A Communicative Framework for Introductory Japanese Language
Curricula in Washington State High Schools
Chris Brockett
Department of Asian Languages and Literature
University of WashingtonOver the past several years, the movement to
codify the content of foreign language
curricula has gained significant momentum
across the United States. Some projects have beennational-level efforts, for example, the National
Standards in Foreign Language Education, currently
being developed by the American Council on
Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), and the
project by the National Foreign Language Center(NFLC) at Johns Hopkins University, that led to the
publication of A Framework for Jntroductorv
Japanese Language Curricula in American HighSchools and Colleges in 1993. The field of Japanesepedagogy, in particular, has been characterized by anationwide surge of grass-roots efforts by state andregional groups of school teachers, impelled by arecognition of the need for standards and a consensus
on the content and goals of instruction.
In one such project, high school and college
instructors in Washington State have beencollaborating since 1991 to develop curricular
guidelines for Japanese language instruction in highschools. The resultant document, A Communicative
Framework for Introductory Japanese Language
Curricula in Washington State High Schools, waspublished by the Washington State Office ofSuperintendent of Public Instruction in September
this year. The objectives of this document, which is
now being distributed to schools and colleges acrossWashington State, are:
• To establish standards for communication-oriented
Japanese language instruction in Washington Statehigh schools, by defining a set of principled,reasonable achievable outcomes.
• To assist teachers by providing a framework forcourse design, textbook and materials selection, andlesson planning.
• To assist administrators in planning, implementing,and supporting Japanese language instruction, andcounselors in advising students on courses of study.
• To establish a conceptual framework on which tobase professional training and enhancement ofclassroom teachers.
• To established a conceptual framework for researchand debate about Japanese language instruction at thehigh school level.
• To establish a basis for articulation between highschool and college programs.
A Communicative Framework seeks to achieve thefollowing broad instructional outcomes. At the end of
three years of instruction under reasonably favorable
conditions, students should:• Be able to communicate accurately in spoken
Japanese in face-to-face situations involving Japanesenative speakers in Japan or in the United States, inconversations that fall within a specified range of
topic areas, communicative skills, and concepts.
• Possess a basic understanding of the culture ofcommunication in Japan, and other relevant Japanesesocial behavior, so that they can make informed
choices about how they will interact with Japanesepeople.
• Read and write the Japanese written language at anelementary level, consistent with the communicative
goals of the guidelines.
• Have acquired a solid foundation in the Japanese
language that will enable them to continue to learn
the language successfully at other educational
institutions in the United States, or while living,working or studying in Japan.
The committee responsible for A Communicative
The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
1/22

Framework believes that Japanese should be taught,
not as an abstract classroom exercise, but on theassumption that students will in fact use their
Japanese. We have presumed therefore that 1)
students will have opportunities, if not while at highschool, then shortly thereafter, to communicate inJapanese with Japanese speakers, and 2) they arelikely to use their Japanese language skills not only inJapan, but in the United States.

instructional issues, and defines sets of topic areas,
communicative skills and concepts, together withpertinent skill levels in spoken and written language
to be achieved after three years. Part II contains
inventories of topic areas, communicative skills, andconcepts, together with associated grammatical
patterns, phrases and vocabulary items that should beacquired by the end of three years. A "Practical Kanji
List" of 150 characters is appended for reference.

The committee has not sought to codify an existing
mediocrity. Rather than attempt to define an arbitrary
set of grammatical patterns to be taught in theclassroom, A Communicative Framework seeks to
identify a core set of likely communicative needs ofstudents in Japan and the United States, and to let thegrammatical content of instruction fall out of thoseneeds. In designing A Communicative Framework,
therefore, we have adopted and modified for Japanese,
the work of van Ek for the Council of Europe in the
mid-1970s, which has been widely used indeveloping communicative curricula for European
languages in some states.

The inventories in Part II do not present year-by-year
syllabuses. Aside from tending to make theguidelines too textbook-specific, such specifications
are apt to neglect local conditions: a school district
that has an active exchange program with Japanese
schools, for example, may reasonably want to seek todevelop its curriculum around that exchange program.
Development of year-by-year specifications is left toindividual programs or consortia of programs.

This communicative thrust has two important
corollaries. First, the emphasis is on acquisition of
spoken language skills for use in realistic situations inJapan or the United States. Particular emphasis isgiven to the development of natural discourse skills
appropriate to young people. Second, instruction isbased not on "language and culture," but "language inculture," that is, Japanese is to be taught in thecontext of the culture of communication and social
interaction, so that students can interact in an
informed manner with Japanese speakers.
Written language is also addressed. The document
specifies skills in reading and writing of hiragana
and katakana, and recognition of up to 120 kanji, tobe selected from a suggested list of 150 "Practical
Kanji." The ability to write of large numbers of kanji
from memory is not required. Rather than focus
excessively on mechanics of the writing system, A
Communicative Framework targets the developmentof global reading skills, specifying as objectives theability to skim and scan texts, as well as to readintensively when texts consist primarily of familiar
grammatical and lexical material. A crucial distinction is drawn between the use of written language
as a medium for language acquisition (a decoding
operation), and the instructional objective of enabling
students to read simple authentic materials forcomprehension and the extraction of information.
A Communicative Framework is structured in two
parts. Part I discusses general principles and

A Communicative Framework aims to facilitate
articulation between high school and college
Japanese language programs by promoting higher
standards of teaching and learning in the high schools.
It does not attempt to ram high school instruction into
the Procrustean bed of high education curricula, butseeks to be self-standing. By providing colleges anduniversities with information about the goals andcontent of high school instruction, in the long run, it
is hoped that they will be able to develop entry-level
programs that recognize and build upon the language
skills of the growing numbers of students whocommence their Japanese studies in Washington Statehigh schools.
Implementation of A Communicative Framework is
voluntary in Washington State high schools, and will
be accompanied by workshops and seminars forteachers over the next three years funded by privateand federal grants, including $58,000 under thefederal Chapter II Grant Program. The JapanFoundation is also assisting with the costs ofworkshops. The document, which as released is still
very much in the nature of a draft, will be revised
after feedback from teachers and reissued in a newedition at a later date.
Committee members who helped develop the
document include, in addition to the present writer,
Leslie Okada Birkland* of Lake Washington HighSchool; Masashi Kato* of Technical Japanese
Program, University of Washington (formerly of
Bellevue High School); Sandra Mizuno of theTechnical Japanese Program, University ofWashington (formerly of Bothell High School);
Mayumi Nishiyama Smith*, Director, Nippon
The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
2/22

Business Institute Japanese Language Program,Everett Community College; and Michio Tsutsui,
Director, Technical Japanese Program at the
University of Washington. Yumi Toma, Japanese
Language Consultant, Office of Superintendent of
Public Instruction and Yasuko Wada of Charles
Wright Academy, Tacoma and member of the NFLC
Framework Committee, served as advisory members.
The committee was assisted by a reaction panel oftwelve high school teachers drawn from across thestate who provided much crucial input in this unusual
collaboration among high school and college faculty.
Information about A Communicative Framework may
be obtained from:
Washington State Japanese Language Curriculum
Guidelines Committee
c/o The Japan America Society of Washington State
1800 9th Avenue, Suite 1550
Seattle, WA 98101

Contents
Part I. Framework
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Introduction
Assumptions and Principles
Linguistic Specifications
Written Language
Classroom Implementation

Part II. Inventories
Topic Areas
1.
Personal Information

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Family and Home
Education and Career
Japanese and Other Languages
Leisure and Recreation
Travel and Transportation
Health and Welfare
Shopping
Food and Drink
Services
Weather and Climate
Geography

