Information about http://www.jflalc.org/download/publication/BREEZE13.pdf
The Japan Foundation Language Center, Quarterly Newsletter Number…
Tags: classroom activity, corollaries, foundation language, hypotheses, japan foundation, language center, language specialist, lecturer, newsletter number, proficiency, quarter credits, quarterly newsletter, school teachers introduction, school year, secondary school teachers, session ii, summer workshop, ucla extension, workshop assignments, workshop participants,Pages: 10
Language: english
Created: Fri Oct 26 15:03:32 2001
Display cached document
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
The Japan Foundation Language Center, Quarterly Newsletter
Number Thirteen, December 1995
Third Annual Summer Workshop '95
For Secondary School Teachers of Japanese: A Report*
Noriko Yokoyama, Chief Language Specialist, JFLC
Hiroko Furuyama, Lecturer, JFLC
Kimiko Kabutomori, Lecturer, JFLC
theory of the proficiency-oriented instruction before they
came to the workshop.
T he Third Annual Workshop was held at The Japan
Foundation Language Center in the summer of 1995.
There were two 8-day sessions for secondary school teachers
Introduction
The participants became acquainted with one another
of Japanese (Session I: June 21-29 and Session II: July 12-20). through an ice-breaking activity, and were familiarized with
A total of 24 teachers successfully completed the course (11 the objectives and content of the workshop.
participants in Session I, and 13 in Session II). Six quarter
credits from UCLA Extension were available for those Principles
participants who wanted credits.
The participants were familiarized with principles of the
proficiency-oriented instruction. First, the worksheet from the
I. Objectives
pre-workshop assignments was reviewed along with practical
Secondary school teachers usually teach 5 hours a day for
classroom-activity demonstration. Second, Hypotheses and
5 days a week to be full-time. During the school year, this
Corollaries (Omaggio: p.77) were discussed. Then, the
busy schedule makes teachers very difficult to devote
participants discussed which Hypothesis and/or Corollaries
themselves for their own professional development, including
they would like to realize in their simulated teaching.
observing other teachers' classes, evaluating their own
teaching, and such. In addition, many secondary school
Structure of the lesson
teachers of Japanese teach in isolated places and cannot net- The participants were familiarized with the 'Structure of the
work or share teaching ideas. Thus, the objectives of the lesson' used as a framework for this workshop. It consisted of
workshop were set as follows: (1) making teaching plans and three stages: INTRODUCTION, ACCURACY, and
demonstrating simulated teaching, (2) self-evaluating their FLUENCY The INTRODUCTION stage had two sub-
own teaching, and (3) sharing ideas and experiences with stages: Presentation and Recognition. Each stage was
other participants. described as follows:
2. Content Pre-Workshop Assignments Structure of the lesson
Pre-workshop assignments had been sent two months Introduction
prior to the workshop. The assignments were to read parts
from the Omaggio's Teaching in Context (1993: pp.1-21, 73- - Provide contextualization for learning
88) and complete a worksheet. The worksheet consisted of - Let learner know the functional objective of the
questions illustrated by activities related to Japanese class so lesson.
that it makes it easy for participants to understand the reading
assignments from Omaggio. The purpose of the assignments - Give learning enough 'input' so that they can
was to familiarize the participants with practice as well as perceive and abstract the learning item
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
1/10
(form/meaning/usage) organization
- Involve learners actively
Accuracy - Make opportunities to exoress their own
- Make learners use the structures in a controlled meaning
way - Correct errors when necessary in an
- Practice the linguistic forms so that learners appropriate way
can produce and articulate the forms Fluency
comfortably to develop accuracy - Encourage learners to express their own
meaning
Fluency - Use contexts and situations likely to be
- Make learners use the language in less con- encountered
trolled/more realistic/authentic way - Encourage learners to interact actively in
- Let learners create their own language communication
- Encourage learners to interact sponteneously
Demonstration and Rationale - Make sure there is an information gap between
speakers
The purpose of this demonstration was to show them
- Keep the conversation flow (more than one Q &
what a simulated teaching would be like and show how the
A)
stages can be presented in actual teaching. The participants,
- Correct no error during live interactions and
acting as students experienced a one-hour of a demonstration
give appropriate feedback afterward
of simulated teaching, covering all the stages. After the
- Minimize teacher talk
demonstration, the rationale behind activities for each stage
General Checkpoints
was explained.
