A learner-centered approach to curriculum design: Creating and implementing a general English-education program at a Japanese university.

Full text

A Publicaon of the JALT Materials Writers SIG
Winter 2013
Volume XXI, Number 2

MW’s Between the Keys
2
MW-SIG Web Site hp://www.materialswriters.org
The site contains arcles on topics ranging from copyright to desktop publishing tech-
niques, an extensive list of publishers - including contact informaon, tutorials and
soware recommendaons, and informaon on submission requirements for Between
the Keys.
MW-SIG Mailing List mw-sig@materialwriters.org
Welcome to the final issues of Between
the Keys for 2013.
There have been a few changes
to the Materials Writers SIG since the
SIG Meeng at JALT2013 in Kobe. Jim
Smiley has become the Web Coordina-
tor. Addionally it was decided to make
an assistant posion to each of the posi-
ons. One of the Assistant Publicaons
Chair posions has been lled by new
member Victoria Solis, and the Assistant
Programs Chair has been lled by Jim
Smiley. We are currently looking for
people who are interested in helping
out in the SIG, so if you have an urge to
help out, just sent Nate an email.
The featured arcle this issue
“So you want to publish an EFL text-
book?” was wrien by our main speaker
at JALT2013 Todd Jay Leonard. In this
arcle he talks about his experiences in
publishing in Japan and breaks down
the dierent perspecves that you
should take into account when thinking
about geng your own text published.
In “A learner-centered approach
to curriculum design,” Neil Heernan
and Michael Delve discuss creang a
new general English program at Ehime
University. It is an interesng look at
the process of creang a new program.
From Andrew Reimann comes
the arcle “Teachers as Writers.” Here
he writes about creang, developing,
and publishing teacher created materi-
als using simple and eecve means. It
is lled with praccal informaon, step-
by-step processes, and advice.
We have one My Share article
this issue. Richard Miles has written an
article about teaching presentations in
the classroom.
Finally, in “Language-in-
Educaon Policies and MEXT-approved
EFL Textbooks in the New Corse of
Study,” Gregory Paul Glassgow and Dan-
iel Leigh Paller look at the new MEXT
English curriculum and how those
changes have, and have not, been re-
ected in the current textbooks. They
examine the relaonship between
teaching materials and the policy mak-
ing process.
2
From the Editor
Eric Lerstrom

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
3
Submission Guidelines
NEXT DEADLINE: February 15th
Between the Keys (BtK) welcomes
submissions in English on all topics
related to the development of peda-
gogic materials. Between the Keys is
distributed online both in HTML and
PDF formats. We gladly review ar-
cles for publicaon from anyone,
however priority for publicaon will
be given to current members of the
JALT MW-SIG. We invite any interest-
ed person to submit arcles of the fol-
lowing types:
• main research arcles for veng
team inclusion (between 2000-4000
words)*
• research arcles for inclusion at the
editor’s discreon (1500-3000 words).
Longer arcles may be divided into
secons and published in subsequent
issues.
• perspecve/opinion pieces (up to
1000 words)
• book reviews (up to 1000 words)
• annotated bibliographies
• short summaries/reviews of journal
arcles
• responses to BtK arcles
• descripons/reviews of websites
related to pedagogic materials devel-
opment
• leers to the editor
• My Share-type arcles showing ma-
terials in use
 interviews with materials-related
writers, publishers, academics
• reviews of materials-related tech-
nology for upcoming issues.
*BtK is not a refereed publicaon on
the whole. However, one arcle per
issue will be. This is to improve the
quality of materials development re-
search and to further promote indi-
vidual author’s careers. Main arcle
submissions must follow our Submis-
sion Guidelines.
Publicaon Schedule & Deadlines
Between the Keys is published three
mes a year, in:
• March (volume one),
• August (volume two)
• and December (volume three).
Submissions for consideraon for any
issue should be received by the editor
by the 15th of the month prior to
publicaon at the latest, i.e. February
15, July 15 and November 15.
Most arcles will be published
at the discreon of the editor except
for refereed main arcles, which will
be reviewed by the MW-SIG veng
commiee. If you wish your arcle to
be our Main Arcle, please indicate so
in your cover leer.
You can consult the BtK archive

MW’s Between the Keys
4
to compare your arcle for general
style, length and appropriacy.
Arcles are available to mem-
bers only for the two years aer pub-
licaon and open access aerwards.
The copyright statement is: “All ar-
cles contained in Between the Keys ©
2012 by their respecve authors. This
newsleer © 2012 by Materials Writ-
ers SIG.”
This means that individual au-
thors are free to disseminate their
own works on, for example, their
websites and in open access reposito-
ries, but that must be limited to their
own arcle only and not the whole
publicaon.
Furthermore, copyright for the
formang and layout belong to the
Materials Writers SIG, and so any con-
tent that is published outside must
not be a copy of the BtK arcle but
only the text.
Submissions Process
• Send an email to publicaons @
materialswriters.org (take spaces out)
with your arcle aached
• Send an email to publicaons @
materialswriters.org stang your in-
tenon to submit before the next
deadline. This is very useful in plan-
ning the next issue.
• If the document includes graphics,
drawings, etc., they should be save as
separate les and sent as e-mail
aachments.
If you are unsure of the format to use,
please ask the Layout Editor: layout @
materialswriters.org
Editor Contact Informaon: publica-
ons@materialswriters.org
Quesons?
Anyone with quesons can reach the
editor at the email address above.
Between the Keys is published by the JALT Materials Writers Special
Interest Group (MW– SIG). The editors welcome contribuons in the
following areas: publishing issues, classroom acvies, page layout or
desktop publishing, experiences in publishing or materials design, an-
nouncements of materials-related meengs or newly published ma-
terials, or any other arcles focusing on aspects of materials wring
or publishing. For informaon about reprinng arcles, please con-
tact the editor. All arcles contained in Between the Keys ©2013 by
their respecve authors. This newsleer ©2013 by Materials Writers
SIG.

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
5
FEATURED ARTICLE
So you want to publish an EFL textbook?
—Four Points of View to Consider when Wring a Proposal—
The Myths and Realies of EFL Publishing In Japan
Todd Jay Leonard
Professor, Fukuoka University of Educaon
E-mail: leonard@fukuoka-edu.ac.jp
Introducon
It seems that nearly every person who
is associated with Japan or who has
spent any amount of me here at
all—whether professionally or social-
ly—wants to put his or her experienc-
es onto paper in the form of some
sort of publicaon. Those who nd
themselves teaching English especially
get the itch to write the perfect text-
book that will become a runaway
bestseller which will then allow them
to rere early to while away their
days on a tropical beach, wring even
more bestsellers.
In fact, teachers oen lament that
there is no “perfect” textbook on the
market for their parcular situaon or
need. So, one alternave to remedy
this perennial problem is to write your
own textbook. And this is basically
how I got started publishing in the
English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
market in Japan—I could never nd
that all encompassing perfect text-
book for the course I was teaching…so
I wrote my own.
Over the past couple of decades I
have enjoyed much success in author-
ing textbooks for the Japanese EFL
market. During this period of me, I
have also been approached by a num-
ber of potenal authors wanng ad-
vice on how to break into the Japa-
nese EFL market. The following arcle
summarizes a presentaon I made at
the annual JALT Conference 2013—
October 25-28 (held in Kobe, at the
Portopia Hotel). I was happy to impart
some of the wisdom I have learned
over the years to help budding text-
book writers break into the market.
There are a number of perspecves
which need to be considered before
pung pen to paper. First and fore-
most, it is necessary to take into con-
sideraon the “publisher’s” needs and
expectaons at that moment. The EFL
market is constantly changing and
what is trendy today maybe outdated
tomorrow. Then there is the
“editorial” perspecve which, alt-
hough related, is quite separate from
what the publisher expects. The edi-
tors really do wield much power and

