Updated 6/10 Click here for Y. M. Shimazu's most recent publication

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/y.shimazu/5dayVs3day.html
(c) 2001. EDUCATION, 121(4), 717-727.

A Comparison of a 5-day With a 3-day 5-unit Language Course:
Which Is More Effective?
.
Y. M. Shimazu
San Jose State University

The effectiveness of a 5-unit language course taught over 5 days compared with one taught over 3 days was examined in college-level Japanese language classes at San Jose State University, California. Participants were 45 students (12 students and 6 students--Fall 1997, 8 students--Spring 1998, 9 students--Fall 1998, and 10 students--Fall 1999) in 5 first-semester elementary Japanese language courses. Complete data (quiz, midterm, and final exam scores) were available for 22 students in the comparison group (5 day) and 23 students in the experimental group (3 day). An eclectic teaching method was used by the instructor with a conventional textbook and a KANA workbook based on an audio-lingual approach. Conclusions were made that there are no differences in effectiveness between the 5-day language course teaching and the 3-day language course teaching, except for the midterm exam.

In the United States, language courses are typically taught as 5-unit courses scheduled 5 days a week. Language program coordinators or chairpersons arranging class scheduling often juggle considerations in formulating a 5-day course or a 3-day course in search of the most effective alternative for language acquisition. Often you hear from your colleagues, "May I come in and teach my 5-unit course on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, instead of coming to school every day? I live quite far away from the university, and recently the traffic is so bad." On the other hand, you also hear, "You know, when I teach my 5-unit course every day, students learn more than meeting 85 minutes for 3 days a week." There was an incident at San Jose State University in the early 90's: One of the Foreign Language Department faculty members filed a harrassment lawsuit against her boss, the language program coordinator, claiming that she was coerced to teach her 5-unit course daily instead of Monday, Wednesday, and Friday , because the coordinator believed teaching daily was more effective than teaching 3 days a week.

Because no empirical studies comparing the effectiveness of 5-day and 3-day teaching were found in journals, this study would be of great significance for class schedulers and for faculty planning to teach language classes. Although this study was conducted specifically in a Japanese language class, the information obtained here may be applied to other foreign language class scheduling as well. The study has suggested several ways in which foreign language class scheduling can be enhanced, allowing the language coordinators and chairpersons of the foreign language programs to make more informed decisions.

Because greater replication studies provide additional support for believable generalizability (Robinson & Levin, 1997), an external replication was based on an independent group of students the following semesters. First, a 5-day course (Fall 1997) was compared with a 3-day course taught during the same Fall semester and in the following semesters (Spring 1998 and Fall 1998), and finally the two 5-day courses (Fall 1997 and Fall 1999) combined were compared with the three 3-day courses (Fall 1997, Spring 1998, and Fall 1998).

The results of the comparisons and analyses made of the two arrangements should provide useful information for course planners to suit their instructional parameters, student, and faculty.
.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to investigate and to evaluate the effectiveness of 5-day teaching methods for college-level Japanese language classes. By comparing exam scores from students taught 5 consecutive days for 50 minutes with students taught 3 days (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) for 85 minutes, information was obtained on how this 5-day teaching can be applied to the area of programming language courses each semester and to what extent 5-day teaching can facilitate Japanese language learning. This information can be used by faculty in advising students. If students question the change from a traditional 5-day schedule to a 3-day schedule, the teachers can explain the results of the study or refer the students to review the evidence directly.
.

Method

Sample consisted of full-time students in the first-semester Japanese classes during the 1997 Fall semester, the 1998 Spring semester, the 1998 Fall semester, and the 1999 Fall semester at San Jose State University. The first section of the first-semester Japanese class was scheduled for 50 minutes. The data from the 5 days a week (Fall 1997 and Fall 1999) were compared with the data from the other section of the first semester class (Fall 1997) and two subsequent first semester Japanese classes (Spring 1998 and Fall 1998) that met for 85 minutes 3 days a week. A series of two-tailed independent t tests was used, and Effect Sizes were reported. No statistically significant differences existed between the comparison and experimental groups before the experimental treatment was given.
.

