The Japan Foundation Language Center, Quarterly Newsletter
Number Eleven, July 1995

Teaching Japanese As A Second Language in Japan
Ronald A. Walton
The National Foreign Language Center at The Johns Hopkins UniversityJ

apanese language educators in the United States
may sometimes wonder about the teaching ofJapanese to foreigners in Japan: how many
foreign students study Japanese in Japaneseinstitutions, how many teachers are involved, at how
many institutions and organizations is Japanesetaught to non-natives, is there an organization akin to
TESOL in Japan focusing on the teaching of Japanese
as a second language. At the suggestion of Mr.
Yasuaki Kaneda, Director of the Japan Foundation
Language Center in the U.S., Leslie Birkiand, PastPresident of NC STJ and Ronald Walton, Deputy
Director of the National Foreign Language Center,recently had the opportunity to find out answers tothese questions as a part of their visit to Japan toparticipate in the Sixth International Colloquium on
Program Management in Japanese-Language
Education, sponsored by the Japan Foundation (seeaccompanying article on page 12).
Ms. Birkland and Professor Walton, througharrangements coordinated by Director Kaneda, were
fortunate to have an intriguing visit and discussion
with the President and officers of The Society for
Teaching Japanese As a Foreign Language,
headquartered in Tokyo. The Society was formed in
1962 with 314 members. Today, it is officiallyaccredited under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of
Education and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a
non-profit organization boasting an impressive
membership of 3,652 members. Relying on a 1993
survey, the Society estimates that there are nearly
76,000 students enrolled in Japanese language
programs in Japan with over 11,000 instructors
teaching at more than 1,100 institutions. Between
1988 and 1993, the number of students has increasedby almost 12,000, and the number of teachers andinstitutions has nearly doubled.
What does the Society do? The mission involves thefollowing: (1) collect and disseminate information of

the teaching of Japanese domestically and abroad (2)conduct research and surveys on Japanese language
teaching (3) organize conferences, training programs
and lectures (4) publish journals, studies, andreference books (5) develop proficiency measuresand (6) cooperate with Japanese language teachingorganizations in Japan and abroad. The Societysponsors an annual meeting of members, andconducts approximately 10 local study meetings per
year. The Society publishes a Journal (the Journal ofJapanese Language Teaching) three times per year, as
well as supplementary textbooks, handbooks on
Japanese language teaching, testing, course design
and the like, and publishes a Directory, the 1994
edition of which profiles 2,000 members and lists 80
associations of teachers of Japanese both
domestically and world-wide.
A training program for members is held each year
and with assistance from the Japan Foundation, theSociety organizes training programs for teachers who
intend to teach Japanese abroad. Research covers
such areas as course design and management,teaching methodology, the design of teacher training
programs. Survey work has included proficiency
testing, teaching materials and now multimedia
teaching materials.
Birkland and Walton found the Society to be a busy
place-not surprising given the growing interest inJapan in this domain-with a warm atmosphere and asense of commitment to the mission. Theirdiscussions with the officers revolved around findingout more about the Society and describing theJapanese language teaching situation in the UnitedStates. As Japanese language enrollments continue toclimb in the U.S., and indeed globally (according to
The Japan Foundation surveys, enrollment inJapanese language study abroad rose from 400,000 tonearly one million students between 1983 and 1990),
linkages to organizations in the home-country, such
The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
1/12

as the Society, become important as sources of
information and points of coordination. Of course,
the Society encourages membership from teachers
around the world. American language educators whoare interested in more information about the Society
should contact them directly at:Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language
The 9th Kowa Building
8-10 Akasaka 1-chome
Minato-ku, Tokyo 107, Japan
Tel:(03) 3584-4872
Fax:(03) 3585-0218

On Articulation Between Pre-Collegiate Levels and Postsecondary Levels (3)In this latest issue of The Breeze, we bring our readers news and information about the ATJ/NCSTJ joint meetingthat was held in April, as well as reports from Michigan and Utah. It is one of the goals of those of us here at JFLC
to do our best to keep our readers up-to-date with the current situation regarding articulation between postsecondaryand pre-collegiate levels. More reports are expected to appear in succeeding issues.

