Abstract
Student interest, institutional movement for internationalization, and competition by schools for a decreasing student population have provided impetus for the development of long-term overseas study programs for Japanese university students. This study aimed to determine an appropriate list of needs and goals and a practical comprehensive conceptual framework for preparation programs for long-term overseas study for Japanese university students. Qualitative methods were used, principally consisting of interviews with student participants, interviews with educator expert-practitioners, my participant-observations as a researcher/program coordinator/instructor, and the analysis of data from administrative records. A list of needs and goals and an overarching conceptual framework were determined. The conceptual framework indicated the usefulness of categorizing needs, goals, and entailed approaches into three overlapping, interacting domains: Cognitive/Academic, Linguistic, and Sociocultural. Some curricular and pedagogic implications are proposed.

Keywords: Preparation for long-term overseas study, curriculum design, needs analysis, conceptual model of instruction.

Introduction

The interview data of this study were collected during the first year of a three-year project at a Japanese university. The university had a history of international academic exchange. Selection of candidates, logistical arrangements, and administration of academic exchanges and overseas study were managed by a center designated for that purpose. The university had formed an intention to execute a large-scale restructuring and capitalize on the institutional experience and the connections of the center for international exchange to foreign schools by establishing a new school within the university. The new school was to embody two principal concepts. It was to be the equivalent of a small North American style liberal arts college within the university. It was also to be international in three aspects: major courses in the new school were to be conducted in English; ideally, half the enrollment was to be non-Japanese international students; and the students of the new school were to be given the opportunity to study for one year at a foreign university. Despite participation in one year of overseas study, the students were to be allowed to graduate in the standard four years. Historically at Japanese universities, long-term overseas study under any auspices had resulted in the addition of at least a fifth year to a student’s undergraduate career. For three years, I acted as coordinator of English language instruction and curriculum development for two preparatory programs for Japanese students to engage in overseas study 
      The Across Borders Program (ABP) was the context within which this needs analysis was conducted. The spring preparatory term was 12 weeks in duration. The goal was to have about 30 students participate in each annual cycle. Three EFL instructors each conducted five 90-minute class sessions per week within this preparation phase of the program. The students also took one or both of two comparative culture courses in specialty areas, one in the social sciences and one in the humanities. Each of these courses was team-taught by one instructor from the home institution and one from the host institution in North America. After completion of the preparatory phase, the students went to the host institution in North America as a group, accompanied by one specialty area instructor from the home institution. They were to study at the host school for seven to eight months. They participated in ESL courses and had the opportunity to take regular courses in the other departments of the host school with local students. On acceptance to the ABP, most students had paper-based TOEFL scores of around 500 or below. Ordinarily, these scores would have made them ineligible for long-term overseas study because of institutional requirements. Subsequently, they were required to achieve minimum paper-based TOEFL scores of 530 by the end of the first term of overseas study to remain in the program at the host school in North America. Failure to do so was to result in their early return to Japan.   
      The success of the ABP, which was a somewhat supported program in which the sojourners were accompanied to the host institution by a professor from the home institution in Japan, was said to be instrumental for the purpose of attaining consensus and authorization to convert the center that managed international exchanges and overseas study into a new school of liberal arts within the university. The new school was projected to have an inaugural class of 800 students in the first year.