Communicative Skills
1.
Socializing
2.
Getting Things Done
3.
Communicating Factual Information
4.
Communicating Opinions and Intellectual
Attitudes
5.
Communicating Emotional Attitudes
6.
Modulating Interpersonal Relations
7.
Managing Discourse
Concepts
1.
Existential Concepts
2.
Spatial Concepts
3.
Temporal Concepts
4.
Quantitative Concepts
5.
Physical Concepts
6.
Evaluative Concepts
7.
Referential Concepts
8.
Event-Related Concepts
9.
Logical Relations
Practical Kanji List
Useful Addresses
References
Index of Grammatical Patterns

College Board Test and Curricular Framework
Mari Noda
The Ohio State University
IntroductionT

he College Board Achievement Test inJapanese with Listening (re-named the SAT II
Subject Test in Japanese with Listening,hereafter the Japanese Test) was developed

simultaneously with A Framework for Introductory
Japanese Language Curricula in American HighSchools and Colleges (1993, Unger et. al, hereafterreferred to as The Framework). While it was
important for The Framework to be established inorder to develop a meaningful achievement test, it
The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
3/22

was also felt that the Japanese Test could also be
instrumental in moving the field in the direction
recommended in The Framework. The results of thefirst two administrations of the Japanese Test in 1993
indicate that the Japanese Test is useful in measuring
the achievement of current secondary school learnersof Japanese, as well as in directing the Japanese
language curricula in secondary schools.
The Japanese Test
SAT II Subject Test in Japanese with Listening
consists of 80 to 85 multiple-choice questions in threeparts:
Listening, Usage, and Reading.' In order to answer
the questions in the Listening section, test takers need
to identify the general content of the conversation or
the monologue as well as sociolinguistic informationsuch as the relationship between the speakers. The
Usage section tests the learner's ability to complete
Japanese sentences in a way that is appropriate interms of structure, vocabulary, and social context.
The items in this section are given in three-column
format, providing the same information in threedifferent types of orthography that beginning learnersof Japanese are likely to know. The Reading section
questions are based on texts such as notes, menus,
advertisements, letters, and excerpts from newspaper
articles and essays. A short explanation is given foreach text. The questions and options in this section
are printed in English.
At the end of the test, participants are asked toanswer a set of questions about their background instudies of Japanese. Answers to these questions areused to perform statistical analyses of the test results.
Who took the Japanese Test?
Figure 1 summarizes the participants of the Japanese
Test administered in April and November of 1993.2
A total of 2,800 people participated, and a little overhalf of them came from the target group called the"academic group"-those students whose knowledgeof Japanese came primarily from two or more yearsof high school instruction (College Board publication#207132,1993). In other foreign language tests, morethan 80% of the participants belonged to theacademic group in the respective languages. The
Japanese academic group had the mean score of 521
in April and 505 in November. The difference
between the mean scores of the academic group fromthe two administrations was not statistically significant.

There was a noticeable difference in the distributionof sub-groups between the Japanese academic groupand the academic groups of the other foreign
languages with listening, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Less than 1% of the test takers in French, German,
Spanish tests reported less than two years of study ofthat language in high school. The largest sub-group inthese languages had studied the language for four
years or longer. In contrast, 13% of the Japanese test
takers had less than two years of high school
Japanese, only 11% had four years.
How did the candidates do in the Japanese Test?
In the April administration, 61.1% of the academic
group completed the test, 80% reached the 77th itemout of 80 items in the test, and 99.9% completed 75%of the test. These results indicate that the test was ofreasonable length for the time allotted to theparticipants.
The number of years of Japanese studied in highschool positively correlated to the mean test scores.
This is shown in Figure 3. For example, in April,participants with less than two years of study had themean score of 463 while those with four years of highschool Japanese had the mean score of 566. The
mean score for those whose knowledge of Japanesecame primarily from Nihongo Gakko3 was 665 and
The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
4/22

native speakers had the mean score of 754. The
November results showed a very similar curve.

The difficulty level of the different sections of thetest is measured not with their mean scores, but witha special statistical device called 'observed delta". In
comparison with the average observed delta for all
foreign language tests, the most difficult section in
the Japanese test was the Usage section, and the leastdifficult was the Reading section. The Listening
section was only slightly more difficult than the
average.
Curricular Considerations: Where do we go fromhere?
From the results of the 1993 administrations of theJapanese Test, several observations and conjectures
can be made about the current state of Japanese
programs in secondary schools. First, the longer
students study Japanese in high schools, the better
they tend to do on theJapanese Test. This is encouraging for it means thatthe effect of the instruction is reflected in test
performance. It should be noted, however, that thebiggest difference in mean scores is seen between
two and three years of study. The first two years
seem to make only a small difference.
Second, the majority of the Japanese programs seem
to offer only one or two years of instruction. The
small number of students who have had three or four
years of study seem to do well. It may be the casethat students at schools that offer three or four years
of instruction do much better than those whose
schools offer only one or two years of Japanese.
While no data is available yet to substantiate such ahypothesis, schools with four-year curriculum are
more likely to have a full-time teacher of Japanese
dedicated to building the program at the school. It
may be worth comparing the performance of students
with two years of study in a fuller program with thatof students studying in programs that only go up tosecond-year Japanese.
Third, the products of Japanese programs insecondary schools tend to be weak on accuracy instructure, vocabulary use, and social context. Usagequestions come closest to testing production skills
since test takers are required to synthesize a sentence.
Low level of performance in Usage section may be
indicative of the misplaced goals in some curricula. It
may for example, be that much greater emphasis isplaced on receptive skills over productive skills, orthat too much focus on communication is causing
accuracy and appropriate use of the language tosuffer.
There are some things that the early results cannot
tell us. For example, we don't know anything about
the correlation between the Japanese Test scores andplacement into college-level Japanese. We will haveto wait until College Board releases an old test form
for use by college programs, and a sufficient numberof learners in college programs have taken such atest.4 It will be important for college teachers to findout if any of their students with previous backgroundin Japanese have had the College Board Japanese
Test and see if the score differences are meaningful indetermining the students' placement.
Footnotes
1. For more detail and sample questions, see Taking
the SAT II Subject Tests, published by the College
Board each year and distributed to high school
counselors. For information about the SAT IP
Japanese Test with Listening, contact Brian O'Reilly,
director of SAT Program Operations andDevelopment. The College Board, 45 Columbus
Avenue, New York, NY
10023-6992.
2. The Japanese Test will be given only once a year
starting November, 1994.
3. In most Nihongo Gakko, curriculum is designed
primarily for Japanese children who are in the U.S.
temporarily.

4. I have tried to gather some data on this point, butdata is still insufficient for making any conclusive
remarks.
References
College Board. 1994. Taking the SAT II Subject Tests
1994-95 (#200701).

