My friends are teaching Jpanese and he was asked to choose students who have good aptitude for learning Japanese. Those students have zero knowledge of Japanese.
Is there a test that can help him select students like this. I know there are some test like this but can't find any on the net.
Any idea guys and gals?

The only test I can think of that would be much use would be to test if they can withstand working on something every day for several years. Test their enthusiasm!

Well, with kids, hard to find if they really have the tenacity and attention.Most don't even know what they like

I know the US Department of Defense makes use of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Lan...de_Battery "The test does not attempt to gauge a person's fluency in a given language, but rather to determine their ability to learn a language." There are commercial versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Lang...itude_Test <-- this is used by schools that train intelligence analysts, e.g., http://sourcesandmethods.blogspot.com/20...rs-in.html

Ability to learn a language requires dedication, but I think that critical-thinking and logic are important as well (easier to see how things fit together when you know how to think); students that are dedicated and show these qualities would be the best pool to pull from, but it really all comes down to interest.

As for a testing method... Most things should be discernible from past observations (test averages, performance in honors classes or above and beyond programs), but, depending on the age-group, a survey of hobbies and interests might help: assuming they answer truthfully, you'll have an idea of how dedicated they are to things they are interested in. Then, all that's left is finding out if they're interested.

I don't have any experience with the tests mentioned above, so I can't recommend or caution against them.

Aikynaro Wrote:The only test I can think of that would be much use would be to test if they can withstand working on something every day for several years. Test their enthusiasm!

But long term dedication is very different from short term enthusiasm...

That sounds like a nonsensical idea; there's no way you can identify "aptitude" for learning Japanese with students who haven't even started. The best you can do is identify the students you think will actually do the work necessary because they're motivated.

yudantaiteki Wrote:That sounds like a nonsensical idea; there's no way you can identify "aptitude" for learning Japanese with students who haven't even started. The best you can do is identify the students you think will actually do the work necessary because they're motivated.

I don't know about that. Since memory plays such a large part in learning a language, testing someone's memory should provide at least some predictive power. My memory is pretty bad. It doesn't mean that I'll never learn a language, but it does mean that several of my friends with impeccable memory will learn much faster then me.

Thanks guys. Yes, the most important things is dedication and overwhelming interest in the subject. And if we can measure that, that would be perfect. But testing this I think would be nearly impossible.

And although past observation is good, but not enough for this. As most of them have quite similar past test average and performance. Of course they were told that they have to study this for a few years, with heavier workload compared to others students, but sometimes kids only follow what their friends choose.

Kids are much different than adults. They really have no idea what they like. And their likes may changes in a short time.

Testing memory is good. I think there was some sort of test question that test students abilities to discern the different in japanese character in a limited time. To find something different, or the same. But I can't seem to find it on the net too.

yudantaiteki Wrote:That sounds like a nonsensical idea; there's no way you can identify "aptitude" for learning Japanese with students who haven't even started. The best you can do is identify the students you think will actually do the work necessary because they're motivated.

believe me, this will be harder than identifying the aptitude. And I think identifying the aptitude is quite possible.

They need to select the students quickly, I think maybe in 1-3 days at most. To identify students who are brand new to the school, no teachers know them, how motivated they are, how hardworking they are. You only got past result. And not a very reliable one. The school did test for english language abilities(not first language) but my friends told that those kind of test are not good enough for selecting Japanese language students.

Interest in the subject can be created and maintained by the teacher, and it can also be destroyed by the teacher. Even after deciding that a student has an aptitude for Japanese, any such aptitude or motivation can be extinguished if you go about teaching in certain ways.

My advice is not to believe that any intrinsic aptitude on the students' part will make for better learning outcomes, but rather to look at the style of teaching you will use in your classes. If you go for the traditional 'Japanese' approach of very rigid, teacher centred lessons, you can really be sure that no matter how much motivation your students had, or how much aptitude they had, it will quickly die, and they will be bored or disinterested.

