RESOURCE PAPER - 12

JF STANDARD forJapanese Language Education

byGeethanjali Rajan

RESOURCE PAPER - 12

JF STANDARD forJapanese Language Education

byGeethanjali Rajan

IJCCI's Language School, with all humility, I would say, is a
professionally run school, appreciated by the Japanese andIndians. The Language School conducts need-based conversation
programmes and the regular coaching for Japan Foundation's
JLPT programmes. Besides language teaching, the school alsoteaches Japanese culture, Japanese mores, business etiquette etc.
The school facilitates interaction among interested Japanese
language students on these important subjects regularly throughthe Nihongo Koryuu Kurabu. A lot of effort is put in to make thelanguage learning interesting and easy. While attention is paid tothe Japanese language teaching methodology and the resource
material for the various programmes, efforts are also made tocompare and contrast; to understand and assimilate the foreign
language teaching and the various standards set-in internationallyfor the purpose. This Resource Paper is another effort by IJCCIand I hope the Japanese language teacher and student community
would appreciate it.
The author Ms. Geethanjali Rajan teaches Japanese language in
IJCCI Language School, also studied in IJCCI Language School,
had undergone the Japan Foundation's teachers' training
programme at Urawa, Japan in 2015.

May 2017

Suguna Ramamoorthy
Secretary-General

JF STANDARD forJapanese Language Education

Introduction
In the global context that we live in, businesses, economic ties, traderelations, and cultural interactions are all equally important. In thecurrent circumstance of increased engagement between India andJapan, as well as the people-to-people exchanges that both the Abe andModi governments are focusing on, it is pertinent to point out that 2017has been designated as the Year of Japan-India Friendly Exchanges andthmarks the 60 year of Cultural agreement between the two countries.
While the goals of understanding and improved relations between thetwo countries have been explored in great detail in various fora, it isnecessary to take cognizance of the fact that the basis of a good
relationship rests on the strong foundation of language and its use forgood communication. This paper tries to explore the learning andtesting standards that prevail in the area of language education and also,
the role of the Japan Foundation in drawing guidelines that are highly
commendable in the specific sphere of Japanese language education forforeign learners.
The Japan Foundation, which has been working towards better ties andunderstanding between Japan and various countries of the world for thelast 45 years, has had its efforts concentrated on intellectual exchange,
5cultural understanding and language education. The belief that
language and communication is the basic building block ofunderstanding has not been overstated. Their efforts towards improving
Japanese language education in various parts of the world and thenecessity to give all language learning a cultural context, has been avery successful strategy. After all, any language learnt without thecultural understanding of the country is half done and not of practicaluse. Japan Foundation reworked their approach to standardizing themetrics and rubrics of Japanese language education by working on theJF Standard in 2005. Five years later, they published the JF Standard forJapanese Language Education 2010. This is the standard tool that will
be explored in this paper.
The Standardization Conundrum
The basis of science and research is standard processes and results. But
when it comes to languages, how is it relevant? This problem is one thathas been faced by language learners, educators, facilitators andresearchers for a long time. Let us take the case of a person learning aforeign language or any language that is not his/her mother tongue.
How does one evaluate the level of language ability? For a very longtime, people wrote out biodatas that said fluent/very fluent or used theRWS (read / write / speak) columns. It is well known that in the absenceof standards in gauging the level of proficiency in language learning,
the result is a subjective assessment by the assessor of the learner. Whatassessor 1 thinks is 'fluent' may well be 'very fluent' to assessor 2.
Hence, language learning standards are essential, so that they set
guidelines that are easily understood and used by educators, learners
and other stakeholders.
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)
The Council of Europe established the Common European Frameworkof Reference (CEFR) in 2001 after 30-odd years of research bylinguists, educators, researchers and specialists. This forms the basis ofstandards in measuring language proficiency across 39 languages inEurope. This framework is also used in other parts of the world (over 406countries use this framework).The CEFR revolutionized the way ofgauging language proficiency by dividing all language skills into
6 bands starting from A1 and going up incrementally to C2 (A1, A2, B1,B2, C1, C2). Each band defines what a learner is capable of doing withlanguage. Hence, across the international spectrum and regardless ofindividual assessors, one can gauge how proficient a learner is. For
instance, the matrix defines that a person who is capable of making abusiness presentation fluently has the level of say, B2. Or that a person
who is capable of conducting basic exchanges while shopping has theproficiency level of A1 and so on. In this manner, a learner can also selfassess one's own language proficiency. Hence, it is safe to say that theCEFR is a successful attempt at making a standard matrix for language
proficiency and now, a learner of English or French in India (or any
other country of the world) can easily be described as being at aparticular level of proficiency and a corporate entity in Europe will
understand how proficient he/she is before employing them.
Japan Foundation's Rubric and the CEFR
The JF Standard that Japan Foundation released in 2010, is based on theCEFR standard framework and that makes it easy to be accepted as aninternational standard. The basic measure of the JF standard is theability of the learner to use Japanese for various everyday activities andtasks and is strongly rooted in the cultural context of Japan also. Thebands of proficiency are the same as those of CEFR (A1 to C2) and arefurther broken down to describe what the person can do and how much,through “can do” statements. For instance, each statement starts withthe phrase “ I can …” and learners can assess the level of proficiency bythemselves as well.
The advantage of using the same matrix as the CEFR is that language
proficiency can be gauged in an internationally accepted standard forJapanese too. The JF standard uses both CEFR and JF “Can do”
statements. However, there are a few differences between the CEFR
“can do” statements and the JF “can do” statements. While CEFR uses
abstract multipurpose descriptors, JF “can dos” are related to practicalexamples of activities where Japanese is used.
7

