User talk:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Outline

Here is a first go at an outline. It's a bit rough, mainly just giving the basic concept. I have no idea what the lesson content would be. More on this below. I based this list in part on the table at the main page. Please feel free to make suggestions for improvement.


 * Introduction
 * How to use this work
 * An Overview of the Japanese language
 * Study methods
 * How you can contribute to this wikibook


 * Japanese Language Lessons
 * Lesson 1: ...
 * Lesson 2: ...


 * Variation in Language Linguistics
 * Men's and Women's Speech
 * Slang
 * Impersonal style
 * Literary style
 * Dialects


 * Vocabulary
 * Vocabulary used in the Lessons
 * Other useful vocabulary


 * Reading Practice
 * ... (a set of graded readers)

As for lessons, I've had a look at www.jlptstudy.com and I think it will do for the time being. The lessons should start off at the beginning though and assume no knowledge of Japanese. They should teach hiragana, pronunciation and kanji as the course progresses.
 * Japanese Language Reference
 * Reading and Writing
 * Introduction
 * Hiragana
 * Katakana
 * Kanji
 * Words
 * Pronunciation and Accent
 * Syntax
 * statements
 * questions
 * requests and commands
 * adjectival clauses
 * connecting sentences
 * Parts of speech
 * nouns
 * verbs
 * い-Adjectives
 * な-Adjectives
 * particles
 * Particles
 * は
 * が
 * Verb and adjectival inflections
 * verb charts
 * ... (plenty here)
 * Numbers
 * Honorifics
 * ... (other topics, plenty here)
 * Numbers
 * Honorifics
 * ... (other topics, plenty here)

Raichu2 (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the front page is pretty good for the categorization.. albeit the color scheme could be spruced up.  We can add bits/topics as we see fit.  Most topics to these categories will rarely change. I moved the reference down just to explicitly make clear that this should be more of an appendix.  I'm not sure how to work an appendix here, but maybe User:Swift has some ideas using wiki categories or something.


 * I'm not sure if the hiragana needs to be reworked into another lesson format. Swift has worked pretty hard on getting the  kana pages worked out.  The first lesson plan can merely link right to the current Kana page. What I'm looking for is more of a framework for the lessons as more and more of these will hopefully pop up, something like the following is what I had in mind:


 * Dialogue (by posters, conversations, or whatever.)
 * Discussion of Vocabulary in Dialogue
 * Discuss various uses of vocabulary if necessary (e.g., politeness)
 * Optional links to dialogues for previously learned vocabulary
 * Grammar
 * Discuss grammar points, giving more examples if necessary.
 * Link to previous grammar points (maybe by categories)
 * Optional Quick Review
 * Optional link to Wikiversity for practice work.


 * We could probably use wiki categories for different grammar points. However, this would generate a ton of wiki categories, but it would get rid of the load of dependencies for a Reference page.  The problem with this is that it's a very traditional setup, and probably requires a lesson-by-lesson approach.   Let me know what you think.  --Retropunk (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO I think the front page layout is pretty darn good. My main point is that the lesson link should come immediately before the introduction. The reference links should come after that.


 * I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone coming to the wikibook. People come wanting something, and for the project to be successful, the layout and content has to deliver with the minimum of effort. The more people end up following needless or incorrect links, the greater chance they will leave. If they find themselves fumbling around having to search for the right material, they will definitely leave. I know it might sound corny, but for the project to be worthwhile, we need to provide a good user experience. That means both relevant and quality content, and a good layout so people can find that content with near-zero effort.


 * Now people will come for one of two main reasons.


 * (1) They come to learn Japanese. They will want to see straight up what the site offers. A small number of links to introductory topics of immediate relevance (like "how to use this book") and immediately following, a link to the lessons, is what will give them that.


 * The lessons, like I said earlier, should cater for all levels, but the link to each lesson should clearly indicate the content, so people immediately know which lesson to try first.


 * To cater for absolute beginners, the lessons have to start off assuming no knowledge. That means teaching enough of the writing system to be able to start teaching the language, which basically means starting off with hiragana. Katakana can be introduced later and kanji gradually. (There is a school of thought that recommends learning to recognize the 常用漢字 before anything else, but I think that's too radical for most potential readers.)


 * Is that a problem? If we have some material for teaching kana, can't we convert it into lessons at the start of the lesson plan?