ATJINCSTJ Joint Meeting on
Articulation
Patricia Wetzel
Portland State University
The ATJ and NCSTJ held a joint "Preliminary
Meeting on Articulation" at the Japan Foundation
Language Center, March 4, 1995. Representing
secondary schools were: Leslie Birkland (Lake
Washington High School, Kirkland, WA), Kurt
Bringerund (Arsenal Technical High School,
Indianapolis, IN), Clark Tenney (Pleasant Grove
High School, Oren, UT), and Patricia Thornton(Susan B. Anthony High School). Nicholas Pond
(Murray High School, Murray, UT) will attend future
meetings. Representing post-secondary education
were Hiroko Kataoka (University of Oregon), Hiroshi
Miyaji (Middlebury College), Yasuko Ito Watt
(Indiana University), and Patricia Wetzel (Portland
State University). Representatives of the JapanFoundation Language Center in attendance were
Yasuaki Kaneda, Yasuko Yokota, Kimiko
Kabutomori, and Noriko Yokoyama.
Prof. Miyaji called the meeting to order with preliminary comments on the importance of the articulation issue to both secondary and post-secondary
educators. Participants agreed that the NCSTJ has
been instrumental in raising awareness of not only
this issue, but others that face secondary Japaneseteachers and that by definition cross over to postsecondary language teachers. The Japan Foundation
has carried out an initial survey of "Japanese
Learning in the United States," in part to try andprovide data that will aid in the resolution of articu-

lation issues.
The representatives exchanged information on the
curricula at their respective institutions: the featuresand goals of their programs, particulars regarding
credits and in-class hours, the textbooks and other
instructional materials they use, the types of tests andcriteria for assessment/grading they use, as well as
whether and how computers serve in their courses.
The question of distance learning was peripheral for
most of those on the committee, but figures in the
problem of articulation at many institutions.
The committee agreed that one key need in the initial
discussion of articulation is an exchange of
information between and among the various educational entities. This is not simply a secondary-postsecondary question but affects community colleges,
elementary schools, and even college to college
transfer of credit. It was clear from the exchange of
information that at no level is there agreement on
goals or expectations. Washington's Framework wassuggested as a possible first-step in coming to somekind of consensus, but it is still early in its
distribution and evaluation. In the meantime, ongoing
dialog is crucial, especially at the regional level.
Another gap exists in hard data regarding the current
processes of articulation: we do not know to what
extent students are or are not successful inarticulating from institution to institution, program toprogram, level to level. We do not know the characteristics of those programs where articulation ismore (or less) successful. We do not know the meansby which students are placed at institutions to which
they transfer or articulate. Most information ishearsay. The committee requested the Language
Center's ongoing support for investigating these
The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
2/12

questions.
It was agreed that this meeting was an important andinformative first-step in creating the kind ofcommunication network that will promote articula-tion. The committee will reconvene at the beginningof 1996, at which time the NCSTJ will report on thestatus of regional discussions and the Language
Center will define the ways in which it can be usefulin data-gathering.

The Michigan Project and Articulation
Motoko Tabuse, Ph.D.
Primary Consultant
The Michigan Japanese Language Improvement Project
Department of Foreign Languages and Bilingual Studies
Eastern Michigan University