 Toward an Integrated Approach to Overseas Study

Previous research has looked at a variety of variables and correlations in regard to overseas study for linguistically and culturally native Japanese sojourners. Researchers have sought to measure and evaluate linguistic gains (Yamamoto, 1993; Asai, 1997; Geis & Fukushima, 1997). Researchers have also sought to analyze a possible correlation between linguistic proficiency and reported cross-cultural adjustment (Nishida, 1985; Diggs & Murphy, 1991; Gudykunst, 1991; Yashima & Viswat, 1991, 1993; Yashima & Tanaka, 1996). Yashima (1999) investigated a possible correlation between a personality trait, extroversion, and cross-cultural adjustment. Possible correlations between personality traits and cross-cultural adjustment were previously proposed by researchers in a general overseas study context not specific to Japanese (Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Some researchers have propounded an academic approach that emphasizes English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction in academic skills as a form of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) for overseas study preparation programs for Japanese over instruction in general English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (Drake, 1997; Geis & Fukushima, 1997; Shooltz & Yuricich, 2000). A principally linguistic approach to be implemented in tandem with social skills instruction has also been advocated (Yashima & Tanaka, 1996; Yashima, 1999). Several researchers have chosen to investigate the overseas study experiences of Japanese high school students, rather than university students (Churchill, 2003; Shooltz & Yuricich, 2000; Yashima, 1999; Yashima & Viswat, 1991; Yashima & Viswat, 1993). Some have chosen to study the short-term, one semester or less in duration, overseas study experiences of Japanese (Yamamoto, 1993; Drake, 1997; Geis & Fukushima, 1997; Isbell, 1997; Churchill, 2003;). Some have concentrated on the experiences of Japanese engaged in long-term overseas study, which is defined as seven months or longer in duration for the purposes of this paper (Jones, 1997, Rosen, 1997; Yashima, 1999; Shooltz &Yuricich, 2000). Within the context of long-term overseas study for Japanese, some researchers have concentrated on a predominately anthropological approach to cross-cultural adaptation (Jones, 1997; Rosen, 1997; Stapleton, 1997).
   Coleman (1997) presented a landmark meta-analysis of academic literature relevant to the overall overseas study experience: preparatory, overseas, and return phases. He took a socio-psychological perspective in the tradition of Gardner and Lambert (1972) and discussed a range of individual variables that had been presented in the previous literature. These variables were categorized as affective, cognitive, biographical, linguistic, and circumstantial. Affective variables included motivation, attitudes, anxiety, personality, and acculturation and culture shock. Cognitive variables included aptitude, learning style, and learning strategies. The variable that was termed biographical was sex. The two linguistic variables under discussion were initial proficiency level and degree of interaction. Circumstantial variables consisted of type/role and others. The type/role variable referred to the institutional characteristics and status of the placement, for example foreign student, teaching assistant, or intern. Other circumstantial variables included the availability of an L1 social group, urban/rural environment, and type of accommodation (i.e., university residence, private dwelling with a family, school apartment, flat shared with other learners of the target language). The type of accommodation is often outside the control of the sojourner.

In this taxonomic scheme, issues of personal, social, and cultural adjustment are subsumed under the categories of affective variables and circumstantial variables. Despite this dispersion, the author does take sociocultural issues into account in his conclusion about the preparation phase, especially in the third element that he listed:

The preparation needs to comprise, in addition to practical advice and direct language tuition, four components. Firstly, students need to recognise the role of trait variables: motivation, aptitude, and, especially, learning style/personality. Secondly, students need to develop self-awareness, to recognise their own learning style, including elements such as ego boundaries and risk-taking, and their preferred strategies. Thirdly, students need to be sensitised to less stable variables, especially attitudes, and to be helped to develop, through deep understanding of cultural relativity and acculturation, intercultural competence, accompanied by the observational techniques necessary to fulfill the role of participant observer. Fourthly, in order to develop the essential learner autonomy, students must acquire three types of learning strategy: cognitive strategies relating to language learning; affective strategies to manage anxiety and to reduce language and culture shock; and above all metacognitive strategies to enable them to select appropriate strategies and behaviours in the light of knowledge of their own objectives and their own cognitive and affective make-up. (p. 15)

    
   Rosen (1997) described a course designed for Japanese students who were studying at a Japanese college in the UK, some of whom were preparing for entering graduate school at British universities. In his introduction to this course, the author presented the following summation of approaches to cross-cultural communication, a summation that also holds true for the field of long-term overseas study as a whole:

Generally speaking, research in the field of cross-cultural communication seems to have taken one of three approaches: 1) linguistic, 2) anthropological, or 3) psychological. A linguistic approach naturally looks at communication as a rule governed process of signification. An anthropological approach would focus less on language structures and more on cultural meanings; viewing communication as the expression of cultural ideologies, cosmologies, or world views. The psychological perspective, which usually adopts a cognitivist orientation, is concerned with showing how perceptual schemata frame our experience of the world and our transactions with it, and how this relates to particular emotional needs and personality orientations. (p. 25)

   To successfully conduct the ABP, the situation dictated providing a theoretically sound conceptual framework for the curriculum, as well as guidelines explicating some crucial practical applications of it for actual instruction. For designing a comprehensive, practical framework for instituting and maintaining a large-scale preparation program, to adopt only one approach, which has often been the norm in the previous research literature, is inadequate. Each approach, and each of the studies mentioned above, has merits that should be synthesized and utilized in the development and delivery of preparation programs. From the outset it was evident that these approaches would need to be used in conjunction with one another in an integrated way to enable achievement of the objectives of the programs.
      Though the previous linguistically, anthropologically, and psychologically based research studies mentioned above consider a range of variables and contexts, the foci of this project were specific. The focus was on the preparation phase, not the arrangement and execution of the overseas experience itself. The focus was on university students, not high school students. The focus was on long-term study, not short-term. The focus was on learner needs, as well as institutional needs. The majority of the sojourners would lodge in dormitories, and not with host families. Of course, the repercussions of the sojourners being native speakers of Japanese and members of Japanese culture would also need to be taken into account.

