Makiguchi Tsunesaburo in the Context of Language, Identity and Education

Jason Goulah

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138631663
• eBook ISBN: 9781351804387
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Makiguchi Tsunesaburo (1871-1944) was a Japanese schoolteacher, principal, educational philosopher, and Buddhist war resister. The progenitor of the value-creating ( soka ) pedagogy that inspires thousands of teachers worldwide and informs the network of 15 Soka schools, universities, and a women's college across seven countries in Asia and the Americas, Makiguchi has emerged as an important figure in international education, curriculum studies, and instructional practice. Few educators in the global academy, however, know of Makiguchi's extensive and lifelong work in language education.

This edited volume, including a translation of an early Makiguchi essay heretofore unavailable in English, presents theoretical and empirical analyses of Makiguchi's perspectives and practices relative to language, identity, and education in historical and contemporary contexts. First published as a special issue of Journal of Language, Identity and Education, this volume includes a new preface and three new chapters. Makiguchi Tsunesaburo in the Context of Language, Identity, and Education advances the field of Makiguchi studies and is indispensable for scholars and practitioners engaged in language and literacy education, international perspectives in education, and curriculum theorizing.

ARTICLES

How Should Reading and Composition Be Brought Into
[Clearer] Connection? [1898]

Makiguchi Tsunesaburo

If we seek to understand instruction in actual practice, rather than engaging in the circuitous hastiness of trying to attain instant understanding of the deepest, most distant principles of education, there is no more apt or accessible approach than to give the Ministry of Education’s Overview Guidelines for Elementary School Instruction (1891) a careful and thorough reading. Indeed, the Ministry of Education’s Overview Guidelines for Elementary School Instruction extracts and presents the essence of modern educational theories. Setting aside whether they offer principles that pertain to the entire scope of education, with regard to presenting the essential points for each subject and as a compass for those of us in the daily business of education, they clearly surpass in value any compendium of educational maxims. Despite this, when people in society [i.e., outside the field of education] consider the Guidelines, which are concise yet contain profound meaning, they see them as no different from any other set of dry and commonplace rules and regulations, and do not give them further thought. To do this is related to the all too common error of being satisfied with an only partial and unbalanced view rather than focusing on the whole of instruction. But can such an attitude truly be that of a person who is loyal to the path of education? Are reading and composition not an example of this [i.e., taking an unbalanced view of just one part rather than focusing on the whole]? Is it not the case that treating the two subjects of reading and composition as entirely separate, as distinct from each other as from any other subject, the reason why teachers lament the difficulty of composition instruction even as they complain about the paucity of reading materials—because they complete reading all the assigned material with the children even before the allotted time has expired?

Regarding the goal of reading and composition, Article 3 of the Overview Guidelines for Elementary School Instruction (Article 6 of the Hokkaido Essentials of Instruction) states,

Instruction in reading and composition is principally to give children the knowledge of reading and writing in common language, everyday characters, short phrases and simple sentences, to make them aware of the meaning of these, and to foster their capacity for correctly expressing thought in appropriate language, words and phrases; secondarily, it is to develop children’s knowledge and morals.

Indeed the primary goal of reading and composition instruction is to enable children to understand reading, writing, and the meaning [of texts], fostering their capacity for expressing ideas. In contrast, encouraging the development of children’s knowledge and morals is merely an auxiliary or subordinate objective. If we look at reading instruction as it is generally practiced today, it is considered enough [for the teacher] just to open the book, ask and answer questions about the overall meaning, read aloud and lecture about the lesson. If dictation is assigned, it rarely amounts to anything more than writing out two or three multicharacter phrases. Isn’t this a case of being satisfied with the secondary goal and disregarding the overarching purpose set out in the Ministry of Education’s Overview Guidelines for Elementary School Instruction?

With the progress and development of educational thinking, the language used in textbooks has become simpler to accommodate children’s mental capacities.¹ Because of the simplicity of the language, it is enough to confirm the readings of different characters and lecture on the meaning. It is not necessary to engage in repeated readings [as was the traditional practice when children were made to memorize complex classical texts]. Is it then justifiable to declare that there is a paucity of reading materials? More than merely the ideas [presented in the materials] or just careful reading is required in order to develop the capability of writing sentences. Despite this, any dictation that is assigned is only for writing out several multicharacter compound phrases, and no consideration is given to anything beyond teaching how to read characters and lecturing on the meaning of passages. In such a case, can we really lament that composition instruction is difficult? Where then is the connection between instruction in reading and in composition to be found?

Knowing and expressing are merely two sides of the same coin. Thus, rather than simply seeking to strengthen the connection between reading and composition, we should treat them as constituting, to a degree, one and the same thing. There is an appropriate practice that exists naturally in the intermediary space between these two. This, it goes without saying, is the practice of having students take dictation. I am not suggesting that the practice of dictation is not being undertaken at all, but rather that we need to conduct research on expanding the scope of dictation and on the methods employed. We cannot leave the outcome of dictation to chance but must assure that it moves toward a [logically] necessary destination. This necessary destination is the children’s ability to respond to the demands of composition.

