芝浦工業大学研究報告2009: 理工系編第53巻第1号. 人文系編第43巻第1号

(1)

行政手続の一括申請を可能にする電子申請システム構築のための知識モデルの研究

A Study on Knowledge Model for Implementing an Electronic Application/Acceptance System to Enable One-Service of Administrative Procedures

川口弘行，古宮誠一

Hiroyuki Kawaguchi and Seiichi Komiya

活断層近傍および強地震地域にあるダムの抽出と耐震安定評価

Dams near active fault and in the zone of strong earthquake and seismic stability 岡本敏郎

Toshiro Okamoto

雷インパルス試験におけるオーバーシュートの発生と残留インダクタンスならびに負荷側静電容量との関係 Relationship between Overshoot and Residual Inductance or Load-side Capacitance in Lightning Impulse Test 松本聡

Satoshi Matsumoto

カントロヴィッチ不等式とその応用について Kantorovich inequality and its applications 瀬尾祐貴

Yuki SEO

改良Kepner-Tregoe法に基づくリスク識別法の提案と有効性の評価

A Method Based on the Improved Kepner-Tregoe Program for Risk Identification: Proposals and Evaluation of Method

長島武生，中村恵一，八重樫理人，古宮誠一

Takeo NAGASHIMA, Keiichi NAKAMURA, Rihito YAEGASHI and Seiichi KOMIYA

分散制約最適化問題のための多重化近似解法の提案

A Fast Multiplexed Approximation Method for Distributed Constraint Optimization Problems 飯塚泰樹

Yasuki IIZUKA

情報システム設計開発演習の実践と評価

Implementation and Assessment of Exercise for Design and Development of Information Systems 大倉典子，青砥哲朗，木村昌臣

(2)

Michiko Ohkura, Tetsuro Aoto and Masaomi Kimura

衝撃負荷を受ける積層材料のき裂先端近傍の応力状態と進展挙動に関する実験的検討

An Experimental Study on Stress State and Growth Behavior of near Crack Tip of the Laminated Materials by Load

吉村健佑，江角務

Kensuke YOSHIMURA and Tsutomu EZUMI

モバイル機器用小型スピーカの特性の新しい測定法に関する研究 ―ディジタルシステムを用いた新測定シス案―

Study of new measuring methods of small loudspeakers used for mobile equipment 今岡啓一，大賀寿郎

Keiichi Imaoka and Juro Ohga

ソフトウェア開発演習のために最適な学生のチーム編成に関する研究～SEM仮説モデルによる人的要因の分析に基づく研究アプローチ～

A Study on Creating an Optimal Plan of Student Grouping and Team Formation for Software Development Exe Approach from a SEM Hypothetic Model Based Analysis of Human Factors

白川清美

Kiyomi SHIRAKAWA

車いす上での姿勢計測に関する研究 ―脊柱のアライメント推測・評価のための胸骨線と腹部線の提案― Measurement of Sitting Posture in Wheelchair ―Thoracic and Abdominal Line Assessing Spine Aligments― 廣瀬秀行

Hideyuki Hirose

火害を受けたコンクリート構造物に対する非破壊・微破壊試験の適用に関する研究

RESEARCH ON APPLICATION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING TO CONCRETE STRUCTURE RECEIVED F 小林幸一

Koichi Kobayashi

(3)

行政手続の一括申請を可能にする電子申請システム構築のための知識モデルの研究

A Study on Knowledge Model for Implementing an Electronic Application/Acceptance System to Enable One-Service of Administrative Procedures

川口弘行，古宮誠一

Hiroyuki Kawaguchi and Seiichi Komiya

活断層近傍および強地震地域にあるダムの抽出と耐震安定評価

Dams near active fault and in the zone of strong earthquake and seismic stability 岡本敏郎

Toshiro Okamoto

雷インパルス試験におけるオーバーシュートの発生と残留インダクタンスならびに負荷側静電容量との関係 Relationship between Overshoot and Residual Inductance or Load-side Capacitance in Lightning Impulse Test 松本聡

Satoshi Matsumoto

カントロヴィッチ不等式とその応用について Kantorovich inequality and its applications 瀬尾祐貴

Yuki SEO

改良Kepner-Tregoe法に基づくリスク識別法の提案と有効性の評価

A Method Based on the Improved Kepner-Tregoe Program for Risk Identification: Proposals and Evaluation of Method

長島武生，中村恵一，八重樫理人，古宮誠一

Takeo NAGASHIMA, Keiichi NAKAMURA, Rihito YAEGASHI and Seiichi KOMIYA

分散制約最適化問題のための多重化近似解法の提案

A Fast Multiplexed Approximation Method for Distributed Constraint Optimization Problems 飯塚泰樹

Yasuki IIZUKA

情報システム設計開発演習の実践と評価

Implementation and Assessment of Exercise for Design and Development of Information Systems 大倉典子，青砥哲朗，木村昌臣

(4)

Michiko Ohkura, Tetsuro Aoto and Masaomi Kimura

衝撃負荷を受ける積層材料のき裂先端近傍の応力状態と進展挙動に関する実験的検討

An Experimental Study on Stress State and Growth Behavior of near Crack Tip of the Laminated Materials by Load

吉村健佑，江角務

Kensuke YOSHIMURA and Tsutomu EZUMI

モバイル機器用小型スピーカの特性の新しい測定法に関する研究 ―ディジタルシステムを用いた新測定シス案―

Study of new measuring methods of small loudspeakers used for mobile equipment 今岡啓一，大賀寿郎