The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
5/22

____________ 1994. Revised Interpreting Scores on
the French, German, Japanese, and Spanish
Achievement Tests with Listening: November 1 993(#207132)____________ 1994. SAT II Japanese Subject Test:
Use theResults to make Important Placement or Admission

Decision for Your Students.
Unger, J. Marshall et al. 1993. A Framework for
Introductory
Japanese Language Curricula in American HighSchools and Colleges. Washington, D.C.: The
National Foreign Language Center.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
6/22

Report from the 1994 JF'LC Summer Workshop for Teachers of Japanese
Noriko Yokoyama, Chief Language Specialist, JFLC
Kimiko Kabutomori, Lecturer, JFLC
Hiroko Furuyama, Lecturer, JFLCT

he Japan Foundation Language Center
offered three sessions of 5-day summer workshop for in-service secondary school teachersof Japanese (June 20-24, June 27-July J and July 1116). We had a total of 20 participants, all of whom
successfully completed the course. This article
reports on the goal, content and evaluation of theworkshop.
1. Goal
Education in the United States is characterized by its
diversity and variety because of its decentralized
educational system and spirit of freedom. This fact
led us to target participants to explore and develop"better teaching" for their own teaching contexts withpractice-oriented minds, rather than only tofamiliarize participants with techniques and skills
based on theory-oriented methodologies.
Thus the goal of the workshop was set to foster
participants' critical self-awareness and self-evaluation of their own teaching because of the following
reasons. (1) in pursuing learner-centered principles
for language teaching, "better teaching" cannot beprescribed by any supervisor who does not directly
know the learners, but can be developed only by theteachers themselves. (2) Opportunities for self-evaluation should help the teachers explore and develop"better teaching" for their own teaching contexts.
2. Content Pre-Workshop Assignment
Pre-Workshop Assignment had been sent a few
weeks before the first workshop. The participants
were asked to send a one-class hour audio- or videorecording of their teaching a class with a teachingplan and self-evaluation. The purpose of theassignment was for participants to have theopportunity to self-evaluate their teaching, and for us
to determine the needs of the participants.
Introduction
The participants were familiarized with the purpose
and content of the workshop.
Principles
The participants were familiarized with the principles
of proficiency-oriented language instruction. First, asa warm-up, the principles that each participant had
already been familiar with were discussed using aquestionnaire that we had prepared. Then, after
reading "Hypotheses/Corollaries" (Omaggio 1993:
77-88), the participants discussed which"Hypotheses/Corollaries" they would like toaccomplish in their teaching during this workshop.
Application
How to apply the principles of proficiency-oriented
instruction to lesson plans and classroom activities
were covered through demonstrations and discussion.
A. Structure of the lesson
The following is the basic four stages that we pursued
in this workshop.*
1) Presentation (Introduction)• Provide contextualization for learning• Make students focus on the learning item
(Form/meaning/usage)• Let students know the objective or learning
outcome of the lesson
2) Practice for Accuracy (Practice of Linguistic
Forms)• Make students use the words and structures in acontrolled way3) Practice for Fluency (Practice of Usage in
Discourse)• Make students use the language in lesscontrolled/more realistic/authentic way• Let students create their own language
4) Evaluation & Feedback• Check whether students have understood/become
able to use the language freely• Give appropriate feedback according to yourobservation and evaluation.
*A single class hour may not include all these stages.
The stages are in no fixed order.
B. Designing classroom activities
The first three stages were closely examined throughthe demonstration and criteria. The following is thecheckpoints of each stage.
Presentation• Showing meaning through a situation/context• Showing meaning visually• Giving several examples• Using students' ability to guess
Practice for Accuracy• Mechanical -- Meaningful
The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
7/22

• Get students to talk about real life (themselves, theirfriends, and things in the world)• Give situations which imply the structure, but leave
the students to decide exactly what to say• Active interaction among students
Practice for Fluency• Use language in a context likely to be encountered• Discourse (beginning -- end)
• Real life situation• Natural conversation• Express students' own meaning• Active communicative interaction among students• Practice carrying out functions
After demonstrations and explanations of checkpoints,
the participants were asked to design and demonstrateactivities of the given task in each stage in a small
group. The example of the task is in the following:
Please make a "Practice for Fluency" to perform thejunction ' to express and inquire about likes anddislikes.'
Text Selection and Supplementary Materials
Participants evaluated the textbook currently used intheir high schools and another from our library interms of lesson objectives, relevance to students'
needs, vocabulary, grammatical explanation, andexercises. The purpose of this session was to reassure
and/or select a textbook to better match the students'
needs and interests after identifying strengths andweaknesses of the textbooks.
After learning in what each textbook was deficient,participants explored the supplementary materials,
such as picture cards, video, and activity books,
available in our library in order to find materials to
make up for the deficiencies of the textbooks.
Making A Teaching Plan
Since the goal of this workshop was to foster theparticipants' critical self-awareness and self-evaluation, they planned, demonstrated, and self-evaluatedtheir own teaching on the basis of the goals which
they had set for themselves. Adapting the idea of"Action Research Project" introduced in Nunan(1989), the procedure for developing a plan of action
to improve one's own teaching were: 1) declare what
aspects of teaching one would like to improve after
listening or viewing one's own pre-workshop
assignment, 2) plan, implement, and demonstratesimulated teaching, 3) reflect on one's own teachingafter viewing his/her video in relation with the focal
aspects declared, and 4) discuss self-evaluation
together in a group and think about what subsequentactions one would like to take after going back to
his/her school.

Each participant chose and analyzed a lesson fromthe textbook selected for the simulated teaching.
He/she analyzed a whole lesson in relation to lesson
objectives, topics, vocabulary, communicative
functions, grammatical items, types of exercises, andaccompanying materials. In addition, he/she added
and/or omitted some of the items considering his/her
students' needs and readiness.
In making a teaching plan, each participant chose theamount of items which could be covered in 40
minutes and planned a lesson. There were two
requirements for a teaching plan. One of them was tocover the three stages discussed in the earlier"Designing classroom activities" session; i.e.,
Presentation, Practice for Accuracy, and Practice for
Fluency. The other was to set a lesson objective
based on communicative functions.
Simulated Teaching
Each participant demonstrated his/her 40-minuteteaching while others acted as students. Before eachdemonstration, the participant who acted as a teacher
informed others of his/her actual class, such as what
his/her students had learned prior to the lesson. Eachdemonstration was video-recorded and given to theparticipant as a resource for self-evaluation. In the
15-minute discussion after the demonstration, theteacher made comments based on what he/she
declared to focus in simulated teaching. Then, others
gave comments and suggestions based on theirexperience as students.
Self-Evaluation
Each participant viewed his/her own simulatedteaching video and evaluated him/herself based on
the following questions: 1) how were goals ofteaching set in Action Research Project achieved andwhy, and 2) what part of simulated teaching shouldbe implemented when applying for actual classroom
teaching? After individually viewing and filling out aself-evaluation sheet, all the participants discussed
and exchanged opinions regarding their simulatedteaching and self-evaluations.
Guest Speaker
We invited a teacher who was experienced inteaching Japanese at the pre-collegiate level as aguest speaker. The guest speaker led a session on
his/her expertise. A sample of topics covered in thesession are listed below: 1) how to motivate students
and maintain their interests in learning Japanese, 2)
how to manage to teach the large number of students
in class, and 3) how to develop a curriculum.

The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
8/22

3. Evaluation
In evaluating the workshop, we compared two "selfevaluations" carried out by the participants firstly inthe pre-workshop assignment and secondly after thesimulated teaching. It was observed that, for most of
the participants, the second self-evaluation was morecritical and analytical compared to the first selfevaluation. This could be attributed to the fact thatthe participants had plenty of opportunities to reflect
on their teaching while planning and implementing
simulated teaching, critically reviewing the activities

using the framework of "Structure of the lesson", andself-evaluating their own teaching. The results of theworkshop-evaluation questionnaire from theparticipants also showed that "Structure of the lesson"and simulated teaching are effective.
References
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for theCommunicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Omaggio, A. 1993. Teaching Language in Context.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Making of Textbooks (2)A Textbook for Young Students
Hisako Yoshiki
Japanese Language Consultant
State of Wisconsin, Dept. of Public InstructionT