Subjects

The subject examinees used in this study were 45 students who had no prior knowledge of Japanese. They took 10 quizzes, one midterm exam, and one final exam. The quizzes, the midterm exam, and the final exam given each semester were identical. The number of examinees for gender and language background are presented in Table 1. The majority of the students were males and had an English language background.
.

Table 1

Number of Examinees by Gender and Language Background

Characteristic n %

Gender

Male 28 62.22

Female 17 37.78

Total 45 100.00

Language Background

English 22 49

Chinese 11 24

Korean 4 9

Spanish 3 7

Vietnamese 3 7

Indonesian 2 4

Total 45 100

The number of examinees by age are presented in Table 2.
.

Table 2

Age of the Examinees

Age f %

31 1 2.22

27 3 6.67

26 1 2.22

25 2 4.44

24 1 2.22

23 3 6.67

22 6 13.33

21 6 13.33

20 8 17.78

19 11 24.44

18 2 4.44

17 1 2.22

Total 45 99.98
.

Procedure

The data collected from the 2 sections of the first-semester Japanese classes in which the students received 5 days (50 minutes per day) of instruction per week were compared with the data collected from the 3 sections of the first-semester Japanese classes in which the students received 3 days (85 minutes per day) of instruction per week. Upon completion of each lesson, approximately once a week, a quiz was given and its score was used for data analyses. The instructor is a native of Japan, with 20 years of teaching experience in Japanese in the United States. The textbook used was Learn Japanese Vol. 1 by John Young (University Hawaii Press), and Kana workbook used was Handy Katakana Workbook by Y. M. Shimazu (Burgess Publishing). The amount of hours each subject examinee studied at home, however, was not controlled. The hours the examinees studied Japanese per week outside class (5-day group M = 3.46 hours SD = 1.18 vs. 3-day group M = 3.65 hours SD = 1.30) were seen as comparable.

Those students who knew Japanese prior to the instruction were eliminated from data analyses. Only the students who never-studied Japanese were used. It was ensured that the two groups were comparable to the fullest extent.

Students in the comparison group and the experimental group used the same textbook and workbook, and were taught with the same methods by the same instructor, for the same length of time (15 weeks) during the instruction. Because the instructor and the researcher were the same, to avoid researcher expectancy, the problem of skewing the outcome, I used the techniques such as using student ID#s to identify examinees, multiple choice, and other techniques to maximize test objectivity. The distributions of the gender were 41% female and 59% male for the comparison group (5-day), and 35% female and 65% male for the experimental group (3-day).
.

Sample Collection

The scores on the quizzes given at the end of each lesson, the midterm and final exam were collected and used for data analyses. The format of the quiz and midterm exam are presented in Appendixes B and C. All quizzes and exams attempted to show inclusion of 4 language skill areas tapping reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills. One point was given per test item for the quiz and exam.

Validity and reliability. The information on construct validity and reliability of the quizzes, the midterm, and final exams were not available. The content validity of the midterm exam, however, was assessed and content validated by another language expert who has been a Japanese language instructor at a university in the United States for over 10 years. The oral production section of the midterm correlated with an oral interview at .81 or higher. To avoid instructor bias, all quizzes and exams were submitted with the student's ID numbers.
.

Results

In Appendix A, the 45 student examinees' scores on the quizzes, midterm exam, and final exam, during the Fall 1997, Spring 1998, Fall 1998, and Fall 1999 semesters are presented.

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, t-test results, and effect sizes (ES) for quizzes and examinations used for data analyses.
.