- Use more Japanese and less English
- Make sure the purpose of each activity is clear
Text Analysis to the learners
First, the participants examined given textbooks carefully - Confirm the learners' comprehenshion
in small groups. Then, they discussed each textbook with
respect to its nature, and what stages After demonstration and explanation for each stage, the
of the 'Structure of the lesson' were sufficient and lack of participants were assigned to design and demonstrate one or
activities. They also discussed useful parts of textbooks. two activities in small groups. For example, a group was
assigned to design an activity for PRESENTATION so that
Application students would be able to express their daily schedule at the
Application of the principles of the proficiency-oriented end of the lesson.
instruction for actual teaching was demonstrated and
discussed stage by stage. Criteria to examine teaching for Making Teaching Plan
each stage were presented. The following were the First, as a warm-up, groups of participants discussed what
'Checkpoints for Each would be a realistic outcome for a given functional objective
Stage': and designed a FLUENCY activity from the outcome as in an
outcome-based teaching plan. Demonstration of each group's
Check Points for Each Stage FLUENCY activity followed afterwards.
Introduction Second, "Action Research Plan" adapted from Nunan
(1989) was introduced to improve teaching by following the
- Set communicative functional objectives four steps: (1) declare what aspects you choose to focus to
- Give variety of examples improve in your own teaching, (2) implement teaching plan to
- Use learner's ability to guess keep what you have declared in mind, (3) comment on
- Show meaning through a situation or context teaching by focusing on what you have declared, and (4)
likely to be encountered reflect on your teaching after viewing your own video. They
filled out the declaration form for what aspects of teaching
- Use a variety of practices: drills, cues, class they would like to improve, implemented their plan according
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
2/10
to what they had declared. There were some additional sessions such as introduction
Third, the participants started making teaching plans of videos/CAl and computer/word-processing software. We
individually: (a) chose and analyzed a lesson from the introduced materials such as new videos and CAl software
textbook selected for their simulated teaching, (b) which could be used at the secondary school level. Also,
brainstormed a possible outcome, (c) designed FLUENCY participants who hadn't been familiar with computer and
activity, and (d) designed ACCURACY and Japanese word-processing software received hands-on
INTRODUCTION activities keeping the outcome and experience. They as well as the other participants with
FLUENCY activity in mind. In the process of making a experience were encouraged to use computer to write up a
teaching plan, the participants were instructed to check if the teaching plan.
activities satisfied the checkpoints.
3. Evaluation
Consulting We asked the participants to fill out a post-workshop
Each participant consulted with the teaching staff after evaluation questionnaire. The results showed their positive
submitting the first draft for simulated teaching. The draft was reactions to all the three objectives we set in the beginning of
closely examined using the checkpoints discussed earlier in the course: (1) making teaching plan and demonstrating
the Application section. simulated teaching, (2) self-evaluating, and (3) sharing ideas.
In addition, many participants found the 'Structure of the les-
Simulated Teaching son,' 'Checkpoints for Each Stage' and 'Consulting' most
useful in the process of making teaching plan.
Simulated teaching was 50-minute long covering all the
stages. A 15-minute discussion followed a simulated teaching.
