In an ideal world and given the following levels:

Beginner
Elementary
Lower Intermediate
Intermediate
Upper Intermediate
Advanced

What should the student be competent with at each level? (OK leave out beginner

Simon

Beginners - a blank page

False beginners – a very basic knowledge of English which cannot be used quickly or easily.

Elementary – can form basic sentence structures and communicate on simple topics.

Low/pre-intermediate – able to communicate and understand a greater variety of topics but lacking general fluency and depth of language awareness. Still likely to make many errors even with basic structures.

Intermediate – able to understand and communicate on a wide range of issues using limited vocabulary store but still lacking in accuracy and
fluency.

Upper Intermediate – should be able to actively communicate on almost all topics using a greater range of language but still lacking in accuracy.

Advanced – have a very good knowledge of the English language and now will be studying subtle language items.

Hey Mark,

Where would you rate an average Japanese student graduating from JHS in Japan?

Since these distictions are generally made on oral competence, I'd say false beginner. If you add in their written/reading ability, I'd say maybe elementary.

(While speaking should be main, in Japan the main reason for studying anything in school is to pass entrance examinations. It's not a perfect system (all systems have their good and bad,) but that's the system. So, math, social studies, science, Japanese and English teachers aren't necessarily teaching what would best serve the students in the future. They are teaching for the exams and coaching the students to pass tests, not necessarily preparing them for future studies or life. So, the imbalance in speaking competence and reading/written competence.)

Some thoughts as to why Japanese teachers teach the way they do.
They don't know how to do it differently.
They teach as they were taught, and it worked for them.
I even heard a Japanese Lecturer of Education tell teachers that "phonics is irrelevant and not needed".
Where do any different teaching models get seen. Possibly with an ALT in class - but they are just games to break the boredom of regular classes.
I love it when one of my teachers uses a resource I have shown them by themselves - go get 4!!!!
It takes some time for a new method to show success and is a big step for a teacher to take into the unknown if they change their ways and no-one else does.
If the assessment system doesn't change, why do things differently.
I have asked various Education Ministry people what plans there are in place for oral testing, had they studied how this assessment was done overseas? Lots of breath sucking between the teeth, "yes I have seen it overseas" , "I think it is too difficult." etc

End of rant

I like the point you made about the lack of teaching models. Me and one of my elementary school teachers were talking the other day about Japan needing more discourse, but that it would never happen until the system changes to incorporate ideas rather than dictorship.

I think you pretty much hit all the points, but let's not forget the obvious: non-Japanese = impossible to change anything in Japan, despite English not being Japanese to begin with.

Japanese teachers teach they way they do because they have a certain amount of time to cover a certain amount of subjects that will be on the tests, and if they don't, they're in deep with the Board of Education.

As for oral testing, it's too difficult. Every single kid in Japan has to study English. If they all take a written test, a class of 40 can all do it simultaneously under the direction of 1 teacher.

If they try to do an oral test, let's say 5 minutes apiece, that same class of 40 will take two hours to cover. The number of testers that would be needed to provide every single kid in Japan with their oral tests would be huge and expensive.

There's detailed info and a useful set of links on good old Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Eur ... _Languages

Although it mentions the Common European Framework and ALTE (Association of Language Testers in Europe) the points about level and the "can do" concept hold true for teaching English elsewhere too.

How do you differenciate between advanced and fluent?

Are you fluent in Japanese, or merely advanced?

"Advanced" is both a general term and also has a more specific ESL meaning : the level you go to after upper intermediate. "Fluent" doesn't really have any more meaning within ESL than it does in general usage. It just means comfortably able to use the language in more or less any situation.

The noun "fluency" does have a particular ESL usage, especially in contrast with (usually grammatical) accuracy. A typical Japanese student might have high accuracy but low fluency (doesn't make many grammar mistakes but can't communicate very well) while for example a typical Arabic-speaking student might have high fluency but low accuracy (able to communicate well, but with lots of grammatical errors).

Examiners usually take both accuracy and fluency into account when assessing levels of attainment.