he purpose of this article is not to talk about aparticular textbook which I had been engaged
in producing in 1988 and 1990, or to promoteit, but it is rather by discussing the process of
textbook production, to raise questions as to whether
it is really necessary to write a textbook for the young
learners of Japanese; or if it is, then what type of
textbooks would be needed for the current dynamic
and diverse learners. Therefore this article can beconsidered as a kind of record of before and after the
textbook production, and how the authors' concept of
the role of a textbook has changed during the past ten
years before and after the production.
The background of the textbook
Nihongo Kantan: Speak Japanese, a textbook foryoung students was written when the authors, Sakaand myself were teaching at the international schools
in Japan at the pre-collegiate level. There was next tonothing for the high school levels nor for the
middle/Jr. high levels. Thus all the teachers then werecurriculum writers, teachers, and textbook writers at
the same time. They both suffered from the fact of
having no textbooks to follow and, at the same time,enjoyed the freedom of not having to become a slaveto the textbook.
Description of the target group
Our students were the students in the middle schooland early stage of Sr. high school at the international
schools which usually adopt American styleeducation and use English as the language ofcommunication. They are in Japan because of theparents' decision and not on their own. The length of
the stay is usually between 6 months to 5 years.
For the students at the latter part of the secondary
schools, college level textbooks could be adopted,
even though the topics dealt with in those textbooks
needed to be altered to suit their age level, but for the
younger students there were none, not even acurriculum guideline. That was the reason why theauthors felt that it was necessary to do something
about it; something to share what they had learned
from their experiences with the novice teachers sothat this textbook would free them from at least
preparing the basic teaching materials of day to dayteaching obligations and they would be able to spend
their time and energy on teaching itself and to bringin more interesting cultural activities into theclassrooms.
The goals of the textbook
What we had in our mind then was something like asimple framework type book which enabled teachers
to adapt to their own teaching situations but it should
not fail to include everything necessary for students
to communicate in Japanese. This is what we learned
from our experiences that would benefit the students.
First, the materials should be suitable to the learner'sage, should promote the meaningful and purposefullanguage use, and should be full of activities which
encourage learners to communicate in Japanese.
Students should be able to enjoy studying Japanese.
The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
9/22

Second, students will build up a concept to be a
global citizen through studying another language
different from their own, which in this case wasJapanese. While students learn the Japanese language,
they, at the same time, learn about the people who
use the language and how they live, which ultimately
may help them grow to be more broadminded world
citizens. This was our biggest goal. Then students
will be able to learn how to learn cooperatively with
their classmates, since an international school often
has more than 60 different nationalities and they needto learn to be cooperative and kind to each other,rather than competing with each other.
Needs analysis
Before starting writing and also while writing, thestudents were often asked in which situations they
wished to be able to speak Japanese in order to maketheir life in Japan easier.

Questionnaire
Name

Grade______JFL (A, B, C, D, 0) JNL (A, B, C, D, E, F)
1. How long have you been living in Japan?
_____years _____ months
2.What language do you speak at home?

3.Which language can you speak besides English?

4.Have you studied Japanese before? EL Yes EL No
If Yes, please state where and for how long you havestudied.

5. Why do you want to study Japanese?

6. By the end of the course, what would you like tobe able to do with Japanese?

From these questionnaires, we found out that at thevery beginning level the students needed to havesurvival skills in the communities where English was
not spoken. A cultural component was based on theculture embedded in the language use and not somuch on traditional culture, for at most international
schools located in Japan, cultural components aredealt with in the classes such as social studies, Asianstudies, or more specifically in Japan studies.
Students have usually abundant opportunity to
explore Japanese culture on their own.
At the same time, main textbooks of the beginningstage available for college level, which includes
Introduction to Modern Japanese were closely
examined in the area of grammatical structures andother grammatical elements and as the result, it was
concluded that at a very beginning level where thelearners are still seeking survival skills, there was not
so much difference in the functions andcorresponding grammar even for the young learners.
The difference might lie in the socio-cultural areas as
to whether the complicated structure of Keigo should
be taught or not. Saka and I decided that if our target
students can handle the "desu" and "masu" stylecorrectly, they would be able to get things done forthem without offending the grown-up persons theywould encounter, so most of the Keigo was taken out.
Then the functions were matched to the situations andtopics where these expressions are used. The
vocabulary was then decided on the basis of thesituations and topics.
Articulation to the senior high school program
Another important element to consider was thearticulation to their courses taught at the high schoollevels. Even though the students enjoy learning
Japanese, unless they can continue their study ofJapanese, we cannot say that we are serving theirneeds. Even though the middle school level should
not be looked upon as a mere preparation stage forhigh school Japanese, if they had to restart their study
from the very beginning we are not doing service tothe students either. Therefore the sequencing of thegrammatical continuation was seriously taken into
consideration. At each different stage before a newgrammatical item is introduced the previously learned
ones are reviewed, even though the main emphasis ison
helping
students
developtheirown
communication skills.
Topic/situation and vocabulary
Topics and situations were chosen to suit the needs ofthe young learners who were living in Japanaccompanied by their parents, and studying Japanese
as a foreign language at the international schools.
Therefore the topics like going to the bank to open an
account or going to a housing agency to get
assistance to rent a room was not included. Instead,
topics on their favorite sports, food, hobbies, school
life, or going around in the communities on their own,
The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
10/22

something more related to their realistic daily lives
were chosen. Then the vocabulary was decided inrelation to the topics.
How our concept changed; do we still need to
produce more "textbooks"?
When we started to think about writing this series in
1984, there was a definite need, for there was noteven a curriculum guide available. After ten years,
things have drastically changed and we can easily
name ten different textbooks for pre-collegiate level.
The national curriculum for K-12 Japanese has been
completed in Australia to be shared with everybody
in the world, more (at least 2) are coming up here in
the US for the same level. So, if you have time andenergy to produce "textbooks" I would adopt andadapt them into your own teaching situations. We
need more opportunities to learn about how to use
authentic materials. In order to do that we need a lot
more opportunity to get to know what is available
and to consider to use such materials. Teachers
workshops could accomplish both goals.

Creative teachers
Teachers might wish to have a textbook which has
everything in it and all they have to do is to follow itfrom page to page. It would be so nice to have atextbook which has all kinds of exercises,
grammatical explanations, cultural notes and eventests to assess the student's progress. A perfect textbook, if there is any, may be very useful but at thesame time, it may have the danger of making theteachers and students its slaves. What students reallyneed is not a perfect textbook but teachers who arefree and creative, and above all, who care about the
kids.
Whatever textbook teachers may use in teaching
Japanese, they have to decide their goals and objectives in order to meet students' needs. Then teachers
must organize the course and prepare resources. Thismeans that a textbook should be considered as one of
the resources and not as the curriculum. This is thebasic and the biggest change in our thinking, fordifferent resources are being needed at every stage oflanguage learning and teaching.

Technology Yes, But Student Centered
Kazuo Tsuda
United Nations International School(This is an extract from the paper presented at the 2nd Princeton Japanese Pedagogy workshop,
May 1994.)
1. Introductions you know already, one of the new practices
is computer assisted instruction (CAl). Our
challenge is to discover how to use CAl,which includes multi media, with the new computer
generation we have today, in the secondary school.
This paper describes a CAl program-theMultipurpose Language Program. This program canbe used to help transform traditional teacher-centeredinstruction to student-centered learning.