For instance,• I can interact in a simple way provided the other person speaks
slowly and clearly and is prepared to help. This is a descriptor of thebeginner level of A1.

• I can make a short congratulatory speech to a bride and groom
explaining one's relationship to them - A2
This approach can help the learner plan his/her learning based on actual
communication. Further, a learner is quite clear about his/herproficiency in an international environment. A1 and A2 would be BasicUsers, B1 and B2 would be Independent Users and C1 and C2 would be
Proficient Users of Japanese language. A prospective employer too islikely to know how much the applicant is capable of doing in a Japanese
language environment. The greatest advantage is of course, for theteacher whose goals and activities towards learner outcomes become
clearer.
The JF Standard Tree
From the point of view of an educator teaching Japanese to foreign
learners, the JF Standard tree is a boon. A sakura or cherry blossom treethat explains the various aspects of language is an essential part of theJF Standard structure. This tree is drawn out like any other tree withbranches, leaves and flowers and also roots. What it represents are thevarious aspects of language functions.
The portion of the tree that is above the ground represents
communicative language activities and hasthree main aspects of using
the language:
1. Receptive activitiesThis refers to a person's ability to understandthe language. This may further be divided into listening or reading
comprehension. This area deals with a person's ability tounderstand a speech in Japanese or understand an essay or article inJapanese.
2. Productive activities This area deals with expressive language andrelates to a person's capability in writing a piece in Japanese or
making a speech in the language.
8

3. Interactive activities This is the important area of interaction withothers and consists of conversational skills, ability to answer
questions in interviews and also interaction through written
communication.
All the above main areas are divided into subskills and help an educator
understand the activities required to strengthen that particular area ofcommunication.Based on a learner's learning objectives, classroom andcourse activities can be tailored to ensure successful learning outcomes.
The portion that is below the ground or the root of the tree represents thecompetencies of communicative language. This, in turn, is subdivided
into 3 main areas:
1. Linguistic competency
2. Sociolinguistic competency
3. Pragmatic competency
These areas are vital for any language learning and deals with thefundamentals, foundation or the “nuts and bolts” vocabulary, grammarand so on.
The JF Standard Sakura tree is a very useful tool in classroom activity
management and a basis of what should be planned for learner
outcomes and lesson planning.
The Current Testing and Certification Scenario in India
Japan Foundation and Japan Educational Exchanges and Services
together have been conducting the JLPT or the Japanese Language
Proficiency Test, which has been the gold standard for non-native
learners of Japanese across the world. Started in 1984, it has morphed
into an international standard with many improvements along the three
decade journey. This too is a standard to measure proficiency orcompetencies in Japanese and has worked well for many of its
stakeholders. In India too, most non- university courses prep students toclear the JLPT and its levels. The standardized certification is anecessity for employment in jobs requiring Japanese proficiency.
Any system has its pitfalls despite the best intentions. JLPT too hasturned into a certificate “goal” in the hands of some institutes. To
9explain further, Japanese has to be learnt with the goal of clear
communication and cultural context, to be successful. While theclassroom should focus on skills and competencies involved incommunication, the end result can be a certificate to prove thiscompetency. However, in many cases, the classroom itself makes JLPT
the goal and not communication. Much like many educational
institutions in other subjects focusing on certificates and exams rather
than the learning, some Japanese language institutes in India too are
guilty of running courses that make sure that the student passes theJLPT, rather than learn to communicate in the language. JLPT does nottest expressive language or interaction orally (unlike the IELTS inEnglish). It also is an exam with a Multiple Choice Question format.
Hence, there are cases where learners who possess JLPT certificatesand appear for interviews disappoint in their lack of conversation or
spoken/ written skills. This cannot be described as a disadvantage of theJLPT. It is more a subversion of the system by the schools that run
Japanese courses. Again, this may not be willful,but more due to a lackof understanding of what real communication skills are required.
Currently, the JLPT is the existent and popular certification standard inIndia, with corporate companies demanding that they require a candidatewith N3 or N2 level of JLPT. However, delve a little deeper and theanswers are not so easy. Prospective employers say that it is always betterto have a candidate who communicates well, rather than an N2 certified
candidate who struggles to speak. To overcome these gaps in expectations
and delivery, the JF Standard of 2010 must be used in the class room, andto assess learner outcomes. This does not necessitate that the JLPT bestopped. Both could continue in tandem and strengthen the process ofcertifying Japanese Language Proficiency at international standards.
India and the JF standard
In India, the Japan Foundation in New Delhi offers courses in Japanesethat adhere to the JF Standard and are certified as A1 or A2, instead ofthe earlier JLPT standard alone. A few other institutes have also started
using the JF Standard based approach. However, what is even moreinteresting for a prospective learner of Japanese is that JapanFoundation's language education wing did not just stop at10