MW’s Between the Keys
6
inuence within publishing houses, so
knowing what they want will make for
smoother sailing when presenng the
inial proposal. Next, is the
“salesperson’s” view; s/he is in the
trenches and really knows what the
market is dictang. Aer all, the
salesperson will be the one to pro-
mote the book and actually to sell it,
so knowing the market’s strong selling
points will help in the wring of the
textbook. Finally, there is the au-
thor’s perspecve. Unfortunately,
this is the least important of all the
components that go into geng a
proposal for a book accepted because
EFL textbooks are largely for commer-
cial use and business is business. If
you have your heart set on wring
something more high-brow—
academic and scholarly—then EFL
textbook wring in Japan is not for
you.
My Experience with “EFL Publishing”
When I rst arrived to Japan back in
1989, the EFL market had few tles
and the selecon was dismal. Com-
puters, along with the prospect of
desktop publishing were in their in-
fancy; my rst few tles were typed
on an electric typewriter and then
sent by mail to a typeseer to be put
into book form. Needless to say, this
created a host of problems, not least
of which was the fact that the person
doing the typeseng had no
knowledge of the English language
usually, so oen things were approxi-
mated. Eding and correcng mis-
takes was tedious and painstaking
work, indeed.
As an Assistant Language Teacher
(ALT) on the Japan Exchange and
Teaching (JET) Program in rural
Aomori prefecture, I had the great
fortune to meet a professor who had
a publishing connecon; the company
he worked with was desperate to
publish a cross-cultural reader on
American culture. They wanted a
“real” American who could write es-
says with vocabulary building acvi-
es that Japanese professors could
use as textbooks in their classes. This
was my rst textbook.
Having a connecon will help you
get your foot in the door, which is es-
senal in the Japanese publishing in-
dustry. Sending unsolicited proposals
oen do not receive any type of re-
sponse. Over the years, I have built
relaonships with a number of Japa-
nese publishing companies, having
published tles with Kenkyusha, Seibi-
do, Kinseido, Taishukan, Sanseido, and
Macmillan Languagehouse. Nearly all
of these were from making acquaint-
ances at conferences and befriending
the salespeople who came knocking
on my university oce door.
The following ps, I hope, will help
you get started in the EFL publishing
industry.
Publisher’s Perspecve
Know what’s hot and what’s not!
English for Specic Purposes
(ESP) is trendy now, as are
reading books. Many publish-
ers have inundated (and thus

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
7
exhausted) the market with
too many similar conversa-
on/speaking books; the de-
creasing market share cannot
support all of the current -
tles.
Less ash and more substance!
ELT textbook publishers are
interested in strong but sim-
ple books without cosng too
much to produce. Why? The
Japanese ESL/EFL market is
connuing to shrink due to
the falling birthrate; it is di-
cult to recoup their invest-
ment and make a prot.
Digized books are the wave of
the future…
The industry is changing rap-
idly and ELT publishers are
looking seriously into publish-
ing more digital-based for-
mats. Digital could very well
replace paper-based books in
the future.
Publishers looking to expand their
primary areas…
Publishers are looking for pro-
jects that can double as self-
study or trade books, in addi-
on to tradional English Lan-
guage Teaching (ELT) text-
books. This is a result of the
shrinking market, as well, and
companies are acvely look-
ing for ways to expand their
sales.
Editorial Perspecve
Know your target market!
Who are the key competors?
What tles on the market can
your book go up against and
be adopted by teachers? A
popular myth is that you write
a book for students—
WRONG—you write it for the
instructor and hope he/she
will adopt it. Students have
no say, really, in the selecon
of textbooks.
The book needs to be fresh and in-
teresng
This goes without saying, real-
ly, but the market is always
looking for something new
that will catch the eye of
teachers who may decide to
adopt it. A number of years
ago, this was including a CD
with the textbook; this has
largely been replaced by pub-
lisher-website downloads for
students and teachers. Any
extra supplementary material
that the author can oer to
accompany the book is wel-
comed by publishers. This be-
comes a selling point by hav-
ing extra ideas/material/
acvies that are down-
loadable for the teacher…and
supplementary exercises for
the students.
Easy to teach/use
Oen authors will use a cer-
tain formula or technique in

MW’s Between the Keys
8
their classrooms and just love
it…thinking that it is the best
method possible. Unfortu-
nately, these can oen be
convoluted and dicult to ex-
ecute for other teachers. It is
important that the book is
easy to use and easy to teach.
Teachers don’t have me for
developing complicated preps
outside of class. They want it
to be straighorward and
me ecient.
Appealing to the eye
Not only the cover should be
striking and appealing—which
authors really don’t have too
much say in the design except
somemes to oer ideas and
then to sign o on it once the
designers have it ready—but
the actual page layout of ma-
terial needs to have a certain
appeal to the eye. Illustra-
ons are oen a key reason
why a text is adopted as op-
posed to one which is not.
Not too dense, but balanced
The average language class in
Japanese universies is 90
minutes. Teachers (especially
nave-Japanese instructors)
like to nish one lesson during
that me-period. Too much
material will cause the teach-
er to rush through it. Not
enough material will bore the
students and the teacher. Al-
ways pilot your material with-
in your own classes to see
how easily grasped the mate-
rial is for the students and
how much me each acvity
requires on average. Of
course each class will be
dierent, with varying levels
of comprehension and under-
standing, but you need to
gauge it in the middle to not
leave the lower level students
behind, but make it inter-
esng enough for the higher
level students so they do not
get bored. Basically, have a
formula and sck with it!
Level is important: Beginner? In-
termediate? Advanced?
Editors become so frustrated
with authors who start out
with a low-intermediate pro-
posal, but end up with a super
-advanced book by the last
lesson. Many authors get the
level at-out wrong.
Do your research and look at
other tles on the market—
not to copy but to get an idea
of the dierent levels and
how these progress gradually
throughout the enre book.
Also, think about the amount
of text on a page; if the le-
hand is text-heavy, then the
right-hand page needs to bal-
ance that with less text and
perhaps exercises that are la-
conic, short answer, or mul-
ple-choice…and a related illus-

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
9
traon to e the material to-
gether visually. Especially in
Japan, illustraons are key
components and can make
and break a book—I call it the
“kawaii” factor.
You have 1 chance to make your
proposal count! Don’t blow it!
Submit at least three lessons/
units/chapters and a table of
contents with your proposal.
Keep your explanaon short
and sharp. Do not write a
thesis explaining all the theo-
ry and pedagogy you used to
come up with the exercises
and acvies. Publishers re-
ceive many, many proposals
each year and only accept a
handful. They do not have
the me to read through pag-
es upon pages of notes and
explanaons. If your stu is
good, the pedagogy will be
evident. These people are
professionals and know what
will work and what won’t…
usually. Take your me on
the three lessons you submit.
Make them count.
Don’t get discouraged if your pro-
posal is turned down…
If you submit a proposal to
one publisher and it is reject-
ed, it could be because they
already have another tle
which is too similar and would
compete against a book they
already have in their cata-
logue.
This is nothing against your
own book’s idea necessarily,
so don’t take it personally.
Each publisher has a certain
number of tles they like to
produce each year, and their
quota may be used up.
Tweak it and resubmit it to
another publisher—aer do-
ing your homework to make
sure it is a tle that would
complement their catalogue.
Salesperson Perspecve
There must be a need in the mar-
ket for the proposed book.
This point is crucial. Publish-
ers want to make money and
salespeople want to sell
books. If there is a hole in the
current tles available for a
parcular area, publishers
and salespeople will be more
apt to adopt it because there
is a clear need in the market.
Also, be kind to your sales-
people when they come
knocking on your oce door
laden with sample copies.
Accept their books and cata-
logues. Pick their brains as
they are on the frontlines and
really know what the market
trends are and can give you
the best inial advice.