T

he Michigan Japanese Language Improvement
Project (MiJaLIP, hereafter) is a state-wide
effort to improve Japanese language
instruction, and funded by a three-year grant from theUnited States-Japan Foundation. The MiJaLIP goals
are to: (1) increase the number of Michigan
secondary schools offering Japanese language
instruction; (2) increase the number of Michigan
secondary school students studying Japanese; (3)establish a network of Japanese language educators to
help them improve their instructional practices andserve as support for secondary-level Japanese
instructors; and (4) identify and disseminate current
instructional materials to use in Michigan's Japanese
language classrooms.
Currently, we have about 100 K-12 schools (at least 3
elementary schools, 16 middle schools, and 80 highschools) and thirty-five colleges and universities
offering Japanese language instruction in Michigan.
Some schools offer more intensive Japanese language
instruction where classes meet almost every day for
one academic year. Some schools have less intensive
Japanese language instruction where Japanese istaught for several weeks with a great emphasis on
cultural understanding. To differentiate among
various types of Japanese language instruction
offered at K- 12 schools, the project has identified atleast three different types of instruction: Intensive
Japanese Language Instruction, Exploratory Japanese
Language Instruction, and the Infusion Model, andcreated operational definitions for each type of
instruction.
MiJaLIP offered a series of awareness workshops
during the first year of the grant as well as a series of
in-service training workshops during the next two
years. Topics covered in the in-service training

included: (1) curriculum design and proficiency-oriented Japanese language instruction; (2) instructional
TV and other technologies; (3) materials development; and (4) evaluation and assessment. In addition to these workshops, an intensive Japanese language teaching summer institute was conducted with
15 participants in the summer of 1994.
During the three years of our activities participants of
our in-service workshops and intensive summer
institute repeatedly expressed their interests andconcerns about several issues. One of the issues was
about articulation. At the beginning of the project,many teachers of Japanese felt that they were isolated
and had few other teachers to talk to. In order to deal
with this specific need, our project conceptualized
and implemented horizontal articulation, that is,
information exchange and networking efforts among
teachers of Japanese at the same level. These efforts
have been strongly encouraged and promoted throughgroup work assigned during the in-service training.
High school teachers were also concerned that many
secondary school students with two or more years ofJapanese language instruction could not be placed
above the first-year level when they continued their
Japanese language study at colleges and universities.
To tackle this issue, the project designed two types ofactivities that specifically aimed at articulation
between secondary school teachers andcollege/university instructors. One was to conduct
two workshops entitled, "Japanese Language
Programs at Institutions of Higher Education." About
20 instructors and professors of higher education
represented institutions such as Central Michigan
University, Eastern Michigan University, KalamazooCollege, Lansing Community College, Madonna
University, Michigan State University, and the
The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
3/12

University of Michigan. Each representativedescribed his or her Japanese language program
including curriculum goals, program outlines,
enrollment status, textbooks used, other materials
used, and the first-year syllabi. This year, in an
informal atmosphere, several instructors conductedteaching demonstration sessions simulating a typical
day in a first-year class at the college or university,
followed by a lively question-and-answer session.
The demonstration sessions were very informative
and well received by participants across levels.
MiJaLIP designed the second activity called,"Bridging-the-Gap," an activity where a secondary
school teacher and a college or university instructor
visit each other's classroom. Participating secondary
school teachers received substitute pay while they
visited the college or university. College/university
instructors received a stipend. Both parties received
travel reimbursements.
The problems of building a successful collaboration
within and across levels sometimes seem
insurmountable and developing a good working relationship take a great deal of time. But once a trusting
relationship is established, the rewards of working
toward shared goals are many:•
we are currently developing portfolios ofMichigan teachers of Japanese;•
we have begun interacting with each otheracross levels;

•
•
•

•

Michigan teachers know more about eachother (and mostly in person!) and our programs;
secondary teachers at different schools arecooperating in developing supplementary
learning materials;
university professors can make casual telephone calls to high school teachers to talkabout the students they have in common;
anduniversity professors talk to each other abouttransfer students, teaching materials,
workshops and grant opportunities that areof mutual interest.

I hope that this description of MiJaLIP activities will
stimulate other Japanese language educators who arein similar situations.
(For further information about MiJaLIP activities,
please contact Dr. John M. Chapman, Michigan
Department of Education, P.O. Box 30008, Lansing,MI 48909 or for e-mail users, FLATABUSEMUVAX.EMICH.EDU)'The Michigan Global International Education
Resource Center at the International Institute in Flint,
funded by the U.S.-Japan Foundation, the JapaneseSociety of Detroit Foundation, and the Center for
Global Partnership holds a concentration of resource
materials on Japanese language instruction.