Keiichi Imaoka and Juro Ohga

ソフトウェア開発演習のために最適な学生のチーム編成に関する研究～SEM仮説モデルによる人的要因の分析に基づく研究アプローチ～

A Study on Creating an Optimal Plan of Student Grouping and Team Formation for Software Development Exe Approach from a SEM Hypothetic Model Based Analysis of Human Factors

白川清美

Kiyomi SHIRAKAWA

車いす上での姿勢計測に関する研究 ―脊柱のアライメント推測・評価のための胸骨線と腹部線の提案― Measurement of Sitting Posture in Wheelchair ―Thoracic and Abdominal Line Assessing Spine Aligments― 廣瀬秀行

Hideyuki Hirose

火害を受けたコンクリート構造物に対する非破壊・微破壊試験の適用に関する研究

RESEARCH ON APPLICATION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING TO CONCRETE STRUCTURE RECEIVED F 小林幸一

Koichi Kobayashi

(5)

Interdisciplinary Communication among Science and Engineering Students Hidemi Yashiro and Paul Marquet

NEGOTIATING MEANING THROUGH CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION AT SHIBAURA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Ruby T. Ogawa

On the Design of Systems-Oriented University Curricula

Jed Jones, Ockie Bosch, Manfred Drack, Yoshihide Horiuchi and Magnus Ramage

アジアにおける都市化と都市問題 Urbanization and Urban Problems in Asia 高中公男

Kimio Takanaka

和製カタカナ英語から実例で示す真正英語へ（XII）

The Correct “Katakana” English Expressions Taken From Examples (XII) 山崎千秋

Chiaki Yamazaki

1910年代から1920年代の日本における教育測定研究と教育改革運動

Educational Measurement and Education Reform Movement in Japan from 1910s to 1920s 江口潔

Kiyoshi Eguchi

エンタプライズ系ソフトウェア産業の実態と課題に関する考察：SE度調査2005，2006，2007より

A study on reality and issues on enterprise software industry in Japan:Software Engineering Excellence Resea 2005, 2006 and 2007

角埜恭央，椿広計，鶴保征城

Yasuo Kadono, Hiroe Tsubaki and Seishiro Tsuruho

工学系大学教職課程において情報化に対応した教育の実践力を育成するための科目間連携にむけた一考察 Research on How to Coordinate Training Courses to Foster Pre-service Teachers’ Ability to Plan ICT Integra

(6)

Lessons 石井奈津子 Natsuko Ishii

DVD教材の教育現場における活用とその評価

―昆虫行動をモデルとした中等理科実験プログラムの生徒評価を中心として― Practical Use in Schools and its Evaluation of the DVD Teaching-Materials

―Focusing on Student Evaluation of the Scientific Experiment Programs using the Insect Behavior for the Se Education Phases in Japan―

菅沢茂，普後一，濱野國勝，島田順，金勝一樹，馬場眞知子

Shigeru Sugasawa, Hajime Fugo, Kunikatsu Hamano, Jun Shimada, Motoki Kanekatsu and Machiko Baba

システムの可能性と戦略

The Possibility of Systems and Strategy 大河内信司

Shinji Okouchi

(7)

1 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 1−10（2009）

(8)

2 川口弘行・古宮誠一

(9)

3 行政手続の一括申請を可能にする電子申請システム構築のための知識モデルの研究

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

11 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 11−20（2009）

(18)

12 岡本敏郎

(19)

13 活断層近傍および強地震地域にあるダムの抽出と耐震安定評価

(20)

14 岡本敏郎

(21)

(22)

16 岡本敏郎

(23)

(24)

18 岡本敏郎

(25)

(26)

20 岡本敏郎

(27)

21 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 21−27（2009）

(28)

22 松本聡

(29)

23 雷インパルス試験におけるオーバーシュートの発生と残留インダクタンスならびに負荷側静電容量との関係

(30)

24 松本聡

(31)

(32)

26 松本聡

(33)

(34)

29 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 29−35（2009）

(35)

30 瀬尾祐貴

(36)

31 カントロヴィッチ不等式とその応用について

(37)

32 瀬尾祐貴

(38)

(39)

34 瀬尾祐貴

(40)

(41)

37 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 37−46（2009）

(42)

38 長島武生・中村恵一・八重樫理人・古宮誠一

(43)

39 改良 Kepner-Tregoe 法に基づくリスク識別法の提案と有効性の評価

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

47 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 47−55（2009）

(52)

48 飯塚泰樹

(53)

49 分散制約最適化問題のための多重化近似解法の提案

(54)

50 飯塚泰樹

(55)

(56)

52 飯塚泰樹

(57)

(58)

54 飯塚泰樹

(59)

(60)

57 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 57−64（2009）

(61)

58 大倉典子・青砥哲朗・木村昌臣

(62)

59 情報システム設計開発演習の実践と評価

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

65 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 65−70（2009）

(69)

66 吉村健佑・江角務

(70)

67 衝撃負荷を受ける積層材料のき裂先端近傍の応力状態と進展挙動に関する実験的検討

(71)

(72)

69 衝撃負荷を受ける積層材料のき裂先端近傍の応力状態と進展挙動に関する実験的検討

(73)

(74)

71 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 71−80（2009）

(75)

72 今岡啓一・大賀寿郎

(76)

73 モバイル機器用小型スピーカの特性の新しい測定法に関する研究

−ディジタルシステムを用いた新測定システムの提案−

(77)

(78)

(79)

(80)

(81)

(82)

(83)

(84)

81 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 81−89（2009）

(85)

82 白川清美

(86)

83 ソフトウェア開発演習のために最適な学生のチーム編成に関する研究

∼ SEM 仮説モデルによる人的要因の分析に基づく研究アプローチ∼

(87)