A

2. Post-Textbook
I want to discuss first the "post-textbook" aspect ofthe program. In the post-textbook situation thestudents are confronted with an alterable page withwhich they can interact (interface with the text.) They
can initiate behavior that turns study into play. The
students have the possibility of altering the text; they
can add their own text to the printed image, thus

creating their own text and simulating unpredictablelanguage activity. In simulating interactive language
activity, we escape the teacher-and-textbook
dominated class situation in which the student
passively absorbs instructional material. Under posttextbook conditions the students become the center of
their own language learning activity. In this way thepassive learner becomes an active learner-participant
in meaningful language activity.
Interacting with this post-textbook, students arestimulated to move as rapidly as they can. Thus the
program produces optimal self-pacing. This is a clear
advantage of this program over the traditional
teacher-centered classroom. The Multipurpose
Language Program can be used more creatively.
The self-sorting index feature of the program permits
the teacher or the student to creatively respond to
The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
11/22

particular needs. Student or teacher can arrange orrearrange the text by choosing a modular element, i.e.,a situation, a function, a grammatical structure, acommunication strategy. A definite advantage of the
program over the traditional text is that both student
and teacher can tailor material (text) to theirindividual needs. In the traditional textbook all pages
are bound. Page one can never become page fifteen
or page fifty.
The teacher can even add authentic material: theteacher can purchase CD-ROM disks from Japan anduse them as text support. The students can add theirown authentic material or their own creative ideas or
they can add to their video portfolio.
So this post-textbook program induces self paced
interactive participation. It can be used with any traditional textbook-perhaps we can now call thempaleo" textbooks, or the program can be used on its
own.
(Figure 1)

3.1
Student Centered
The new computer technology supports the shift fromteacher-centered classes to student-centered classes.
This shift lays the foundation for developing newstudent competencies. We can measure themovement in a particular classroom from teachercentered instruction to student-centered learning. I
will be describing the stages of the shift, based on theperformance-based foreign language instruction andoutcome-based foreign language instruction.
3.1.1
Guided Observation
In the first stage of the shift, the computer displays
and introduces authentic materials. Students listen to
the audio component while viewing images of, forexample, Japan.
3.1.2
Guided Analysis
In the second step of the shift, the computer is anassistant to the teacher in a teacher-centered class.
The computer displays and explains the structure of
the language and the strategy of communication. The
students rearrange the text by choosing a modular
element, e.g., a situation, a function, a grammaticalstructure, and a communication strategy.
3.1.3
Guided PracticeIn the third stage, the computer is still an assistantwith the teacher in a teacher-centered class. The
computer supports students in self-paced learning
through drills and practice and writing in order tohelp them to memorize. Even though students use
technology in the traditional classroom, this step
moves the students in the direction of moreautonomous learning.
3.1.4
Simulated Interactive Performance
In the fourth stage, the computer technology provides
greater motivation for students to work with theirpeers. In this stage, teachers and students are given
new direction. Now, the teacher may introduce aformat but the students supply the content to create
the simulations. Teachers see their students' skill andknowledge from a different point of view. The
characteristic roles of teacher and student change
drastically at this stage.
3.1.5
Interactive Performance
In the fifth stage, the greater student advances occur
in classes where teachers begin to achieve a balance
between the appropriate use of direct instruction
strategies
andcollaborative,
inquiry-driven
knowledge-construction strategies. Students start tocollect information using multiple devices andformats. They can organize this information, linking
both visual and audio elements (e.g. responding inspeech to a written cue displayed on the computer
screen). They can create their own performanceoutcomes and see them on their screen or hear them,correcting or modifying them as they see fit. They
can use the same technology to communicate theirideas to others, to discuss and evaluate theirperformances-outcomes.
3.2
Roles
3.2.1
Teacher Role
Technology changes the characteristic role of theteacher. In the traditional classroom teachers dominate, presenting their knowledge and skill as a model
for pupils. In the student-centered class, the teacher
cannot do this. In the fourth and fifth stage the role ofteachers change from the role of lecturer and expert
to sometimes learner and sometimes collaborator.
3.2.2.

Student Role
The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
12/22

Although computers and other technologies are
increasingly important for our generation, they arevitally important for the next generation, they arevitally important for the next generation. This
generation was born into the electronic environment.
This process makes it easy for our students to change
the role from listener to collaborator or expert. This iswhat happens in the fourth and fifth stages.
4.
Advantage of Student-Centered Class
4.1
Learning Styles/Variety of Learning
Styles in the Student-Centered Classroom
Although in the traditional classroom the teacher
instructs the students, the knowledge and skills cannot be transferred directly from the teacher to thestudents. Students have many different learning styles.
Students are most often compelled to learn a subject
using the teacher's learning style. For this reason
students who have different learning styles will often
have difficulty with a subject. In student-centerededucation we see many different types of learning
styles. All types mingle in student-centerededucation.
4.2.
Advantage of Student-Centered ClassMy Multipurpose Language Program allows students
to use the learning style they are most comfortable
with, but by encouraging collaborative work, it
enables students to develop and expand their learning
abilities. This may be perhaps the greatest advantageof the Multipurpose Language Program.

What We've Learned," Educational Leadership
Vol.51, 7,4-10
Means, B. 1994. "The Link Between Technology andAuthentic Learning" Educational Leadership
Vol.51,7 15-18
McCarthy, Bernice. 1980. The 4 MAT System,
Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/Left Mode
Techniques, Excel
McCarthy, Bernice. 1990. "Using the 4 MAT System
to Bring Learning Styles to Schools" Educational
Leadership Vol.51,7 31-37
Miyata, Kazuo. 1994. "Secondary School Japanese
Language Education in America" Sankei Shinbun,
Feb 22
Peck, K. 1994. "Why Use Technology?" Educational
Leadership Vol.51, 7 11-14
Tsuda, Kazuo. 1994. "Letter from
NEASTJ Newsletter, 2-4

President"

Valette, R.M. 1994. "Teaching, Testing, andAssessment: Conceptualizing the Relationship",
Teaching, Testing, and Assessment, Northeast
Conference Reports: 1-42

(Figure 2)

References
Dwyer, D. 1994. "Apple Classroom of Tomorrow:

The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
13/22

Yookoso: A Textbook as a Tool to Create an Enriched Learning Environment
Yasu-Hiko Tohsaku
University of California, San DiegoO

ne of language instructors' roles is to createan "enriched" learning environment which
fosters and facilitates students' language
acquisition inside and outside the classroom.
Yookoso: An Invitation to Contemporary Japanese,
beginning-level Japanese textbook published from
McGraw-Hill, Inc.*, is intended to be an instructional
tool that helps instructors create the optimal
environment for Ianguage learning as well as
maximize students' learning efficiency.
I would like to briefly discuss the designing anddevelopment principles of this textbook which will
help the users design and deliver their instruction
efficiently.
Effective Activities for Language Acquisition
Yookoso is written for a class whose learning goal isto acquire functional, communicative abilities ofJapanese in four skills. It is based on a systematic
syllabus of topics, functions, situations, and notions
that students must be able to handle in order toeffectively function in Japanese. The first step toacquire a foreign language is to be exposed to language input. Yookoso provides authentic, natural
language input through modeling and demonstration.
It also includes a variety of activities through which
students are exposed to a large volume of input.
Second language acquisition research indicates that
Learners' active involvement (experiential learning),
interactive, cooperative learning, meaningfulness(relevancy to learner's needs and interests) andcontext-richness of activities, use of higher-order ofcognitive skills, pleasant learning conditions, andlearners' strong motivation are contributing factors toeffective language learning. Activities in Yookoso aredesigned and developed with these factors in mind.
Flexible Organization Accommodating a Wide
Range of Learners' Needs
Curriculum goals and instructional design must be
shaped by learners' needs (including learning goals,
learning style, previous learning experience, andlanguage aptitude level) and instructional conditions(class time, class size, etc.). In designing anddeveloping Yookoso, every effort was made so that
instructors can flexibly and freely select and ordermaterials, and adjust the amount of materials used

inside and outside the classroom depending on
curriculum goals and learners' needs. Yookoso's
flexible organization of various types of activities
helps instructors provide learners with an enrichedlearning environment in a coherent, consistent fashion. For instance, Yookoso makes it possible for
instructors to sequence activities in the following
ways.
• input (comprehension) activities
4 output (production) activities• skill-getting activities
4 skill-using activities• teacher-led activities
4 pair/group activities• controlled activities
4 creative, open-ended activities
In addition to the main text, Lab Manual/Workbook
includes diversified activities that can be used either
inside or outside the classroom. Teacher's Manual
provides suggestions for additional activities.
Integrated Approach to Language Learning andTeaching
Time is a precious resource for instruction. We haveusually more content to cover than class time. One
solution to this problem is to assign self-learnable
materials (i.e., what students can study on their own)
as homework, concentrating in class on what we cando only inside the classroom (e.g., activities requiring
interactions with classmates and the instructor).
Recent second language acquisition researchdemonstrates that explicit grammar instruction has arelatively small, though not totally negligible, impact
on language acquisition. In Yookoso, thus, grammar
explanations are clear and simplified so that students
can learn grammar independently outside theclassroom. Students also learn grammar integrally
through classroom interactive activities. The
separation of grammar explanations from oral andother activities in Yookoso makes it possible forstudents to study grammar inductively or deductively
depending upon their learning style or grammar
items.
Other means used in Yookoso to make efficient use oflimited class time is to promote transfer andintegration of four skills in a coordinated, systematicmanner. Students are given opportunities to apply
items acquired in, for example, reading activities to

