1. The subject matter curriculum

2. The correlated curriculum

3. The fusion curriculum

4. The core curriculum

5. The experience curriculum

　Until recently the secondary schools of our country have used esentially the subject matter approach in curriculum organization. The secondary education course was divided in different compartments, called subject. The middle school boy, for instance，might be taking as many as twenty subject at one time. There was little if any planned relationship between the work in one subject and the others. Each subject was generally taught in an isolated way, and the mastery of subject matter in a certain narrow compartment was an aim in itself. The entire secondary education program was divided into specific separate curriculums, usually offered in different schools. The higher school preparatory curriculum was offered in the boys' middle school, the preparation-for-home-life curriculum in the girls' high school, and the separate agricultural, industrial and fishery curriculums in four different types of vocational schools.

　The words correlation and interrelation mean practically the same thing. Correlation is the recognition and establishment of relationships among the various subject areas or fields. Sometimes the term correlation is used to indicate planning a proper sequence of experiences in one subject field; for instance, in planning relationships between 7th-grade National Language and 8th-grade National Language. A better term for that is articulation, and it is of course essential in every subject field under any type of curriculum organization, since pupil experiences must follow a psychologically determined sequence. Correlation refers to horizontal relationships—relationships on the same grade level between two subjects, or among all the subjects. One may correlate English with Music, Mathematics, History, and other subjects. Teachers of Japanese Language and English Language in the first year of the lower secondary school may attempt to correlate their work to some degree, as they teach Romaji by taking up certain fundamental questions of writing and punctuation. Another illustration may be found in the attempt to correlate the material and activities in logic and English in the upper secondary school classes. Correlation, in short, is our first logical step toward relating classroom activities and topics to real life. The big handicap in Japan to the development of this method has been the retention of too rigid subject matter division.

　The necessity for correlation is implied in the present arrangement of subjects. This arrangement, or any other arrangement, was brought about because of the necessity of organizing the curriculum, not because there is a natural or inevitable way to divide pupil experiences among subjects. Subject organization might be regarded as described below.

　The secondary schools have certain major aims. In order to achieve these aims pupils should be provided an opportunity to engage in certain planned experiences, designed specifically to achieve the aims. Let us assume that the three major aims of the secondary schools are:

(1) To discover the needs, interests, and capacities of each individual, and on that basis to seeK to develop the individuality of the pupil to the maximum degree

(2) To develop the individual as a desirable social being and a good citizen of the home, school, community, prefecture, nation, and the world

(3) To discover vocational needs, interests, and aptitudes,tddo assist the pupil in a wise choice based on these needs, interests, and aptitudes, and to help him prepare for the vocation of his choice

Now suppose we broke each of these major aims down into several hundred smaller and more manageable aims. The next step would be to list all of the experiences that would help in the achievement of the aims. After listing the hundreds or thousands of experiences, and trying to classify them, we would find that some could be conveniently grouped together and called Mathematics. Others would be so closely related that we might group them together and call them Science. Others we could group loosely together and classify as National Language, still others as English Language. But we would find, in trying to assign experiences to one field or another, that there would be great overlappings. We would often be troubled about whether to assign one certain experience to Science or to Social Studies. If we were to go through this detailed experience, as many educators have, we should find that the divisions between subject areas are artificial, and that in many hundreds of instances there are no clear criteria as to which subject field a certain experience should be assigned to. We should find that the boundaries between subject fields are in fact very slight, and we should decide that in order to be sure that pupils had all of the experiences considered necessary, we should have to assign some types of experiences to several different subject areas. What this means, in effect, is that there can be no rigid inflexible boundaries between subjects. Education will be more realistic if, in each subject, the borderlines between it and other subject are considered very flexible, so that pupils' experiences in accordance with their needs can be planned without undue attention being paid to whether or not the territory of another field has been invaded. The implications of this philosophy for English language curriculum are that materials for English should be drawn from whatever fields that seem necessary. In other words, English language textbooks and other curriculum materials may draw upon stories, poems, essays, articles, and other types of presentations from History, Social Studies, Science, Art, Music, or any other field.