Articulation in the State of Utah [the status quo]
R. Clark Tenney
Pleasant Grove High SchoolO

n February 24 and 25 of this year, ourIntermountain Association of Japanese
Language Teachers (IAJLT) group had theopportunity to meet in a conference to discuss several
issues of importance to Japanese language teachers in
Utah. One main focus of our conference wassomething which has been a major goal of the IAJLT
since it was founded in l990 - articulation dialogue
between the secondary and post-secondary Japanese
language programs in the state of Utah.
Like teachers across the nation, we want our students'
Japanese language learning experience to meet theirneeds. We feel that lack of articulation between

secondary and post-secondary programs can often be
an obstacle to this goal. One problem is that students
graduating from secondary Japanese language
programs after having taken, for instance, three yearsof high school Japanese are often compelled to enroll
in a beginning Japanese 100 course upon entering auniversity program. Some students who have foundthemselves in this situation have felt that their yearsof language study at the secondary level had been, in
effect, wasted. Our IAJLT group felt that this senseof discouragement and wasted time, and the highattrition rate of Japanese language students between
secondary and mid-level university courses could be
addressed in a session of our conference devoted to
articulation issues.
The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
4/12

university program.
We have been trying to arrange for such a session forsome years now. A generous grant facilitated throughthe Utah State Office of Education made it possible
to provide funding for our secondary-level IAJLT
teachers and a representative from each of our major
in-state post-secondary Japanese programs to meet
together to formally discuss articulation issues of thefirst time ever. Representatives from Utah State
University, Weber State University, University of
Utah, Snow College, and Brigham Young University
met with our IAJLT teachers to discuss articulation
between our programs.
During this first-of-its-kind meeting, some important
conclusions were reached concerning articulation in
the state of Utah. First, the purpose of our meeting
would not be for university Japanese instructors totell high school teachers how and what to teach, orvice versa. The assumption was made that teachers
on each level are professionals earnestly striving tohelp students learn Japanese in the best way they can,taking into account the situations present at their own
institutions. No one was there to tell anyone else to"do a better job" of teaching Japanese. Rather, thiswas to be an information sharing and gathering
meeting. Post-secondary teachers would come awayfrom the meeting with a good idea of which aspectsof the Japanese language are introduced to students in
Utah high schools at various levels. (Fortunately, theIAJLT has recently completed suggested curriculum
guidelines for first, second, and third year secondary
Japanese courses in Utah schools.) Likewise,
secondary teachers wold come away with a good ideaof what is covered at certain levels in the various
post-secondary institutions in Utah, and the methods
used for course placement at each school.
Another conclusion reached reflected the fact that
secondary Japanese programs are made up of a wide
variety of students. Many students in Utah arecollege-bound and plan on taking Japanese courses
all through their post-secondary experience, butothers do not. Some plan on traveling to Japan soon,and others do not. Some are very serious about theirlanguage study, and some are taking Japanese
because "it sounded cool" or "my counselor said it
would be fun." While gathering information about
post-secondary curricula is a vital step in thearticulation process, it is important that secondary
teachers meet the educational needs of all of theirstudents, not just the college-bound ones. We
concluded that for this reason, it is important that
secondary teachers do not, for instance, simply teachto a certain examination, or cover only material
required for entrance into the 102 level of any certain

