analysis on approximately seven hours of detailed interviews. The interviews consisted of 94 pages of typed documents in Japanese, which were accompanied by an English translation. The inductive methodology of content analysis entails researchers synthesizing data, developing codes and themes, and subsequently identifying patterns within the data. The primary focus was to examine the perspectives articulated by the interviewees concerning their perceived identity as educators in conjunction with their ALTs, and the main goal was to arrive at dominant and oft-repeated themes. The data analysis was further facilitated by re-reading and re-interpreting the interview data. During the course of the analysis, we meticulously compared and contrasted potential themes and their interconnectedness. This iterative process encompassed the consolidation, modification, and/or abandonment of themes, ultimately leading to the emergence of two distinct categories, namely, inadequate language teachers and overworked caregivers.

It is important to emphasize here that I am fully aware of the conditions under which the JTE participants’ identities are idiosyncratically manifested. The excerpts provided in the article below represent their specific experiences within their unique contexts. Additionally, it is crucial to acknowledge that the participants presented their stories to me in specific ways during the interviews, with me serving as their particular interlocutor.

Findings

As a result of the data analysis within the present study, two salient, yet inter-related, categories were identified: (a) JTEs as inadequate language teachers and (b) JTEs as overworked caregivers. This study thus contributes to the existing literature by shedding more light on the identities of team teachers in Japan and the implications and possible ramifications on their teaching perceptions and practices.

JTEs as inadequate language teachers

One chief JTE professional identity that the participants in this study perceived and relayed to me was that of inadequate language teachers of English. More often than not, the JTEs saw themselves to be incompetent and illegitimate practitioners, particularly linguistically, in contrast to their ALTs. They felt that they possessed neither a high command of English nor appropriate knowledge about team-teaching strategies within their lessons. This reflexive identity of inadequate language teachers was given great weight among the participants even though they are officially “fully-fledged full-time teachers” in Japanese public schools who, in theory, have appropriate qualifications, training, and prior experience in the field of education, including language abilities. This phenomenon was largely due to the self-comparisons they made with their native English-speaking ALTs who are oftentimes automatically considered to be the authorities of the target language (English) in the Japanese context (see also Hiratsuka, in press; Hiratsuka et al., 2023a, 2023b).

To illustrate, Ohtani confessed to me how, generally speaking, JTEs in elementary school have no confidence in their English abilities: “Although I was interested in and studying English for team teaching with my ALTs, it was obvious that other JTEs in this context had low English abilities and low motivation to learn it.” Nevertheless, even Ohtani, who put effort into learning and using English, was often made to feel doubtful about his English because of his inferior linguistic status as a non-native speaker: “Whenever I spoke English in the classroom, I wasn’t sure about its accuracy and I could feel that my students were wondering, ‘Is this really correct?’” Ohtani accentuated how important it is for JTEs to speak English fluently when it comes to their team teaching with ALTs. At the same time, however, he admitted that the ability is quite hard to come by in Japan: “Without JTEs being able to speak English well, team-taught lessons won’t work. It is the most important element to conducting the lessons successfully. Yet, most of us don’t have it and, thus, we struggle.”

Ueno was a case in point. He struggled to attain professional legitimacy. Juxtaposing himself with his ALTs, he spoke at some length of his lack of English skills and experience in foreign countries and of its ramifications for JTEs like him:

Over the course of my teaching career, I have been defeated and dispirited because I cannot speak English well and I have never been to English-speaking countries. I often became the laughingstock of my students in class. Students could not trust me as a teacher. I should not call myself a teacher. ... When ALTs came to teach in my school, I sat among the students and took their lessons to study English and learn from them.