I would very much advise figuring out what the goals of the course are (jlpt n1? communicative fluency? being able to cope with daily life in Japan after a set amount of months?) and working out how to fit those goals into student centred lessons that engage the students' learning processes and bring out their own intrinsic motivation, and most importantly, keep that motivation going throughout the course.

I say this as someone with 4 years' full time language teaching experience, and the enormous change I saw in even my most 'dekinai' students after managing to switch my approach.

ktcgx Wrote:Interest in the subject can be created and maintained by the teacher, and it can also be destroyed by the teacher. Even after deciding that a student has an aptitude for Japanese, any such aptitude or motivation can be extinguished if you go about teaching in certain ways.

My advice is not to believe that any intrinsic aptitude on the students' part will make for better learning outcomes, but rather to look at the style of teaching you will use in your classes. If you go for the traditional 'Japanese' approach of very rigid, teacher centred lessons, you can really be sure that no matter how much motivation your students had, or how much aptitude they had, it will quickly die, and they will be bored or disinterested.

I would very much advise figuring out what the goals of the course are (jlpt n1? communicative fluency? being able to cope with daily life in Japan after a set amount of months?) and working out how to fit those goals into student centred lessons that engage the students' learning processes and bring out their own intrinsic motivation, and most importantly, keep that motivation going throughout the course.

I say this as someone with 4 years' full time language teaching experience, and the enormous change I saw in even my most 'dekinai' students after managing to switch my approach.

Interest can be mantained, somewhat by the teachers. But, if there are students, extremely motivated, excellent in reading, writing , listening, speaking and some who are really weak in the same class, then the students factor shouldn't be discounted. There are many students who want to get in this class. It seems unfair, choosing the students like this over students that really would like to studies Japanese language, interested, and wil put effort.

There are others variable too, like what the ministry, schools demands.

this is an elective subjects, for secondary students, starting from form 1 or what you called middle school. They would have to study this subjects for 5 years.It's not a matter of them wanting to test if it's fun, then they will study. They have to choose now, and continue for 5 years, then they have an examination which will give them certificates with results. If they fail, school will be hold accountable.It's not that idealistic of a world.

This is 13-17 years old students. And they don't just have to learn this, they have lots of other subjects to study too. So it is a long term thing. Which may be stressful at certain points.If you're just learning japanese that's different. They only have at most 2 class per week. With lots of ground to cover. So you can see, this is working with lots of constraints.

The level are around N5 with a little bit of N4. They have reading, writing, speaking, listening, comprehension. So communication is in it, as well. But the test that would give out certificate would be reading, writing, with grammar, vocab, kanji, and also comprehension.

And, I know that traditional japanese approach are not that good, though, if you see their current method to teach japanese to foreigners, it's improved so much. Of course not the way traditional classes in Japan though.

And, what more, the teachers here are burdened with so much work unrelated to teaching that they have to find the most efficient way, and not always the most fun way. Too bad I'm not one of the policy makers.

Ok, so you're in NZ too? It sounds a lot like it. Or Australia?

I understand that if there are limited places in the class, and a lot of demand for this class, and you want to only take those who will really make the most of it.

But through my own experience of learning languages (french, german, chinese, japanese), and teaching them (english), it's not just the factors in terms of the students themselves, *how* they are taught has a huge impact on whether or not they succeed too. And I have seen too much bad language teaching to not offer a bit of advice where I can.

In terms of how Japanese people teach Japanese to foreigners, I think that there is still a long way to go. The concept of how languages are taught in Japan is so far behind it makes me cry (figuratively). Of course, a lot of other countries' methods are also terrible. It is by no means a solely Japanese thing.

tendou Wrote:This is 13-17 years old students. And they don't just have to learn this, they have lots of other subjects to study too. So it is a long term thing. Which may be stressful at certain points.If you're just learning japanese that's different. They only have at most 2 class per week. With lots of ground to cover. So you can see, this is working with lots of constraints.