Simply having the materials at hand is not enough to construct a building. There must first be a plan showing how to assemble these materials. It is the same with composition: it is not enough to have just the materials, by which I mean ideas and the characters that are the symbols for them; it is also necessary to have a model that shows the structure. [In the case of composition] this is the form of style of the language that children should follow. If, as is the case in the current practice of reading instruction, ideas and characters are provided but other elements disregarded, children will have obtained these “materials.” But how can they learn the style that is the model for ordering and arranging them? It is for just this reason that I argue for expanding the scope of the practice of dictation. The degree and nature [of this expansion] should be determined by the demands of composition [instruction].

As the German [psychologist] Friedrich Eduard Beneke [(1798–1854)] has so convincingly asserted, there are four stages in children’s study of composition leading up to the point at which they can write with full independence:

1. When both the ideas and language that are the materials of the composition are provided,
2. When the ideas but not the language are provided,
3. When the language is provided but the ideas are not, and it is a question of how children will use that language for writing their own ideas,
4. When neither the ideas nor language is provided and the composition is entirely the child’s own.

Although the fourth stage falls entirely outside the purview of reading instruction, the first three certainly fall within both composition and reading instruction. In particular their connection to reading is strong and it is here that we should instruct children through dictation. Is the [current practice of just] writing of character compound phrases as they are dictated something that responds well to these demands? What new varieties of dictation should be appended to existing practice? For this, it is again enough to reference Article 3 of the Overview Guidelines for Elementary School Instruction and Article 6 of the Hokkaido Essentials of Instruction:

When instructing reading and composition, teachers should have students write down dictated vocabulary, short phrases, simple sentences, etc., occasionally modifying these, in order to deepen their understanding of how kana (i.e., phonetic characters) and vocabulary are used.

This can be broken down into the following four activities:

1. Transcribing dictated vocabulary,
2. Transcribing dictated short phrases,
3. Transcribing dictated simple sentences,
4. Modifying simple sentences.

These clearly correspond to the four stages [proposed by Beneke] that were noted earlier. The first three activities correspond to the first stage and the last one corresponds to the second and third stages; they more than adequately indicate the means by which these stages can be put into practice. If these activities are fully implemented and students’ learning passes through the earlier [of the four stages], there should be no need to feel that composition instruction is so extremely difficult. Despite this, dictation practice is limited to the first two activities [of transcribing vocabulary and short phrases], and no attention is paid to the other activities, with the result that the relation between reading and composition instruction becomes [as disconnected] as described earlier. Thus, the main argument I wish to pursue will be made by focusing on the third and fourth activities [transcribing dictated simple sentences and modifying simple sentences].

1. Transcribing dictated simple sentences: In order to make this the foundation for [students’ learning of] composition, it is necessary that the practice of transcribing vocabulary and short phrases be followed by the transcribing of simple sentences as this will focus children’s attention on sentences [and their structure].
   1. The simplest form of this is the exact reproduction of sentences, or what is known more generally as “copying.” Although this is practiced in multigrade classroom schools, but not seen in single-grade classroom schools, we should never consider it to be merely an unavoidable [and in this sense not valuable] means of responding to the intense demands put on the time of those who simultaneously instruct multiple grades.²
      According to [John Amos] Comenius [(1592–1670)], because the act of copying requires that the mind operate on the same object for a period of time, it contributes to enabling us to commit all things accurately to memory.
   2. Taking dictation of passages recited from memory: As there are exquisite prose and Chinese and Japanese poems included in readers, it is not enough, as it might be in the case of other subjects, simply to read through material once. That being the case, determine the appropriate length of passages and have students repeatedly read them aloud; they will naturally come to memorize these passages. Having the students then take dictation from the recited passages is a useful way of teaching them stylistic models.
   3. Taking dictation of recited passages: While dictation is regularly assigned as a necessary practice for teaching and learning English [in English-speaking countries], there is a tendency in Japan to disregard it. It is, however, indispensable for practicing and learning how to write characters, how to use kana correctly, and to learn different forms or styles. Students might be required, for example, to render the teacher’s lecture, delivered in spoken language, into the written language of formal composition; or they might be asked to take sentences [in written language] and render them into a spoken, colloquial form.
2. Modification of passages. Modification belongs to the above-mentioned second and third stages [in Beneke’s system]; with this, we are entering more and more into the realm of actual composition, and it thus requires a greater application of thought and expenditure of mental energy on the part of children. This is not, however, too difficult for students in the higher elementary grades. The following are varieties of modification.
   1. Writing the same ideas using different language.
   2. Using the same or similar [compositional] style to express different meaning.
   3. Changing the style [i.e., formal/informal, written/colloquial] without changing the ideas or language.
      1. Changing the order of words and phrases.
      2. Making the main clause a subordinate clause.
      3. Making direct phrases indirect and indirect phrases direct.
   4. Summarizing.
   5. Elaborating.