 Research Questions

The following research questions guided this project:

•   What would be appropriate program and learner needs and goals for a long-term overseas study preparation program for Japanese university students that would effectively mediate role expectations, result in academic success and linguistic gains, and promote cross-cultural adaptation?
• What is a theoretical and practical conceptual framework consistent with the needs and goals that could be used for organizing long-term overseas study programs for Japanese university students? What does this framework entail?

   These issues hold implications for Japanese university educators and administrators who design and participate in long-term overseas study programs, non-Japanese educators and administrators who design and participate in such programs, and Japanese university students who aspire to take part in long-term overseas study, especially in Anglophonic cultures.

Research Methods and Analyses

This investigation employed qualitative methods to ascertain the needs of the learners from the emic perspectives of the significant participants of the community of practice of one overseas study program. It is based primarily on participant observations and expert-practitioner intuitions, as well as the participant-observations of the researcher. The interview data were collected by recorded, relatively unstructured, semi-directed interviews. Credibility, dependability, and comfirmability were achieved by triangulation of sources modeled on the description of Long (2000).

There was an additional inspiration and touchstone for this study. The Harvard Guide to Happiness (Zernika, 2001) has attained great currency on the World Wide Web. Originally published in a newspaper as a book review, it is now used by several prestigious North American universities in their freshman orientation programs. Many institutions have posted the text on their websites. This book review is a synopsis of a book entitled Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds (Light, 2001). This book reports the on 10 years of interviews with 1600 Harvard students. Though the crucial issues facing long-term international students, including Japanese, are even more complex than those of the general student population, the investigation done at Harvard delineates many core issues that Japanese university students studying in North America must address, and it provided a useful groundwork for this study. 

Design

Participants

The largest group of participants in the interviews of this investigation consisted of five Japanese undergraduate university students, two females and three males, of a cycle of the ABP. They had completed one 12-week semester of preparation at their university in Japan. Subsequently, they studied for approximately seven months at a state university in North America. They took ESL courses, specialty area courses in the humanities and social sciences team-taught by Japanese and non-Japanese professors under the auspices of the overseas study program, and various courses (e.g., Mandarin, African-American History, Gender Issues, and Marketing) in assorted departments of the North American university that were conducted by non-Japanese professors. The Japanese international students were integrated with the native students in their elective non-ESL courses. Before the preparatory course, their TOEFL scores were below 530 according to the paper-based scoring system. Upon completion of the preparatory course, all their scores were above 530 in the paper-based scoring system. TOEFL improvements on the scale for the Paper-Based Test were as follows: 493-547, 480-533; 520-530; 527-577; 507-550. The first scores were current before April 1, the date the 12-week one semester preparatory phase began. The second scores were from the results of retests that were recorded before June 30, when classes for the preparatory phase in Japan concluded. The students subsequently departed for the host institution in North America and returned to Japan after approximately seven months. The interviews took place after their return to Japan. In the preparatory phase, they had also completed a full-length (10-page minimum) research paper on a sociopolitical topic of their own choice in the style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001). They had completed all ESL and non-ESL courses in Japan and in North America successfully. They participated in the interviews after they had returned to Japan and resumed their regular studies at the university. By self-report, these individuals successfully resolved all significant problems in cultural adjustment they experienced. They all evaluated their overall overseas study experience as positive.

In addition to the students, two professors were interviewed, one Japanese and one non-Japanese. The Japanese professor had more than 30 years experience in the design, administration, and instruction of overseas study programs. He also had the experience of being an international student himself who completed a graduate degree in North America, and subsequently in his career he conducted courses in ESL, EFL, JFL, JSL, phonology and morphology, and was an internationally renowned teacher-trainer and speaker. The non-Japanese is a North American specialist in Latin-American history who, through experience as a university vice-provost, administrator, and educator, had accumulated more than 10 years of direct involvement in designing, implementing, and conducting programs for international students, including Japanese. He also participated in a summer overseas study program in a Latin American country as an undergraduate. His participation in the ABP as an instructor had brought him to Japan. These professors provided invaluable information and were the most experienced and authoritative expert-practitioners accessible to the researcher.

 The Interview Procedures

The interviews were recorded using a Sony MZ-R900 Portable Mini Disc Recorder, and were transcribed to be in accord with Jefferson’s Transcript Notation as explicated in Atkinson and Heritage (1991). The participants were encouraged to talk freely and allowed to speak as long as they desired. To allow for free expression of opinions, the interviews were initiated, conducted, and concluded in a relatively open, semi-directed way. The informants were first prompted in a general way to talk about their international experiences. They were then asked to discuss their own specific, personal experiences in the context of particular overseas study programs. The interviewer then elicited information on what factors, knowledge, and abilities the informants deemed crucial to successful overseas study. The informants were then asked what factors were crucial for successful overseas study in North America for Japanese university students. Finally, the informants were asked for any comments they thought would be pertinent to the investigation, or useful for current and future international students and other participants in such programs. The collected data then underwent iterative qualitative analysis by the researcher.