MW’s Between the Keys
10
As the author, you need to
pilot the book in your classes
which is a part of the market
(show feedback, progress,
success, etc).
The textbook needs to have
clear goals—teachers are
busy and would prefer to
spend me teaching content
rather than teaching how to
use the text; salespeople do
not want to have to teach the
teacher how to teach the
text.
Length of the textbook is very
important. Many mes text-
book proposals come in way
too long. The reason is that
potenal authors oen have
many great ideas and have
trouble self-eding.
The proposed textbook needs
to show a consistent level
throughout all the units. It is
a tricky balance—the text
needs to show some kind of
level increase from Unit 1 –
Unit 12, but can’t have too
much of a jump or teachers
will not adopt it.
Consistency is an important
component—without con-
sistency, the text can be a
salesperson’s nightmare (as
well as the editor’s) as it can
look too confusing.
Many potenal authors have
great lessons that suit their
classes and needs, but it has
to transfer to the wider com-
munity of ELT teachers and
meet their classroom needs
as well.
The Author’s Perspecve
Don’t love your copy too much!
So oen, potenal authors
think every comma, adverb,
preposion and adjecve is
integral to the book. Allow
the editor to edit and take
any cricism in stride. It his
his/her duty to make sure the
textbook is the best it can
possibly be before it hits the
market. Usually, editors have
much experience and
knowhow in what the market
is dictang and what diculty
levels are appropriate.
In addion, the “fresh eyes”
perspecve is essenal when
wring a textbook. Have a
colleague or friend who is in
the business look at it to oer
you a fresh perspecve. So
oen, aer reading and re-
reading a parcular secon,
even mistakes begin to look
correct. Another set of eyes
can somemes nd these
glaring typos, misspellings
and subject/verb agreement
issues that you consistently
have missed while trying to
self-edit. Also, lay it aside for

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
11
a few days and look at it your-
self with a renewed sense of
“fresh eyes.” You’ll be
amazed at what you will need
to correct or change!
Be open to suggesons and changes.
Have thick skin and take cri-
cism construcvely. Authors
can be temperamental about
their work somemes, and
much of it might end up edit-
ed out in the nal version.
The point is you want the
book to be the best it can be.
Don’t take suggesons for
changes personally as an
aack against your work or
wring ability.
Befriend your salesperson: Ask him/
her what is needed in the current mar-
ket.
As menoned earlier, cold
proposals sent, unsolicited,
oen don’t even receive a re-
sponse. However, if you have
a business card from a sales-
person, e-mail him/her and
develop a relaonship; when
your proposal is ready, you
will already have one of the
proverbial feet in the door.
This is so essenal in Japa-
nese publishing—
nemawashi—or some type of
personal connecon with a
person on the inside.
A word of warning! Be care-
ful sharing your ideas too
widely, inially, as the market
is very compeve (and alt-
hough rare, someone can
take your idea, develop it,
and have it in published form
while you are sll trying to
decide the proposal).
Seeing your own creave work in
book-form is so excing and one way
to make your regular job seem more
worthwhile and sasfying. Take the
me to make a proposal that is well
organized, current, and pedagogical in
scope. Get to know the area by read-
ing up on current methodologies and
by surveying what the market is oer-
ing at the moment. And nally, don’t
be discouraged if your proposal is re-
jected. With some tweaking and reor-
ganizing, it could be that bestseller
that will make you a household name
in the English language teaching eld
in Japan. Good luck!
About the Author
Todd Jay Leonard, a longme resident
of Japan, lives, writes and teaches in
Kyushu where he is a professor at Fu-
kuoka University of Educaon. He has
published extensively in academic
journals, magazines, and newspapers
in the areas of educaon, spirituality,
American religious history, cross-
cultural understanding, and English as
a Foreign Language. He is the author
of twenty books.

BOOKS BY TODD JAY LEONARD
Crossing Cultures—America and Japan (Kenkyusha, 1992)
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!—Contemporary English through Newspaper Articles
(Kinseido, 1994)
Team-Teaching Together—A Bilingual Resource Handbook for JTEs and AETs
(Taishukan, 1994)
Talk, Talk: American-Style (Macmillan Languagehouse, 1996)
Words to Write By—Developing Writing Skills through Quotations (Macmillan
Languagehouse, 1997)
The Better Half—Exploring the Changing Roles of Men and Women with Current
Newspaper Articles (Macmillan Languagehouse, 1997)
East Meets West: An American in Japan (Kenkyusha, 1998)
East Meets West: Problems and Solutions—Understanding Misunderstandings
between JTEs and ALTs (Taishukan, 1999)
Trendy Traditions: A Cross-Cultural Skills-Based Reader of Essays on the United
States (Macmillan Languagehouse, 2002)
Business as Usual: An Integrated Approach to Learning English (Seibido, 2003)
Letters Home: Musings of an American Expatriate Living in Japan (iUniverse, 2003)
Words of Inspiration: A Self-Diviniation and Healing Method for Awakening your
Spiritual-Intuitive Side Using Playing Cards (iUniverse, 2003)
Orbit: English Reading (Sanseido, 2004)
Talking to the Other Side: A History of Modern Spiritualism and Mediumship—A
Study of the Religion, Science, Philosophy and Mediums that Encompass this
American-Made Religion (iUniverse, 2005)
Orbit: English Reading [New Revised Edition] (Sanseido, 2007)
Talk, Talk: American-Style—Meeting People [Revised, Book One] (Macmillan
Languagehouse, 2008)
Talk, Talk: American-Style—Going Places [Revised, Book Two] (Macmillan
Languagehouse, 2008)
An Indiana Hoosier in Lord Tsugaru’s Court—Musings of an American Expatriate
Living in Rural Japan (iUniverse, 2009)
American Traditions—A Cross-Cultural Skills-Based Reader of Essays on American
Symbols, Traditions and Superstitions (Macmillan Languagehouse, 2010)
British Traditions—A Reader of Essays on the UK (Macmillan Languagehouse, 2011)
MW’s Between the Keys
12

Introducon
In 2008, the English Educaon Center
(EEC) at Ehime University – a naonal
Japanese university in southwestern
Japan – set out to revamp its English
program in order to tailor to the spe-
cic needs of its approximately 2,000
rst-year students. This reinvenon
took a four-pronged approach: For
the eight permanent faculty members
to work in teams to create a reading,
a wring, a speaking and a listening
textbook; to make a common test for
these macro skills; to implement a
comprehensive e-learning program;
and to iniate an “English Profession-
al Course” catering to advanced-level
second to fourth year students. All
four elements were imposed aer the
results of research indicated that rst-
year students at the university de-
sired a more tailored approach to
their English language learning. The
purpose of this arcle is to describe
the origins of the program, to outline
the details of the curriculum, and to
reect on the successes and failures
of this project since its incepon.
The discussion will focus on three
of the components menoned above:
the creaon of four textbooks, and of
a test for each class that uses the
textbooks, and of the aforemenoned
English Professional Course. Predicta-
bly, creang a new English program
based on the needs of 2000 students
was a huge undertaking. The process
involved pung together the frame-
work for a successful English language
curriculum: taking steps to plan, cre-
ate and publish textbooks for the pro-
gram, creang a tesng program that
fairly gauges the learning outcomes of
all rst-year students studying English
at the university, and creang courses
tailored to the future needs of high-
level English language learning stu-
dents.
Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
13
A learner-centered approach
to curriculum design:
Creang and implemenng a general English
program at a Japanese University.
Neil Heernan
Michael Delve
English Educaon Center, Ehime University