84 白川清美

(88)

(89)

86 白川清美

(90)

(91)

88 白川清美

(92)

(93)

91 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 91−99（2009）

(94)

92 廣瀬秀行

(95)

93 車いす上での姿勢計測に関する研究

−脊柱のアライメント推測・評価のための胸骨線と腹部線の提案−

(96)

94 廣瀬秀行

(97)

(98)

96 廣瀬秀行

(99)

(100)

98 廣瀬秀行

(101)

(102)

101 芝浦工大研究報告理工系 53−１ 101−110（2009）

(103)

102 小林幸一

(104)

103 火害を受けたコンクリート構造物に対する非破壊・微破壊試験の適用に関する研究

(105)

104 小林幸一

(106)

(107)

106 小林幸一

(108)

(109)

108 小林幸一

(110)

(111)

110 小林幸一

(112)

111 芝浦工大研究報告人文系 43−１ 111−116（2009）

(113)

112 Hidemi Yashiro・Paul Marquet

(114)

113 Interdisciplinary Communication among Science and Engineering Students

(115)

(116)

115 Interdisciplinary Communication among Science and Engineering Students

(117)

(118)

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the history of second language acquisition, the word “content” referred to methodology relating to grammar-translations to the language of origin whereas the interpretation of “content” today has developed as a useful vehicle for learning English as a second language. Speciﬁcally, most of the syllabus-es used in the grammar-translation approach or with the audio-lingual methods, often rely on teaching styles that employ struc-tured and sequenced objectives within a course. In comparison, the communicative approach employs the organization of infor-mation that is interactive such as “asking for information,” as well as eliciting discussions among students, and discourse from instructors.

Generally speaking, people can learn a second language under many different circumstances such as residing in another country for a short or extended period of time. Fundamentally, the termi-nology “second language acquisition” (SLA) refers to the devel-opment of a workable proﬁciency level in a second language

af-ter masaf-tering their ﬁrst language. In contrast, the distinction with bilingual language acquisition refers to learning two or more languages simultaneously usually during infancy up to the age of three years old.

While there are certain beneﬁts in learning several languages at an early age, this opportunity may not be available to most in-dividuals in their own country. The whole process of learning a second language is essentially the fundamental exposure of the target language within a social context that promotes learning in a natural manner of communicative acquisition.

Here, we are asserting that immersion is the key to language acquisition. Generally, there are models of immersion within foreign language programs that provide a typical content-based approach such as the one established in the United States within the last two decades. In this program, students participating in an immersion program can learn to do mathematical problems in Spanish. At the end of their elementary schooling years, these students perform at or above grade level scholastically, and ulti-mately, become bilingual in the target language. (Genesee 1987 ; Johnson and Swain 1997). While such American pro-grams give us insight into the success rates of immersion, this

NEGOTIATING MEANING THROUGH CONTENT

_-BASED

INSTRUCTION AT SHIBAURA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

By : Ruby T. Ogawa

＊ ABSTRACT

Teaching a second language within a content-based program can be a daunting task for instructors in Japan. Not only must these instructors possess the academic knowledge of the subject matter, but there is the additional requirement for in-structors to continually assess the student’s ability to understand the points made during any given lesson plan. Generally, there is a basic need to scaffold or to coach Japanese students through guided speech, deﬁned reading materials, and demon-strated visuals.

In the last twenty years, the deﬁnition for content-based language instruction has changed in America. The educational goal for students is to comprehend and relay learned information in a cohesive manner through the four basic integrated lan-guage learning skills : listening, speaking, reading and writing. Past trends in teaching second lanlan-guage courses had been limiting for students, and new ones have surfaced through research.

Today, teaching second language methodology involves the collaborative nature of language learning. The actual goal is for students to negotiate the meaning of content-based material by relying on their interpretative and self-guided reasoning skills to enhance their communicative competency. Speciﬁcally, the focus on meaning rather than form is part of the learning process through Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).

For this paper, CLT has been deﬁned as the engagement of learners to communicate in a competent and efﬁcient manner. Further, this form of teaching coincides with the intent of the educational policy under Japanese “Mombusho” guidelines in developing communicative competency.

Key words : Content-Based Instruction (CBI), Bilingualism, Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Immersion Programs, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), Communicative Competency, Sheltering Programs.

＊_{Lecturer, College of Systems Engineering}

117 芝浦工大研究報告人文系 43−１ 117−120（2009）

(119)

does not provide an adequate model for teaching English as a second language in Japan. This is due to the ongoing social poli-cy toward a more communicative curriculum among Japanese teachers.

In the last quarter of the 20th_{century in Japan, the trend}

to-ward language education in the ﬁeld of SLA had taken on a more communicative approach where most learning was based on dia-logue form. Curriculum guidelines in Japan are structured to provide students in developing their communicative competency. Minoru Wada, a university professor and a senior advisor to the Mombusho explains as follows :

The Mombusho Guidelines, or course of study, is one of the most important legal precepts in the Japanese educational sys-tem. In 1989, the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture revised the course of study for primary as well as secondary schools on the basis of proposals made in a 1987 report by the Council on the School Curriculum, an advisory group to the Minister of Education, Science, and Culture. The basic goal of the revision was to prepare students to cope with rapidly oc-curring changes toward a more global society. The report urged Japanese teachers to place much more emphasis on the development of communicative competence in English. Thus, the intent of the Japanese educational system’s goal is to make viable changes for a more global consciousness. There is a reliance on experienced instructors who will be able to scaffold or to provide students with the necessary tools in negotiating the meaning from content-based instruction. In predicting the out-come of the next decade, most educators are carefully planning the implementation of these educational policy demands within their university curriculum by standardizing a level of communi-cative competency among their students.