4. Evaluators
In the discussion, each participant commented on his/her own
We asked Mr. Nicholas Pond from Murray High School
teaching based on the 'Declaration form' whereas others
in Utah (Session I) and Mr. Kazuo Tsuda from United
commented on their impressions as students, and as
Nations International School in New York (Session II) to be
colleagues based on 'Checkpoints for each stage.'
the evaluator of our workshop as well as being the guest
speaker. They observed the whole 8-day workshop, evaluated,
Video Viewing/Self Evaluation commented and wrote a report on our workshop from the
The participants viewed their own video and filled out the points of view of experienced high school teachers. Overall,
'Self Evaluation form.' The.form consisted of two parts: the their evaluations were very positive and encouraging, and at
first part was a list of points to check if they were satisfied, the same time, they gave us many concrete and practical
and the second was to comment on their own simulated suggestions. We would like to thank the two guest
teaching. speakers/evaluators for their support, enthusiasm, and good
ideas.
Discussion
The participants discussed their own teaching based on * This report used the terms introduced mainly in the second
video-viewing and Self Evaluation. They realized what their session of the workshop.
strengths and weaknesses more clearly than before viewing
their own video. We heard more critical comments than their References
comments immediately after their own simulated teaching. Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative
Classroom. New York: Cambridge University
Guest Speakers Press.
We invited an experienced secondary-school teacher of Omaggio-Hadley, A. 993. Teaching in Context. Boston:
Japanese as a guest speaker for each session. The guest Heinle & Heinle.
speaker led a session on his expertise. Here are samples of
topics covered in his lecture: motivation issues, useful List of Participants Who Completed the Workshop
activities, and technology including laser disc, computer- Session I
assisted instruction (CAl), and e-mail.
Mieko Fetlrau, Harry Ainlay Composite High School,
Others Alberta, CANADA
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
3/10
Kevin Griggs, Weber High School, UT Mark Kanelsuna, Kalaheo High School, HI
Kiku Harvey, Longfellow Middle School, WI Mieko Koike, Brian McMahon High School, CT
Kristin Henshaw, Bambridge High School, WA
Nobuko Loncar, St. Andrew's Priory, HI
Yoshitaka Inoue, Kamiak High School, WA
Laura Lookner, Eaglecrest High School, CO Chie Roessler, Williatnsville North High School, NY
Sandra Lopez-Richter, Palm Beach County School, EL Cyrus Rolbin, Phillips Academy, MA
Hirofumi Naganka, Lathrop High School, AK Gloria Rozmus, Menomonee Falls High School, WI
John Patrick, Provo High School, UT Raymond Stein, Mt. Edgecumbe High School, AK
Todd Stevens, Exeter Area High School, NH Yvon Tre'panier, Vancouver College, British Columbia,
Hisa Stewart, Santa Teresa High School, CA CANADA
Akiko Uchiyama, Greenfield High School, WI
Session II Nahoko Vignean, Boston Latin Academy, MA
Laurence Wiig, South Medford High School, OR
Ikuyo Coscarant, Gilbert High School, AZ
Chikako Itoh, Sedro-Woolley High School, WA
The Report of the National Standards and Japanese Language
Education Conference 1
Hiroko Kataoka
University of Oregon
the 21st Century, and to make concrete recommendations for
I n November 1995, ACTFL announced the com-
pletion of "Standards for Foreign Language
Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century." Prior to the final
the Student Standards Task Force as feedback from a less
commonly taught (LCT) language group for possible
integration into the final document.
compilation of the so-called national standards, Dr. Kataoka The conference was supported by the Northeast Asia
of the University of Oregon called for a conference regarding Council of the Association of Asian Studies and the Japan
the national standards and Japanese language education. Foundation Language Center. In addition, universities,
Upon adjournment of the conference she reported the results
colleges, schools, Japanese teachers associations, and
of the conference to ACTFL. The task force adopted some
individuals contributed generously to this project by providing
parts of the results of the conference and reflected them in the
final edition of the standards. financial support so that more individuals could participate.
Please note that this document shows a positive endeavor
for reinforcement of the national standards from the Japanese Participants
language educators and not meant as mere criticism or There were 26 participants in the conference, including
opposition. We appreciate the effort of the ACTFL task force eight secondary school teachers, ten college faculty members,
to listen to the voices of educators of the less commonly taught five K- 12 administrators, two Japan Foundation Language
languages, especially Japanese. Center personnel, and one private foundation representative.