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, t-test Results, and Effect Sizes for Quiz and Examination Data

Comparison Group Experimental Group

5-day (Fall 97, Fall 99) 3-day (Fall 97, Spring 98, Fall 98)

Test n M SD n M SD t df ESa

Q1 22 94.23 12.38 23 86.30 18.02 1.71 43 0.64

Q2 20 81.45 10.98 21 80.52 10.82 0.27 39 0.08

Q3 21 74.10 13.06 23 69.87 15.82 0.97 42 0.32

Q4 20 79.20 16.36 20 77.45 15.80 0.34 38 0.11

Q5 21 78.38 9.26 22 80.27 9.99 -0.64 41 -0.20

Q6 22 77.18 13.49 19 77.58 8.14 -0.12 39 -0.03

Q7 22 77.55 11.09 21 79.33 10.08 -0.55 41 -0.16

MT 22 87.27 6.55 22 81.59 7.76 2.62* 42 0.87

Q8 21 81.24 10.32 22 78.55 8.63 0.93 41 0.26

Q9 21 82.95 8.73 22 80.64 11.06 0.76 41 0.26

Q10 20 69.30 12.51 22 63.68 19.79 1.11 40 0.45

FNL 22 82.77 6.19 23 78.22 10.64 1.77 43 0.74

* Statistically significant at .05 level, when overall error rate is controlled. For Q1, Q6, Q10, and FNL, F test of equal variances rejected at alpha of 0.05. a Effect sizes (ES) are based upon the difference between the means, divided by the comparison group standard deviation (SD5d).

M5d - M3d
ES = ----------------------
SD5d
.

The results show no statistically significant differences between quiz scores (2 group means) on all 10 quizzes and the final exam, but showed a statistically significant difference on the midterm exam (MT). In Table 3, the means for Quizzes 5, 6, and 7 (Q5, Q6, Q7) for the experimental group are slightly higher than the means for the comparison group. Effect sizes range from -0.20 to 0.87.

As the set for "error rate" controlled at .05, 10 quizzes, the midterm, and the final exams were considered. Each quiz was tested, .05/10 = .005. The error rate for the group of the 10 quizzes, midterm, final was tested, .05/3 = .0125; and each quiz, .0125/10 = .00125. No statistically significant differences were found in the data between the 5-day group and the 5-day group, and in any of the data between the 3-day group and the 3-day group. So the combined 3-day groups were compared with the combined 5-day groups.

Discussion

Q1 was a Kana quiz, that is, testing the knowledge of only the basic Japanese syllabary writing. The Q1 did not tap other areas of language skills such as reading, listening, and speaking, whereas the other quizzes, midterm, and final exams did tap the four language skills. Q1, Q6, Q10 and FNL did not meet the equal variance assumption (F test of equal variances rejected at alpha of .05). Considerations were given to ensure least extraneous variables contaminating the experiment and cast doubt on its validity. The t-test is robust with respect to the violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption (Glass, Peckham, & Sanders, 1992).

On Q1, the midterm, and final exam, the data revealed, on the average, higher scores for the 5-day group than their 3-day counterparts. A statistical analysis of the data revealed that the t -test values for the midterm exam were statistically significant between the two groups. The effect size (practical significance, that is, how much the comparison group is better than the experimental group) was 0.87 for the midterm exam. On all of the quizzes, the data did not reveal any difference for the 5-day group and the 3-day group.

The comprehensive tests such as the midterm exam and the final exam test the language competency of the examinee, whereas the short test like a quiz does not test the overall language competency of the examinee. Although lacking in statistical significance for the mean score differences on quizzes, the depth and breadth of this finding suggest that these data ought not be dismissed as spurious. The results suggest that meeting 5 days a week or meeting 3 days a week for 5 unit language course makes little difference.