If these are the constraints, it seems judging the students by interest seems more appropriate than judging by aptitude. Maybe by making the test more informal than a paper and pencil one like scheduling the class at a time where only devoted students will consider taking the class. Or imposing other "costs" to keep out the pretenders like requiring up-front that they need to come to school earlier or stay later then otherwise. Maybe if you do give an aptitude test, hold the test on a saturday. In other words let them self-select based on qualities that you are looking for.

yogert909 Wrote:

tendou Wrote:This is 13-17 years old students. And they don't just have to learn this, they have lots of other subjects to study too. So it is a long term thing. Which may be stressful at certain points.If you're just learning japanese that's different. They only have at most 2 class per week. With lots of ground to cover. So you can see, this is working with lots of constraints.

If these are the constraints, it seems judging the students by interest seems more appropriate than judging by aptitude. Maybe by making the test more informal than a paper and pencil one like scheduling the class at a time where only devoted students will consider taking the class. Or imposing other "costs" to keep out the pretenders like requiring up-front that they need to come to school earlier or stay later then otherwise. Maybe if you do give an aptitude test, hold the test on a saturday. In other words let them self-select based on qualities that you are looking for.

Yes, only interested students are to take the test. And they will be informed of what they will face, going back much later than others, tonnes of homework etc. I think first sperating them by interest, then using test to make sure they really want to study Japanese..

sholum Wrote:Ability to learn a language requires dedication, but I think that critical-thinking and logic are important as well (easier to see how things fit together when you know how to think); students that are dedicated and show these qualities would be the best pool to pull from, but it really all comes down to interest.

As for a testing method... Most things should be discernible from past observations (test averages, performance in honors classes or above and beyond programs), but, depending on the age-group, a survey of hobbies and interests might help: assuming they answer truthfully, you'll have an idea of how dedicated they are to things they are interested in. Then, all that's left is finding out if they're interested.

I don't have any experience with the tests mentioned above, so I can't recommend or caution against them.

I never stuck at anything till I started learning Japanese. I would be very annoyed if it was decided that I wouldn't stick to Japanese because I never stick to anything else. Learning Japanese has helped me stick to things more. Like playing the guitar because I like Jrock. You really can't anticipate anything here. The only way you could try to choose would just get you in trouble for discriminating against kids: you could give them a IQ test and tell anyone under 120 that they need to work hard or they'll be thrown out. That's obviously just mean and though it may make it easier to teach by selecting the brightest kids, it will also not work if they don't work hard too and even the most enthusiastic of the normal kids will get stressed. Basically what I'm saying is, there is no solution. Do a year, make them take a test after that year, weed the lazy ones out then.

I don't have any experience teaching young children so this answer might be way off the mark but.....

Sticking with the idea of interest over aptitude, could you set them a short essay (one side of A4?) on something like "What I like about Japan", or even more to the point "Why I want to learn Japanese". And make sure it is stressed that this is completely optional.
Predicted outcome: most kids of that age aren't going to bother to write a page if they know its optional so you will get a good short list just from the people who hand it in. If you still have too many people, you'll have to make a subjective judgement based on who seems the most interested/motivated in their essay.

I don't see how you could objectively evaluate someone's interest, especially in something they haven't even tried yet. All you can do is look at past performance in related areas.

For 13 to 17 yos, I'd give a:

-40% weight to language learning ability (as reflected by their actual knowledge of whatever foreign language they've been studying in school; actual test, not their grades - foreign language classes are mediocre at best in most school systems, and grades usually just reflect the ability to memorize last week's lesson, not any actual ability),

-20% to interest taken in literature (the question should be something along the lines of how many and what kind of novels have you read in your life?),

-20% to interest taken in film and other art forms, possibly also documentaries (same question as with literature)

-20% to grades in all subjects related to their native language (literature, grammar, history, whatever else there is that's highly dependent on reading, writing and listening skills)

P.S. There is one other criteria, that might override everything else (but doesn't always apply): the ability to speak a language you never studied. That language is usually going to be English, for kids in non-English speaking countries. If a kid is able to pick up English just from TV and movies, without having ever been in an English speaking environment of having taken an English class, that betrays enough natural curiosity for language learning that they should get an automatic in.

Helena4 Wrote:

sholum Wrote:Ability to learn a language requires dedication, but I think that critical-thinking and logic are important as well (easier to see how things fit together when you know how to think); students that are dedicated and show these qualities would be the best pool to pull from, but it really all comes down to interest.