We are sorry to omit the "Specific Comments on Standards
and Sample Benchmarks" due to the limited space. The Procedure
complete copy, however, is available upon request. All participants were given a copy of the March 15, 1995
draft of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Goals for
The Conference
the 21st Century prior to the conference. They were directed
The National Standards and Japanese Language Education
to read it carefully and take notes on what was usable and
Conference was held on April 14-15, 1995 at the Japan
what could be changed to make it appropriate for Japanese
Foundation Language Center in Santa Monica, California.
language instruction. All participants completed this
The purposes of the conference were to examine the current
assignment.
draft of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Goals for
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
4/10
The conference started at 4:00 p.m. on Friday. The group
met for two hours to discuss the general background of the Clarification of expectations. The Standards provide a
National Standards project. This session was led by Ron good guide for language teachers, focusing on content and
Walton of the National Foreign Language Center, a member outcome of teaching.
of the Standards Task Force. Walton described the National
Standards Project as it applied to less commonly taught Benefits to parents and administrators. The
foreign languages. His twenty-minute presentation was Standards help parents and administrators understand the
followed by numerous questions and lively discussion. benefits of language learning, and provide realistic
Saturday session began at 9:00 a.m. with the participants expectations about foreign language instruction as well as
dividing into five small groups to discuss pros and cons of the clarify developments in Japanese language education.
Standards document. The groups reconvened at 11:00 a.m. to
report on the small group discussions. Guidelines for teacher training.
The afternoon was somewhat more complicated. From The Standards can provide guidelines for training both
1:30 to 3:30, participants divided into two large groups, teachers and teacher educators.
Group A and Group B. Group A consisted of participants
who wanted to discuss strategies to utilize the National Foundation. The current Standards provides a solid
Standards; Group B worked to formulate specific revisions foundation for even better standards in the future.
for each Standard. Group A began by conducting a strategies
brainstorming session. After about an hour, Group A finished Articulation. The Standards are clearly articulated,
this discussion, and divided into two sub-groups, to discuss which is a must for teachers.
Goals 2 and 3 respectively, including suggestions for possible
revisions. The Group B participants immediately broke into Specific Goals. The specific goals contained in the
three sub-groups, and discussed Standard 1.1., 1.2., and 1.3., Standards contribute to powerful arguments when fighting for
respectively. At 4:00 p.m., participants once again gathered programs.
together to report and further discuss the issues taken up in the
small groups. Benchmarks. Although many criticized sample
Due to time limitations, Goals 4 and 5 were not discussed benchmarks, others felt that they can be useful in a limited
individually. sense. People need to understand, however, that they are
"samples." Given this caveat, such benchmarks may be useful
Strengths of the National Standards in convincing adminis trators of the need for an early start for
Over the course of this conference, participants identified Japanese programs, by arguing that language instruction must
the following strengths of the national start earlier to achieve these benchmarks. The benchmarks
Standards: could also provide incentives to expand language programs.
Political value. The majority of participants agreed that Standards as goals. Although the Standards may be
the Standards provide a valuable political tool. The generic seen as "dreams," they can also encourage students to work
value of the Standards coupled with the inclusion of LCTs toward concrete goals. The Standards can also provide some
indicates that LCTs are not marginal and deserve the attention accountability for both students and teachers, as well as
given commonly taught languages. The Standards can also setting goals for language teachers.
forge political alliance among all foreign languages.
Early start. It is good that elementary school programs
Vision. The Standards provide a vision and a set of are included. Although currently very few such programs
goals toward which to work. exist for Japanese language instruction, we may expect a rise
in the number of elementary programs in the near future.
Practical value. Although many participants criticized
the Standards as being "merely political" while lacking High expectations. Although some participants
pedagogical value, other participants felt that there was questioned the extremely high expectations of the Standards,
practical value, because people will use them as a standard for others felt that the high standards potentially push forward the
evaluating Japanese programs. profession by raising expectations.