The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
14/22

oral activities or writing activities, etc.
Textbook for a "Learner-Centered" Classroom
Traditional language textbooks, as an authoritative,complete document for language teaching, limit
curriculum goals and instructional design to thosewhich the authors considered appropriate. Such a"textbook-centered" approach, ignoring learner's
needs in particular circumstances, does notnecessarily create the optimal learning condition. In
this approach, most likely, learners are passive participants who simply receive and repeat the information presented in the text ("chew-and-spew" use of
textbooks). An active process of language development does not take place.
I strongly believe that language textbooks must be aresource tool that helps learners build theirknowledge and improve their skills while actively C
involving in, taking an initiative in, and taking control over their learning process. Yookoso's diversified
content and flexible organization, combined withneeds analysis, adequate goal setting, and effective
instructional design and delivery, allow instructors tocreate an input-rich, context-rich, acquisition-richenvironment where learners, as active participants intheir learning process, can maximize language
acquisition.
*Lab Manual/Workbook, audiotapes, and Teacher's
Manual are also available. The second volume,
Yookoso: Continuing with Contemporary Japanese,
accompanying video and computer program will beavailable later this year.

Making of 中・上級教科書
Yoshiko Higurashi
San Diego State UniversityI

am honored to share with you some points I
noted when I was developing the manuscripts ofCurrent Japanese: Intercultural Communication(Tokyo: Bonjinsha, 1987, henceforth CJ) for intermediate or advanced college students of Japanese andAdvanced Japanese: Social and Economic Issues inJapan and the U.S. (Tokyo: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich Japan, 1990, henceforth AJ) for advanced
college students.
Problems and Needs of Students
When I began writing CJ in 1983, the first step was toanalyze the most common problems among mystudents. They were frustrated with outdated material
in their textbooks, they had misconceptions about
Japan, and they were unable to discuss current issues
effectively in Japanese. There were few students withstrong language skills who were interested andknowledgeable about the influence of cultural
heritage on the people and society of modern Japan.
Thus, I saw a need to promote intercultural communication along with practical language skills. It
was evident that my students needed a text which
would (1) help students develop their language skills
for the purpose of communication, (2) give a sense ofcurrentness, (3) present an accurate picture of modern
Japan, and (4) introduce up-to-date cultural topics.

Create Your Own Guidelines
Once the problems and needs of students are
identified, the next step is to create our own guidelines for the text, by asking ourselves general yet
fundamental questions. These questions may include
the following:
1.
What level is to be targeted: elementary,intermediate, or advanced?
2. Is the audience at the collegiate level or secondary
level?
My decision to write CJ for those who had completed
an elementary level Japanese text for college students
determined the level. My audience would haveapproximately 180 hours to 240 hours of instruction
and could be at the intermediate or advanced level
depending upon the curriculum at their institution.
3. What materials do we presume to have been
covered in the previous text?
4. What are the goals of the text? What do we expect
our students to have achieved by the time they finish
the text?
5. What kinds of specific tasks/functions (e.g. how tostart/end conversations, how to explain uneasy
situations, how to apologize, and how to
support/oppose opinions), con texts (e.g. formalinformal, superior-inferior, male-female), content,
and text types must we provide in order to attain the

The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
15/22

goals of the text?
The ultimate outcomes I sought for students who use
CJ were (a) a remarkable improvement of communication skills, (b) wider perspectives on the world,and (c) the development of a warmer attitude toward
people with different cultural backgrounds.
I wanted my students to feel comfortable communicating in more than simple paragraphs. Eachstudent, whether speaking or writing, should be able
to express complex opinions on a wide variety of
topics using the logic and style appropriate to theJapanese cultural context.
6. Why do we have to write our own text? Isn't there
any text available to accommodate our needs? If not,what kind of contribution can we make to the field by
writing our own?
7. Do we create original stories/conversations, or do
we compile authentic materials? What are the pros
and cons of controlled vs. authentic materials?
8. How many class hours does it take to finish eachlesson and the whole text? What lesson plans are
possible for each lesson?
9. How should each lesson be organized?
10. What kinds of drills, exercises, and activities will
best support each lesson?
My Own Guidelines
In the process of developing CJ, I kept the following
points in mind:
1. Create a text which makes it possible to require
students to use only Japanese as a means ofcommunication.
2. Write the author's original stories in Japanese.
Introduce language and culture in a systematic andgraded manner.
3. Create main characters who are American students(one male student and one female student, allowing
the introduction of both male and female styles ofJapanese) who have just moved to Japan after taking
elementary Japanese in college.
4. Create ten life-like situations based upon the
problems they encounter in Japan, and assign them toten lessons.
5. Devote each lesson to one major topic. Coveressential topics discussed in the theory ofintercultural communication.
6. Keep the organization of the main story consistent:
the situation is explained, the issue is raised, and the
problem is solved. Both a written style and a series of
conversations must be used in each story.
7. Set up a goal for Kanji learning. (Mastery of
Kvoiku Kanji was set.)
8. Select a guideline for expressions. (Asahi Shinbun
no Yogo no Tebiki was used.)
9. Produce supplementary materials (at least, audio
tapes for the Language Laboratory use and Kanji
Practice Sheets)
10. Present updated information about Japanesesociety.
11. Use the same structure for each lesson: Main,
Story, List of Vocabulary with English Translation,
New Kanji, Exercises, Word Definition and Usage,
Idiomatic Expressions/Grammar Patterns, Related
Matters and Questions for Discussion, and Radicals
and Kanji Characters.
This is how I developed the manuscript of CJ. I
thought the CJ was the first and the last textbook I
would ever write. However, to my great surprise,
those professors who used CJ encouraged me to writeanother textbook to follow CJ, by (a) focusing on
topics for business-minded students and (b)incorporating 949 kanji characters introduced injunior high school in Japan.
Thus, I wrote a manuscript of AJ. The lesson
structure and teaching method used in AJ are almost
the same as those of CJ. I am grateful to numerous
professors for supporting my textbooks. Both of them
are currently in their 6th printings.
I will be delighted if my experience in developing CJ
and AJ will be of any assistance to those who plan towrite their own text.