As for a testing method... Most things should be discernible from past observations (test averages, performance in honors classes or above and beyond programs), but, depending on the age-group, a survey of hobbies and interests might help: assuming they answer truthfully, you'll have an idea of how dedicated they are to things they are interested in. Then, all that's left is finding out if they're interested.

I don't have any experience with the tests mentioned above, so I can't recommend or caution against them.

I never stuck at anything till I started learning Japanese. I would be very annoyed if it was decided that I wouldn't stick to Japanese because I never stick to anything else. Learning Japanese has helped me stick to things more. Like playing the guitar because I like Jrock. You really can't anticipate anything here. The only way you could try to choose would just get you in trouble for discriminating against kids: you could give them a IQ test and tell anyone under 120 that they need to work hard or they'll be thrown out. That's obviously just mean and though it may make it easier to teach by selecting the brightest kids, it will also not work if they don't work hard too and even the most enthusiastic of the normal kids will get stressed. Basically what I'm saying is, there is no solution. Do a year, make them take a test after that year, weed the lazy ones out then.

It is not mean. It is the way the world works. In everything. If you want something, you must earn it by merit. They have been discriminated from the start. If you don't passes certain grade, you can't even get into the school.

I don't think it's wrong to select them based on certain test. But the testing may not be perfect. And you are right, there are no guarantee those who do good in the test will continuously work hard, though if they fail spectacularly, doesn't mean that they will work hard. Doing for a year is no option. There are schools district office requirement. Teachers do not have the authority on this.

Ash_S Wrote:I don't have any experience teaching young children so this answer might be way of the mark but.....

Sticking with the idea of interest over aptitude, could you set them a short essay (one side of A4?) on something like "What I like about Japan", or even more to the point "Why I want to learn Japanese". And make sure it is stressed that this is completely optional.
Predicted outcome: most kids of that age aren't going to bother to write a page if they know its optional so you will get a good short list just from the people who hand it in. If you still have too many people, you'll have to make a subjective judgement based on who seems the most interested/motivated in their essay.

That will be a good idea too. But still some sort of aptitude test would be good too.


Well the truth is if they fail the test, they can try to negotiate with the teachers actually. If they are really interested. And they can show that.

Stansfield123 Wrote:I don't see how you could objectively evaluate someone's interest, especially in something they haven't even tried yet. All you can do is look at past performance in related areas.

For 13 to 17 yos, I'd give a:

-40% weight to language learning ability (as reflected by their actual knowledge of whatever foreign language they've been studying in school; actual test, not their grades - foreign language classes are mediocre at best in most school systems, and grades usually just reflect the ability to memorize last week's lesson, not any actual ability),

-20% to interest taken in literature (the question should be something along the lines of how many and what kind of novels have you read in your life?),

-20% to interest taken in film and other art forms, possibly also documentaries (same question as with literature)

-20% to grades in all subjects related to their native language (literature, grammar, history, whatever else there is that's highly dependent on reading, writing and listening skills)

P.S. There is one other criteria, that might override everything else (but doesn't always apply): the ability to speak a language you never studied. That language is usually going to be English, for kids in non-English speaking countries. If a kid is able to pick up English just from TV and movies, without having ever been in an English speaking environment of having taken an English class, that betrays enough natural curiosity for language learning that they should get an automatic in.

Thanks, all are good suggestion. And your comments on foreign language in most school system are spot on. Most of the time it's not because of the teachers because many really have lots of creativity. it's because the teachers have to teach under certain constraint that they have to follow.

Helena4 Wrote:

sholum Wrote:Ability to learn a language requires dedication, but I think that critical-thinking and logic are important as well (easier to see how things fit together when you know how to think); students that are dedicated and show these qualities would be the best pool to pull from, but it really all comes down to interest.

As for a testing method... Most things should be discernible from past observations (test averages, performance in honors classes or above and beyond programs), but, depending on the age-group, a survey of hobbies and interests might help: assuming they answer truthfully, you'll have an idea of how dedicated they are to things they are interested in. Then, all that's left is finding out if they're interested.