implementing and formulating standards for testing and learning. They
have brought out a series of textbooks (Marugoto series) that actually
make implementing the JF Standard easier. These textbooks cater to thelearners' communication needs and come as an easy and fun method tolearn Japanese, along with technology based web based materials,videos, worksheets, and cultural inputs. The books are being madeavailable in India and this is an opportunity for the existing approach inJapanese learning and teaching to change to a more viable and vibrantcommunication based model.
India has not yet caught on to the Can do based JF Standard teachingmodel of Japanese as yet. Once this model is popularized among
language schools and institutes, there will be many positive changes inthe classroom as well. From a testing based strategy, the situation will
become more learner-centric. From a syllabus based on JLPT alone, themodel is likely to become more communication based. Most
importantly, the learner will be empowered to decide the course ofstudy that is required because they can well take a part of the learning ona self-driven mode, rather than the classic pedagogical style that has
been followed so far.
The prevalent University courses may not see much change as they
delve into much more than just language; they include literature or
history of Japanese as well. These will remain largely the same and thechanges made will be in line with their own research and development.
However, for the majority of learners who look at learning Japanese at alanguage institute or at a college as an additional language, the scene isall set to improve if we adopt the newer JF standard.
From the point of view of the employer, a more cautious approach may
prevail. Many corporate entities that employ Japanese language
professionals prefer university graduates (majoring in Japanese). But
these candidates are very few in number when compared to the numbers
required. Companies may then continue to use JLPT as a standard.
However, it will benefit them to start asking for a self-assessment along
the lines of the JF Standard as well. This will work positively to start thechange towards the internationally accepted framework, as well as
implement a more “communication-based” model that includes
expressive language (where JLPT alone will not suffice).
11

Conclusion
India is a country of many languages and dialects. In a sense, thesituation is like in the European Union, where many languages exist
side by side and every state has its own regional language. In thissituation, a standard that is nationally, if not internationally accepted is agood idea. Maybe it is time we too looked at formulating a standard
learning, testing and assessment model that will help all stakeholders
understand the level of proficiency in a language. If formulated andimplemented on the lines of CEFR, or the JF Standard, it will well put
our large pool of language learning on a practical and improved
communicative platform.
The JF Standard has been developed keeping in mind that Japaneselanguage will be used practically to accomplish tasks. It also takes into
consideration that in a global environment, language is the key to better
understanding through cultural and interpersonal understanding andrelationships. With these objectives in mind, the JF Standard is usefulfor the learner, the educator as well as other stakeholders likeprospective employers, linguists and language professionals. It moves
the focus successfully from grammatical models and the number ofkanji and the vocabulary one knows, to what is practically possible
while using Japanese (can do). The quicker we move to start using thismodel, the better the learning outcomes are likely to be.

Note from the author:
The JF Standard in Japanese Language Education is an internationallyaccepted and standardized tool for learners, teachers and linguists. All
information that has been used here is available for further reference andstudy at https://jfstandard.jp. For more details on the CEFR, please lookat: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp.

12