INSTRUCTIONAL IDEALS AT

SHIBAU-RA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

At Shibaura Institute of Technology (SIT), the goal is to pro-vide students with alternative perspectives or sources of informa-tion outside of mass media. According to the Director of this content-based approach within the Systems Engineering Pro-gram, Professor Darrell Moen encourages his students to think “outside the box,” and to come up with critical levels of thinking

in terms of ﬁnding workable solutions to social issues.

This program is not focused on language learning per se, but the emphasis within Content-Based Instruction (CBI) is a teach-ing methodology that encompasses learnteach-ing material on a theme-based model for sociological and culture-based subject

matters. The instructors are encouraged to teach a course of study designed to unlock and expose students to subject matters that offer viewpoints that are not within their normal range of social conditioning. CBI is a learning tool for students about de-veloping knowledge and critical thinking skills that naturally form into the development of linguistic skills that encourages communicative competency.

While the emphasis of activities or tasks such the pronuncia-tion of subject-related vocabulary words may be a part of the process, the actual goal is to provide students to be in a group-oriented and teacher guided learning environment. This is done by integrating such basic skills in listening, speaking, reading and writing in English without translations in a subject relating to social phenomena. The transition from Japanese to English becomes a natural conditioning due to the repetition of course-related vocabulary, and in providing learning that is interesting to students from a cross cultural perspective. This provides a heightened level of motivation for students to be involved in un-derstanding a subject that elevates their levels of awareness about global issues on a sociological and/or cultural perspective.

THE CORNERSTONE OF

COMMUNCA-TIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

Deﬁning language proﬁciency involves the basic components of communicative competence. (Byram 1997). The learners gradually expand their communicative competency by develop-ing the four general areas : (1) grammar, (2) discourse, (3) so-cio-cultural, and (4) strategic. Each context cannot be measured in isolation. Further students must be exposed to each area of competency in order to reach the overall ability to communicate effectively. Accordingly, it is the interactive element that produc-es a corrproduc-esponding increase in overall communicative competen-cy.

According to Professor Darrell Moen, the focus on Content-Based Instruction (CBI) courses depend on the experiences of professors who can lend students the sociocultural viewpoints. These instructors relay newfound research information that grants the learner the exposure to a more global perspective that is necessary to support ideas for social responsibility. The re-quirement for teaching content-based courses at SIT depends primarily on an instructor’s ability to incorporate communicative teaching practices in their area of expertise.

The incorporation of applied techniques for content-based lesson planning requires instructors to utilize the Internet as a rich resource for language and content-based activities for group-related exercises. Computer-assisted learning can provide students with the comfort zone for interactive learning via online

118 Ruby T. Ogawa

(120)

visuals. Another factor is time-based interactions with students to incorporate the overall content of the lesson. Allowance to ab-sorb the material in their own native language provides another comfortable learning scenario to take place among students through group-related activities that aids in reinforcing the teaching point within the lesson.

For example, content-based courses may rely on textbooks or computerized searches on various educational websites. Also, there is a wealth of information on educational websites that simplify difﬁcult subject matters for Japanese students through group-related worksheets. This would prompt discussions in the student’s own language in order to stimulate cognitive thought processes that draws from their own interpretations from theme-based readings or previous discussions. This oral exchange be-tween the instructor and student is the essential part of bridging the cultural component of new information.

One goal is to provide students the necessary tools in develop-ing their listendevelop-ing, speakdevelop-ing, readdevelop-ing and writdevelop-ing abilities by scaffolding these learning activities with questions and responses that would elicit the student’s need to negotiate the meaning de-rived from the lesson. While the target language is not the main focus, the integration of content-based material provides the stu-dent to learn the language naturally or simultaneously. Assess-ment is done by reviewing the previous lesson in the following week in order to ensure comprehension of presented material through question and answer interactions or short essay writing assignments that provide written feedback for student evaluation.

MAKING LECTURES

COMPREHENSI-BLE

Accordingly, Professor Moen provides some basic ideas in making lectures more comprehensible for students learning Eng-lish as a second language. While there is the cultural aspect that may be something that instructors are required to bridge in terms of a student’s comprehension of social phenomena based on so-cial research, there are basic scaffolding steps that are employed for Japanese students.

One of the objectives is to provide the students to learn the content-based material by deﬁning or simplifying the material for students through graphics or other means of visuals or video. The link made to the material is critical for students to see the connection between the social theories or levels of discussions that can be incorporated into the lesson plan for students to uti-lize their language skills.

The rationale behind this aspect of teaching relies on giving students the necessary terminology to consider on their own or in groups, while restating the vocabulary words in either

Japa-nese and in English to assist the students in isolating the mean-ing derived from the content of the lesson. In addition, the sepa-ration of content-based terminology such as socialism, democratic processes, and centralism from non-content words is a vital part in vocabulary building. To illustrate, non-content ter-minology in a new context (e.g., a watershed event) can be paired with content-based terminology for students to increase their communicative competency in a cultural context.

The general procedure is for students to review lecture notes in advance and to be able to anticipate what would be discussed the following week. Breaking down the meaning for students in terms of content-based terminology relies on the restatement of these words in various ways. Most instructors rely on repetition and the use of analogies as an important aspect of content-based learning.