　Correlation implies, indeed makes it essential, that teachers must work closely together to plan pupil experiences designed to achieve the major aims of education. English language teachers cannot set themselves apart, as a distinct group, but must know what their pupils are doing in all of the other fields of study. In order to secure really effective correlation, it is necessary to provide a free period each day during which teachers may meet together to discuss the work their classes have done, to plan and prepare future project, and to plan correlation in every aspect of their teaching.

　Fusion implies disregard of subject matter lines. It involves the teaching of two or more subject areas together in one class without special regard for the old subject matter lines. The lower secondary school curriculum involves quite a lot of fusion, when compared with the old curriculum. All of the separate subject in the Social Studies field, with the exception of Japanese History, were fused together into General Social Studies for grades 7-10. All of the separate science subjects were fused into a course called General Science, grades 7-9. All of the former subjects in the field of National Language were fused together into a course colled National Language, grades 7-12. Separate subject in the field of Mathematics were fused together into General Mathematics, offered in grades 7-10. The former subjects titled History of the West and History of the Orient were fused together recently into World History. At the 12th-grade level a subject called Current Problems uses materials from the separate fields of Sociology, Economics, Civics, History, and Geography.

　Fusion thus far has been carried out only in distinct subject fields, separately. It is possible to carry this further by fusing subject in separate subject fields. For instance, the teaching together of English and American History in one class, with activities centered around the English-American History area, should be called fusion. At Aoyama Gakuin Girls' High School, cooking is taught in English by an American teacher. This cannot be done in every school, but it may well deserve special mention as a case of fusion attempted in Japan. There might be fusion of the National language and Social Studies areas, in some cases.

　If carried to its logical conclusion, the fusion of classes in the end amounts to the pupils' fusing the areas of his interest. A pupil interested in English and Mathematics would experience a great thrill in attempting to work out the problems in English. Pieces of formal knowledge would thus becme pieces of human experience.

　The fusion of English language study with other subject is difficult. At the time when quite a lot of fusion took place, during the reorganization of the curriculum in 1946-47, English was left as a separate subject for what were and are considered good and educationally justifiable reasons. Suppose 7th-grade English and Social Studies were fused. It is necessary in Social Studies to read very widely about social problems. During one year pupils would read not only the textbook, but they would search for data from pamphlets, library books, newspapers, magazines, reference books, and community institutions, among others. Since they do not, at the beginning of the 7th grade, have any knowledge of English, they obviously could not do all of the necessary work in the foreign language, or scarcely any of it. The learning of a foreign language, in its early stages, must inevitably follow a rather fixed, more or less inflexible, sequence. It becomes obvious that fusion of the two subjects would result in failure to achieve the aims of education. Fusion might be attempted under circumstances such as those cited(Aoyama Gakuin) where the teacher is very well qualified. Some fusion might be attempted in the upper secondary school after pupils have achieved a considerable degree of proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing the language. Because, at both school levels, English is essentially a subject requiring a carefully planned series of experiences arranged in a sequence and form more inflexible than that in the case of subjects taught in the native language, experience seems to indicate that better result are obtained in English when it is not fused with other subjects, and better result are obtained in the other subjects when they may go ahead and study materials freely in the native language without being impeded by a foreign language. Where fusion has been attempted in the United States, foreign languages have in almost all cases been left separate.

　Spears defines the core curriculum“as a provision for children of a common body of growth experiences, taking for granted that certain specific types of learning experiences are fundamental for all pupils".¹

　Core curriculum commonly refers to a type of curriculum organization in which there is a core course which takes the place of two or more of the traditional subject fields. However, the core course is not simply a fusion of existing subjects. It is based upon an assumption that young people have certain basic needs in common, and in addition to these each individual has certain special needs. The core course or core is that part of the curriculum which takes as its major task the meeting of the commonneeds. The subjects remaining outside the core are intended primarily to serve special, individual needs.

　In the core curriculum organization, some of the subject matter fields, as currently organized, disappear. The personal and social problems of young people become the basis of the curriculum. The core course is organized to meet the common needs that young people have in order to solve problems of social living. Subject matter lines are ignored, and the materials are taken from many of the traditional subject fields as necessary. A theme may be adopted for an entire year of work, and around this theme are organized a number of resource units, each using as its specific theme one of the major contemporary problems of the community. Using these resource units as an outline, teachers and pupils draw upon all of the curriculum materials available as necessary and desirable. Within the core no subjects as such exist. In order to meet the special needs of students, subject such as Music, Art, Homemaking, vocational subjects, and foreign languages remain outside the core as special subject, organized more or less as they now are.