The Making of an Intermediate-Level Textbook
Akira Miura University of WisconsinI

deally, you should write your own textbook toteach with. You are familiar with your students'
proficiency level, objectives, interests, andcapabilities. The problem with writing a textbook,however, is that it takes an inordinate amount of time,
and who has all that time while teaching full time? Sowhat you usually do is choose a textbook you canbest relate to, and use it while supplementing it withThe Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
16/22

handouts of your own creation. You do this for a few
years, but sooner or later you become weary of thebook; you switch to another textbook and start
writing a whole new set of handouts. During all this,
you keep saying to yourself or your colleagues, "I'm
not really satisfied with this book," but you continue
repeating this whole process year after year anyway.
Does this sound familiar to you? It should. After all,isn't this what most teachers of Japanese do?
At least this was what my colleague Naomi Hanaoka
McGloin and I used to do regarding our second-year
Japanese course at the University of Wisconsin until
there came a time when we said to ourselves, "Let's
write our own book!" Actually it wasn't that simple. I
was allowed half of my teaching load off by the
University for one year; besides, we were given a
grant by the Japan Forum to sup-port us for twosummers. With enough time thus guaranteed, wewere able to launch our textbook-writing project!
The first thing we had to do was to decide what kindof syllabus our book should follow. We opted infavor of combining a topic syllabus with a functional
syllabus. Since the University of Wisconsin has asemester system, each semester lasting roughly
fifteen weeks, we thought it would be a good idea towrite a book of fifteen lessons, each lesson taking
two weeks to study. That meant choosing fifteen
topics that would interest our students. At ouruniversity, most students majoring in Japanese go to
Japan for a year's study during their junior year. So
the most logical thing, we felt, would be to select thekinds of topics relevant to their year in Japan. Thus
we chose topics such as doing a home-stay, going torestaurants, taking trips, getting ill, etc., in Japan. We
also decided to include some current topics that areimportant in today's Japan, such as issues involving
women, internationalization, and cultural friction.
Next we chose the kinds of functions thatintermediate students would need most:meeting people, asking favors, receiving or extending
invitations, making reservations, offering apologies,
etc. Sequencing these topics and functions was not aneasy thing to do. The most basic criterion here waswhat situations our students would most likely
encounter. But, before settling on the final sequence,
we had to actually use the lessons in manuscript form
for a few semesters.
The next thing we did was to discuss the structure ofeach lesson, i.e., what sections each lesson should
consist of as well as in what sequence they should
appear. Since we wanted to include as many elements
as possible within reason, this was also a difficult
task, but somehow we decided on the items as well as
the sequence: "Culture Notes," "Dialogues,""Intensive Reading Selection," "Glossary," "Kanji
List," "Grammar Notes," "Grammar Exercises,""Communicative Exercises," "Listening Exercises,"and "Speed Reading 'Pas sage." In addition, we choseto enliven the book with little bits oflinguistic/cultural information such as kanji radicals,
proverbs, and haiku.
Next came the assignment of work, i.e., who should
write which sections. This job was fortunately notvery difficult, because our strengths and interests
differed, or, to put it more positively, they
complemented each other. One of us thus agreed towrite some sections, while the other volunteered totake care of the rest. Needless to say, however, weconstantly showed each other what we wrote. Thiswas done regularly, i.e., once a week, which produced a constructive exchange of opinions, which inturn led to repeated rewrites and revisions. Using thematerials in class was also extremely helpful because
we discovered by trial and error what worked andwhat did not. Moreover, comments from our students
and teaching assistants helped a great deal.
Finally, I would like to list some things we aimed atwhile writing our textbook. (1) We wished to help
develop all four language skills, i.e., listening,speaking, reading, and writing. (2) In addition to theabove four skills, we concentrated on culture. We
wanted our students not only to develop their language skills but also to deepen their understanding ofJapan, the Japanese mind, and Japanese society. (3)We tried to make the dialogues sound as natural as
possible. To that end, we mixed different styles, i.e.,
male/female, informal/formal, and keigo/nonkeigo.
One problem here was that, in all textbooks ofJapanese, foreign speakers always speak perfect
Japanese. This is, of course, highly unnatural. It is, on
the other hand, pedagogically unsound to use
incorrect sentences in a textbook. We, therefore,
made a compromise by including lines where foreign
speakers did not understand some words uttered bynative speakers. That kind of situation arises quite
frequently in real life, and we wanted to make surethat our students would learn how to ask questions ina case like that. (4) We used some authentic materials,
i.e., reading selections directly taken from Japanesebooks and newspapers. This was due to our belief
that even intermediate-level students should and canlearn to handle materials written for native speakers,
and that they enjoy doing it. (5) As far as the kanji
use goes, we avoided the idea of introducing all"kyooiku-kanji," as is done in some intermediatelevel textbooks. Instead, we felt that words that arenormally written in kanji should appear in kanji, butthat the students should not be expected to learn to
The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
17/22

write all the kanji introduced in the book. We
therefore divided the kanji in each lesson into two
categories: those the student should learn to both read
and write and those the student should learn to only
read. (6) In the glossary, in addition to literaltranslations, we added explanations, e.g., deeto "date(in the sense of 'social engagement' only)". (7) in"Grammar Exercises," we avoided mechanical drilllike problems as much as possible; instead we
included, wherever we could, short conversation-type
exercises. (8) In "Un 'yoo Renshuu (Communicative
Exercises)," we included pair work as well as smallgroup work in order to increase the opportunity forthe student to use the language communicatively. (9)We provided a speed reading passage ("S okudoku")

at the end of each lesson. Its objective was to give thestudent some culture-oriented reading material which
was informative yet easy enough for him/her to readthrough quickly, so that he/she could proceed to thenext lesson with renewed confidence. (10) We tried
hard to make our book fun to use by mixing inhumor.
It was thus that our newly published An Integrated
Approach to Intermediate Japanese came into being.
But like any other textbook, ours too starts going outof date almost as soon as it is published. Language is
fluid: pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar allchange. Besides, topics that are up-to-date today are
no longer current tomorrow. That is, however, thefate of a textbook!

The Australian Language Levels (ALL) Guidelines

T

he Australian Language Levels (ALL)
Guidelines is an organizational framework andcurriculum guidelines for language teachinglearning from primary to secondary levels inAustralia. The ALL Guidelines advocates a learnercentered approach. Learner characteristics aredescribed, and language syllabuses and programs areorganized by means of a proposed Framework ofprogressive, age-related stages. The following diagram depicts the Framework of Stages and indicates
initial entry points for beginning learners.

ALL
Syllabus
Development
Programming Book 2, 1998 p.6

andStages A and B are for learners who have no prior
background in the target language. Stages C and D
are for those who have some home background in thetarget language.
The syllabuses or each stage contain the five areas ofgoals (communication, sociocultural, learning-how-to
learn, language and cultural awareness, generalknowledge) and specific contents (context, topic,
functions,notions,
grammar,modesofcommunication, text-types).
The ALL Guidelines is comprised of a four book set
entitled:
1. Language Learning in Australia
2. Syllabus Development and Programming
3. Method, Resources and Assessment
4. Evaluation, Curriculum Renewal, and Teacher
Development

The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
18/22

Yoroshiku: National Curriculum Guidelines for Japanese, K-12

T

he Yoroshiku series was developed inAustralia based on the Australian Language
Levels (ALL) Guidelines. It is divided into
three sets for different: 1) Niko Niko:
Stages A & B, 2) Moshi Moshi: Stages 1 & 2, and 3)
Pera Pera: Stages 3 & 4. (They might be equivalent
to American elementary school level, beginning levelat the junior and senior high, and intermediate level
Japanese at the high school level respectively.) Eachset comes with four types of materials: Students'
Book, Teachers' Handbook, Teachers' Resources, andAudioCassette. The Students' Book contains key
expressions for every function introduced in each unit,
full of activities through the book, and 'simulated
authentic' materials. The Teachers' Handbook lists
suggested learning items including language
functions, notions, grammatical items and kanji foreach stage as well as suggested classroom activities
in each unit. The Teachers' Resources provide
activity worksheets, games, songs, and stories
including transcripts for an accompanying
audiocassette tape.
Book Title
Price
Kana Frieze*
A$45.OO
Niko Niko: Stages A &BEarly Childhood to Upper PrimaryStudents' Hook
A$19.95

Call No.t
810.7NA

Teachers' Handbook
Teachers' Resources
Audio CassetteMoshi Moshi: Stages 1 &2Lower to Middle Secondary
Students' Book
Teachers' Handbook
Teachers' Resources
Audio Cassette
Pera Pera: Stages 3&4Senior Secondary
Students' Book
Teachers' Handbook
Teachers' Resources
Audio Cassette