Some considerations reflected on test scores. The time of the class for the 5-day course (Fall 97) and the 3-day course (Fall 97) were scheduled at different times of the day. "Fatigue factors" on the part of the instructor should be part of the consideration. The 5-day course was taught at 10:30 a.m. daily, whereas the 3-day course was taught at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

"The amount of outside class study time" of the student was not controlled for. "Motivation" of each student toward language learning was not controlled for, either. To be more precise, "class attendance rate" of the subjects should also be accounted for, and included in the analysis. For example, the mean score difference between Q10 (Fall 97, 3-day) and Q10 (Fall 98, 3-day) was 21.4 (Fall 97 M = 68.40, SD = 15.77, n = 5 vs. Fall 98 M = 47.00, SD = 12.03, n = 9). At alpha .05, the t-test result was statistically significant (t = 2.64). The attendance rate for the Fall 97 group was 100%, the week during which the Q10 material was taught, whereas the attendance rate for the Fall 98 group was 58%. Thus, if students are absent from the class 40% of the time or more, they will not master the course content.

Regarding the attrition rate, during the 15-week treatment period, we normally expect a 10 to 20% dropout rate for various reasons. More course drops were observed in the 3-day course than in the 5-day course.

Many other qualitative variations were also observed. The 3-day Spring 1998 group appeared to be alert and learned faster than the 3-day Fall 1997 group. The students in the Fall 1998 3-day class, however, showed superior ability to focus more on each day's lesson than the students in the Fall 1997 3-day class. Often the students in the 1998 group most exhibited qualities such as "willing to guess," "not being inhibited," "willing to make mistakes," "giving opinions freely," "expressing themselves creatively," and so on.

What is not clear from the results of the present study is the exact cause of the higher achievement of some students. It could be (a) high aptitude, (b) high motivation, (c) opportunity outside of class, or (d) the number of units carried during the semester, i.e., workload. What then accounts for the higher achievement?

Limitations of the study. First, a limitation involved selection of subjects. University scheduling of classes made the random selection, a large sample size during one semester, difficult for this type of study. Thus, the term "comparison group" was used instead of the control group. I was cognizant of the limitations imposed on the generalizability of significant findings achieved in this study. Nevertheless, because statistically significant data were obtained despite the relatively small number of subjects, when modified to meet the needs of different instructional settings, the suggestions made in this study are worthy of implementation in our foreign language class scheduling.

To cross-validate the study, internal replicability analyses were conducted by trying to match the variances of the 2 groups to increase robustness of the study.

On the basis of these findings, it is concluded that assessing validity of the effectiveness of 3-day teaching is difficult, because there are various factors involved that will have impact on the student's test scores. For future studies, researchers should conduct several external replication studies based on new, independent participants, preferably in all foreign language areas.

Conclusion

The results of this study will provide the language program coordinators and administrators some ideas in implementing more efficient programming for our language students in our university environment. This study will be a contribution to the administrative improvement of teaching effectiveness of Japanese (and possibly applied to other languages) in our classrooms. This study showed that 5-day teaching per week classes are more effective than 3-day teaching per week classes for up to 2 months of instruction.

The source of pessimism in social sciences is the problem of "small effects." When we seem to come up with a possibly replicable result, the practical magnitude of the effect is almost always small, that is, accounts for only a trivial portion of the variance. Thus, the complaint goes, even if some new teaching method works, the size of the effect is likely to be so small that it is of no practical consequence whatever (Rosenthal, 1991).

Other variables of consideration are intelligence, aptitude, attention, motivation, opportunity, learning style and strategy of the students, which should be taken into consideration using a much larger sample size for a future study. Replicability studies will also ensure the validity of the results. With sound research, we can assist not only our students but also ourselves, educators.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor Patricia Busk, University of San Francisco, for her helpful comments and suggestions on this paper.

References

Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1992). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed-effects analysis of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42, 237-288.