Thus, information sharing and gathering was themain focus at the articulation session of our conference. Neither secondary teachers nor post-secondary
teachers would be expected to change their own
programs to coordinate or "fit" with their counterpartson the other level. Although this might make thetransition more smooth for some students, thisapproach would not necessarily be best for all
students at both levels. However, as post-secondary
institutions adjust and develop courses in the future,
it will be useful for them to have a good idea of what
aspects of Japanese are being introduced to theirstudents who have graduated from a secondary
Japanese program in the state of Utah. Likewise, as
secondary teachers adjust and develop their own
courses in the future, it will be useful for them to bearin mind the aspects of Japanese which must havebeen mastered by students who hope to begin theirpost-secondary study of Japanese in intermediate,
rather than beginning, courses. The articulation
dialogue we accomplished at our conference will no
doubt be beneficial to future college-bound Utah highschool Japanese language students.
Finally, this information sharing and gathering will
be beneficial to our students in a more immediate
sense, as well. It was agreed that each post-secondary
representative would provide the IAJLT with acourse by course listing of what texts and othermaterials are used (and what chapters and concepts
are covered) in their school's beginning Japanese
courses, and what methods they use to determine
student placement. Utah's secondary Japaneseteachers will soon be equipped with a good generalidea of what it will take for their college-boundstudents to succeed in various Japanese courses at the
major post-secondary Japanese programs in our state.
With this data base, secondary teachers will be better
able to advise students as to what course level theymight be qualified for at certain colleges anduniversities, what supplementary materials to study ifthey want to enter higher-level courses, and what
schools emphasize most the aspects of Japanese inwhich the student has most interest.
Instead of focusing on shortcomings of various
Japanese language teaching programs in Utah, wewere able to focus on students' needs, and identify
specific obstacles to fulfilling those needs. Instead ofsuggesting to our colleagues how they could be better
teachers, we gathered the information necessary tofine-tune our own programs, and to advise ourstudents about existing conditions. We hope that our
dialogue on these matters will be the first of many
The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
5/12

future sessions in Utah to help Japanese teachers on
all levels further reach our common goal of meetingthe educational needs of our students.

Follow-up Workshop To JFLC Summer Workshop '94
February 25, 19095 Saturday 9:00 am – 6:00 pm
JFLC invited all 20 participants of the '94 summer
workshop. Eight participants out of the 20 reunited inthis follow-up workshop. The purpose of theworkshop was two-fold: 1) The participants from allover the states reunite, exchange professional
information, and strengthen their mutual network. 2)
JFLC gets feedback of the summer workshop fromthe participants so that we could improve our future
workshop.
The pre-workshop assignment asked participants tosend a one-class hour audio/video-recording of theirteaching with the corresponding teaching plan andself-evaluation. The workshop started with a general
discussion session in which participants gave their
feedback and evaluation on the summer workshop as
well as the reports on their current teaching.
Following this discussion, about five hours werespent for viewing/listening tapes they sent us as preworkshop assignment, and commenting on eachother's teaching. At the end of the day, our library's
latest materials were introduced.

ences, ideas for teaching techniques, and problems aswell as solutions. The results of the follow-up
workshop evaluation questionnaire from theparticipants were extremely positive on every aspectof the workshop.
The following is the list of participants of the followup workshop.
Janet Akaike-Tosts, Central & Glendale HighSchools, MO
Sarah Diaz, Chapel Square Media Center;
Fairfax Country Public Schools,
VA
John Henry Flathmann, B. Heed Henderson HighSchool, PA
Yasuko Nadayoshi-Walcott, Kennedy High School,
MD (until 1994)
Mari Omori, Tomball High School, IX
Hiroko Takebe Scharon, Katy/Houston/Spring
Branch, Independent School District, IX
Hiroko Suga, Parkway South High School, MO
Taeko Tashibu, Auburn Senior High School, WA

The time flew in sharing and discussing our experi-

The Sixth International Colloquium on Program Management in Japanese
Language Education (1)Leslie Okada Birkland
Washington Lake High School, WA
The Sixth International Colloquium was held in
Urawa, Japan, at the Japan Foundation Language
Institute on December 8th and 90th with twoparticipants invited to attend from Australia (Hiroshi
Haga, Joseph Lo Bianco), Canada (Masako Fukawa,
Michiyo Tsurumi), New Zealand (Louis Barrowman,
Diane Crew) and the United States (Leslie Birkland,
Ronald Walton), Professor Osamu Mizutani served as
Moderator of the Colloquium. Other domestic
members -included Yutaka Miyaji, President ofTezukayama Gakuin; Nobuko Mizutani, Professor of

Ochanomizu University; Kazuo Ohtsubo, Professorof Tohoku University; Munemasa Tokugawa,
Professor of Gakushuin University; Special members:
Suzuko Nishihara, Director of Department ofExternal Services of the National Language ResearchInstitute; Toshio Okazaki, AssistantProfessor of Tsukuba University; members of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Members of The
Japan Foundation.