A$34.95
A$24.95
A$19.95

810.7 NA A,B
810.7 NA A,B
810.7 NA A,B

A$24.95
A$34.95
A$24.95
A$19.95

810.7 NA 1,2
810.7 NA 1,2
810.7 NA 1,2
810.7 NA 1,2

A$34.95
A$34.95
A$24.95
A$19.95

810.7 NA 3,4
810.7 NA 3,4
810.7 NA 3,4
810.7 NA 3,4+This is the Call No. used in The Japan Foundation
Language Center Library.
*It is suggested to use this with Niko Niko and Moshi
Moshi.
For further information on the ALL Guidelines andYoroshiku:,
Curriculum Corporation
ACN 007 342 421, St. Nicholas Place
141 Rathdowne Street, Canton Victona 3053
Australia
Tel:, 03-639-0699
Fax:, 03-639-1616

810.7 NA A,B

Recipients of The Japan Foundation Language Center Grant Programs
January-March 1995
Workshops and Conferences Grant Program
1. The Ohio State University Dept. of East Asian
Languages & Literatures Columbus, OH"7th Annual Meeting of Lake Erie Teachers ofJapanese"
February 3&4, 1995
$2,000.00
2. The Arizona Association of Teachers of Japanese(AATJ)"A Workshop on How to Test Oral Proficiency in theCommunicative Classroom"
March 1995
$1,000.00

Association Grant Program
1. Northeast Association of Secondary Teachers ofJapanese (NEASTJ)$1,500.00
The Japan Foundation
Language Related Programs
2. National Council of Secondary Teachers ofJapanese (NCSTJ)"1995 ACTFL Meeting" November 18-21, 1995
Atlanta, GA $1,222.50$1,222.50

The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
19/22

From Our ReadersnRitsu Shimizu
Shaler Area High/Middle School

Attending the Institute of the National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center at Iowa
State UniversityT

his summer I had the honor of attending theInteractive Multimedia Authoring Institute,
one of four institutes established by the
National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center, at
Iowa State University. The National K-12 Foreign
Language Resource Center (Director, Prof. Marcia
Rosenbusch) was funded by a $400,000 grant fromthe U.S. Department of Education. The grant madepossible the formation of four Institutes to achievevarious goals. They were designed to fulfill theestablished three major initiatives: teaching strategies
and curriculum improvement; new technology; andperformance assessment.
The participants of The Interactive Multimedia
Authoring Institute were selected competitively andnumbered twenty teachers, who represented six languages (French, Spanish, German, Russian, Japaneseand Chinese); all levels and programs (elementary
immersion; middle and high school language courses,
and Distance Education); and 11 regions from Alaska
to Mississippi, California to Connecticut. Among thetwenty, there were two Japanese teachers, including
myself from Pennsylvania and Tim Cook sensei from
Lincoln, Nebraska.
During the intensive 5-day institute, all participants
explored the benefits of using multimedia, examined
exemplary multimedia hardware and software,authored a HyperStudio stack and produced lessons
linking a stack to segments on a CD-ROM and or avideo disc that integrated into the stack a segment ofa motion video. All participants also received training
in the use of electronic mail since one of the goals of
the Institute was to establish long-term professional
support for participants through their use ofelectronic mail.
Despite the unavailability of all the multimedia technological facilities in our current average foreign language classrooms, at least the use of HyperStudio
may come close to reality. HyperStudio andHypercard come with alphabet fonts. At this writing,

I am contacting Prof. Hatasa, at Purdue University,
for his new tool software called Development Tools
for Japanese (DTJ), which enables the use of kana in
the HyperCard environment. Once we can use kanain the HyperCard environment, there are various
learning enhancing projects available for ourJapanese language students.
Many teachers teach some type of written language
as part of Japanese language teaching (in my school,
hiragana first). Without sacrificing the developmentof the cardinal skills of language teaching, that is,aural and oral skills, the students master kanaremarkably well after going through a set ofdevelopmental, perceptual processing over many
months. If the teacher does not have students use theacquired knowledge in a productive fashion, suchknowledge may become sterile. As a pilot program, I
am planning to have my students create HyperStudiostacks using kana fonts and they will also record theirshort messages in their stack. This will be conducted
as an extra curricular activity as part of the JapanClub activities.
We all know that technology does not replace theteacher, and the student's interactive learning modes
with their teacher. Technology serves students as anadditional motivational, learning enhancement andreinforcement tool, which we Japanese language
teachers in category four language need more thanever. (For those who learn Japanese in Distance
Learning, it is an essential means of learning.) Why
shouldn't we give them an additional learning tool?
How can we as classroom teachers secure such afacility is another issue?
Perhaps someday, among Japanese language teachers
we can exchange the stacks students created, or wecan form a specific interest group for electronic mailcorrespondence for our professional growth as wellas nurturing the students' interest in learning
Japanese.

The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
20/22

n

Michelle Miyazaki
Urbandale High School
7111 Aurora Avenue
Urbandale, Iowa 50322

M

y name is Michelle Miyazaki, and I am theJapanese teacher at Urbandale High Schoolin Urbandale, Iowa. I have enjoyed reading
your publication for the past year, as it has proved to
be both interesting and educational to me as a firstyear teacher. I am writing to share a uniqueexperience that might interest your readers.
Urbandale High School has enjoyed a sister school
relationship with Minami Senior High School of
Osaka, Japan, for the past four years, and we are
excited to announce the visit of their entire juniorclass. Next month approximately 160 Japanese
students and 10 teachers, including the principal, willbe traveling to Urbandale, where they will stay withover 80 host families October 27-30. Urbandale
currently has almost 100 Japanese language students
in four different levels, including two classes taught
via fiber optics. Japanese was offered for the firsttime five years ago, and the sister school relationshipbegan shortly thereafter. Since then, we havewelcomed a group of 17 students and teachers from
Minami High School, and last year 15 Urbandale students and teachers traveled to Osaka, Japan. In
addition, we have been fortunate to host two longterm Japanese exchange students every year, andhave also sent several Urbandale High School
students for an extended student exchange.
The October visit of Minami High School students
will mark the high point of our relationship with theschool. The 80 host families, Japanese language students, and the entire Urbandale community are
anxiously awaiting the arrival of our Japanese friends.
It is our hope that this visit will not only strengthen
our ties with the Japanese school, but increase
cultural understanding between the U.S. and Japan.
Thank you for your time and support.

New Information On Washington Endorsement
Yumi Toma, Japanese Language Consultant
Washington State Office for Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)

T

eachers wishing to have an endorsement inJapanese on their Washington teachingcertificate may now obtain this endorsementby passing New York University's Language
Proficiency Examination in Japanese with a score of
16. The individual who scores 16 points on the 16point examination need not take any college course
work in order to obtain the endorsement.
The exam is offered in more than 40 languages andused by both native English language speakers andnative speakers of other languages. The candidate
must be examined for 16 points. The results are valid
for five years. The results will normally be sent to
OSPI within one month of the examination.
"Proficiency Testing in Foreign Languages" (a copyof the brochure/registration form and a description of
the exam) is available by calling (212) 998-7030 orwriting to:,

New York City University
School of Continuing Education
Foreign Language Department
48 Cooper Square, Room 107
New York, NY 10003
A report letter from NYU may be sent to thefollowing address:,
Professional Education and Certification Office,
OSPI
Old Capitol Bldg., P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
State rules and regulations concerning teacher
certification are subject to change.
For basic information, please refer to my article on

The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
21/22

"Endorsements in Teaching Certificates:, K-12
Japanese in

Washington Language Endorsements" (The Breeze,
Number Six, April, 1999

The Breeze, No. 9 (December 1994)
22/22