MW’s Between the Keys
14
Background
The EEC teaches General Educaon
English classes to approximately 2,000
rst-year students every year. In the
rst semester, speaking and listening
classes are taught, while wring and
reading classes are the focus in the
second semester. Unless students are
given a special exempon due to a
high score on the TOEIC, TOEFL or
IELTS, all of these classes are a man-
datory part of their rst-year educa-
on at the university. The EEC teaches
to all six facules at the university:
Educaon, Agriculture, Science, Engi-
neering, Medicine and Law and
Leers. The average language level of
rst-year students at Ehime University
is around 350 on the Test of English
for Internaonal Communicaon
(TOEIC), but this average varies be-
tween facules.
In 2008, with the needs of these
students rmly in mind, the eight per-
manent faculty members at the EEC
were tasked with conducng a needs
analysis in order to determine exactly
what our students were interested in
learning in their rst-year English lan-
guage classes. The results of an exten-
sive research project yielded valuable
informaon for the faculty members,
and the following process was set in
moon.
We will discuss the three most im-
portant elements of this program be-
low, outlining them in the order in
which they occurred.
Textbook creaon
The rst step of this process was to
design a textbook for each of the four
macroskill-themed classes: Listening,
Speaking, Reading and Wring. This
was done over a period of three years
– and as of November, 2013 – all are
in use at the university and also for
sale on the general Japanese textbook
market. These textbooks are sold to
our students at a discounted rate and
the authors receive no royales for
textbooks sold at Ehime University.
The textbooks were created aer
conducng a needs analysis of Ehime
University students. This involved sur-
veying all 2,000 rst-year students as
to their interests and needs when
learning English. As a result, a set of
“Can-Do” lists for each skill was creat-
ed. The “Can-Do” lists were compiled
in 2008 aer analyzing the data from
the students’ responses to queson-
naires asking exactly what they want-
ed and expected from their English
language studies. From this, a team of
between two and four authors set out
to write a textbook that matched the
components of the “Can-Do” lists, but
more importantly, that matched the
needs and wants of the learners at
the university. The resulng text-
books cover topics such as those
listed in Table 1.
The process of wring these text-
books in line with the results of the
student quesonnaires proved to be
challenging for the team members.
Each author had diering ideas into
what material should be included in
each unit. As a result, through a pro-

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
15
Table 1
Outline of textbooks in use at Ehime University, Japan
Listening: Understanding conversaons on the telephone; making plans for
everyday arrangements; understanding weather reports; using everyday com-
plaints and requests (Blight, Tanaka & McCarthy, 2010).
Reading: Reading: the environment; dierent cultures; technology; traveling
abroad (Murphy, Heernan & Hiromori, 2011).
Speaking: Introducing yourself to others, daily life; likes and dislikes; talking on
the telephone; events that le an impression (Staord et. al., 2010).
Wring: Paragraph wring: hometowns; stang one’s opinion; introducing Jap-
anese culture; and studying abroad (Staord, 2013).
cess of trial-and-error, we ended up
giving one member of each team the
tle of coordinator. This person es-
senally oversaw the whole process
and ensured that all of the content in
the textbooks was wrien in a uni-
form style that would best suit the
learning needs of students at Ehime
University.
Once the textbooks were complet-
ed, the major publishers in Japan
were contacted about taking on the
project. Since our instuon could
guarantee approximately 2,000 sales
annually, we had quite a few interest-
ed publishers willing to sign a contract
with us. We eventually signed a con-
tract with Cengage Publishing for two
of the textbooks and Kinseido Pub-
lishing for the other two. Then, an ini-
al three-year contract was signed
with each publisher, with the opon
of extending the deal on a yearly basis
aer that.
The tesng program
The next step in the process of cra-
ing an inclusive curriculum was to
make a common test for all rst-year
students taking each of the four rst-
year classes. There are currently four
disnct Listening and Reading tests,
and a specic rubric focussing on the
syllabus in use for the Speaking and
Wring classes. The Listening tests
consist of 50 mulple-choice ques-
ons based on the skills, themes and
vocabulary of each unit of the text-
book. Two types of scripts are on
each recording: short conversaons
between two people, and one an-
nouncement or lecture. The rst ver-
sion of the Listening test was piloted
with 908 rst-year students in the
spring of the 2009-2010 academic
year, and subsequently revised and
updated. All four versions were rec-
orded professionally at a studio in To-
kyo. The EEC received funding from

MW’s Between the Keys
16
the university for this project, thus
allowing us to spare no expense in the
making of the listening test. The re-
sult is a professionally sounding and
looking test that all rst-year students
take at the end of each semester.
The Reading test consists of 30
quesons based on short texts: adver-
sements, recipes, noces, schedules,
and other types of quesons that can
be found on the TOEIC. Queson
types include scanning, skimming, in-
ference, summarizing, guessing mean-
ing and understanding basic discourse
structure: all of which are covered
during the 15-week course during the
second semester of each academic
year. The rst version of the Reading
test was piloted in October of 2010
with 807 students. The full version of
the Reading test was administered for
the third me in February, 2013 with
1,622 students.
Similarly, the creators of the
Speaking and Wring tests created a
rubric for each test based on the cur-
riculum and the textbooks for each
class (see Staord, 2013; Staord et
al., 2010). These tests have remained
basically the same as when they were
created in 2010, with some minor
changes to each of the rubrics to
make them more user-friendly for the
teachers of these classes.
The English Professional Course
The third step in the process involved
creang an “English Professional
Course” program designed for stu-
dents in their 2nd-4th years of study at
the university, with a TOEIC score of
at least 450. Each year, 30 students
are chosen from approximately 80
applicants. They are chosen based on
their past English experience, an Eng-
lish essay wrien on why they want
to enter the program, their TOEIC
score, and a face-to-face interview.
Students are required to complete
four compulsory courses: Wring
Workshop, Eecve English Presenta-
ons, Oral Communicaon, and
Speaking and Reading Strategies. The
students are also required to choose
four more classes from a choice of
eight: TOEIC Experience, Business
English, Discussion Skills, Wring
Strategies, Academic Reading, Intro-
ductory Interpretaon, English for
Tourism and Internaonal English Ex-
perience. The course is oered to stu-
dents in the Professional Course in
both the rst and second semesters
of each academic year. Each class
runs for 90 minutes and for 15 weeks
in a semester. A disnct focus of each
of these classes is inslling the English
language skills that students will need
for their futures upon graduang
from university.
A nal element to the English Pro-
fessional Course is a study-abroad op-
on that allows students to go to the
University of Hawaii for three weeks
to study English and stay with a
homestay family. This program is
partly subsidized by the university.
Results of the program
To date, the program outlined in this
paper has been extremely successful;

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
17
so much so that other universies in
Japan have been enquiring into the
program with the intenon of seng
up similar programs. First, the text-
books in use have been useful for our
purposes: they suit both the needs of
our learners and of the General Edu-
caon curriculum. Second, the tests
have proven to be an eecve meas-
ure of our students’ progress in the
four courses taught to rst-year stu-
dents. Lastly, the English Professional
Program saw its rst set of graduates
in the spring of 2013: a group of 27
students successfully nished the
eight required courses and received
recognion from Ehime University for
doing so.
The success of a program of this
type largely depends on the work put
into it: this program was conceptual-
ized in the spring of 2008 and has
been a constant project for the eight
permanent faculty members at the
university. Having said that, the re-
sults are in and they are posive: stu-
dent outcomes and sasfacon – de-
termined by the results from the
common tesng program in place and
regular quesonnaires distributed to
students throughout the semester –
demonstrate a high sasfacon with
the English language program at
Ehime University.
Future plans
With the program described here in
its fourth full year of operaon, the
faculty at the university plans to fur-
ther develop the program in three
ways: i) to either connue to use the
textbooks in their current form or to
either revise them or write/choose a
new textbook for our learners. There
are inherent problems in either ap-
proach, as we may need to start from
scratch and conduct a new, updated
needs analysis. This is obviously a
me-consuming endeavor; one that
will test the mele of all of the faculty
members; ii) connue to develop the
common tests for each of the courses
at the university. This will involve re-
vising the four current versions of
both the Listening and Reading tests
so that they are the most reliable and
valid measures of our students’ abili-
es and achievements; iii) to expand
the English Professional Course to in-
clude more study-abroad opons for
students to go to American, Canadian,
Brish and Australian universies. A
further expansion of the English Pro-
fessional Course may also include
adding more courses to the exisng
twelve on oer for the 2nd-4th year
students at the university. However,
this will depend on student demand
for such courses and faculty availabil-
ity to teach them.
Conclusion
The program outlined here has been
extremely successful to date. Howev-
er, there is no doubng the amount
of work that constantly goes into en-
suring its success. The faculty mem-
bers at the university are pleased at
the results that have been accrued,
but are also concerned about the way
forward in the future: Should we con-