The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
6/12

This year's theme was, "Teaching Japanese as a
Foreign Language in a Multicultural Society
Focusing on Secondary Education". The purpose of
the Colloquium was to have the overseas guests
report on the current status of Japanese language
education in their respective countries and suggest
ways to address current issues. This information
would enable The Japan Foundation to draft plans forvarious projects to support overseas Japanese
language education.
The two full days were spent listening to reports fromthe various countries, fielding questions andparticipating in discussions concerning issues such as
multi-culturalism, teaching "culture", and theeffectiveness of communicative-based instruction.
During the breaks, there was plenty of opportunity to
exchange ideas and information with one another. We
toured the beautiful facility and captured the momentwith a group photo. The facility was indeed
impressive, but we were equally impressed with the
exceptional ability of their simultaneous interpreters,
who translated the following information.
In the late '60s Australia did not have an establishedcurriculum for Japanese language education at thesecondary level. Reading, comprehension andtranslation were emphasized. Until the mid '70s, theonly available textbooks were those developed for theuniversity level. Professor Alfonso of the Australian
National University and other members were the firstto produce a secondary level text.
The Australian Languages Levels Guidelines(ALLG) and the National Policy on Languages(NPL) were issued at the national and state levels in
the late 1 980s. "Each state then independently pursued the development of its own language policies,
curricula and syllabi based on the NPL." (Haga)
Since 19903, the Senior Secondary Assessment
Board of South Australia (SSABSA), has been
responsible for "the preparation and inspection ofsyllabi for all registered subjects for the high school
graduation qualifying examinations, and for the
preparation and grading of the qualifying examinations themselves.. It specifies the extent of Japanese
language skills to be achieved upon completion of thehigh school course of study. This syllabus is used as
the basis for the entire secondary school curriculum
through to the end of high school." (Haga)
In British Columbia, Canada, prior to 1985, Japanese
was taught in the local communities of Kamloops,
Richmond and Nanaimo. However, after the
Curriculum Guide for Japanese 9, 10, and Beginning

Japanese 11 was developed in 1985, Japanese wasoffered throughout the province, using a functional,
communicative approach, rather than a grammaticalone.
The textbooks prescribed by the Ministry weregrammar-oriented, making it difficult for the
Canadian teachers to integrate the texts and theCurriculum Guideline. The Ministry then funded thedevelopment of a Japanese Resource Book, asupplementary resource which provided effective
communicative activities for the secondary classrooms which were in line with the guidelines.
Additionally, due to the lack of native teachers, theMinistry of Education introduced a monitor system tomeet the needs of both the students and teachers. The
monitors assist with pronunciation, speaking andwriting skills; work closely with slower learners;
supply cultural resources; develop learning materials;
and sponsor Japanese clubs. Another purpose of themonitor system is to encourage native speakers who
hold Japanese degrees to obtain a teaching certificate
in B.C., thus helping to solve the problem of teacher
shortages.
The Canadian curriculum revision committee
recently developed a new guide in 1994 which isorganized into three basic areas: Language, Culture
and Society, and Communication Strategies.
"Language has been divided into skill elements oflistening, speaking, reading, and writing. Culture andSociety is not limited to the fine arts, performing arts,
crafts or fashion but encompasses contemporary andhistorical values and traditions of the society. By
using a selection of communication strategies,
students will enhance their language skills at alllevels." (Tsurumi)
Recently, more Asian ESL students in B.C. arestudying Japanese. The reasons for this increase
include fulfilling admission requirements for university in B.C.; improving career opportunities; andfeeling more comfortable with a familiar writing
system as opposed to studying French.
In 19080, New Zealand had 1,442 secondary students
studying Japanese (the fourth most popularinternational language after French, German and
Latin). By 1990, 12,442 secondary students werestudying Japanese, making it the second most popular
language. In 1994, 26,301 students were studying
Japanese in 236 out of 426 schools, making it the
number one most taught foreign language in New
Zealand. This increase is attributed to the fact thatJapan is New Zealand's most important trading
partner and future employment possibilities in trade
The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
7/12