Discussion

Needs and Goals

In this section I provide a list of curricular needs and goals. For the purpose of discussion, I categorize the needs and goals into three overlapping, interacting domains: cognitive/academic, linguistic, and sociocultural. These categories were derived from analyses of mandates handed down by administrators to the researcher in the capacity of the coordinator of language instruction for the preparatory program, requirements set by the home and host institutions, informal discussions with colleagues and students, and the recorded and transcribed interviews with participants and veterans of long-term overseas study programs.

Several evident needs were projected from analyses of the interviews and the other sources. Within the context of the internationalization of higher education in Japan and Japanese society in general, and the overall progression of globalization, students will be required to successfully study overseas and increase their understanding of international and cultural affairs, with the ultimate purpose of fulfilling global roles and responsibilities in the modern world. Preparatory programs for long-term overseas study should not only provide students with opportunities and logistical support for study and travel, but also with the intellectual skills, linguistic abilities, and cultural competencies requisite to survive, participate, and succeed on the international level, regardless of what field of academic specialization they may choose.

The following also takes into account that, except perhaps on the most elementary level, the teaching of language mandates the mediation of informational content. Conversely, the teaching of informational content entails the mediation of language. These two factors are interdependent and mutually supportive. The attributes of the needs of the learners pursuing overseas study, and their more remote goals, are the same in language courses, specialty area courses within overseas study programs, and in non-ESL and ESL courses at the host schools.
      In the context of the movement for the internationalization of education in Japan, institutions are charged with providing a practical, holistic, interdisciplinary, international education to students. It is necessary that the process of curriculum development be conducted in accord with the aims of this mission. Both language courses and specialty area courses in the humanities and social sciences conducted in preparatory programs for non-native English speakers to study in Anglophonic areas should be designed and implemented with common curricular goals and course characteristics in mind, and should be assessed by consistent, integrated criteria in regard to the presentation of language, task, and content.
      Program goals should be pervasive throughout the curriculum, both in language courses and courses in other disciplines, and predicated on the immediate, imminent, and eventual needs of the students. A list of the most apparent and important goals indicated by an analysis of the collected perspectives of the participants, the needs evoked by the target tasks, the intended, the ultimate objectives of such programs, and the observations of the researcher follows:

• Cognitive/Academic Needs
• Knowledge of contemporary social and political issues of international concern (This knowledge is not only necessary for academic work in many of the social sciences and what is often termed global citizenship, but also serves as a medium to engage in social interactions and exercise and refine Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills.)
• Familiarity with the concept of a multidisciplinary approach to analysis and resolution of social and political problems
• Familiarity with organizations that participate in international activities and related texts and agreements
• Knowledge of rhetorical organization and devices, argumentation, and the use of evidence
• Development of logical reasoning skills (applied practice of techniques of analysis from various disciplines and value systems from various schools of thought to specific issues)
• Ability to recognize classic logical fallacies
• Awareness of individual learning style preferences and meta-cognitive language learning and use strategies
• Skills and strategies for succeeding on standardized tests
• Achievement of Information and Communications Technology literacy (useful for both academic and personal purposes)
• Linguistic Needs
• Proficiency with the generic academic lexis of English
• Ability to take accurate notes of English spoken at an authentic speed
• Capacity in formal written composition in English (timed and untimed)
• Competence in the conventions and techniques of public speaking and formal discussion native to the formal academic context of the host culture
• Capacity to perform extensive reading (both skimming for gist and scanning for detail as appropriate to the task at hand)
• Competence in functional and conversational English language skills (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) (This includes competence in pronunciation, grammar, and language in social context (pragmatics), and supports everyday coping, communication with and understanding of members of the host culture, and academic activities.)
• Sociocultural Needs
• An understanding of ethnographic techniques of data collection and analysis for the purpose of understanding social meaning and practice and ultimately transcultural adaptation enabled by knowledge of the values, attitudes, and beliefs of the host culture (This usually calls for learner research projects. Projects typically entail journal, field notes, interviews and surveys of members of the other cultural group, and cultivation of key informants. Projects can often be integrated into other formal academic studies, including foreign language studies.)
• Knowledge of some of the dichotomous scales commonly used in ethnologic (contrastive) cultural analysis (e.g., individualist-collectivist, universalist-particularist, direct-indirect communication style, low-high power distance, achieved-ascribed status).