Robinson, D. H., & Levin, J.R. (1997). Reflection on statistical and substantive significance, with a slice of replication. Educational Researcher, 26 (5), 21-27.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Appendix A
Quiz, Midterm, and Final Exam Scores

ID Grp Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 MT Q8 Q9 Q10 FNL

1104 1 100 95 83 68 77 89 93 77 82 89

9832 1 100 85 75 82 43 60 86 81 75 70

8391 1 99 81 69 89 85 81 65 90 76 73 79 86

4051 1 99 77 71 63 64 54 70 90 81 75 48 78

9382 1 99 90 77 97 79 79 83 93 85 77 87

8281 1 85 56 69 64 80 68 78 48 82

4005 1 100 88 81 92 89 86 84 94 81 92 80 90

0333 1 96 75 75 80 63 68 62 88 76 75

6867 1 100 98 92 98 97 90 94 95 97 94 85 94

9888 1 95 87 71 49 75 83 61 83 70 85 64 81

1085 1 99 75 77 85 79 90 90 92 81 83 73 80

0641 1 100 88 87 89 86 92 88 95 98 97 92 88

2933 2 94 96 65 89 74 74 84 76 83 78 83 86

1885 2 98 73 71 77 81 74 76 76 84 79 77

2206 2 100 73 85 96 84 86 88 90 64 84

6126 2 96 83 85 77 71 69 58 77 58 62 75 71

8819 2 100 67 60 46 75 74 67 69 68 88 43 76

0495 2 94 83 69 85 89 83 79 86 71 87 77 64

1700 3 100 92 94 95 95 97 98 97 97 100 96 97

3048 3 54 56 56 60 82 70 86 77 81 80 79

7124 3 99 96 77 98 84 86 85 83 82 77 88

3908 3 82 81 55 74 72 83 75 81 81 70 77

2838 3 96 73 44 85 85 72 84 83 81 86 51 80

6042 3 65 87 71 95 86 70 74 88 86 88 93 86

6753 3 91 88 92 80 85 92 89 87 86 95 80 89

0095 3 98 90 76 92 92 86 86 96 84 90 89 89

7420 4 96 92 95 95 93 93 91 81 68 89

3735 4 90 73 53 66 76 61 77 70 70 40 72

1545 4 67 77 74 82 80 79 70 69 72 48 69

8168 4 50 65 48 60 64 79 80 80 77 69 43 64

7349 4 40 39 52 55 76 66 68 57 26 54

9614 4 94 73 87 55 76 77 79 87 82 91 45 82

6884 4 99 85 74 77 76 81 77 80 77 48 80

6031 4 84 68 84 65 74 83 77 86 61 85

5542 4 98 88 69 83 77 79 72 74 65 44 61

4817 5 99 98 96 95 85 88 88 93 84 91 71 84

0228 5 93 83 88 71 76 73 81 85 74 82 62 82

8478 5 96 69 63 86 69 88 71 74 77 77 62 74

3488 5 89 60 59 43 71 65 72 92 77 91 58 88

9087 5 99 83 59 60 84 63 81 85 65 69 50 74

9495 5 93 67 75 78 65 80 77 73 63 65 61 77

1148 5 99 88 55 86 78 88 83 85 89 87 73 84

3754 5 42 60 55 60 66 68 70 77 88 85 67 82

0806 5 100 87 96 77 88 89 90 93 92 93 74 88

2161 5 91 90 79 91 82 93 95 88 95 88 80 88

A missing value means the student did not take the test.
Grp 1: 5-day (Fa97); Grp 2: 3-day (Fa97); Grp 3: 3-day (Sp98); Grp 4: 3-day (Fa98) Grp 5: 5-day (Fa99)

Appendix B lj-v1-03.qz

________________ Your SS# __________________                                ___________________
Person on your left                                                                        Person on your right
                                     Email:

SUBJECT: QUIZ #2 SCORE =>
DATE: 10 September 1999
CLASS & SECTION: Japn 001A (First Semester Japanese)
INSTRUCTOR: Dr. Shimazu, Department of Foreign Languages
CONTENT COVERED: Learn Japanese (Lesson 3, Vol. 1), handouts, and class lectures
FRIENDLY REMINDER -> Do not check your answers with your fellow student! ACADEMIC HONESTY

(Describing what one does or will do / ORAL PRODUCTION & LISTENING COMPREHENSION)
A. INSTRUCTIONS: You will be given 5 minutes to prepare silently. If there any words that you can't recall, feel free to ask your fellow student or the teacher quietly. You, however, cannot make any notes on this page while preparing. When you are ready, the examiner will ask each one of you, one by one, to pronounce a sentence correctly in Japanese. You write the letter -A- if the fellow student's utterance is accurate; and you write the letter -B- if the utterance is inaccurate or bad. Unanswered items will be counted as wrong.