In comparison, grammar-translation and audio-lingual meth-ods does not adequately prepare learners with the ability to inter-pret, to express, or to negotiate the meaning derived from con-tent-based material. For example, sociological phenomena relating to gender, politics, or environmental issues are abstract concepts that are not part of common knowledge. The Japanese student must derive meaning from these abstract concepts into their own repertoire of understanding through guided learning. CLT involves task-based, inductive, and/or discovery oriented processes for learning to be developed at the communicative lev-el.

The essential goal for communicative competency relies on the student’s level of cognitive processing of new information. The instructor must help Japanese students develop skill sets that promote individualized thinking abilities through critical analy-sis of social phenomena through socio-cultural discourse. In ad-dition, grammar-based question and answer sessions through group writing exercises can enhance a Japanese student’s under-standing in a shared learning environment. Further, by providing strategic thinking patterns centered on social contexts that exem-plify the human condition such as a “drought” that had caused a food shortage can provide students with a chance to ﬁnd viable solutions to world hunger issues. This elicits small group discus-sions, and the necessary exchange of ideas among students, and with the instructor at the classroom level.

Through CLT, the instructor guides the students to seek posi-tive social change. This is the next layer of social understanding. In sum, the combination of two or more of these methods for in-struction can pave the way toward communicative competency within a content-based course.

119 NEGOTIATING MEANING THROUGH CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION

AT SHIBAURA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(121)

CONCLUSION

In recent years, the content-based approach in Japan has been utilized in various ways such as “sheltering” programs that placed language learning on the shoulders of instructors, instead of the student. This places a dependency for learning to take place upon the strength of the instructor. Even with some reliance of instruc-tors to enhance a student’s reasoning and critical analysis of so-cial phenomena, the content-based approach is a natural step in creating an open-learning environment for Japanese students.

While bilingualism is more focused on the total immersion of language acquisition within the framework of content-based in-struction in the USA or other countries, the goals of CLT provide a student’s exposure to ideas and solutions outside Japanese soci-ety. This elevates the learning experience to allow analytical lev-els of social consciousness to form among Japanese students once meaning is negotiated for them.

In sum, the mainstay for content-based college courses is con-tingent on the interactive and communicative nature between students and instructor through reinforced learning scenarios. In keeping with Japan’s educational goals in developing and ex-panding a student’s communicative competency, the ideal focus

for instructors is to have students sustain their own level of inter-pretations of the presented material as an adjunct to language learning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural

Communica-tive Competence. Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters. Genesee, F. 1987. Learning Through Two Languages. New York :

Newbury House.

Johnson, R., K. and M. Swain meds, 1997. Immersion Education :

In-ternational Perspectives. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Kasper, L.F., ed. 2000. Content-Based College Instruction. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.

Snow, M.A. and D.M. Brinton, Eds. 1997. The Content-Based Class-room : Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content. New York : Longman.

WEBSITES

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL) : www.actﬂ.org.

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) : www. tesol.org

（2008 年 11 月 6 日受付）

120 Ruby T. Ogawa

(122)

1. Introduction

This paper proposes a tool called the Systems Education Ma-trix (SEM) for use in informing the work of developers of sys-tems-oriented curricula at colleges and universities around the world. The SEM was developed by Team 1 at the 2008 IFSR (In-ternational Federation for Systems Research) Fuschl Conversa-tion held at Fuschl-am-See in Austria. The paper is divided into three sections, covering respectively : A synopsis of the group process (Section 2) ; An overview of the current state of systems education followed during the development of the SEM (Section 3) ; and an explanation of the SEM itself (Section 4).

1.1. Systems Thinking in Context

In most educational, industrial, scientiﬁc and social contexts, in order to understand something better (e.g., an ecological sys-tem, an organization, a policy), we break it into parts and then study the parts separately (Ackoff et al., 2006). In this way, in-terdependencies and interactions between the constituent parts are overlooked, which are the very causes of complexity and dy-namic behavior in systems.

The wide range of disciplines involved in addressing complex contemporary issues (e.g., climate change, sustainability of busi-nesses) require the integration of diverse ranges of knowledge and skills. The ability to explore the complexity of interactions within the ‘hard’ system (the biophysical components) and within the ‘soft’ system (the interactions between the biophysical

com-ponents, technology and people) requires a shift away from sin-gle disciplinary projects toward multi-disciplinary and inter-dis-ciplinary research, and approaches.

To accomplish this, new ways of thinking are essential to manage the complex problems we are dealing with today. Sys-tems thinking offers a way or ‘method’ with which to construct and explore inter-relationships at a variety of system levels (Bosch et al., 2007).

It is clear that systems education should be acknowledged as being in direct support of a science-based approach to helping today’s society to deal with the complexities of contemporary is-sues. To serve this role effectively, systems education needs to be focused towards the various needs that exist. There is a need for systems specialists and theoreticians who can develop concepts, theory and tools. There is an even greater need for educating a wider spectrum of people in how to use these concepts and tools in solving complex problems. For example, statistical analysis is used as standard practice and is an integral part of all disciplines of science. Systems thinking, in contrast, is not (Bosch et al., 2007). In the same way that researchers do not all have to be statisticians, they also do not all need to be systems specialists.

This premise was the basis for Team 1’s approach at the 2008 Fuschl Conversation. Team 1 focused on the nature of systems education that will be required to not only train systems special-ists, but to make systems thinking and analysis an integral part of discipline focused research and management.