Elected Ocers
Coordinator: Nate French
Membership Chair: Travis Holtzclaw
Publicaons Chair: Eric Lerstrom
Treasurer: Sco Petersen
Programs Chair: Azusa Sato
Unelected Appointed Ocers
Web Coordinator: Jim Smiley
Assistant Publicaons Chair: Victoria
Solis
Assistant Programs Chair; Jim Smiley
MW SIG Ocers 2013/2014
MW’s Between the Keys
18
nue on the same path, or start all over
again? These are dilemmas that any
aspiring materials writer must face, and
come part-and-parcel with the process
of designing a quality curriculum that
will have posive benets for our Eng-
lish language learners’ experience at
university.
References
Blight, R., Tanaka, E. & McCarthy, T.
(2010). Real-World listening. Tokyo:
Cengage Learning.
Murphy, R., Heernan, N. & Hiromori,
T. (2010). Skills that thrill: Strategies for
real-world reading. Tokyo: Cengage
Learning.
Staord, M., Heernan, N., Matsumo-
to, H. & Nakayama, A. (2010). Commu-
nicaon Focus. Tokyo: Kinseido Publish-
ing.
Staord, M. (2013). Wring Design. To-
kyo: Kinseido Publishing.
The authors
Neil Heernan has worked at the ter-
ary level in Japan since 2002 and is
currently an Associate Professor in the
English Educaon Center at Ehime Uni-
versity, Matsuyama, Japan. His re-
search interests include tesng, materi-
als development and Computer Assist-
ed Language Learning. He is a Senior
Associate Editor at the Asian EFL Jour-
nal.
He can be reached at
neilhef@gmail.com
Michael Delve is currently a Foreign
Lecturer in the English Educaon Cen-
ter at Ehime University, Matsuyama,
Japan and has been teaching English at
Japanese universies since 2007. His
research interests include vocabulary
acquision, extensive reading and ma-
terials development. He can be
reached at mikedelve@gmail.com

Teachers as Writers
Andrew Reimann
Utsunomiya University
Introducon
The following will describe methods
and techniques for creang, develop-
ing and publishing teacher produced
EFL materials. Creang a textbook
need not be a daunng task. In the
age of digital content and informaon
technology, printed works are becom-
ing increasingly endangered and un-
feasible. This descripon will highlight
simple eecve and aordable means
to producing, publishing and distrib-
ung teacher created materials. Out-
lining a step by step process, praccal
informaon, strategies and tech-
niques which will allow teachers to
professionally produce and market
their own materials. In conclusion,
some resources, contacts and advice
will also be provided.
Raonale
Teacher generated materials are es-
senal for democrazing EFL educa-
on, empowering teachers and fur-
ther personalizing, developing and
specializing the skills of EFL learners.
Tradionally, however, this has been
dicult to do as costs were prohibi-
ve and publishers’ main concerns
tended to favor marketability over
pedagogy.
With the decline of the dead tree
medium of books, the digital age has
ushered in a new era of media con-
sumpon and producon. As anyone
can now access, as well as produce
informaon and content, there is both
an abundance of resources and rub-
bish to si through. For teachers, this
means we are no longer bound by the
tradional gate keepers of teaching
materials and are now freer to create,
customize and distribute our own ma-
terials. Media brokers in all areas are
sll coming to terms with this change
and few are willing to give up the con-
trol aorded by tradional business
models in favor of innovaon, exibil-
ity and freedom. Most major publish-
ers sll include CDs and DVDs with
their texts even though most students
and teachers have evolved beyond
this medium. Why can't textbook ma-
terials be available on YouTube or au-
dio les be downloaded from linked
websites? If you create your own ma-
terials they can be, and quite easily at
that.
The situaon with most publishers
is either (a) they want to publish
something in a huge quanty that ts
every market, thereby yielding maxi-
mum prots. Or (b) they will publish
Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
19

MW’s Between the Keys
20
what you have created but require
you to pre-purchase or agree to buy a
certain percentage of the print run to
cover their costs and reduce their risk.
This either results in a vanity press or
a mass producon of something far
dierent from what you originally in-
tended. Teachers are the best judges
of what their students need and
therefore the soluon is simple. Cre-
ate your own textbook. Most teachers
who don't use textbooks pass out
handouts every week. This is very in-
ecient, me consuming and leaves
the students without a sense of con-
nuity or vision of learning outcomes.
With a textbook created by their
teacher, they know what to expect,
the goals and lesson plans are clear
and organized, they have a sense of
pride in the class as the materials
were created specically for them and
best of all, the teacher’s preparaon,
photocopying or planning, are all
done in advance.
Opons
There are several opons available for
teachers ranging in cost and complexi-
ty. These include POD (print on de-
mand), ebooks (Kindle, Kobo), ibooks
(Apple), Amazon (Create space), or
connecng with local printers (DTP or
InterGraphica Press
www.intergraphicapress.com).
Print on demand, POD is one of
the more tradional forms of self-
publishing. It usually involves direct
contact with a printer or a contract
with a publisher in which the author
covers the costs or agrees to buy the
enre print run. Many local publishers
such as Naundo, Kinseido or Sebido
apply hybrid forms of this model in
which they agree to publish a book if
the author buys a poron of the print
run or pays for a percentage of the
costs. This reduces the risk for pub-
lishers being stuck with unsold books
and allows authors more freedom in
developing their materials. However
this method is quite expensive and
complicated in that small print runs
result in higher costs. Authors oen
have to edit and format their materi-
als as well as being responsible for
markeng distribuon and sales.
Amazon provides a bridge service
for POD in the form of Create Space,
however this is not yet available in Ja-
pan and shipping from the U.S. is sll
not cost eecve and can take up to
three months to receive galley proofs.
Digital prinng through Kindle or
ibooks is perhaps the most cost eec-
ve but can be dicult to market and
distribute and also ranges signicantly
in complexity. Producing a Kindle
book is easiest and costs nothing. Au-
thors can determine their own price
and Amazon will pay up to 70% of the
royales. The diculty here is with
distribuon and praccal applicaon.
Kindles are not interacve and not yet
suited for textbook, in class or interac-
ve usage. Apple’s ibooks is by far the
most innovave and denitely repre-
sents the future of publishing and
textbooks. However it remains very
complex in producon and Apple re-
quires strict control over distribuon,
usage and takes a large percentage of