____1. Sally will go to the beach tomorrow. ____11. I won't go with you.
____2. Naomi comes to school everyday. ____12. Toshio doesn't drink coffee.
____3. Ms. Tani doesn't buy books. ____13. She is going to Japan.
____4. Hiroshi doesn't drink milk. ____14. He is going to buy a computer.
____5. Dennis doesn't eat bananas. ____15. Mary drinks beer.
____6. Ms. Ishii drinks sake everyday. ____16. John often eats sushi.
____7. She won't come to school today. ____17. Joan doesn't come to school everyday.
____8. Miss Ishii will go to the bus stop. ____18. Japanese people eat rice everyday.
____9. I go home everyday. ____19. I don't go to church everyday.
____10. Lucy will go to the library tomorrow. ____20. Yoshio will buy beefsteak.

(Asking for information / ORAL PRODUCTION & LISTENING COMPREHENSION)
B. INSTRUCTIONS: same as A.
____1. Will you come to school tomorrow? ____6. Where are you going?
____2. Will you go (or return) home soon? ____7. Do you drink beer?
____3. Do you eat bread everyday? ____8. Are you coming to school tomorrow?
____4. Do you eat tempura? ____9. Will you buy milk today?
____5. What are you going to do later? ____l0.Will you go to the library this evening?

(Clarifying / ORAL PRODUCTION & LISTENING COMPREHENSION)
C. INSTRUCTIONS: same as A.
____1. How do you say "Cut it out" in Japanese? ____2. Is this correct?

(Asking & answering simple questions / LISTENING COMPREHENSION & WRITING)
D. INSTRUCTIONS: The examiner will ask you a question in Japanese. You will write the instructor's question and your response (short answer) to the question.

1. (ashita gakkou e kimasu ka?)

2. (korekara nani o shimasuka?)

= end of quiz =

Appendix C lj-v1-1-10.mdt

_________________ Your SS# _________________ _____________________
Person on your left Person on your right

SUBJECT: MIDTERM EXAM SCORE =>
DATE: 28 October 1999
CLASS & SECTION: Japn 001A 01
INSTRUCTOR: Dr. Shimazu, Department of Foreign Languages
CONTENT COVERED: Learn Japanese (Lessons 1-10, Vol. 1), handouts, and class lectures
FRIENDLY REMINDER -> Do not check your answers with your fellow student! ACADEMIC HONESTY

(RECOGNIZING FELLOW STUDENT'S ERRORS, ORAL PRODUCTION & LISTENING COMPREHENSION)
A. INSTRUCTIONS: Each student, one by one, will say one of the following sentences in Japanese to the best of his or her ability. If the utterance [translation] is acceptable, circle the letter -A- . If it is not acceptable, circle the letter -B-. PARTICIPATION IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. THE STUDENT WHO PARTICIPATES IN PRODUCING A SENTENCE WILL RECEIVE ONE PERCENTAGE POINT PER SENTENCE. TO RECEIVE EXTRA POINTS FOR PARTICIPATION FOR THE SENTENCES YOU HAVE PERFORMED, YOU MUST WRITE AND CIRCLE THE LETTER "P" (FOR PARTICIPATION) NEXT TO THE SENTENCE YOU HAVE SAID. IF YOU ANSWER -B-, PLEASE BRIEFLY INDICATE THE ERROR(S) YOU HEARD. UNANSWERED ITEMS WILL BE COUNTED AS WRONG.

VALIDITY COEFFICIENT (WITH ORAL INTERVIEW): .81.