2. Overview of the Practice of Dialogue at

2008 Fuschl Conversation

The 2008 Fuschl Conversation incorporated the practice of

di-On the Design of Systems

_{-Oriented University Curricula}

Jed Jones

＊

#, Ockie Bosch

＊＊

, Manfred Drack

＊＊＊

,

Yoshihide Horiuchi

＊＊＊＊

and Magnus Ramage

＊＊＊＊＊

(# Conversation Team Coordinator)

Abstract

This paper proposes a tool called the Systems Education Matrix (SEM) for use in informing the work of developers of systems-oriented curricula at colleges and universities around the world. The SEM was developed by Team 1 at the 2008 IFSR Fuschl Conversation held at Fuschl am See in Austria. In order to manage the complex problems we are dealing with today, systems thinking is essential. It is clear that systems education should be acknowledged as an important “scientiﬁc method” that can help today’s society to deal with the complexities of contemporary issues. To serve this role effectively, sys-tems education needs to be focused towards the various needs that exist. The members of Team 1 have focused on the nature of systems education that will be required to not only train systems specialists, but to make systems thinking and analysis an integral part of discipline focused research and management.

Key Words : systems thinking, systems education matrix (SEM), dialogue

＊ _{Principal, Jed C. Jones Consulting, U.S.A.} ＊＊ _{Professor, The University of Queensland, Australia} ＊＊＊ _{Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Vienna, Austria} ＊＊＊＊_{Graduate School of Engineering Management} ＊＊＊＊＊_{Assistant Professor, Open University, U.K.}

121 芝浦工大研究報告人文系 43−１ 121−130（2009）

(123)

alogue as the intended means of communication and research within each research team. The word “dialogue” comes from the Greek word dialogos, meaning, “through the meaning of the word” (Martin, 2002). In modern usage, the word is often used with a meaning roughly equivalent to that of “conversation.” Dia-logue is a sub-set of conversation and can be contrasted with other types of conversation, such as discussion and dialectic. Discussion and dialectic involve the advocacy of one’s own opin-ion with the hope of convincing another person of a particular way of thinking. By contrast, the purpose of dialogue is to build true community among participants (Jenlink and Carr, 1996). “Dialogue is a unique form of conversation with potential to

im-prove collective inquiry processes, to produce coordinated action among collectives, and to bring about genuine social change” (Isaacs, 1996, p.20).

Dialogue, in the sense that it is used here, is “not a new tool for addressing speciﬁc issues or problems. Rather, it is a means to help people to think together” (Banathy, 1996, p.218). It ﬁlls an urgent need in modern times and can serve as an important tool for the current global problematique. In its recent report on global sustainability, the United Nations recognizes “the impor-tance of building human solidarity ［and］ the promotion of dia-logue and cooperation among the world’s civilizations and peo-ples, irrespective of race, disabilities, religion, language, culture, or tradition” (United Nations, 2002, p.3).

2.1. Background and Stated Goals of the Fuschl

Sys-tems Education Team

In January of 2008, the Team 1 was asked to explore the “basic concept of systems sciences,” and the Conference primer asked them to consider the following triggering questions :

(A ) What concepts must a person know in order to call him/her-self a ‘systems scientist?’

(B ) Can we establish an ontology of systems concepts using Charles Francois’ encyclopedia? (Francois, 2004)

(C) Can we deﬁne a systems science body of knowledge? (D ) What are existing/desirable University programs and

cours-es - how much are they covering, compatible with (A) and (C)? (E ) Given the fuzzy borders of systems Sciences would it be

helpful to separate the ﬁeld into LARGE subﬁelds, similarly to e.g. informatics (practical, applied, theoretical).

(F ) Given that in Fuschl we cannot fully solve these questions, what is an appropriate road-map to achieve it, what should be the collaborators and what is the time frame?” (IFSR

Newslet-ter, December, 2007)

Based upon these, the theme of Team 1’s dialogue evolved as described below.

2.2. Process Overview of the Fuschl Team

The semi-structured dialogue process which Team 1 followed during the development of the SEM over a four-day period may yield some useful insights into the origins, nature and purpose of the SEM itself. Therefore, a brief overview of the group process that Team 1 followed is covered below.

In terms of group process, Team 1 went through a fairly nor-mal evolution in terms of group dynamics in a dialogue situation, oscillating between times of relative harmony and relative chaos. Through a strong spirit of determination and the effective use of experimenting with different dialogue tactics at points when the evolution of the process seemed to get stuck, Team 1 was able to produce an outcome that was satisfying to most or all members. Here are a few highlights of the process :

2.2.1. Phase I : Engaging Each Other (Day 1)

Team 1 took a pragmatic, structured approach to the dialogue experience. During the ﬁrst session, two of the group members who were experienced with a particular type dialogue process explained their views of the concepts of generative and strategic dialogue to the rest of the group. The group then took turns ex-plaining their input papers in their own words. This led into a generative dialogue session whereby the group explored the question of “What is quality education?” The generative dialogue session allowed the group’s member to surface their own as-sumptions and values about what “quality education” meant to them.

2.2.2. Phase II : Two Key Insights (Day 1)

The group then shifted gears into a mode of strategic dialogue. This transition took place as the group began to formulate its collective goals for the Fuschl dialogue event. The agreement was to create, within the span of the 4-day Fuschl dialogue event, an output paper that would serve as an attempt to collec-tively respond to the pre-conference triggering questions. Dur-ing this phase of strategic dialogue, two key insights began to emerge : 1. There is a need to develop and categorize multiple systems education curricula in order to serve different students who have varying needs and goals ; 2. It would be useful to identify the range of systems concepts (e.g., autopoiesis, feed-back, homeostasis, etc.) such that each can be properly matched with each curriculum category.