Having children extract and write down in just a few words the main idea from passages in a reader is not only necessary in composition instruction; it is also indispensable if we wish to generate more systematic and more ordered thinking, as this practice helps us organize our concepts, commit facts and ideas to memory and develop integrated thinking. Moreover, the range of practical application [of such a skill] to children’s lives in society is truly without limit.

To elaborate is the exact opposite of this; it is to take condensed items and develop them into complete sentences. When we seek to express our interrelated ideas, we first identify the main point, then organize and order the core elements of our thinking; only then do we actually commence writing. Writing therefore belongs to exactly the same functional category as elaboration; it is thus a crucial element for the teaching of composition.

According to Ernst Christian Trapp [(1745–1818)], children should write down in their notebooks just a few words containing the main ideas taught in each subject; and they should review this at the end of each day, each week, each month.

Needless to say, it may not be possible to apply or use some of the practices outlined above, depending on the different language used in the readers. This is especially so in cases where there is an abundance of materials and there is little opportunity to apply the process thoroughly for each lesson. Nonetheless, we cannot afford to overlook [the value of these different applications and practices] when we appreciate that it is only through going through the above-mentioned stages that children reach the level of writing their own original compositions. How much less can we afford to be satisfied with the limited scope of dictation as it is presently practiced? It is only after [we have practiced dictation in the expanded scope and varieties that I have discussed] that we can truly speak of developing the connections between reading and writing. I look forward to learning the results of the research of astute practitioners with regard to specific methods. Then there will be more that I would like to write on this subject.

---

Translated by Andrew Gebert and Jason Goulah and printed by permission of Soka Gakkai. The original, Ikan ni shite dokusho to sakubun wo renraku arashimubekika, appears on pages 271–277 of Volume 7 of Makiguchi Tsunesaburo zenshu (The Complete Works of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi) (Tokyo: Daisan Bunmeisha, 1981–1988. 10 vols.). Notes are those of the translators.

¹The term used here, shinryoku (mental capacities), is an important concept for Makiguchi throughout his career. It also suggests the amount of mental energy children need to expend to understand and learn something; in this sense it is related to Makiguchi’s ideas about the importance of economy/efficiency in education.

²In the 1890s, multigrade classrooms were promoted in Japan as a way of dealing with the shortage of teachers and facilities. Makiguchi took a strong interest in such schools, in particular, because of the possibilities he saw in them for socializing interactions between younger and older students. According to his writings on this subject, Makiguchi expected that older children might assist younger ones to understand and transcribe passages accurately (see e.g., Makiguchi, T. ([1897] 2010); on the significance of social aspects that Parker says should be incorporated into the school experience, see Schools: Studies in Education, 7(1), 49–55).

The Writing Subject: Makiguchi Tsunesaburo
and the Teaching of Composition

Andrew Gebert

Waseda University

Literacy education is always a potentially problematic undertaking, one that shifts people’s relationships among themselves, with bodies of transmitted knowledge and with structures of political control (Collins & Blot, 2003; Lee, 2004; Mazrui, 1990). The teaching of writing and composition in early 20th-century Japan presented a number of unique challenges, centered on the complexity of the writing system and the historical diglossia that had separated the spoken and written forms of the language for centuries. In this article, the author compares the responses of Makiguchi Tsunesaburo (1871–1944) and Ashida Enosuke (1873–1951) to these challenges. Where Ashida promoted the idea of writing as a spontaneous expression of the “self,” Makiguchi encouraged a more deliberate, conscious and “scientific” approach to the teaching of writing, one that encouraged more interactive and socialized understanding of language and the self-other relations it embodies. These approaches are compared against the background of the role assigned to language learning and teaching in defining...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Preface
• Introduction—On the Substance and Application of Makiguchi Tsunesaburo’s Perspectives on Language, Identity, and Education: An Introduction
• 1 How Should Reading and Composition Be Brought Into [Clearer] Connection? [1898]
• 2 The Writing Subject: Makiguchi Tsunesaburo and the Teaching of Composition
• 3 Makiguchi Tsunesaburo and Language, Value-Creative Composition Instruction, and the Geography of Identity in Community Studies: A Response to Politicized Imagining and Ineffective Critical Approaches
• 4 Soka Kyoikugaku Taikei Versus Education for Creative Living: How Makiguchi Tsunesaburo’s Educational Ideas Are Presented in English
• 5 Makiguchian Perspectives in Language Policy and Planning
• 6 East~West Epistemological Convergence of Humanism in Language, Identity, and Education: Confucius~Makiguchi~Dewey
• 7 Makiguchi Tsunesaburo’s Knowledge Cultivation Model and Its Application to Foreign Language Education
• 8 The Ability to Write, the Ability to Think: Tsunesaburo Makiguchi’s Composition Teaching Method
• 9 Coda: Translating Makiguchi
• Index