Combinations of these needs and goals may be addressed in individual courses, and if the availability of resources permits, particular courses may be dedicated to individual goals. Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989) have described three types of content-based second language courses: theme-based instruction, sheltered content instruction, and adjunct instruction. Curricular goals of these three domains could be embedded in theme-based language courses conducted by individual EFL instructors. They could also be embedded in sheltered content courses team-taught in the same classroom by combinations of specialty area and EFL instructors for mixed groups of international students and regular students of the host institution. Adjunct courses are also an option. They are linked in language and content to specialty area courses conducted in the target language, but they are separate courses conducted by EFL professionals for non-native speakers. In the initial stages, developing sheltered and adjunct courses in teams with specialty area experts is probably necessary. Examples of such courses in a preparatory phase for Japanese students might include English Debate of Issues in Contemporary Japanese History, English Oral Presentations on Human Rights Issues, Practical English for Cultural Studies, Writing up Cultural Research in English, English for Area Studies, Writing up WWW-Based Research of English Commentaries on Contemporary Japanese Politics, and Literature as a Window to Culture. It would be useful for teachers to compile portfolios of such courses that include an explanation of the conceptual framework of the course, a description of the finished product of the course, a description of the materials to be used, and a time line for achieving the finished product. Brown and Wolfe-Quintaro (1997) describe the compilation and utility of portfolios with the teachers themselves as the subjects. A logical extension of this idea is for teachers to assemble portfolios of the courses they teach. Though the possibilities of potential courses are numerous, the availability of sufficient temporal and material resources and numbers of qualified, able teachers would be vital.

 Pedagogical Implications

These needs and goals hold several implications for specialty area and language course design, implementation, and assessment, and are enumerated below: These implications are consistent with the concepts of the sociocultural theory of cognitive development and task-based learning. They are also supported by analyses of the participant/expert-practitioner interview transcripts.

•   Courses should be interactive. Within a range appropriate to the purposes of the course, learners should be given the option of selecting the kinds of texts, the level of difficulty of language, and what kinds of topics they will use for their study. Student input should affect the way the course of instruction proceeds. Learner autonomy should be actively promoted.

It has been shown that there is substantial evidence from cognitive motivational studies that learning success and enhanced motivation is conditional on learners taking responsibility for their own learning, being able to control their own learning and perceiving that their learning successes and failures are to be attributed to their own efforts and strategies rather than to factors outside their control. (Dickinson, 1995, p. 173)

•   Courses should be task- or project-based. Richards, Platt, and Platt (1992) proposed task-based learning is more effective than a syllabus organized around items of grammar and vocabulary because it provides the learner with a reason for using the language. The conceptual framework, purpose, and goal (finished product) of a task should be clearly defined. Time frames should be explicitly articulated. Procedures to accomplish the task should be explained in detail and liberally modeled. Examples of the completed task should be exhibited to the students, if possible. By maximizing individual choice of topic and content within an appropriate range of relevance to course goals, tasks should encourage personal investment and creativity by the learners, and ensure that sustained active engagement with the language and content of the course is required. It is also desirable that tasks be designed to require analysis and integration of language and information obtained individually or collectively outside the classroom.
•   Courses should not impose an arbitrary, artificial distinction and separation of language and content. All instructors should mediate both to facilitate learning.
•   It would be useful to compile portfolios for all language and specialty area courses. The portfolios would include artifacts (course descriptions, handouts, narrative descriptions of activities, samples of students’ work, etc.) that would indicate the course’s conceptual framework, informational content, physical products, tasks, research projects, activities, and language. The purpose of collecting such materials would be for coordination and development of curricula in the long term.

The movement for internationalization and the expansion of overseas study programs poses challenges as well as opportunities. Coordinators and curriculum developers must have access to sufficient time and resources. Moreover, each and every participating educator should function as a coordinator and curriculum developer. Promoting stability, coping with flux, personal investment, institutional investment, time appropriate and equitable faculty and staff workloads, planning, facilities, and personnel are all factors critical to success.