2.2.3. Phase III : Making a First Attempt at

Classi-ﬁcation (Day 2)

After the two key insights emerged, the group soon developed a diagram in order to categorize the types of systems curricula required. The diagram contained two primary categories : “inte-grated” and “systems knowledge per se.” The “integrated” category was further divided into two sub-categories :“to aid in work

122 Jed Jones・Ockie Bosch・Manfred Drack・Yoshihide Horiuchi・Magnus Ramage

(124)

readiness” and “learning in the context of a given discipline.” Meanwhile, the “systems knowledge per se” category was further divided into the sub-categories of “for basic understanding” and “for mastery.” A fifth sub-category was also added to the

dia-gram : a pre-university “intro to systems” course. This 5-sub-category diagram came to be known unofﬁcially as the systems Education Blob.

2.2.4. Phase IV : Hitting a Wall and Changing

Tac-tics (Day 3)

Once the systems Education Blob was conceived, the group set as its next goal to generate and then classify examples of commonly-recognized systems concepts that could be fit into each of the systems education categories created in the Blob. The list was meant to be a “starter list” that could be augmented at any time in the future by individual practitioners in order to create a more expansive list of systems concepts. The group generated 76 systems concepts at that point. At this point in the process, the group hit a ﬁgurative wall in terms of its progress.

2.2.5. Phase V : Breakthrough (Day 4)

Team 1 achieved a breakthrough of sorts when it gave up on the idea of trying to find a way to rigorously classify systems concepts as previously desired. For the remainder of the dialogue event, the group shifted its focus, eventually producing a deriva-tive of the Blob : the Systems Education Matrix. The matrix or-ganized the systems education landscape into two main dimen-sions : the depth and type of systems knowledge required, and whether systems concepts are taught per se or rather through ap-plication within one or more speciﬁc disciplines.

3. The Current State of Systems Education

at the University Level

3.1. Challenges and Opportunities

Systems education today faces a number of barriers (con-straints and challenges) if it is to become a more prominent fea-ture of global institutions of higher education. At the same time, the wider implementation of systems-oriented curricula in high-er education affords substantial opportunities for students, pro-fessors, industry, local communities, and the globe.

3.1.1. Challenge : Complying with the Needs of

In-dustry

The revolution that is taking place regarding the integration of systems concepts into discipline specific courses is not only driven by the need to train systems scientists who can deal with the complex issues, also by the need to instill systems thinking attributes in our graduates.

Industry requires graduates that will not only have in-depth knowledge in the ﬁeld(s) studied, but who also can display

effec-tive communication skills, independence and creativity, critical judgment and ethical and social understanding. Of particular im-portance is the ability to develop analytical frameworks that can be used to critically analyze complex situations, solve problems and make decisions for system improvements. Universities should play an active role in enhancing the educational experi-ence of students by focusing on high quality programs and de-veloping a high degree of work-readiness of graduates through incorporating courses that will enhance personal and profession-al skills. Systems approaches are important mechanisms to help achieve the attributes that industry wants from future graduates - for example, the ability to contextualize (systems thinking skills), to identify issues, develop strategies, managing projects (unraveling complexity and problem solving models), convey the message (communication), the ability to build resilience and be-ing adaptable (dealbe-ing with change and complexity), and to build effective networks and work in teams.

These issues create a signiﬁcant pedagogical challenge in that current university education tends to be focused on discipline specific teaching which has no room for a wider systems ap-proach. Didactic autonomous discipline based courses fail to foster a social networking culture that has been proven to en-hance the process of deep learning, nor do they promote interac-tions with other students in other disciplines. To address this problem we need innovative curriculum designs and learning en-vironments for academic paradigms and industry requirements.

3.1.2. Challenge : Defining the Proper Boundaries

and Recipients of Systems Education

System thinking may be taught in any university education program. However, systems education must take into account the different goals of university courses and programs. Most of the students will later work in ﬁelds where they need to apply what they have learned. They must be educated with knowledge they can use immediately, including with a basic thinking framework and perhaps several relevant system approaches or concepts. A few students, however, will become researchers themselves and hence need a more fundamental and theoretical background of system approaches. So the quality and quantity of system cours-es must be adopted to the speciﬁc programs. Wherever analytic approaches are taught, students should know that this is just one side of gathering knowledge that might be useful in applications and that a synthetic or systems approach is important too.

System thinking has a strong potential to serve various disci-plines, including the areas of problem solving and basic research. The range of system courses must be designed in a way so that students can use what they have learned from sense making to practical and theoretical mastery of systems. Explicit system 123 On the Design of Systems-Oriented University Curricula

(125)

courses will be necessary in some education programs. In others system knowledge can be taught implicitly through application.

3.1.3. Challenge : Addressing the Issue of Potential

Demand for Systems Education

Changing the status of systems thinking to the level of a “sci-entiﬁc method” provides an enormous and challenging opportu-nity for systems education. In order to reach and educate a larger population of systems thinkers our mental model and assump-tions need to change. This will require forums and debates in conferences and open publications on the future of systems thinking education. (The ISSS 2009 conference will be a great opportunity to take this debate to the next level).

In the case of university education, a basic level of systems understanding could be achieved through a course at the under-graduate level that deals with systems concepts in a generic way, and allow students from various disciplines to apply these to their own ﬁeld of study. This type of course is recommended for offering as university or faculty core courses that are intended to provide a broad understanding of the systems addressed by the students’ own programs and of the relationship between these and other systems affecting their operational environment. The core course should aim to broaden students’ horizons and expand their appreciation of complexity. Students should be made aware of the demand from employers for graduates that can operate ef-fectively in a 21st_{Century knowledge society by continuously}

emphasizing the need for an analytical framework to help them to critically analyze complex situations, solve problems and make decisions. These are generic skills that can be applied to any practical or professional ﬁeld of employment, regardless of the particular ﬁeld of interest.

