HelloWorld’s MACHINAKA ENGLISH QUEST, formerly known as Machinaka Rogaining, is designed to improve English language skills through urban exploration and teamwork.
However, the program encounters difficulties in meeting its objectives, as pointed out by concerns from a student’s guardian.
Participants in the initiative explore various locations across Japan, working in teams of about six, with guidance from an English-speaking volunteer.
HelloWorld heavily depends on surveys and questionnaires to evaluate performance, but the reliability of this data is questionable.
The way questions are phrased can greatly affect responses, leading to potentially misleading conclusions about the effectiveness of the English speakers.
In the recent HelloWorld survey conducted on October 12, 2024, one English speaker suggested a different strategy to mitigate the competitive atmosphere of the game, with the intention of reducing stress for students who might feel intimidated by more dominant English speakers.
However, the suggestions from the English speaker were disregarded, and she was swiftly accused of the very offense she had brought to their attention.
The HelloWorld operation exhibits characteristics akin to a cult, where volunteers are gradually conditioned to comply with stringent policies without receiving adequate training.
This lack of training results in unintentional violations of these rules, leading to reprimands and ongoing criticism directed at the volunteers for their contributions.
Although the program aims to create an inclusive community, reports suggest that the competitive atmosphere among English speakers can foster negative behaviors, including misinformation and psychological manipulation aimed at undermining peers.
Volunteers, primarily graduate students, often feel pressured to excel, and those who try to report misconduct within the organization may face retaliation.
Recent allegations have surfaced regarding preferential treatment given to certain English speakers within the organization.
Reports indicate that specific individuals were offered reduced reimbursement for expenses related to events that were not publicly announced or accessible to the broader HelloWorld volunteer community.
The underlying aim of this initiative seems to be the establishment of a lower compensation rate for all current English speakers, dependent on the acceptance of this reduced offer by the selected individuals.
Fortunately, these preferred English speakers opted not to participate in the initiative, effectively preventing HelloWorld from executing what could be perceived as unfair treatment of its volunteers.
Students taking part in the quest often feel fatigued from previous activities, which can reduce their motivation and lead to resentment towards the English speakers.
In his paper “A False Motivation: Another Way to Encourage Students to Learn,” UCHIDA Hiroki observes that “All Citizens of Japan are required to study English at school, which has led to the situation where quite a few students have no clear goals in learning English.
UCHIDA goes on to say that, “It is, in fact, extremely difficult to literally motivate students to learn.”
This situation is worsened by the HelloWorld system which encourages students to give negative feedback about their guides, often resulting in biased responses.
This situation raises significant concerns regarding equity and transparency within the organization, highlighting the need for a more inclusive and fair approach to volunteer compensation and treatment.
Despite the participation of over 13,000 children and English speakers from more than 80 countries, suggestions for improving the program’s competitive environment have been overlooked, underscoring the need for a reassessment of current practices and methodologies.
HelloWorld has been afforded the chance to present its perspective on the recent assessments of its operations, which disclosed that a blogger was intentionally dispatched to examine and evaluate the company's practices.
In their statement, HelloWorld conveyed that the insights provided by the blog undermine their credibility.
Nevertheless, they did not dispute the validity of the findings.
Comments
Post a Comment