He was keenly aware of his linguistic limitations to the point where he could not accept his professional identity as a teacher (“I should not call myself a teacher”) and became an English learner just like his students by granting professional duties solely to his ALTs, thereby putting ALTs on a pedestal in their team-taught lessons (“I sat among the students and took their [ALTs’] lessons to study English and learn from them”). By the same token, Hara acknowledged how invaluable ALTs’ linguistic contributions in class were as native speakers of English, as opposed to hers: “When I team teach with my ALTs, I feel bad if I don’t let my students listen to their English. They are native speakers of English and they are necessary for my students’ input and output.” The participating JTEs in the study seemed to have also fallen victim to feelings of jealousy, envy, and/or insecurity. Hara mentioned: “Although I know it is impossible, my biggest desire is to be able to speak English as well as ALTs. It is a constant uphill battle when I talk to ALTs due to my lack of English abilities.” Yasuda made blunt comments about ALTs first and then explained to me the state of JTEs’ minds when they are alongside ALTs: “Native speakers have it so easy. In contrast, it is common for us, JTEs, to experience the feeling that ‘I am an imposter because I cannot speak English like ALTs.’” Nakata shared Yasuda’s sentiment:

When I speak English in class, there is no impact on my students. I am, above all else, a Japanese homeroom teacher, Nakata sensei (teacher), for my students. Whereas, ALTs look different, come from a foreign country, and speak real English.

In the eyes of students, Nakata was perpetually a Japanese teacher who is fundamentally the same as students with non-real English. Since the JTEs perceived that they did not have adequate English communication skills when compared to their ALTs, they constantly felt incompetent, illegitimate, and inferior to their ALTs. This identity is particularly grim and compelling because, at least prior to COVID-19, the Japanese government had been recruiting more numbers of ALTs while recruiting less numbers of Japanese teachers for consecutive years. As an illustration, the number of Japanese teachers recruited in public junior high school and senior high school was 13,485 in 2014 whereas it was 12,995 in 2019. In comparison, the number of ALTs hired by the JET program was 4,476 in 2014 whereas it was 5,761 in 2019 (CLAIR, 2022; MEXT, 2022; Yobimemo, 2023). Arguably, this might demonstrate the government devaluation of JTEs as language teachers and linguistic resources when contrasted to ALTs in Japan.

In addition to linguistic skills, the JTEs were not entirely confident with their team teaching in tandem with ALTs. Abe regarded ALTs as better motivators, better idea generators, and better presenters in class than herself: “I am envious that ALTs can automatically create an environment where students have to use English. They also have lots of ideas for classroom activities and an ability to make engaging power point slides.” Hara revealed to me that she was not sure about how to effectively use ALTs—other than using them as “living tape recorders” who are always asked to pronounce all the words and sentences in the textbook (see also Hiratsuka, 2022): “I still don’t know how to effectively use ALTs, to be honest. I often use ALTs as a tape-recorder. I simply don’t know how to ask help from them.” Ito was in a similar situation to that of Hara in the sense that he was not familiar with creative ways to incorporate ALTs into his team-taught lessons. Due to this, he prefers ALTs who are willing to be tape recorders and follow his directions without complaint:

For me, the ideal ALTs are those who don’t mind being a tape recorder and can be used whenever I want. ... My lessons should be fine with or without ALTs. I invite them to my lessons when they seem bored.

Ito attributed his lack of knowledge and competence regarding team teaching to the lack of proper professional development opportunities both prior to and after becoming a JTE:

We [JTEs] have never been taught as to how to team teach with ALTs. What is the rationale, purpose, or the strength of team teaching? How do we prepare for or reflect on team-taught classes? None of that was taught during the teaching license program or after I became a teacher. Yes, we sometimes watch open team-taught classes in different schools, but they are just public shows and not genuine at all.

This absence of professional knowledge and effective practice concerning team teaching was echoed by Yasuda:

We all know that it is not good to use ALTs as tape recorders. But we have never learned how else to use ALTs. I have only seen ALTs being used as tape recorders or as game masters to play childish games.

From the above comments, it is acutely apparent that JTEs did not acquire the expertise necessary to properly conduct team-taught lessons or were afforded the opportunity to learn how to do so. Nakata summed up: “All of my JTE colleagues are screaming every day, ‘I don’t know how to teach English [with ALTs]!’”