3.1.4. Opportunity : The Potential for a Formal

Ap-proach to Spanning Multiple Disciplines

Can a systems approach be taught across a wide range of dis-ciplines? As explain below the examples from existing institu-tions teaching systems, the answer is both yes and no. There are also many examples of systems approaches that have a cross-disciplinary appeal (such as system dynamics), and the basic goal of the founders of both general systems theory and cyber-netics was highly interdisciplinary.

Part of the issue is that there are more than one kind of sys-tems approach. Several authors have discussed the multiple schools that existing within the broad banner of systems think-ing. For example, Ramage and Shipp (forthcoming) present sev-en traditions of systems authors : early cybernetics, gsev-eneral sys-tems theory, system dynamics, soft and critical syssys-tems, soft cybernetics, complexity theory, and learning systems. Each of these traditions has a strong amount of commonality, and a

cer-tain overlap with other traditions, but also a considerable amount of difference.

So one key aspect of teaching systems across multiple disci-plines is to recognize which form of systems is being talked about, what are its antecedents and its implications. It is unreal-istic to expect a uniﬁed approach across all the different systems traditions, and when a university (including those listed below) teaches what it terms ‘systems,’ the selection of concepts and techniques is highly contingent on the experience of the faculty involved. Nonetheless, through a sense of the range of different perspectives involved, we can gain a clearer appreciation of the benefits of different systems approaches across multiple disci-plines.

3.2. Systems Education at Institutions of Higher

Ed-ucation

Historically, the demand for systems education has been mod-est and there are only a handful of university-level systems edu-cation programs around the world. While the number of stand-alone systems thinking courses taught around the world is not small, the number of university-level programs or majors in the systems ﬁeld is scant. There are two main reasons for this. First, the bulk of systems education to date has been focused on train-ing specialists. This has naturally limited the potential popula-tion for systems educapopula-tion at both universities and among spe-cialists at the professional level (i.e., internal and external corporate consultants, systems modelers, etc).

The second reason is related to the ﬁrst, namely : the special-ist focus has been accompanied by a relatively technical ap-proach to systems education. This has left the impression that systems education is a technical subject suitable for engineers, scientists, quantitative ecologists and mathematicians and hence beyond the reach of other disciplines. This is reﬂected in the fo-cus and language of most of the current text and reference books that are currently available. With the exception of a few and no-tably, Systems Thinking and Modelling (Maani & Cavana, 2007), the bulk of systems books are by-and-large hard to read and be-yond the reach of most students, managers and policy makers.

The future growth of systems education will depend on how well systems educators around the world are able to relate sys-tems thinking to topical issues and complex challenges managers and decision-makers are facing today. The list of these issues is large and growing daily : energy, food, sustainability, climate change, water shortage, and now credit crisis. The systems com-munity can make a material contribution to the debate and reso-lution of these issues and hence should take a centre stage in these forums.

The systems ﬁeld today remains largely fragmented. This is

124 Jed Jones・Ockie Bosch・Manfred Drack・Yoshihide Horiuchi・Magnus Ramage

(126)

ironic for a ﬁeld that claims to integrate other disciplines. Unless we are able to demonstrate to the world that system thinking is in fact an integrative discipline, we cannot convince the world to accept our precepts. This issue needs the close attention of the systems community.

University courses that teach principles of systems science without contextualizing them through case studies taken from the different areas of interest have little impact. This approach reduces demand for (and fosters an ignorance of the value of) systems education in later years when studies come to have the need for unraveling complex issues.

Universities around the world are addressing these issues in various ways. Some examples include :

3.2.1. The University of Queensland

The Master of Sustainable systems offered by the University of Queensland in Australia from 2010 (Bosch, 2008) is an exam-ple of a systems based postgraduate program that is designed to attract students from all faculties and disciplines across the wider university - from agriculture and science to engineering, busi-ness and health sciences (Figure 1).

Core courses include “Systems Thinking for Sustainability,” which introduces systems thinking as a tool and scientiﬁc meth-odology for dealing with multiple domains and divergent inter-ests and perspectives including natural-environmental, social-political, business-economics, and policy-governance. Decision

making and policy formulation in this setting is complex and embeds uncertainty and distant time horizons, often creating un-intended consequences, tradeoffs and compromises. This core course is designed to help students develop a systems (holistic) view of sustainability as well as gaining new tools and skills for dealing with its multifarious elements

Other core courses include “Sustainability and Society” which expands on the ﬁrst by providing philosophical, conceptual, his-torical, and practical perspectives on sustainability around the world, focusing on the ways in which social and ecological sys-tems have interacted in past and present ; and new visions of human prosperity, sustainability and society. The capstone course “Sustainability in Practice” integrates system tools, theo-ries and concepts learned in previous courses. It involves multi-disciplinary group projects as the key component of the course.

3.2.2. Open University

The Open University (OU) is Europe’s largest distance learn-ing university, with around 200,000 students enrolled. For more than 35 years (most of its existence), it has had a systems group, based in the Faculty of Technology (now part of the Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology), with at least 30,000 students taking its courses. As with most other UK universities teaching systems, the approach of the systems group has always been highly pragmatic, oriented towards understanding systems and change management in organizations. In particular, the OU

Figure 1. Design of the Master of Sustainable Systems, The University of Queensland, Australia.

1_{Sustainable Management Alliance in Research and Teaching - a collaborative partnership initiated by the School of Natural and Rural systems}

Management to bring together some of Queensland’s leading business people with the ultimate goal of informing and enhancing innovative re-search and industry guided teaching in the ﬁeld of sustainable enterprise management.

125 On the Design of Systems-Oriented University Curricula