                                                                                 # WRONG
CORRECTION FOR GUESSING:   SCORE = # RIGHT - -----------------------   MAY APPLY.
                                                                               # OPTION - 1

-A- -B- 01. Please write it.
-A- -B- 02. Please say it slowly?
-A- -B- 03. Please read it again.
-A- -B- 04. Do you often go to Japanese restaurants?
-A- -B- 05. Sometimes I read books at the library.
-A- -B- 06. Sorry to have kept you waiting.
-A- -B- 07. Is there a telephone in this area?
-A- -B- 08. Excuse me, where is the bathroom?
-A- -B- 09. Do you have friends in Japan?
-A- -B- 10. Do you like sports?
-A- -B- 11. The quiz was not very difficult.
-A- -B- 12. Is this correct?
-A- -B- 13. I do not like tobacco at all.
-A- -B- 14. Do you have (free) time now?
-A- -B- 15. How do you say, "Cut it out" in Japanese?
-A- -B- 16. What did you do the before yesterday?
-A- -B- 17. I studied all day yesterday.
-A- -B- 18. Will you be free the day after tomorrow?
-A- -B- 19. Shall I write it down?
-A- -B- 20. Won't you go with me?
-A- -B- 21. Let's have some tea.
-A- -B- 22. I am not good at the Japanese language yet.
-A- -B- 23. Shall we have dinner together?
-A- -B- 24. Will you come to school tomorrow?
-A- -B- 25. Mr/Ms Lee doesn't come to school everyday.
-A- -B- 26. Do you often drink wine?
-A- -B- 27. She does not drink much beer.
-A- -B- 28. It was not cold yesterday.
-A- -B- 29. Do you like SUSHI? [Emphasizing SUSHI]
-A- -B- 30. There's Mark over there.

(Translation/ INTEGRATIVE)
B. DIRECTIONS: Circle the letter -A-, if the sentence to the left of the dash corresponds to the sentence on the right of the dash; and circle the letter -B-, if it doesn't. The examiner may pronounce each sentence.

(T) (F)
-A- -B- 31. ��A�܂��B -- Well, see you again tomorrow.
-A- -B- 32. ��ł��B -- Is that so?
-A- -B- 33. ��ƁA��ꂢ�B -- Sorry to have kept you waiting.
-A- -B- 34. �͂��߂܂��āB -- I'd better be leaving now.
-A- -B- 35. �܂��肢��Ⴂ�B -- Come again and spend a leisurely time.
-A- -B- 36. ��΂炭�B -- Long time no see.
-A- -B- 37. �ǂ��A��B -- Please come again.
-A- -B- 38. ��ł��B -- Is it all right with you?
-A- -B- 39. ��ɂ��́B -- Good evening.
-A- -B- 40. ��Ă��B -- Please read it.

Gibberish? Use http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/jviewer.html.
.

(Dictation / INTEGRATIVE)
C. DIRECTIONS: The examiner will pronounce a short story. Write the story exactly as you hear it below.
�㑺 ��R �F�B�B

�㑺 ��R �悭�ꏏ �o�|�B

�㑺 �V��b�s��O �ƂĂ��D�B

��A��l �ꏏ �� s�B �ƂĂ��y�B

(LISTENING & READING COMPREHENSION & RETENTION)
D. DIRECTIONS: The examiner will read (or show you) a familiar dialog or passage. Then he will make a statement about the dialog or passage. If the statement is true, you circle the letter -A-; if the statement is false, you circle the letter -B-. pp.143-144
01. -A- -B- 02. -A- -B- 03. -A- -B- 04. -A- -B- 05. -A- -B-
06. -A- -B- 07. -A- -B- 08. -A- -B- 09. -A- -B- 10. -A- -B-
11. -A- -B- 12. -A- -B- 13. -A- -B- 14. -A- -B- 15. -A- -B-
16. -A- -B- 17. -A- -B- 18. -A- -B- 19. -A- -B- 20. -A- -B-

= end of test =

Note: A slightly revised version of this article is available in Education (Summer, 2001), ISSN: 0013-1172

= end of file =

Editor: Netscape Communicator 4.7