 * (2) They come to look something up in the reference section. I think that people might be prepared to make a click or two more to find what they want, but even so, the arrangement of material should be as obvious as possible. That's one think I like about the front page layout as is stands. A flatter structure is better, so I now agree more with the current structure rather than the variation I proposed above.


 * As for your lesson outline, you're presenting a sample passage/dialogue, a vocab list so they understand what the words mean, an explanation of the grammar so they understand how they're put together (with more examples), and some exercises to consolidate their understanding. Is that what you mean?


 * That's certainly a commonly used method. One thing that bugs me, though. Shouldn't people need to be able to take in what they read without having to backtrack? With your idea, the reader comes across some incomprehensible sentences, then gets told how they work, and then would have to go back and read them again to see if they understand them now.


 * So what about an arrangement that does not require backtracking? For example,
 * heading: grammar point 1
 * sample sentence(s) illustrating grammar point 1
 * vocab for this sentence
 * explanation
 * further examples
 * heading: grammar point 2
 * sample sentence(s) etc. ...
 * heading: grammar point 3
 * sample sentence(s) etc. ...
 * example passage/dialogue
 * exercises


 * In fact, Tae Kim's Guide to Japanese Grammar dispenses with the introductory sample sentence altogether. He just explains a point and gives some examples. Given that there seem to be many people out there who learn by following an example, however, it's probably better to start off with sample sentences. (I am not one of them--I prefer learning the rules first, then seeing examples second.)


 * What do you think? In the mean time, I'm going to try to get hold of McCormick's Italian book. I learned a fair amount of Italian from it and I have no recollection of ever having to backtrack. I'll see what arrangement he used.


 * Raichu2 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need a kana lesson because there's already a good amount of material developed to act as the lesson, not that a lesson shouldn't be made. The material is quite basic in that, you can't really go into a lot of details about the kana.  As a native speaker of English, I would have no idea how to go into details about our alphabet.  Only, here it is, the pronunciation (including variations), and some sample words.  I'm an advocate to teach the kana first or that the reader should know kana before trying to understand / learn the language.  It's not that difficult to learn the material... to me at least.  This is why I think the current Kana page should be linked as the first lesson.  Swift and others may disagree, and I would advise them to chirp in.
 * As for learning the 常用漢字, I would agree that it would be impratical to learn this before studying grammar. There's too many that are similar, and regardless of what Heisig thinks, it's difficult to learn that much without getting some more substance.  The average reader will get bored... quickly.  I do not think we should go down this avenue.  If the reader believes this is a suitable path, they can learn the kanji via the JLPT Kanji pages.
 * As for rewriting/restructing the lessons, we may need to restructure the front page to point to separate pages for each division (Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, and Near Native.) I think the JLPT is the perfect divider for judging competency in each division/level. For separating the actual lesson information, I've only suggested my plan because that's the way I'm used to it. If we're goign to push the dialogue to the bottom, we're going to need to put another introduction to the material and the material needed before studying the lesson.  This isn't a bad idea and putting the material at the end is fine idea, but I would think if the reader doesn't understand the dialogue, he would still be reverting back to the lesson.  Regardless, I'm not a stickler on putting the material at the end or the beginning.  --Retropunk (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your hard work on the outline, Raichu2. One note, though: While it's your first go at an outline for this wikibook, it isn't the first one proposed. I count 1, 2, 3 detailed syllabi. If we add lesson plans/pages, we get 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5, 6 pages with an outline for this book. That would make yours at least the fourth or seventh depending on how you define it. In the day you were poking around before posting this outline you may have noticed that this book has been in development for five years.
 * I'd suggest that discussions on outlines take place elsewhere. I don't think this talk page is a terribly productive place to develop such material. There is, after all, a reason why each page has a corresponding talk page. I'd suggest you create a page for it (e.g. on a subpage to your userpage such as User:Raichu2/Japanese outline). It can then be discussed on its talk page and modified accordingly.
 * If feel the outline is the highest priority for this book, I'd suggest you continue poking around. There are layers upon layers of ideas out there. I think Retropunk's work may prove very useful. You might want to collaborate with him, but I think we can allow parallel outlines for now. --Swift (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I think it makes no sense working on detail unless you know where it fits into the scheme of things. Especially on a wiki project. You need a very good structure in which contributors can work towards filling it in as they get the time. If everyone works without regard for the whole, then no matter how great the details are, how is it going to develop into a cohesive and useful whole?