Notwithstanding, Shimizu was the exception to the construction of inadequate language teacher identity among the participants. He did not share the idea that ALTs are valid language teachers in Japan. In fact, he did not even consider that ALTs are the authority of the English language:

ALTs’ English and opinions are not absolute. They do not know the structure of the language or the origin of English words. They don’t have a teaching license or an ability to teach the language. ... They have a lot to learn just like my students.

The JTE inadequate language teacher identity is therefore nuanced, entailing both the linguistic aspect (e.g., I am not skilled at using English) and pedagogic aspect (e.g., I am not adept at team teaching). This appeared to have derived from a pervasive ideology, namely native speakerism, where those deemed to be NESTs are preferred over NNESTs, both as legitimate language models of English and as effective practitioners of Western teaching methodologies (Hiratsuka, in press; Hiratsuka et al., 2023a, 2023b; Holliday, 2006). The JTEs posited that ALTs are better language models and better suited for demonstrating a superior Western teaching methodology. Aside from Shimizu, therefore, the majority of the JTEs in this study and their JTE colleagues suffered from professionally deleterious identities with which they associated themselves on a daily basis.

JTEs as overworked caregivers

Another JTE professional reflexive identity brought to the fore in this study was that of the overworked caregivers. This stemmed from JTEs being frequently put in the position to offer professional knowledge and everyday care for ALTs, both at school and in the community. JTE participants performed the role of caregivers for their ALTs mainly because JTEs, as bilinguals, are the de facto translators and intermediaries for ALTs in the workplace—and frequently even outside of it. For instance, Shimizu, especially in the initial months, took ALTs “to different parts of the prefecture for sightseeing and act as if we are their host family,” essentially treating them as important guests from foreign countries. Likewise, Ohtani “often treated them to dinner and drinks” in order to make them feel welcome and build more social connections with them.

In contrast to being friendly and approachable outside of school, the JTEs had to be strict and professional as ALTs’ immediate superiors at work. Overall, the JTEs viewed their ALTs to be immature, unskilled, and novices in language education and Japanese culture (see Hiratsuka, 2022). There was a sense of obligation from Ohtani when he said: “I always have to teach them the tradition and culture of Japanese schools and Japanese communities.” Abe referred to ALTs’ immaturity: “There was a streak of bad ALTs in my town for a while. ALTs are immature and need help from us.” Hara said the following in a matter-of-fact manner: “We JTEs have to teach ALTs the basics of what we need them to do because they do not know anything, including how to behave in front of co-workers and students.” Shimizu enforced the Japanese public school office dress code policy upon his ALTs: “I always make sure that they wear a suit and a tie everyday.” Just like other participants, Shimizu reconfirmed the idea later in his interview that ALTs are immature and irresponsible: “I have often encountered ALTs who were reported to the board of education because they were blowing off work repeatedly.” He further commented that the government is to be blamed for bringing about the troublesome situation in the first place in which JTEs have to take care of immature ALTs:

The government should provide a space for ALTs to grow as individuals so that they can take responsibility for what they say and do. They behave just like university students—they are late for work, absent from work, and even exchange social media contacts with students. ... It is not the fault of JTEs when their ALTs behave irresponsibly.

Among the participants, Nakata was probably the most critical regarding ALTs’ unprofessional and unskilled characteristics that ultimately put undue burden on JTEs. She was unsure about the value of the foreign language teacher assistants:

Because ALTs were not trained to be English teachers in Japan and they are merely assistants to JTEs, JTEs are usually planning and conducting lessons by themselves. And outside of teaching, JTEs have to constantly give attention and support to ALTs because they cannot speak Japanese. In this current situation, I don’t know who is assisting who and who is benefiting more from whom.

Nakata understood that most ALTs must have come to Japan with the best of intentions. However, the fact remains that JTEs are the ones who have to fix the problems ALTs create:

ALTs are not bad people. But they should not be spending time with students at school. They are ignorant of Japanese culture, especially Japanese school culture. They are often absent from work due to colds as well. They stand on the chair with their shoes on, they finish eating lunch by themselves instead of eating with students, and they play the same game over and over again. Principals and other teachers do not know what to do with them, and JTEs have to end up dealing with the problems.