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
21
any sales. Another opon would be to
create a textbook as an App however
that would sll require advanced pro-
gramming as well as wring skills and
would necessitate all students have
Apple products.
The best opon at present would
be contacng local printers who also
engage in micro publishing. These
vary greatly in services, quality and
cost. There are several available
throughout Japan and a simple
Google search will provide a viable
list. Most local opons require high
level Japanese reading and wring
ability in order to navigate submission
websites and communicate with sta.
A reasonable and ecient opon in
the Kanto area is InterGraphica Press
(www.intergraphicapress.com). In
terms of price, services, communica-
on and quality they were a very posi-
ve experience. Small print runs of
under 100 books can cost as lile as
500 yen per unit for a 60+ page book
with a full color cover and delivered
to home and or school within 2
weeks.
Procedure
In order to produce a simple textbook
for prinng and publishing, teachers
should follow a few basic guidelines.
First organize your materials into clear
categories, themes secons or chap-
ters and create a table of contents. If
you would like an ISBN number and
have the book registered for sale in
stores and online, check for copy pro-
tected materials. Make sure all pic-
tures and graphics are either your
own or you have obtained permission
to use them. There are vast resources
for stock photos available online. ISBN
registraon usually costs about
10,000 yen. Choose a format and lay-
out that is easy to navigate, follows a
logical paern and reects your stu-
dents’ needs and abilies. Short sim-
ple secons with lots of white space
or graphics are best. Also be sure to
provide clear instrucons for exercises
and acvies, this will help the stu-
dents build a posive impression of
the book and cut down substanally
on your in class explanaon. Design
an engaging and relevant cover with a
simple and informave tle. Some-
thing that the students can under-
stand and relate to which also reects
the teaching or course goals. Consider
your distribuon opons. Will you be
selling the book yourself, through a
University bookstore or through a dis-
tribuon and markeng company
such as Englishbooks.jp? In most cas-
es you will also need to generate a
barcode. This is oen included with
an ISBN but is available separately for
about 3,000 yen. This decision strong-
ly aects the business end of textbook
producon. Although the author is
free to determine the unit price, you
want to be able to cover your costs
without ripping o your students. It is
important to know that most book
stores will take 10-20% o the cover
price as their fee and oen sell each
book at a discount. Most distribuon
and markeng rms also take about
40-50%.You can keep these expenses
down and create a lower priced book

MW’s Between the Keys
22
if you sell it yourself directly to the
students, however most universies
don’t approve of this method and
sales generally have to go through the
campus bookstore. Make sure you
carefully consider all opons and rules
for your parcular instuon. Be sure
to balance your price with producon
and distribuon costs you don’t want
to be a charity but you also don’t
want to appear to be gauging your
students either.
Finally, when you are ready to
publish create a PDF of your manu-
script. Check it carefully for formang
errors and that the pages line up. The
printed version will appear exactly as
the PDF. Most POD, ebook and local
publisher/printers prefer PDF as the
default format. If you use something
else make sure to check with the com-
pany of your choice rst.
Conclusion
In conclusion, producing a textbook is
a rewarding and benecial experience
for all those involved. Any teacher
who has created a folders worth of
materials for a class has the resources
and creavity available to produce an
eecve and relevant text. The bene-
ts for students are connuity, con-
sistency in materials and a clear idea
of the aims and goals of the class.
Teachers will cut down on their prepa-
raon me, have a valuable resource
which directly reects their classroom
needs and goals as well as a publica-
on of which they can be proud. In
the same way that Guenberg’s
prinng press transformed his genera-
on and changed the way informaon
was exchanged, small scale, context
specic, textbook producon can em-
power teachers and students. The in-
formaon age necessitates a more
exible approach to producing, con-
suming and distribung media, simi-
larly textbook publishing needs to be
reconsidered and inuenced by the
teacher’s specic needs, requirements
and experiences. There is no beer
way to democraze informaon and
educaon than by creang your own
materials, publishing them and dis-
tribung them to others with similar
needs and interests.

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
23
Impromptu Presentaons
Richard Miles
Nanzan University
richardokun@hotmail.com
Learner level: high intermediate and
above
Length of acvity: 10-15 minutes
approximately (can easily be varied)
Resources used: a pen and some
paper for note taking
Goals: to pracce specic
presentaon skills, observe other
students using the same skills in
dierent ways, to familiarize students
with presenng and build experience
(thereby reducing the stress of deliv-
ering presentaons), increase class
parcipaon and collaboraon with
reecons, establish beer connuity
between classes
Preparaon
Very lile preparaon on the part of
the teacher is needed, as this task is
primarily a review or pracce exer-
cise. No specic materials are needed
other than perhaps a pen and some
paper. One recommendaon I have is
that the teacher should choose a top-
ic ahead of me that requires no re-
search and that everyone can talk
about with minimal preparaon.
Procedure
1.First, teach a new presentaon skill
(importance of sweeping eye contact,
how to answer dierent kinds of
quesons, the importance of stressing
key words, pausing before or aer de-
livering key points, doubling up on or
repeang key words).
2.Put students in groups of three
(four is beer than two if necessary).
3.Give the class a topic to present on
(something they do not need to re-
search and can easily talk about aer
2-3 minutes preparaon). Remind
them they do not have me to write a
script or memorize what they want to
say.
4.When the rst person in each group
stands up to talk, assign specic lis-
tening roles to the other two mem-
bers. This entails not only just listen-
ing to what the speaker is saying but
focusing on either the new skill that

MW’s Between the Keys
24
they will aempt to demonstrate, or a
culminaon of previously learned
skills.
Aer the speaker has nished (and
sits down) they will get immediate
feedback from their two partners as
to how they did, specically regarding
the targeted skills. Step 4 is then re-
peated for the next two people in the
group unl everyone has had a turn
presenng and listening for certain
skills or tasks.
Opons
1.Impromptu presentaons can be
ulized to pracce various new pre-
senng skills, to review previously
learnt skills, or just simply to familiar-
ize students with presenng in front
of others. If you are using them for
review, you can skip step 1 in the pro-
cedure secon above, or you can have
students review amongst themselves
instead.
2.If you want to assess these presen-
taons, it is possible to have groups of
4, and have the third member of the
audience video the presentaon for
later evaluaon. I don’t personally
recommend evaluang them as this
defeats the purpose of having low-key
and stress free presentaons.
3.Impromptu presentaons can also
be done to add variety to an oral
communicaon class in which stu-
dents typically begin class by discuss-
ing their weekend or latest news with
a partner. Why not have them pre-
sent it instead?
4.Impromptu presentaons can be
done at any me during the lesson.
Raonale
Oral presentaons are an integral part
of life for university students (Gretz et
al., 2009) and being able to success-
fully deliver one can signicantly de-
termine one’s success in the academic
world and in the working world
(Feklyunina & Grebenyuk, 2004;
Stowe et al., 2011). Presentaons are
also oen rated the most stressful
and demanding task faced by stu-
dents (Joughin, 2007). This is especial-
ly true for language learners who
have to overcome the stress and di-
culty of delivering a presentaon
while doing so in a second language.
Impromptu presentaons can help
alleviate many of these issues. They
can ease stress levels by helping stu-
dents become more experienced with
presenng, and they can help to draw
aenon to the many smaller tasks
that go into delivering a successful
presentaon. They can also promote
more classroom parcipaon and col-
laboraon, as well as an increase in
informaon processing speed by stu-
dents (Thompson et al., 2012).