 * When I visited the main page, I could not find out what the plan is or how material is arranged or anything. If someone's done the work, that's great. However, please make it available from an obvious link on the home page. If I can see there's a plan for the work, then I'll see what's been done, what needs to be done, and try to help out. If there is no plan, or no plan that is accessible, then we need to start on one. To write a book, you need to
 * identify your audience, scope, resources, etc.
 * develop requirements that the work must satisfy in accordance with audience/scope
 * make appropriate design decisions accordingly about the nature of the work
 * develop an outline that satisfies the requirements in accordance with design decisions
 * work on the text
 * proofread the text
 * beta test
 * publish
 * (In a wikibook, the proofreading/beta testing can happen piecemeal as soon as parts are written.) Notice that writing the material is only a single line in this process. It may be the majority of the work, but it only makes sense if the rest of the process has been followed. It is not obvious to me how much of it has been followed, and I'm just trying as quickly as possible trying to get my head around where everything stands. Raichu2 (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Placement of the lesson plans
OK, while not completely trivial, this issue is hardly the most important. Furthermore, I'm a little afraid to touch it since it fits all the criteria to evolve into a bike-shed discussion. I've flipped a few times since I saw Retropunk's change and might still change my view again. I thought I'd leave you some of my thoughts.

Initially, I placed the lesson plans at the bottom since my aim was to first gather what intelligeable material was out there into the categories. These could later be added to and massaged into a string of lessons, slowly evolving into a consistent book. Since I didn't see that happen for a while, the most interesting stuff would be in the introduction and four categories; so the lessons ended up at the bottom.

But if there really isn't so much to be found in the lesson plans, then these might just as well be placed higher up. They don't take much room and as they grow their weight will justify their prominence.

Placing the lesson plans in the middle of the four categories seems a bit odd, but then one could argue that it shouldn't precede the kana lessons. Well, that depends on what we want these lesson plans to look like. If they will assume knowledge of the kana, then those lessons should come first. If they are going to refererence the kana pages, then we might as well place the lesson plans even higher, right below the introduction. The categories would then follow as the reference that Retropunk made them to be.

Whatever the decision, I doubt it will make or break this book. --Swift (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe not. However, I feel it is a symptom of a more general problem. Perhaps that's because various people have dabbled with this site over time and maybe it has lacked a clear direction.


 * My main point is that when someone comes to a web site, it needs to be blindingly obvious at first glance what the site offers them, how to navigate it and how to use it. If you fail on any of those, you are very likely to lose most prospective readers. You have a few square inches at the very top of the home page where you must instantly grab your reader's attention and tell them what the site can do for them. The most important links need to be clearly visible without having to scroll, and what they offer must be self-explanatory. Raichu2 (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Difference between "How to use this book" and "Study methods"
It may be a bit premature to ask, but how do you see the split between these two? It seems to me that study methods are closely linked with how one uses the book. Other aspects of how to use the book might serve well in the current Japanese/Introduction page which, at times, sounds perhaps a bit too encyclopaedic. --Swift (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, "Study Methods" is are recommended methodologies for studying a foreign language - aka, tips. "How to use this book" should be a small discussion on how we (or the community) think the book should be used.  I guess we can see it as a precautionary attempt to help the reader, and not have the reader wander aimlessly or whatever, "What's this doohickey for?"   I'm not against removing it.  It's only a suggestion by  Raichu.  --Retropunk (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's only a suggestion. I'm looking at it from a visitor's point of view. Ideally a site should be arranged so that how to use it is self-explanatory. If there is anything a reader will need to know to get maximum value from the site, the information should be clearly and directly accessible.


 * As for study methods, when I read a title like that, I think that's do to with techniques for studying generally, as well as tips for learning Japanese. For example, you might suggest someone use an SRS in addition to using this site, or include references to dictionaries and the like.


 * Obviously the two are related and perhaps they should be combined. But the link label should reflect exactly what a visitor from this site will need to do about it. If it's a must-read, then call it "How to use this wikibook". If it's helpful suggestions, then call it "How to get the most out of this wikibook". If this site is completely self-explanatory and you just want to offer general information about study, then call it "study methods" by all means. Raichu2 (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Writing Styles
While interesting, this might be further into the scope of a book on calligraphy. East Asian Orthography might be a more suitable home for this. --Swift (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This was not an attempt to categorize orthography, but rather literary styles. I guess I can change it to Literary Styles as Writing Styles may be too ambiguous. We'll have to see what Raichu had in mind for introducing different literary styles. --Retropunk (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)