Albeit less forcefully, Ito and Nakata also expressed their frustration with their positions in connection with their ALTs and denounced the extra work they have to undertake for their ALTs. Ito remarked:

We [JTEs] cannot babysit and teach them [ALTs] how to be functional community members in Japan, let alone effective English teachers—we are just too busy. This situation is ridiculous in that we JTEs are incredibly busy dealing with students when there is actually one more person—in the staffroom!—who needs help from us.

Similarly, Nakata made the following comments based on her context of elementary school: “Even now, the quality of ALTs is not guaranteed. What is going to happen in the future when there are more ALTs in school? ALTs are nothing but burdens for JTEs in elementary schools.”

Against this backdrop, JTEs’ approach to their lessons with ALTs became quite pragmatic with many sacrificing the quality of team-taught lessons. Still, they could not escape from the investment they had to make in terms of their time and energy for their ALTs’ private life affairs, such as finding apartments and opening their bank accounts. Shimizu was cognizant of how much of a toll it takes to be in charge of ALTs: “Those JTEs who are in charge of ALTs in respective schools are incredibly busy and struggling. Teaching becomes secondary. They have to look for apartments and take care of daily lives of their ALTs.” Yasuda also confessed: “I hesitate to consult with my ALTs about our team-taught lessons. As long as the ALTs are fine and not causing major problems, it is a good thing and I do not think about them.” Abe made identical comments to those of Yasuda and unveiled the damaging practice prevalent among JTEs and ALTs: “JTEs have to spend time and energy to take care of ALTs’ private lives. Due partly to this, JTEs do not want to spend extra time for team-taught lessons by talking to them or collaborating with them.” Ito corroborated with them, questioned the worth of ALTs, and demanded support from all public sectors:

All the work involving ALTs bears heavily upon JTEs. Is it really necessary to hire ALTs when it is costing JTEs so much? It is good and all for the government to recruit and invite ALTs to Japan, but there should be support for JTEs at the school, prefectural, and national levels.

It was just once that Abe, as her ALT’s supervisor, wrote a negative report about her ALT as part of the annual evaluation procedure and sent it to the dispatching company that recruited and oversaw the ALT. To her surprise, however, it was not appreciated by the company and the onus was put on her:

When I gave negative feedback on an ALT concerning her work performance on the evaluation sheet (e.g., she is being lazy), the company called me later and asked me why I gave such feedback. I told them the reason and then they told me that I should tell it directly to the ALT. So, I figured I should not write any negative feedback and just deal with all my ALT problems by myself.

From these narrative inquiries, another emerging professional reflexive identity held by JTEs in connection with their ALTs was the overworked caregiver identity. The JTEs had to tend to the needs and concerns of their ALTs due to two unique conditions in which they lived and worked: (a) JTEs, as bilinguals, are essentially the only people on whom ALTs can rely in their local environments and (b) ALTs, as immature foreigners and Japanese language and culture novices, are by and large ignorant of Japanese educational and cultural mores required to function well in Japan. This identity influenced JTEs’ behaviors in certain ways and, in turn, those behaviors formed and reformed the identity even further. Within this study, some JTEs considered it was their responsibility to warmly welcome ALTs and showcase hospitality to them. Other JTEs felt obligated to offer professional guidance and cultural manners to their ALTs in their workplaces. Yet, other JTEs felt it nonsensical that they had to take care of their ALTs’ miscellaneous personal affairs, including setting up their places and arranging their cars, whilst they were busy going through their intense and long work hours.