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
25
When compared to other im-
portant academic skills, such as essay
wring, oral discussions, or crical
reading assignments, students oen
get fairly few opportunies to deliver
oral presentaons. This lack of expo-
sure and limited experience makes
students nervous when presenng.
When they do have the chance to de-
liver an oral presentaon, they are
usually evaluated and graded- making
the experience even more stressful.
Impromptu presentaons can provide
students with experience delivering
presentaons, more frequently and
without the stress of being evaluated.
By keeping the goal small and
by just focusing on a specic task
within the presentaon, impromptu
presentaons can also help alleviate
the stress felt by students. These spe-
cic tasks could be simply trying to
make sure their eye contact is good,
or by asking a good rhetorical ques-
on at the beginning of their presen-
taon. By mastering these smaller
steps, one-by-one, they can build up
their condence. When it comes to
delivering a presentaon later on in
the semester they will already be fa-
miliar with most of the smaller tasks
they need to focus on and will have a
beer idea of how to put them all to-
gether and deliver a successful
presentaon.
Impromptu presentaons can
also foster a sense of unity among
students from sharing feedback and
by comparing dierent approaches to
a task. As individual students each
possess dierent strengths and weak-
nesses, impromptu presentaons be-
come a chance for others to view,
learn from and incorporate these
dierent skills and techniques into
their own presentaons. Ironically,
the lack of preparaon me becomes
a convenient face-saving excuse and
students quickly realize and accept
that no one can deliver a perfect
presentaon. Without the pressure of
a teacher watching on impromptu
presentaons can oen become quite
a fun exercise.
It can oen be hard to estab-
lish a sense of connuity between
classes, especially with classes that
meet only once a week, but impromp-
tu presentaons can help with this by
solidifying previously learnt skills and
promong frequent review. Aer sev-
eral weeks of classes with impromptu
presentaons, students will usually
come to expect them and will oen
revise certain skills ahead of me, in
the ancipaon that they will be part
of the requirements of today’s
presentaon.
Impromptu presentaons oer
many potenal benets for students

MW’s Between the Keys
26
and can be used for a variety of pur-
poses in the language classroom or in
L1 classrooms, in university sengs or
elsewhere. Very lile resources are
necessary and with a lile bit of train-
ing, students will come to view them
as useful and even as enjoyable.
Caveats
Many students are fearful of presen-
taons, so the rst me you try doing
impromptu presentaons in the class-
room, be prepared for some re-
sistance and confusion. You can help
to ease their concerns by stressing
that it is just for pracce and that
there will be no assessment. Also
point out that no one will be able to
deliver a great presentaon and that
mistakes are okay. I oen ask the stu-
dents to give me a random topic to
present on, with no me to prepare,
and then have them evaluate and dis-
cuss how I did on certain tasks and
skills. It is also important to remind
students that presenng is not strictly
a language exercise and that com-
municang their message or feeling is
more important than geng the right
tense or using the right arcle.
References
Feklyunina, V. & Grebenyuk, K.
(2004). The importance of presenta-
on skills for sciensts. Retrieved on
November 3, 2011, from: hp://
dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.578945
Gretz, L.D., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I.
(2009). The impact of goal orienta-
on, self-reecon and personal char-
acteriscs on the acquision of oral
presentaon skills. European Journal
of Psychology of Educaon, 24 (3), pp.
293-306.
Joughin, G. (2007). Student concep-
ons of oral presentaons. Studies in
Higher Educaon, 32 (3), pp. 323-336.
Stowe, K., Parent, J., Schwartz, L., &
Sendall, P. (2011). Are Business School
Students Prepared to Present?: The
Pedagogy of Presentaon Skills in
Business Schools. Retrieved on No-
vember 3rd, 2011, from hp://
www.abe.sju.edu/stowe.pdf.
Thompson, K.J., Switky, B, & Gilinsky,
A. (2012). Impromptu presentaons:
boosng student learning and en-
gagement through spontaneous col-
laboraon. Journal of Educaon for
Business, 87, pp. 14-21.

Language-in-Educaon Policies and MEXT-
approved EFL Textbooks in the New
Course of Study
Gregory Paul Glasgow
Meikai University, Urayasu, Chiba
Daniel Leigh Paller
Kinjo Gakuin University, Nagoya, Aichi
Introducon
As former senior high school teachers,
we ancipated with excitement the
release of the rst-year EFL textbooks
for the newly revised Course of Study
for Foreign Language. We wanted to
see with our own eyes how the Minis-
try of Educaon, Culture, Sports, Sci-
ence and Technology (MEXT) was go-
ing to reect what many have seen as
ambious new changes to the senior
high school English curriculum
(Stewart, 2009; Yoshida, 2009), espe-
cially the reorganizaon of foreign
language subjects as well as the re-
quirement that classes be conducted
in English (MEXT, 2011). We knew
that in order for the objecves of the
new curriculum to take place at the
classroom level, the textbook would
have to be a crical agent of change
that would reect these changes and
provide teachers with the tools to re-
alize and ulize them in their lessons.
However, as we have had the
chances to examine some of the new
textbooks, we noted that there was a
wide variety in the interpretaons of
the Course of Study guidelines; while
some books had made some adjust-
ments clearly inuenced by the new
curriculum, others seemed not to be
that much dierent from before. This
perceived mismatch has been already
noted in the literature in Japan
(Gorsuch, 1999; Ogura, 2008; Hum-
phries, 2011). However, with the new
curriculum, we expected bigger
changes. The fact that they were vari-
able led us to queson the role of ma-
terials development in language-in-
educaon policy and the degree to
which materials can actually reect
the goals of educaonal ministries,
and the factors that may enhance or
impede these goals. It was this main
queson that has inspired our current
interest in the degree to which teach-
Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
27

MW’s Between the Keys
28
ing materials play a role in the policy-
making process, and has inspired us
to conduct our current research,
which we presented at the 38th Na-
onal JALT Conference on October
26th, 2013 in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan.
Conceptual Overview
We view language-in-educaon policy
and planning as a complicated pro-
cess in which macro policy objecves
are translated – but not always neatly
– to the local level, where they are to
be implemented by teachers in class-
rooms (see Chua and Baldauf, 2011
for more on language policy transla-
on). The translaon of language-in-
educaon policy into pracce is
aected by the involvement of sever-
al actors in the policymaking process:
policymakers, curriculum developers,
principals, department heads and
teachers, Similar to Zhang and Ad-
amson (2006) as well as Adamson and
Davison (2003), we see the transla-
on process as complex and involving
several stages, as displayed in the dia-
gram below:
There are several levels of policy
formulaon as seen below where pro-
cesses (policymaking, materials de-
sign, school decision-making and
teachers lesson planning) lead to
products (framework, syllabus and
textbooks, curriculum projects and
teaching acts). Our concern is with
the processes and products created
under the resourced curriculum,
where textbooks and textbook syllabi
are created (found in the textbooks
accepted by the MEXT through the
textbook approval process). However,
as we discussed in our presentaon,
the lack of coherence between these
levels of curricula has the potenal to
migate the intended eects of the
inial direcves.
Presentaon Focus
In our presentaon, “MEXT-approved
textbooks and the new Course of
Study” we sought to compare the
newly released textbooks with texts
from the previous Course of Study
(implemented in 2003) in order to
contrast the degree to which they
align with curriculum objecves. We
examined the new subjects and the
composion of the associated text-
books and compared them to text-
Intended
Curriculum
Resourced
Curriculum
Adopted
Curriculum
Enacted
Curriculum
Policymaking
Materials
Design
School Decision
Making
Teachers Les-
son
Planning
Curriculum
Framework
Syllabus, Text-
books And
Teachers
Resources
Curriculum
Projects
Teaching
Acts
(Adapted from Adamson & Davison, 2003; Zhang & Adamson, 2006)
PROCESS
PRODUCT