Discrepancies and Resolutions
The interviews confirmed that Japanese university students in general, and specifically those who have participated in long-term overseas study, highly value being taken care of and attended to by their non-Japanese teachers. They also placed a high premium on academic literacy, for example, writing, reading, and presentation and discussion skills. They also stressed the importance of the social ability to make friends with members of the host culture, especially their peers.
The North American educator/administrator emphasized the importance of international students having logical reasoning skills, being self-motivated, and actively questioning the ideas and concepts presented by their teachers. He also accentuated the significance of everyday, practical coping skills. The Japanese educator/administrator focused on English language skills in a skill-oriented way (e.g., pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary for the purpose of actual communication, both for social interaction and academic work). Despite the participants’ sometimes disparate beliefs, values, and perceptions, as is also the case in the quest for knowledge and in the learning process itself, the needs, tasks, and goals they mandate for the overseas study curriculum fall along a spectrum of three domains, with the poles being cognitive and social, and with linguistic issues being pervasive throughout the scale.
      Successful long-term overseas study can be addressed by proposing the analogy of the student as researcher. The students can be encouraged to see themselves as apprentice researchers, with a successful transcultural, academic experience, in all its cognitive and social complexity, being the research object. Such a vast and complex research object implies triangulation of sources of data collection, methods of data collection and analysis, and research approaches. Lincoln and Guba (1985) posited that researchers who operate in a qualitative, naturalistic mode could not access a quantitative approach and its entailed methods and designs, because design in qualitative naturalistic inquiry is emergent and not pre-specified. The possibility of the existence of a researcher with such a pristine mental state is doubtful. That aside, however, I am not advocating that researchers and apprentice researchers try to maintain both respective states of mind and employ the methods and designs of both quantitative and qualitative modes of inquiry simultaneously. I am promoting that the use of both modes inquiry in tandem is implied to pursue an object of inquiry in direct proportion to the magnitude and complexity of that object.  Every research issue, in situ, requires its own unique combination of research approaches, methods, and sources that would be most effective. In a Hegelian sense, to resolve the internal and external contradictions of these approaches, thusly, researchers, and apprentice researchers, including students who are preparing for or engaging in long-term overseas study, should be able to access a synthesis of the quantitative and qualitative traditions to good effect
(see Figure 1). (In PDF version only)

Taylor (1975) explicates a Hegelian perspective on this kind of situation:

For in Hegel’s most important ontological dialectic, the Logic, we shall see that the contradictory conceptions whose dialectic we follow really apply. They correspond to contradictory realities, which as such show their dependence on a larger whole which the categories describe. In other words the contradictions in our conception of reality will not be overcome by resolving them into a vision free of contradiction, but rather by seeing that they reflect contradictions in reality which are reconciled in a larger synthesis. (pp. 131-132)

In regard to the particular situation under consideration here, in the Cognitive/Academic Domain, the quantitative approach of logical analysis common to formal academic contexts in Anglophonic cultures sits in complement to the qualitative approach of connected knowing, which is said to be more natural to members of a Japanese culture that is often described as collectivistic in orientation and high-context and indirect in communication style (Storti, 1999). In the Linguistic Domain, the product-oriented, language skill-based approach traditionally implemented in junior and senior high school in the formal educational system of Japan sits as a counterpart to the process-oriented, content-based approach that has subsequently gained much currency in the community of educational practitioners. Ballard (1996) spoke to the connection between the Cognitive/Academic Domain and the Linguistic Domain in problems overseas student commonly experience:

Overseas students cling tenaciously to the learning strategies that have worked so well for them in the past. They assume that hard work correlates with success, and so if they do poorly in an early test in a course they are prepared to work even longer hours to improve their grade—the problem is that they are working in a reproductive rather than analytical style…[therefore]…their difficulties lie in the disjunction of expectations about the styles of learning that are required and the excuse of poor language competence merely glosses over these more basic problems. (p. 155)

    In the Sociocultural Domain, the anthropological ethnologic, contrastive approach has given rise to a resultant ethnographic, descriptive approach. In the context of long-term overseas study by Japanese university students, it is not salient for the participants to try to resolve the internal contradictions within each of these approaches or the external contradictions among these approaches. It is necessary for the participants to have a metacognitive awareness of these domains and approaches in relation to the complex objective of a successful transcultural, academic experience, and to select, and synthesize if necessary, elements from these approaches that may be effective at a particular time to accomplish specific tasks essential to the objective. Thus, this larger synthesis can make the objective of successful long-term overseas study in all its complexity attainable. In addition to presentation to the students for the purpose of consciousness-raising, the integrated comprehensive conceptual framework of the Cognitive/Academic, Linguistic, and Sociocultural domains of the preparation for overseas study educational enterprise that is presented in Figure 1 is a framework that can also be used to guide research, curriculum design, instruction, allotment of resources, and staffing of personnel.

Approaches to Social and Cultural Issues
Interculturalists have produced many useful readers, guides, workbooks and other instructional materials to prepare individuals to engage in intercultural communication and cultural adaptation. Some focus on particular demographic groups, such as students, wives, businesspersons, government employees, military personnel, or missionaries. Others focus on specific geographical areas or cultural groups. They usually start from the premise that:

Culture is the shared assumptions, values, and beliefs of a group of people which result in characteristic behaviours. This definition captures two essential points about culture: that it has an invisible dimension (assumptions, values, and beliefs) and a visible dimensions (behaviour) and that these two dimensions relate to each other as cause and effect, respectively. (Storti, 1999, p. 5)

It is possible that, for the purpose of practicality, this definition discounts a cyclical, recursive part of a process in which behavior and social practice affects assumptions, beliefs and values. Be that as it may, many such books introduce basic concepts of the intercultural field, including individualism and collectivism; monochronic and polychronic concepts of time; direct and indirect communication styles; and high and low power distance. Though the presentation of such concepts is profitable and probably necessary, it is problematic if they are presented in a fixed and excessively dichotomous way, which will promote overgeneralization and stereotyping. Workbooks usually employ self-reflective questionnaires, discussion of scenarios, quizzes, and role-plays as activities.
Granted the utility of the quantitative, ethnologic approach, it is also indispensable for Japanese international students to have a rudimentary knowledge of and practice in qualitative, ethnographic data collection and interpretation techniques.