Discussion

Identity in the field of language education is understood as “who teachers are and what they bring with them, individually and collectively” (Varghese et al., 2016, p. 548). It was unearthed in this study that JTEs perceive themselves as inadequate language teachers and overworked caregivers. The inadequate language teacher identity is primarily akin to the linguistic and pedagogical identities: The JTEs considered their English skills and capacities to be not on par with those of their ALTs and also believed that they were not equipped with the knowledge or expertise to effectively carry out team teaching with their ALTs. This inadequate language teacher identity is significant, particularly when compared to reports from previous studies that have been notably partial, limited, and sometimes even contradictory: (a) JTEs who rated their English-speaking skills as high had more team-taught lessons and were more prone to accepting communicative activities in the classroom (e.g., Gorsuch, 2002; Hiratsuka, 2015); (b) the English communicative abilities of JTEs were key factors in determining the quality of team teaching (e.g., Moote, 2003; Igawa, 2009); (c) many teachers and students viewed team teaching to be of tremendous value (e.g., Johannes, 2012, Tajino & Walker, 1998); (d) JTEs regarded ALTs as poorly qualified language teachers (e.g., Machida & Walsh, 2015); and (e) there were few opportunities for JTEs and ALTs to foster collegiality or reciprocal learning in pursuit of professional development (e.g., Hiramatsu, 2005; Hiratsuka, 2013).

On the other hand, the overworked caregiver identity is primarily akin to the social and relational identities: The JTEs considered that, for the most part, it was their duty as the Japanese-English bilingual to look after their ALTs at school and in the local community even though they already had too many other obligations as full-time teachers in Japanese schools. These findings are particularly valuable for the new perspectives they offer—although previous studies highlighted JTEs’ roles as language/cultural/psychological mediators for ALTs with students and staff members due to their familiarity with the background of their students and the culture of their immediate contexts (e.g., Hiratsuka, 2017a; Miyazato, 2009), they neither addressed the heavy burdens JTEs must bear inside and outside of school nor attended to the adverse language teacher identity that JTEs have to negotiate as a consequence of taking care of their ALTs.

Given the findings within this study, this article’s vital contribution is its insight into JTEs and their professional reflexive identities as they relate to ALTs. Those identities comprise both skill- and pragmatic-centered identities of inadequate language teacher and overworked caregiver. This insight leads us to go beyond the rhetoric which has provided, more often than not, one-sided praise of team teaching between JTEs and ALTs in Japan. Furthermore, there are four inter-connected practical implications based on the findings. First and foremost, it would behoove JTEs to improve and retain their English skills as well as develop their knowledge about team teaching as an instructional strategy (see also Hiramatsu, 2005; Hiratsuka, 2015; Igawa, 2009). This is not only for their students, as English language teachers and as models of successful second language acquisition, and for their ALTs, as their primary intermediaries between the Japanese and English languages in their workplaces, but also—and perhaps most importantly—this is for themselves to foster and reinforce their self-confidence and self-efficacy, as language teacher professionals (see Hiratsuka, in press; Hiratsuka et al., 2023a, 2023b). Therefore, the curriculum of teaching license programs and any in-service professional development opportunity for JTEs should focus on the improvement of JTEs’ English language abilities as well as on the cultivation of their pedagogical theories or educational policies.

Second, ALTs, as their teaching partners, need to be aware of and learn how their presence might have a degrading effect on the JTEs’ identities—perhaps through government-funded orientation and training sessions (see Hiratsuka, 2022). Familiarity with the peculiar identities JTEs come to construct and reconstruct when engaging with ALTs would enable ALTs to be more considerate and empathetic. With a greater understanding of their JTEs, it is hoped that ALTs can mediate, and even ameliorate, the JTEs’ detrimental identities as inadequate language teachers and overworked caregivers by providing consistent chances for JTEs to use English in a meaningful way and taking responsibility for their personal affairs rather than excessively relying on JTEs. Third, much related to the second, it became abundantly clear in this study that the JTEs were struggling to get through the day due to incredible workloads. This is why they have no time to study and improve their fluency in English or look after their ALTs professionally and privately. To resolve this, recruitment as well as the education prior to and during the employment of ALTs should be drastically changed. For instance, those ALTs who have teaching experience, English-related degrees (e.g., linguistics and TESOL), good command of Japanese language, and/or great awareness of Japanese culture and working environments should be the majority, rather than the minority (see Yokoyama, 2018). In this way, JTEs do not have to put enormous time and effort into ALT assistance (see CLAIR, 2022; Education Bureau, 2023; Hiramatsu, 2005; Hiratsuka, 2022).

