ESL is taught in countries where English is the predominant language. EFL is taught in countries like Japan, where the predominant language is not English.
Why does this matter? Because it changes how you teach. ESL helps people learn English if they’re in an English speaking country. EFL is directed at learning test preparation; a student may be motivated to learn English through Marvel comics; or a university student wants help with reading an academic journals, etc. EFL is more broad and a good teacher needs to accept that and be able to include that in their lessons. If you think just learning “fluent English” is the goal, then you’re incorrect.
This doesn’t mean teachers should just teach rote English; we’re in fact here to break that mold. But if you don’t acknowledge that Japanese English education is EFL and not ESL, you can’t make improvements.
15 comments
There’s one thing you’ve said that’s mostly accurate, the rest is personal opinion, speculation, or just… off. In general, yes, most English courses/classes in Japan are EFL.
As for “what” ESL and EFL, how/why they’re different, and how that impacts method and pedagogy I can’t say I agree with what you’ve asserted.
Starting with what ESL and EFL are: ESL is second language education, and while the context can change the approach and end-point goals, ESL practices are generally pointed at giving students and clients real world competence. This means you want the students to gain the knowledge and skills to be a functional and literate member of an actual society that speaks the target language, this includes an equal understanding of the culture. This typically involves an immersion environment, a higher focus on production, and practical, rather than academic, assessment.
EFL is not more “broad” or “narrow” than ESL, the context and goals are just different. The goals usually being academic credit, loose conversational functionality, and a more quantitative approach focused on expanding more tangible things like grammar accuracy, vocabulary, reading comprehension, etc. There is less focus on “real life” functionality/becoming fluent and culture tends to be icing on the cake rather than core content. Immersion usually only happens at high levels/late in the student’s education.
What language the country speaks does not determine whether ESL or EFL can or cannot be taught there. It’s a complicated issue, but that depends far more on your institutional context and who the students are. There are plenty of schools in Tokyo that teach ESL, and there are plenty of schools that teach both ESL and EFL. There are a lot of classes for returnees, students targeting foreign universities, or just high level students in general that are absolutely ESL.
If you were to say “Japan has a large focus on English as an academic subject, rather than a language, and you should adjust your approach based on that” I don’t think anyone could argue with you on that point. But what you’re trying to assert doesn’t have much to do with the difference between first/second language education and foreign language education. Second language education can *absolutely* be very testing focused, there are a ton of TOEFL/IELTS focused courses out there. EFL can also be very culture and language focused without the academic pressure.
Thank you for the clarification.
For further edification, I’ll add another: a *student* is a person who is attempting to learn something, usually in a formal setting; a *teacher* is a person charged with helping people to learn.
I can see where you’re coming from, but you’ve misunderstood a couple of points.
1. The second language/foreign language divide is relating to countries where English is not *the* predominant language, but dividing on whether it is *a* dominant language i.e. Sweden, the Netherlands (second language countries) vs. countries where it is not a dominant language, e.g. Chile or China (foreign language countries). It is not really split outside of this context.
2. Outside of said context, the term ‘second language’ refers to a language that is not your mother tongue. So, learning a ‘second’ language and learning a ‘foreign’ language means the same thing. They are synonymous.
So yes, in Japan, English is a foreign language and not a second language. Technically. In one specific linguistic sense. But if you are learning it, it is still your second language, and dividing between ESL and EFL is splitting hairs.
Now, if you were arguing that Japan’s approach to English is overly academical and undermines its students by making them study for tests instead of actual capability first, then yes, I would fully agree. This is a massive problem with the approach to English here. But that has nothing to do with the second/foreign language divide.
2022, Japan is trailing every other G7 country and most other less developed countries in English. Economy is bombing, yen is tanking. Teach ESL. EFL obviously doesn’t work and will not prepare members of the world community. There is nothing foreign about English in the global economy.
Newly arrived JET alternate here to save us all
What a moronic and broad statement to make.
>If you think just learning “fluent English” is the goal, then you’re incorrect.
You’re really oversimplifying things.
In junior high and high school, passing university entrance exams is indeed often the goal. That means classes are centered around grammar and translation. We all know that.
But, by the by, that doesn’t define EFL, as many others here have already pointed out.
Whether English study continues after the compulsory English classes in school, and what the goal of that study is, will differ from person to person.
Some university students will continue to take only compulsory courses that focus on English as an academic subject, and their eventual career will not require English proficiency. Others, however, will enter universities that have English courses that aim at creating proficient speakers.
And then, of course, there are adult education programs for people who want to or need to speak English fluently. Those programs focus on attaining communicative competence.
I think the crux is that teachers have to take contextual and cultural factors into consideration when formulating a learning plan. I’d hope though, that this would be obvious.
When I was in college, I took a low level course in teaching ESL. This turned out to be useful both in teaching English in Japan, and in raising a child in Japan whose first language was English. I’m not sure your terminology preference is anything more than self-comforting.
You might, I certainly don’t. Most of my students speak English as their first language. And if you were to teach an adult whose main goal is to work comfortably on a military base or at an embassy, you’d want to adopt the techniques you consider to be “ESL.”
It is important to adjust your techniques to match the students’ goals, but don’t generalize what every teacher teaches. Some teachers in this sub don’t even teach English.
My pet peeve.
Although I don’t agree with the definition of EFL in your post.
The distinction is where the students are. If they are in a country where English is spoken/used, they are likely doing ESL, if not, likely EFL. The key factor is whether the students are surrounded by the target language or not.
I teach TESOL. What now, motherfucker?
I’m pretty sure everyone here is well aware that Japanese learners have to take tests from time to time.
If you disagree, you are a complete moron. You are disagreeing with an objective fact. It’s like saying 4+4 doesn’t equal 8. Moron foreign teachers who don’t know what they’re doing demonstrating why they’re not more highly regarded!
Your distinction between EFL and ESL isn’t useful when you consider the variety of learners you encounter in teaching situations in Japan.
Your learners could be EALs who speak a language other than English at home or in their community. They tend to have different phonological and grammar issues from their Japanese-using counterparts. Some families use English as lingua franca at home, too.
In some teaching positions, I’ve taught English literature and composition to bilinguals. The situation resembles neither ESL nor EFL as the program was intended as equivalent to academics in any English medium education system.
I never refer to my teaching situation as EFL or ESL. It’s more useful for me and the learners to perceive ourselves as users of the English language. My job is to help them become better and better at using English to satisfy academics at our institution and to help them achieve what they want to do using English.
>EFL is directed at learning test preparation
Uh, no.