or tourism have prompted this increase.
The main emphasis of the National Syllabus forstudents learning Japanese from Form 3 to Form 7(equivalent to grades 8 through 12) in New Zealandis "effective communication and the development of
the student's ability to understand and use Japanese inpractical communicative situations.""Because New Zealanders very quickly forget how towrite kanji unless they live in Japan, it was felt thatrecognition was more important than production."(Barrowman)
The syllabus is designed to help students to:understand the language spoken at moderate speed;
reply to questions on subjects within their linguistic
experience; read with reasonable fluency prose or
dialogue written in kana or kanji they have beentaught; write well-formed kana and kanji whereappropriate; express themselves in written Japanesewith reasonable accuracy and appropriate Japanesescript; use non-verbal conventions appropriate tosocial situations; acquire and demonstrate someknowledge and understanding of the general background of the Japanese people and their way of life;
develop greater awareness and respect for culturaldifferences." (Barrowman)
The topics covered in the syllabus are very similar tothe ones in the Washington State framework.
The Bursary Examination is administered to assess

the Japanese language taught. "The Bursary result isbased on an external national examination in
November (80%) and an internally assessed component (20%). The examination tests the skills oflistening, reading and writing, while the internallyassessed component is based on 3 speaking tests
administered by the class teacher during the year.
These tests must be recorded on tape and sent to the
New Zealand Qualifications Authority if requested."(Barrowman)
Many of the New Zealand schools have moved awayfrom romaji in favor of kana and since the mid 1 980s
a topic-based communicative approach has been inpractice.
An overview of the status of Japanese language
education in the United States followed by the history
of A Communicative Framework for Introductory
Japanese Language Curricula in Washington State
High Schools was given. To conclude the U.S. presentation on curriculum slides explaining the format
and content of the document was shown.
Interestingly enough, all of us discovered that weshare many of the same problems from teacher education and training issues to the lack of appropriatematerials. Holding an International Conference, suchas this, with other countries in the world that teachJapanese can only strengthen our programs as we
discuss concerns, share ideas, and solve problems. .
together.

The Sixth International Colloquium on Program Management in Japanese
Language Education (2)Ronald A Walton
The National Foreign Language Center at The Johns Hopkins University

T

he Japan Foundation recently held the Sixth
International Colloquium on Program
Management in Japanese Language Education
at the Foundation's Japanese Language Institute in
Urawa, Japan, December 8-9, 1994. Each year theFoundation invites participants from overseas toreport on the current state of Japanese language
education in their respective countries, as well as to
identify issues and needs which can assist theFoundation in formulating projects to strengthen
Japanese language instruction overseas. The theme ofthis year's colloquium was "Teaching Japanese as a
Foreign Language in Multicultural Society--Focusing
on Secondary Education" and the meeting was basedon reports from four English-speaking countries:
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UnitedStates.
Two participants were invited from each country, one
asked to report on Japanese language study andadministration within the broad context of the country's education system and the other asked to reporton issues and developments in the area of Japanese
language curriculum and teaching at the secondary
level. Ms. Leslie Birkland, Past-President of the
National Council of Secondary Teachers of Japanese,and teacher at Lake Washington High School andRon Walton, Deputy Director of the National Foreign