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
5/10
thoroughly and have discussed it extensively. One can
Concerns and Problems with the Standards Document imagine what would happen to the uninitiated!)
Over the course of the conference, participants voiced the
following concerns about the Standards: Single entry point vs. multiple entry points.
Participants felt that it would be useless for the Standards to
Pedagogical values. The majority of participants assume a single entry point at K for Japanese (or other LCT)
criticized the Standards failure to specify performance levels language instruction, since there are hardly any K- 12
or strategies for assessment as the most significant problem of Japanese language programs in the United States at this time.
the document. They felt that, without such levels and The majority of the pre-college Japanese programs are 9-12
strategies, the standards have no pedagogical value. only; therefore, the benchmarks as written are irrelevant, even
after making adjustments to suit Japanese, as long as they
Level of sample benchmarks. Participants felt assume that the students have had eight years of Japanese by
that sample benchmarks are aimed too high for Class 4 the start of 9th grade, when in reality students have had none.
languages, especially in reading and writing. In addition, most current Japanese pre-college programs offer
only two or three years of instruction.
Assumption of unrealistic amount of time.
Similarly, participants were also concerned that the Standards Written language. The biggest problem participants
assume an unrealistic amount of classroom time spent in identified in the sample benchmarks concerned the treatment
foreign language education. Although it is good to aim high, of the written language (reading and writing). The most
participants felt unrealistic expectations render the aim difficult aspect of Japanese is learning to read and write.
worthless. Participants felt that some changes needed to be made in the
standards and benchmarks that deal with reading, writing, and
Potential "mandating" problems. The document the use of written materials for languages with non-Roman
clearly states that the Standards are voluntary, and that they orthographies.
should not be imposed upon states or the schools2. However,
the group was concerned that the document may take on the Teacher certification issues. Some participants feared
implications of that the Standards could be unfairly used as a basis for teacher
mandate, with sample benchmarks misinterpreted as certification. Sample benchmarks imply that teachers are
mandatory goals. And if that were to happen, LCTs, expected to possess much higher proficiency levels in the
especially the Class 4 languages such as Japanese and foreign language they teach than they currently do. Since few
Chinese, become vulnerable. No school or teacher could Japanese programs currently exist at the K- 12 level, those
perform at those "mandated" levels. There was fear that who complete teacher training programs in Japanese in the
programs would be shut down as a result. next decade are unlikely to attain proficiency much higher
than the highest Standards benchmarks. In addition,
Value of benchmarks. The document explicitly states secondary school teachers were particularly concerned about
that benchmarks are simply samples, not for all languages, the advanced literary background implied by the Standards.
and that the Standards are neither to be imposed upon nor Such expectations could discourage non-native speakers from
required of states or the schools 3. However, participants becoming foreign language teachers, especially teachers of
feared that, once in the hands of regional or local departments Japanese.
of education and administrators, the benchmarks would be
mistaken for goals and would be imposed on all languages, Learning scenarios. Many Japanese teachers found the
despite the paragraph identifying cautions for LCTs. The sample learning scenarios difficult to apply to LCT languages.
danger is that state education people may evaluate all Due to time limitations, those scenarios were not discussed in
language students equally based on the benchmarks. Teachers detail. However, most of the issues raised for the sample
feared that such a practice would generate unreasonable benchmarks also apply to the learning scenarios.
expectations-resulting in criticism - of Japanese programs. (In
fact, even many participants in this conference started Suggested Changes
confusing the standards, goals, and benchmarks. And these During the course of the conference, participants offered
are the people who have studied the document very various suggestions for changes to the Standards document.
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
6/10
Some were general comments, others specific. For the learning. Simply stating the "greater challenge" for LCTs is
purpose of this report, they have been divided into three not acceptable; explicit substantiation is necessary, including
categories: general suggestions, suggestions for applying the such issues as the differences in writing systems and culture
Standards to Japanese, and specific suggestions for each goal information. (See the next section, Suggestions for
and sample benchmark. Applying the National Standards to Japanese.) In
addition, a paragraph on why some languages carry
General Suggestions for changes: unique problems should be added. Further elaboration could
General suggestions and requests for changes can be be provided by each language, state, or school district,
summarized as follows: including sample benchmarks.