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
29
books from the previous curriculum.
We also looked at the objecves of
each of the subjects in both the new
curriculum as well as the previous one
and determined the extent to which
the textbook reected the objecves.
Our approach has been inspired by
several authors in materials and cur-
riculum development ,(Graves, 2000;
Kennedy & Tomlinson, 2013) as well
as the role of language teaching
methods in language-in-educaon
policy and planning (Liddicoat, 2004).
The textbooks we chose were
from the subjects English I, Wring
and Oral Communicaon 1 from the
previous curriculum, and English Com-
municaon I, English Expression I and
English Conversaon from the new
curriculum. We selected textbooks
that were ranked high in terms of
market share based on data that we
have from a well-known source. We
analysed the content, organizaon as
well as the degree to which the text-
books reected the goals of the sub-
jects.
Findings & Discussion
We found that while notable discrep-
ancies existed between the textbooks
and the objecves of the previous
curriculum, the new textbooks make
incremental strides towards align-
ment. In bullet points below, we pro-
vide brief summaries of our ndings
for space consideraons:
Crown (English 1 and English Com-
municaon 1): these textbooks
tended to have a conservave
interpretaon of Course of
Study objecves. The new text-
books do not make any drasc
changes. Though both curricula
intend to develop students’
basic ability to communicate
through the four macro-skills,
the predominant exercises cen-
tre on grammar and transla-
on.
Hello There (Aural/Oral Communi-
caon 1 and English Conversa-
on): The same publisher has
released this textbook for both
subjects. No dierence be-
tween the textbooks except for
layout. The English Conversa-
on subject suggests that stu-
dents need to be able to “hold
conversaons.”
Element (Wring)– The Element
textbook has wring tasks
geared primarily at the senten-
al level rather than for com-
municave purposes, which
does not align with the sub-
ject’s intenons to write ac-
cording to the situaon and
the purpose.
Vision Quest (English Expression 1)
– A creave hybrid textbook
that aempts to balance the
need for grammacal sentenc-
es as well as communicave
acvies.
Overall, our results show that except
for Vision Quest textbook, the text-
books have not translated these
changes as they were intended. This
suggests that other forces are at
work, specically creang textbooks

MW’s Between the Keys
30
that are closely aligned with the uni-
versity entrance exams.
Our ndings show that the curric-
ulum objecves as intended have not
translated into the resourced curricu-
lum as neatly as one may expect. The
textbooks examined are conservave
in how they interpret the guidelines
of the Course of Study. Clearly text-
book publishers have to make com-
promises when producing materials in
response to policy changes. Prots
from the textbooks are of the upmost
importance. Another implicaon is
how teachers use the textbook and
supplement them to compensate for
where the textbooks have shortcom-
ings. This could be problemac, as
some teachers may not have the
knowledge and skills to create materi-
als to lessen the gap between the ac-
vies in the textbooks and the con-
tent of the Course of Study.
Conclusion
Our presentaon discussed how the
objecves and content of the Course
of Study is seen in six MEXT-approved
textbooks. As a whole, we found that
the textbooks were lacking and im-
provements should be made to have
beer translate the objecves. MEXT
(2011b) states, “it is essenal to im-
prove the quality and quanty of
school textbooks, which play an im-
portant role in children’s learning as
the primary educaonal materials for
school subjects. MEXT therefore en-
sure that they comply with the new
Courses of Study.” MEXT clearly
thinks that the textbooks need to be
beer aligned with the Courses of
Study. We will just have to wait and
see.
References
Adamson, B. & Davison, C. (2003). In-
novaon in English language teaching
in Hong Kong primary schools: One
step forward, two steps sideways.
Prospect, 18, 27- 45.
Chua, C. & Baldauf Jr, R. B. (2011). Mi-
cro language planning. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Handbook of research in second
language teaching and learning (pp.
936-951) New York: Routledge.
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language
courses: A guide for teachers. Boston:
Thomson Heinle.
Gorsuch, G. J. (1999). Monbusho ap-
proved textbooks in Japanese high
school EFL classes: An aid or a hin-
drance to educaonal policy innova-
ons? Language Teacher, 23, 5–16.
Humphries, S. (2011). Exploring the
impact of new communicave text-
books on classroom pracces
(Unpublished doctoral dissertaon).
Macquarie University, Australia.
Kennedy, C. & Tomlinson, B., (2013).
Implemenng language policy and
planning through materials develop-
ment. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.) Applied
Linguiscs and Materials Develop-
ment (pp. 255-267). London: Blooms-
bury Academic.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2004). Language poli-
cy and methodology. Internaonal
Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 153–
172.
MEXT (2011). The revisions of the
courses of study for elementary and
secondary Schools. Retrieved from
hp://www.mext.go.jp/english/elsec/

Winter 2013 Vol. XXI, No. 2
31
__ icsFiles/
aeld-
le/2011/03/28/1303755_001.pdf
MEXT (2011b). White Paper on Educa-
on, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology. 2-Trends and Develop-
ment in Educaon, Science and Tech-
nology Policies. Chapter 2: Further
Enhancement of Children’s Educaon.
hp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/
hakusho/html/hpab201101/
detail/1330512.htm
Stewart, T. (2009). Will the new cur-
riculum for 2013 work? The Language
Teacher, 33(11), 9-13.
Yoshida, K. (2009). The new course of
study and the possibilies for change
in Japan’s English educaon. In K.
Namai & K. Yoshida (Eds.), Gengo,
bunka, kyouiku no yuugou wo
mezashite - kokusaiteki, gakusaiteki,
no shiza kara [Toward the fusion of
language, culture & educaon - From
the perspecves of internaonal and
interdisciplinary research] (pp. 387-
400). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Zhang, E. & Adamson, B. (2007). Im-
plemenng language policy: Lessons
from primary school English. In A.
Feng (Ed.), Bilingual educaon in Chi-
na. Pracces, policies and concepts.
(pp. 166-187). Clevedon, U.K: Mullin-
gual Maers.
Appendix
Subjects and Objecves (Previous Course of Study 1999)
English 1 To develop students’ basic abilies to understand what they listen to or read and to
convey informaon, ideas etc. by speaking or wring in English and to foster a posi-
ve atude towards communicaon toward communicaon through dealing with
everyday topics (MEXT, 2002, p. 111)
Aural/
Oral
Commu-
nicaon
1
To develop students' basic abilies to understand and convey informaon, ideas,
etc. by listening to or speaking English and to foster a posive atude towards
communicaon through dealing with everyday topics (MEXT, 2002)
Wring To further develop students’ abilies to write down informaon, ideas, etc. in Eng-
lish in accordance with the situaon and the purpose, and to foster a posive a-
tude toward communicang by ulizing these abilies (MEXT, 2002, p. 112).
Subjects and Objecves (New Course of Study 2009)
Commu-
nicaon
English 1
To develop students basic abilies such as accurately understanding and appropri-
ately conveying informaon ideas etc. while fostering a posive atude toward
communicang through the English language (MEXT, 2011, p.1)
English
Conver-
saon
To develop students' abilies to hold conversaons on everyday topics, while foster-
ing a posive atude toward communicaon through the English language (MEXT,
2011, p.1)
English
Expres-
sion 1
To develop students’ abilies to evaluate facts, opinions, etc. from mulple per-
specves and communicate through reasoning and a range of expression, while fos-
tering a posive atude toward communicaon through English (MEXT, 2001, p. 2).

On the Inside
From the Editor................................................................................................2
Eric Lerstrom
Submission Guidelines.....................................................................................3
So you want to publish and EFL textbook?......................................................5
Todd Jay Leonard
A learner-centered approach to curriculum design…………………………..……....13
NeilHeernan
Michael Delve
Ocers 2011-2012……...................................................................................18
Teachers as Writers........................................................................................19
Andrew Reimann
Impromptu Presentaons………………………………………………………………………….23
Richard Miles
Language-in-Educaon Policies and MEXT-approved EFL
Textbooks in the New Course of Study...........................................................27
Gregory Paul Glasgow
Daniel Leigh Paller
The Materials Writers SIG is dedicated to connually raising the
standards in the creaon of language teaching materials, in all languages and in all
media, whether for general consumpon or for individual classroom use. The editors
encourage parcipaon from colleagues using new media or teaching languages other
than English.
Winter 2013 Volume XXI, Number