The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
8/12

Language Center were invited as the U.S.
representatives to the international colloquium. In
addition to the eight overseas representatives, themeeting was attended by approximately 25
representatives drawn from the Japan Foundation, theMinistry of Foreign Affairs, the National Language
Research Institute, the Japanese Language Institute,as well as from several Japanese Universities.
Ms. Birkland reported on curriculum issues at thesecondary level in the United States, gave a brief
overview of the national framework document A
Framework for Introductory Japanese Language
Curricula in American High Schools and Colleges,(by the National Foreign Language Center), andpresented a detailed description of the Washington
State framework: A Communicative Framework For
Introductory Japanese Language Curricula in
Washington State High Schools (produced by the
Washington State Japanese Language Curriculum
Guidelines Committee). The latter was presented as
an example of the type of curriculum development
work that is of current interest to many Japanese
language teachers and programs in U.S. secondary
schools. Her discussion included the necessity ofsetting goals, clarifying assumptions and principles,
distinguishing the role of the written language as
distinct from the spoken language, and the development of communicative skills as reflected in the newstate framework.
Professor Walton's presentation focused on the
broader national context including such areas as thenature of the U.S. education system (quite decentralized), language policy and language education policy,
the special status of the Less Commonly Taught
Languages in American secondary education and theevolution of Japanese language instruction at thesecondary level. His remarks included the need for astronger infrastructure to support Japanese language
instruction at the K- 12 level and the need for morecoordinated funding based on a national strategicplan, coordinated with state and local planning, forbuilding this stronger infrastructure.
Reports from the other English speaking countries
revealed considerable work on national frameworks
and plans. Japanese is now the priority foreign
language in Australia, which has developed a newnational language policy, and it is believed thatJapanese language enrollments in New Zealand havenow surpassed French enrollments, making Japanesethe most commonly taught foreign language in thatcountry. While Canada overall has not embraced
Japanese as a high priority language, this is not thecase in western Canada where concern with the
Pacific Rim continues to drive enrollments upward.
By contrast, Japanese at the secondary level in the
U.S., while showing considerable enrollment andprogram growth, remains within the three to four
percent of all secondary language enrollments inlanguages other than French, German, and Spanish.
Both formal and informal discussions of overseas
Japanese language instruction dominated the meetingand the Japanese hosts and well as the foreign visitors
explored a fascinating range of issues relevant to theteaching of Japanese in English speaking countries.
Participants were treated to a tour of theJapanese Language Institute, reports by various section heads of the Institute on current activities, andpresentations by representatives and officers of theJapan Foundation, the Japanese Language Instituteand other national organizations. Conferences such as
this offer a rare opportunity to compare the teachingof Japanese in other English speaking countries andto learn more about the efforts of the Japanese
Language Institute and the Japan Foundation in
working to strengthen the teaching of Japanese acrossthe globe. Papers presented at the colloquium will be
published by the Japan Foundation at a future dateand Japanese language educators in the U.S. may
wish to read what other countries are doing in therealm of Japanese language teaching and learning.

What Textbooks Are Used at the Secondary Level in 1994-95?

As a continuation from the survey results which appeared in the last issue of The Breeze, we decided to look atchanges in textbook usage from the survey that had taken place in the 1992-903 year. The data obtained forthis report was based on the applications for The Japan Foundation Material Donation and Salary Assistancegrant programs, and applications for our Center's summer workshops returned by April 1, 19905. The total data
entries were 125. Table 1 lists the textbooks used both at the middle/junior high and senior high school levels thisschool year. Level 1 indicates the first-year Japanese at the secondary school level, Level 2 the second year, and soforth.

The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
9/12

Table 2.1 shows the comparison between the ten most commonly used textbooks for Japanese language Levels 1
and 2 from the '94-'95 and '92-'93 school years. Table 2.2 shows a comparison between the ten most commonly used
textbooks for Levels 3 and 4. Levels were categorized into 1 & 2 and 3 & 4. As some textbooks come in two volume
sets, and many schools provide two years of instruction, we can see the general trend in Table 2.1, whereas in Table
2.2 we can see the textbooks used for the students who have studied more than two years.
Table 3 lists the textbooks currently available in the United States for the secondary school level. It includes
some textbooks designed for college and other levels that are used by some teachers at the secondary level.

The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
10/12

The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
11/12

The Breeze, No. 11 (July 1995)
12/12