Last but not least, the government, local boards of education, and/or respective schools should hire and allocate specially-appointed employees who are bilingual and can take professional and personal care of ALTs, just like those who work in the international programs and service positions for international students at colleges and universities. This would allow JTEs to concentrate on their original purpose—to become and progress as effective language teachers for their students—instead of being worn out as helpers for their teaching partners.

Conclusion

This article has shined a light on JTEs’ reflexive identities vis-à-vis their relationships with ALTs by teasing out two idiosyncratic professional identities (i.e., inadequate language teacher and overworked caregiver) from the narratives of eight JTEs. These identities were proven to be, at least partly, the root of JTEs’ daily stress, frustration, and feeling of deprofessionalization. They appear to have left a bitter taste between JTEs and ALTs and generated palpable tension in their workplaces. To date, the findings of previous studies on team teaching documented team teachers’ and students’ overwhelmingly positive views about team-teaching practices and the presence of ALTs—e.g., “nearly two-thirds of the students reported they would not need a JTE if the AET [ALT] spoke Japanese well” and “[w]hat is of further concern, some JTEs tended to be more optimistic than the students about their contribution in the classroom, while still other JTEs agreed with the students who reported the JTE was not necessary” (Tajino & Walker, 1998, p. 125). However, these findings are grossly misleading since they do not engage critically with JTEs’ particular voices and experiences as they interact with and carry out team-taught lessons with ALTs. Therefore, rather than blindly praising team teaching in its current form, the beliefs, identities, and emotions of actual team teachers and their students in the schools need to be scrutinized. Concurrently, attempts should be made by team teachers and students to reconsider, individually and collectively, the impact that team teachers’ and their students’ identities can mutually have on each other’s teaching and learning experiences (see also Hiratsuka, 2022, 2023; Nall & Hiratsuka, 2023).

Finally, the present inquiry with the particular cohort of eight JTEs provided me with some illuminating empirical implications and highlighted some avenues that require further exploration. One such avenue is that future researchers should inquire into JTEs’ other identities relative to their ALTs (e.g., projected, recognized, and imagined) as well as their comprehensive identities as English teachers in Japan. Only when researchers can pay assiduous attention to different professional stages (novice, mid-career, and veteran), contexts (professional and private), and stakeholders (Japanese colleagues, students, and community members) of JTEs, would we be able to understand and make sense of their identities in an all-embracing manner. Therefore, another empirical avenue is that researchers can extend upon this research and Hiratsuka (2022) by examining and theorizing the identities of people relevant to team teachers. These people include team teachers’ students, recruiters, teacher educators, officials at the boards of education and ministries, friends, family members, and community members in Japan. Findings emanating from these studies might enable researchers and practitioners alike to understand more about the lives and experiences of those stakeholders as they interact with team teachers, thereby gaining a more detailed insight into how and to what extent their identities are formulated and affect one another. The final avenue is that researchers should study, preferably longitudinally, the identities of JTEs through various data collection methods, in addition to narrative interviews, such as questionnaires, observations, documents and records, pair discussions, and focus groups (see Hiratsuka, 2014, Hiratsuka, 2016, 2017b; Hiratsuka & Barkhuizen, 2015; Ishino, 2018).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP 20K13128, JP 23K00732, and JP 23K00699.

Notes on contributors

Takaaki Hiratsuka

Takaaki Hiratsuka is a Professor at Ryukoku University in Kyoto, Japan, where he supervises master’s and PhD students, both Japanese and non-Japanese, in related fields of language teacher education and narrative inquiry. His recent book publications include: Narrative Inquiry into Language Teacher Identity: ALTs in the JET Program (2022, Routledge), Team Teachers in Japan: Beliefs, Identities, and Emotions (2023, Routledge), and Native-speakerism and Trans-speakerism: Entering a New Era (in press, Cambridge University Press).