· Shorten and simplify the document.
· Rewrite the document in better English. Suggestions for Applying the National Standards to
· Provide a separate version without benchmarks for Japanese:
administrators. Some participants suggested that there ought One group devoted time to brainstorming strategies for
to be two versions of the document: one version, for applying the National Standards in Japanese language
administrators and parents, with goals and standards only, and instruction. The participants came up with several strategies
the other for teachers, which would include sample and suggestions to be included in the paragraph for LCTs
benchmarks and sample learning scenarios. (page 10 of the Standards document) which would make the
· Develop supplemental versions of the Standards for current Standards usable in Japanese instruction. The group
each language, with sample benchmarks and learning decided that the following ought to be considered:
scenarios. · Many LCTs have writing systems that are not phonetic
· If sample benchmarks are to be included in the main and therefore require much more time for students to attain
document, specify that the sample benchmarks are for proficiency in than in MCTs. The Standards should explicitly
Spanish, French, and German so as to clarify that they are consider the difference in orthographic symbols.
NOT for Class 4 (or any other) languages. · LCTs generally do not share cognate vocabulary with
· If sample benchmarks are to be included, develop other languages.
multiple entry levels with introductory, intermediate, and · LCTs involve teaching about cultures that differ
advanced (or whatever the wording may be) benchmark considerably from those of American English and the
samples, rather than 4th, 8th and 12th grade. In LCTs, mainstream European languages. The cultural
including Japanese, few K-12 programs exist (a situation appropriateness of functions such as persuasion or debate is
which is expected to persist in the near future); therefore the complex and unfamiliar, and must be taught as part of the
whole effort of constructing grade-level benchmarks may be language. It is also important to address the stereotypes
of very little value-if not wasted or even harmful-for LCT learners may have about LCT cultures.
languages. · Youth culture-and the culture as a whole-is rapidly
· Include discussion of the class time required to reach changing. Since many areas lack large Japanese communities,
sample benchmarks so no one misunderstands the it takes more effort and time to teach about the culture. The
expectations. specific components of culture need to be addressed in the
· Assess the applicability of the standards/bench-marks Standards.
before publishing the document. See how many students · The Standards document should clearly explain the
would/could actually meet the standards/benchmarks. differences that exist between the written and spoken
· Organize a task force to develop sample benchmarks communication styles. Differences observed in conversation
for LCTs, for each language (Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, etc.), according to such factors as age and social status should also
or for each Class of languages (Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class be acknowledged.
4). · Issues concerning the teaching of the written language
· Adjust the Standards to each individual language, to should be integrated into the document; it will be harder for
better suit its specific needs. LCTs to meet benchmarks because of the difficulty of
· Eliminate learning scenarios; they are confusing and learning the written language.
biased towards MCTs. · The teacher-student ratios must be lower for LCT
· Rewrite the LCT section to address the very real classes.
differences between LCT and MCT in language teaching and · Because authentic materials are difficult to obtain,
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
7/10
classes take more time to plan and develop. force to weigh the pros and cons of generic sample
· LCTs require a longer commitment from all concerned, benchmarks and learning scenarios in the document. If they
including a longer commitment of administrative funding. are included, I would suggest two things: one, having separate
documents for different audiences (the complete document
The group suggested a need for Japanese-specific for teachers, and a shorter version with the bare basics-
guidelines. Since many of the participants are also members without sample benchmarks and learning scenarios-for
of state-level task forces working on guidelines, it was administrators, school districts, and parents); and the other,
suggested that some of them get together in the near future providing a very detailed, fully developed section (rather than
and work on the Japanese-specific document 4. a mere paragraph) for LCTs.