I don't have any experience with the tests mentioned above, so I can't recommend or caution against them.

I never stuck at anything till I started learning Japanese. I would be very annoyed if it was decided that I wouldn't stick to Japanese because I never stick to anything else. Learning Japanese has helped me stick to things more. Like playing the guitar because I like Jrock. You really can't anticipate anything here. The only way you could try to choose would just get you in trouble for discriminating against kids: you could give them a IQ test and tell anyone under 120 that they need to work hard or they'll be thrown out. That's obviously just mean and though it may make it easier to teach by selecting the brightest kids, it will also not work if they don't work hard too and even the most enthusiastic of the normal kids will get stressed. Basically what I'm saying is, there is no solution. Do a year, make them take a test after that year, weed the lazy ones out then.

We were given a scenario of students ages 13 through 17; students of this age should already have at least one activity in which they participate often; it doesn't matter what kind of hobby it is (gaming, collecting, sports, general fitness, studying, reading, or whatever), the only thing that matters is that they are dedicated to it. For the students that slip through the cracks... Well, that's what the internet and self-learning are for.

Yes, it sounds mean, but that's just how these things work (and it's definitely not 'discriminatory'; that'd be if children were disqualified for having a mental disorder, being a certain race, being in a house with a particular income level, etc.; the effects of some of those might cause the child to be disqualified (for lack of commitment, lack of time because they're helping their household, etc). Ignoring the anger of your post, I'll quote something important that you've said:
"Basically what I'm saying is, there is no solution."
No, this is wrong; while the ideal solution is inapplicable, there are other solutions; that is what we are discussing: the best applicable solution.

Below isn't really relevant to the thread:
Children are still exploring the world, so it is normal for them to flit between different hobbies, exploring their interests; however, by 13, it's unlikely that a child hasn't found at least one hobby that they enjoy. Heck, I had several before I was out of elementary school (reading, martial arts, gaming, music, and learning) and only one of them have I dropped for lack of time and money (martial arts, amazingly, is more expensive than playing several instruments).

Pretending that this is horse racing for a moment: would you think it a good idea to only bet on dark horses? Heck no, not unless you wanted to blow all your money for some reason (if you want to blow all your money, I'd be happy to relieve you of it; it'd be put to good use).

@sholum, congrats on sticking with Japanese. On your next job application (or any other application that seeks to evaluate you), telling them that you were able to learn Japanese on your own will put you above candidates who don't have a comparable achievement.

Do you think that's unfair? Do you think the person evaluating your application should instead disregard your achievement?

Stansfield123 Wrote:@sholum, congrats on sticking with Japanese. On your next job application (or any other application that seeks to evaluate you), telling them that you were able to learn Japanese on your own will put you above candidates who don't have a comparable achievement.

Do you think that's unfair? Do you think the person evaluating your application should instead disregard your achievement?

I don't understand what you're referring to, and apparently my post wasn't clear to you.

People who are demonstrably more qualified for a position (class, job, whatever) are more likely to get it.
I would not expect someone to hire me for my Japanese (assuming it was good enough to be marketable) if I didn't have some record saying I wasn't lying. No, if I wanted a job that required Japanese skill, I'd take (and pass) the N1 and try to get at least one native Japanese speaker (preferably in education or management; of course, the more influence, the better) to vouch for me, if it came to that. I'm not an idiot: I've known how these things work since I was a child (knowing several people in managerial positions helped).

sholum Wrote:I don't understand what you're referring to, and apparently my post wasn't clear to you.

Your post was very clear. You declared that selecting the kids who are most likely to succeed at learning Japanese, based on past performance in related areas, is "mean". And you also indicated that you reached this conclusion based on your own fear of being discriminated against.

I'm trying to explain that such selection is actually a way to reward those kids who have done well before. I thought that maybe giving you an example of you being rewarded, rather than discriminated against, for an achievement you had, would help you better understand why that is fair, and even kind, not "mean": that it isn't aimed at punishing kids who don't get in, it's meant to reward and help the kids who earned it.