This can compensate for the somewhat static, impersonal flavor imparted by the tendency of the ethnologic approach to assign fixed positions to particular cultures along dichotomous scales of constructs, and serve to highlight the dynamic, situational, co-constructed, personal nature of culture. Apprentice researchers and future transculturals should be familiar with journal writing, cultivation of key informants, participant-observation, field notes, interviews, surveys, and concepts like thick description, triangulation, and social practice. In addition to the possible benefits in the understanding of culture, ethnographic activities can afford opportunities for target language practice. Many university students in Japan have access to international students or other communities of Anglophonic cultures. Those who do not can reap the benefits of this knowledge after arrival in the host culture.

 Approaches to Cognitive/Academic Issues

The student interviewees stressed the important role academic skills, such as writing, reading, presentation, and discussion skills had played in their overseas study experiences. They also focused on the rhetorical organization of written and spoken classroom discourse. The American educator/administrator interviewee talked about the importance of what were referred to as critical thinking skills. This educator also put emphasis on students being self-motivated, actively engaged, and on their questioning of the ideas of others.

It is very advantageous for Japanese university students preparing to study overseas to receive explicit instruction in and liberal modeling of tasks that include the use of concepts of logical reasoning such as inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, syllogisms, and fallacies. They should also have a chance to examine and practice rhetorical organization common to the host culture. A conventional rhetorical organization of Japanese culture, ki-shou-ten-ketsu, is somewhat similar to the Anglophonic structure of introduction (thesis), body (support), and conclusion (summary) in some aspects, but the differences are crucial and it is necessary to demonstrate them.
      As pointed out by Atkinson (1997), a pedagogical approach of cognitive apprenticeship through modeling and coaching holds much promise:

        Cognitive apprenticeship is based on the notion that all significant human activity is highly situated in real-world contexts—and that complex cognitive skills are learned in high context, inherently motivating situations in which the skills themselves are organically bound up with the activity being learned and its community of expert users. (p. 87)

He related guidelines for instruction in accord with cognitive apprenticeship based on previous writings in the field. The guidelines trace three stages of learning: demonstration and modeling of goal-centered activities in context; assisted, coached, and scaffolded practice in a nonjudgmental environment; and gradual removal of scaffolding and expert guidance to achieve learner independence. This implies that rote learning of inventories of language learning and use strategies, critical thinking skills, and intercultural differences will be neither efficient nor effective for preparing Japanese university students for long-term overseas study. The pedagogical implications are that a traditional product-oriented pedagogy should be supplemented by a process orientation; conventional language skill-based instruction should be complemented by informational content-based instruction; and that practice of rote learning should be augmented by focus on the active management of learning strategies, in other words, metacognition. 
   
Generally, though they are subject to uncertainties, insecurities, and instabilities, Japanese university students who study long-term in Anglophonic cultures are not what one usually thinks of as an oppressed minority. Also, they are self-nominated. Nevertheless, it is necessary to be sensitive to issues of cultural imperialism and domination. Kubota (1999) offered profound advice in this regard:

The dominant linguistic and cultural codes, however, should not be taught based on colonialist or assimilationist discourse or purposeless exercises of copying, filling out worksheets, and memorizing. Such practices, observed in ESL classes in U.S. schools by MacKay and Wong (1996) and Valdes (1998), prevent learners from investing in their learning and from developing a critical understanding that no particular culture or language (or variety of a language) is superior to others, that learning the dominant cultural and linguistic codes does not have to mean sacrificing one’s cultural and linguistic heritage, and that the learner can appropriate the dominant linguistic and cultural codes in order to advocate cultural and linguistic equality in the wider society. (p. 29)

The goal of explicit explanation, extensive modeling, and guided practice of the host culture’s style of logical analysis and rhetorical structure and techniques should not be to convert the student to an alternate form of thinking or discourse. The purpose of such pedagogy should be to impart metaknowledge. Gee (1992) explained, “Metaknowledge is power, because it leads to the ability to manipulate, to analyze, to resist while advancing. Such metaknowledge can make “maladapted” students smarter than “adapted” ones” (p. 117). In other words, conscious awareness and management of logic, rhetoric and one’s own individual learning preferences can empower those participating in long-term overseas study to overcome the unique cognitive, linguistic, and cultural challenges they face in contrast to peers who are members of the local culture.
      Connected knowing is an empathic, holistic, contextually sensitive approach to gaining understanding. Clinchy (1994) explained, “the voice of connected knowing is narration” (p. 39). She then used a quotation from Bertrand Russell to elaborate:

Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions are worthy of studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at a complete or final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view that seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true. (p. 40)

Academic literature suggests that Japanese may be at a comparative advantage relative to connected knowing due to the indirect, high context communication style of their native culture as contrasted with other cultures. This is an asset that should not be discarded by long-term overseas study participants for the purpose of assimilation to the host culture. Rather, it should be valued as a source of knowledge and a resource that can support cultural adaptation, with the proviso that it is unlikely that members of other cultures will construct perceptions of phenomena in the same way, or at least to the same degree.   

Conclusion
The requisite cognitive, social, and language skills and competencies for successful long-term overseas study for Japanese university students in Anglophonic cultures are multifarious. Metaknowledge of the spectrum of accessible approaches and methods for gaining understanding of the cognitive/academic, linguistic, and sociocultural domains, the principal approaches to them, and the competencies they entail is truly critical, in the word’s sense of meaning as crucial, for ameliorating the essential tasks and achieving desired goals.

References

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Asai, K. (1997). Effects of a study abroad program on second language acquisition. The Language Teacher, 21(11), 39-44.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 71-94.

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1991). Jefferson’s transcript notation. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 158-166). New York: Routledge.

Ballard, B. (1996). Through language to learning: Preparing overseas students for study in western universities. In H. Coleman, (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 148-168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House.

Brown, J. D., & Wolfe-Quintaro, K. (1997). Teacher portfolios for evaluation: A great idea or waste of time? The Language Teacher, 21(6), 28-30.

Churchill, E. F. (2003). Construction of language learning opportunities for Japanese high school learners of English in a short term study abroad program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University Japan, Tokyo.

Clinchy, B. M. (1994). On critical thinking and connected knowing. In K. S. Walters (Ed.), Rethinking reason: New perspectives on critical thinking (pp. 109-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coleman, J. (1997). Residence abroad within language study. Language Teaching, 30, 1-20.

Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 26, 165-174.

Diggs, N., & Murphy, B. (1991). Japanese adjustment to American communities: The case of the Japanese in the Dayton area. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 103-116.

Drake, D. (1997). Integrating study abroad students into the university. The Language Teachers, 21(11), 7-13, 29.

Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York: Bergen & Garvey.

Geis, K. L., & Fukushima, C. (1997). Overview of a study abroad course. The Language Teacher, 21(11), 15-20.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1991). Bridging differences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. I. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural communication effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382-393.

Isbell, K. (1997). Incorporating distance education in a study abroad program. The Language Teacher, 21(11), 21-29.

Jones, H. (1997). Returning home after studying abroad. The Language Teacher, 21(11), 31-37.

Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9-35.

Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (Eds.). (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

Long, M. H. (2000, February). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. Paper presented at the Distinguished Lecturer Series of Temple University Japan, Tokyo, Japan.

Nishida, H. (1985). Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 247-269.

Richards, J., Platt, T., & Platt, H. (1992). A dictionary of applied linguistics. London: Longman.

Rosen, S. L. (1997). A syllabus for teaching cross-cultural communication. The Language Teacher, 21(1), 25-26, 36.

Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-47.

Shooltz, R. & Yuricich, D. (2000). PSA programs in Japan: Dilemmas and solutions. The Language Teacher, 24(12), 21-25.

Stapleton, P. (1997). A Japan-America cross-cultural syllabus; Focusing on some essential elements of culture. The Language Teacher, 21(10), 77-79.

Storti, C. (1999). Figuring foreigners out: A practical guide. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Taylor, C. (1975). Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yamamoto, H. (1993). Effects of an overseas short-term intensive English program on the development of English proficiency among participating students. Bulletin of Seinan Jogakuin Junior College, 39, 21-30.

Yashima, T. (1999). Influence of personality, L2 proficiency, and attitudes on Japanese adolescents’ intercultural adjustment. JALT Journal, 21(1), 66-86.

Yashima, T., & Tanaka, T. (1996). English teaching for intercultural adjustment using social skill training techniques, Intercultural Education, 10, 150-166.

Yashima,, T., & Viswat, L. (1991). A study of Japanese high school students’ intercultural experience: “It’s not a dream country, but I love America.” Change in image of Americans. Human Communication Studies, 19, 181-194.

Yashima, T., & Viswat, L. (1993). An analysis of communication problems of Japanese high school students and their host families. Human Communication Studies, 21,181-196.

Zernika, K. (2001, April 8). The Harvard guide to happiness. The New York Times, p. 18, Education Life.