Participants also reinforced the feeling that the Standards · Seriously consider multiple entry points. I would like
should concentrate on the 9-12 level, since so little Japanese reemphasize the importance of considering multiple entry
instruction currently occurs at the K-8 levels. At the same points in writing up benchmarks and learning scenarios. All
time, participants recommended learning more about K-8 participants understood that the Standards Taskoforce
programs, examining the Australian guidelines since they probably will not change the 4th, 8th, and 12th Grade
appear to be further ahead of the U.S. in terms of pre-college benchmarks, but a different type of division would be far
Japanese language education. superior for LCTs, which are extremely unlikely to have K-12
programs. If ACTFL wants the LCT community to accept the
General Observations 5 Standards, something will have to be done about the entry
I would like to conclude this report with my own point issue. Again, a separate document for each language
observations of the discussions and group work at the may solve the problem. Otherwise, however, I am afraid that
conference. Some may be strongly relevant to set-
the writing of the Standards; others are simply a reference. I ting up multiple entry points may be the only way in which
believe they all have something to say about the document the LCTs would seriously consider supporting the Standards.
and the making of it.
· Many of the positive comments about the document Footnotes
came from the secondary school teachers themselves. 1 I would like to thank the following individuals for taking
· Many participants confused the goals, standards, and notes during the conference: Leslie Birkland; Chris Brockett;
benchmarks. This observation repeats a previous comment, Tim Cook; Carl Falsgraf; Tim Hart; Kathleen Streit; Yasu-
but I would like to emphasize the fact that people do confuse Hiko Tohsaku; and Yasuko Ito Watt.
them. As mentioned before, the participants in this conference, 2,3 One participant offered the following comment in his
despite having studied the document very carefully, confused review of the fmal draft of this report:
these terms in the midst of heated discussions. During such Fundamental contradiction. "Standards" implies a
discussions some were saying that the standards were too mandate and "benchmarks" implies a goal.
difficult, although what they were actually referring to were Standards that don't have to be met are not
the benchmarks. This is a good indication that others, standards. Benchmarks that do not represent a goal
including school districts, administrators, and parents, WILL are not benchmarks. These paragraphs suggest that
confuse them, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This those who make these criticisms didn't read the
also led me to support the suggestion that each language add document or mismterpret-ed it. Rather I think these
its own sample benchmarks. folks are pointing out a contradiction in the
· There were numerous criticisms of the benchmarks at document.
the beginning, but as each group went through them item by 4 A group has already begun work on a model of state stan-
item, many were accepted as is or with minor changes in dards which can serve as a reference for other states writing
wording (which could, nevertheless, imply very important standards for Japanese.
changes). 5 Please note that these observations are my own. They are
· We did not have enough time to go over learning neither the consensus of the entire group nor were they dis-
scenarios, but I believe the same kinds of problems and cussed by the participants.
arguments would be seen there as well. I would like the task
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
8/10
The Japanese Magnet Program (JMP)
Deanne Baizer
Resource Teacher
Richmond Elementary School
Portland, Oregon
BRIEF HISTORY experience their humanities block in Japanese which is about
40% of their day. Planning for the High School years will
I n 1986 a group of parents met with Portland Public
School's Curriculum Department and requested that their
students have an opportunity to develop a second language
begin in 1996.
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
through their elementary years. Citing the successes of French,
Spanish, and German Immersion style education in North Althoujgh wonderful Japanese materials exist, it has been
America, the parents were pressing to have Japanese. This a challenge at each grade level to identify, gather, and create
was as a result of Pacific Rim relationships booming in the appropriate elementary classd room materials.* We begin by
business and tourist world. Reluctant to pioneer the district's having the English teacher and Japanese teacher (an
first immersion attempt in an elementary language that no one "arranged marriage") planning appropriate themes together.
else was doing, Spanish was selected. At its successful These themes will encompass the required grade level
implementation, a task force of school district personnel and curriculum for Oregon schools, with strands for math, science,
Japanese community advisory board was established to social studies, language arts, multiculture and creative arts all
launch a Japanese Elementary Immersion program in 1989. tieing in. Students have the opportunity to develop vocabulary
in both languages with complementary lessons. As
Several important decisions were made at that time that appropriate to the yearly themes, Japanese culture is also
helped shape the future for the Japanese Magnet Program. integrated.
The district would choose a centrally located school and offer
50% Japanese and 50% English instruction beginning with all Kindergartners discover in their transportation studies that
day Kindergarten. Students would represent all areas of the a school bus can't take them from Portland to Japan. While
city (NW, NE, SW, SE); diverse ethnicities; and reasonable they learn about boats and jets etc. they pretend to travel to
male, female balance; a stratified random sample selection (i.e. Japan and pack a suitcase with things they need. They see the
lottery by categories). Families must be residents of Portland video about Sesame Street's Big Bird and his visit to Japan.
Public School District and the child must be five on or before Learning through the daily calendar, songs, stories and games
September 1st of the entering year. they play, the children are able to identify vocabulary with
Hiragana sounds and recognize the symbols.
Richmond Elementary School, with a supportive and When they move on to first grade, they learn to read and
innovative, third generation Japanese American principal, write Hiragana while exploring Japanese courtesies and
Renee Ito-Staub, was designated as the host school. It holidays woven in with seasons, science, and social studies. In
welcomed 54 kindergartners in September 1989 and has Second grade they map the Richmond neighborhood and
grown by one grade level each year to accommodate 320 compare it with a Japanese neighborhood. They also explore
Kindergarten through fifth grade students in 1995, with stories about animals and plants while learning to read and
twelve energetic Japanese speaking staff and six excellent write katakana.
English teachers.
In 1993-94 the planning for articulation to the middle Third graders begin to find that Portland has a lot of ties to
school took place with a committee including teachers, Japan through its sister city, Sapporo. They compare a
administrators and parents. Mt. Tabor Middle School was Japanese style garden with the International Rose Testing and
identified as the suitable site. Just this September it launched Shakespeare style garden that Washington Park allows for
the new phase of the Japanese Magnet Program with sixth onsite exploration. Kanji tests and journal writing take a more
grade. A generous grant from the Japan Foundation will serious literacy turn with increasing homework requirements.
support the three year implementation. The students now Hands on calligraphy every week make it all exciting.
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
9/10
Environmental studies give fourth graders a chance to
explore "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" in both an Oregon context
and that of "sister" state, Toyama. They also explore their
many "Trails to Oregon" and find that the Japanese are not
newcomers but have been active and important contributors
to our state for many years. They find that creative writing in
Japanese can be fun too as they explore elements of Native
American folk tales.
The big payoff of Elementary Japanese Immersion for the
fifth graders is anticipating a summer trip to Japan. While
learning about The United States through colonial to Native
American and modern architecture, they also explore the
traditional Japanese house. Beginning to write to pen pal at
Katoh Gakuen's English Immersion Program in Numazu,
Shizuoka at the foothills of Mt. Fuji, motivates them to
expand and improve their functional use of Japanese while
they anticipate the experience of a life time.
The involvement of the fifth grade parents and Oyanokai
(JMP parent organization) did extensive coordination and
fundraising to ensure that all students wanting to participate in
the trip to Japan were able to do so. They selected the slogan
"Our Dreams Take Flight". The thrill of success has been
experienced by students, families and staff. When the new
middle school students returned to Richmond to share their
pictures, omiyage and experiences in Japanese with the fourth
and fifth graders, this writer almost burst with emotion. It was
especially moving to hear a summary statement that the worst
thing about the trip to Japan was "Sayonara"! The foundation
in Japanese immersion is being laid for a lifetime of learning!
* The NEH sponsored Japanese Immersion Thematic
Integration Workshop at Pacific University in Forest Grove,
Oregon this past summer provided participants opportunity to
develop many themes that are to be shared after trial imple-
mentation this school year.
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
10/10