　Organization of the core curriculum differs in various places, but a common practice is to devote half of the school day to the core course in the 7th and 8th grades, two to three continuous periods in the 9th and 10th grades, and one or two class periods in the 11th and 12th grades. The area, in point of time, covered by the core course becomes less and less with advancing grade levels, and the special subjects occupy an increasingly larger amount of the total area of the curriculum. The core class is a group of pupils meeting together every day for the entire amount of time scheduled for the core course.

　No attempt can be made here to give the merits or demerits of the core curriculum organization. Here it should be pointed out that wherever the core organization exists, it includes only the experiences which are common to pupils. Foreign languages are left out because they are electives, not taken by all pupils, and also because they are considered a special subject, not meeting common needs but special needs of pupils. Pupils may take their choice of foreign languages offered by the school: English, French, German, Korean, Chinese, Hindustani. Since learning of a foreign language meets special instead of common needs, and there are differences in the language chosen because of different needs, foreign language subjects do not fit easily or naturally into a core curriculum organization.

　A new term which has appeared fairly recently in educational circles is the experience curriculum. This is not necessarily a distinct type of curriculum organization, since almost all of the others mentioned have some elements of the experience curriculum in them. However, the experience curriculum, as presently discussed, differs from others in that it is based more directly upon the pupil than any of the others. This curricular approach is based upon the experiences which the pupils will be interested in, normally and naturally, during his growth and development. It is in a sense the fusion idea carried to its natural and normal extreme. It discards the idea that a pupil can be helped to grow most effectively by treating him as one growing in Mathematics for one period a day, in English for another period, in Japanese for another period, in History for another period, etc. It takes into account, in other words, the growth of the whole individual.

　As practiced in a few experimental schools, the pupil has great freedom in selecting learning activities for the accomplishment of his own educational goals. In the experience curriculum, the development of objectives and activities in advance or trying to organize them is discarded. The student chooses his own area of interest in which to work. He tells the teacher what he wants to do. The teacher helps him work out the scope of his problem and goes over with him the work that will need to be done in solving it. The pupil surveys the whole field of materials available and tries to plan the selection and use of these materials. The teacher helps in this, suggests important materials the pupil has overlooked, and supplies materials. The pupil collects data, organization it, engages in activities, formulates conclusions, and reports the results to the teacher and to the class. The plan assumes that each teacher must have a very deep understanding of the factors of pupils' growth and development and has had a broad preparation in many subject fields.

　In the experience curriculum, the big problem for the teacher is one of helping pupils individually in planning and providing the right situation which will continue to stimulate and drive them forward to active participation and learning. Sometimes the pupil may wish to take part in activities and experiences which may not be most economical of time or wisest for him to do. Pupils in the seventh grade, for instance, may propose to study American talkies as a part of their experience in English. The stories might interest them, but the kind of English they hear usually proves to be too difficult. The expert teacher, therefore, surveys in advance the pupil's problems and interests and needs, so that he may plan in advance to see that reasonable scope and sequence is maintained in the pupil's learning process. He will thus avoid duplications and abnormal sequences in the pupil's course of study.

　In the experience approach, the pupils select their activities and center of interest as much as they can, and then under the proper guidance of the teacher decide and plan their experiences. All subject matter fields which they need for the solution of their problems are then brought to bear.

　There is some question whether the experience curriculum approach fits into the ordinary classroom. Since each pupil's experiences are planned separately, a very favorable pupil-teacher ratio is required. Some proponents feel that no teacher can adequately guide more than 20 pupils in one class under this plan. Furthermore, the experience curriculm, as advocated by some of its champions, discards totally the idea of any planning in advance. There appears to be great danger that the social aims of education may be entirely or largely neglected, and important areas of social development overlooked.

　These various types of curriculum organization have been discussed briefly because various movements are under way to apply them, sometimes without understanding their nature and purpose, to the English language program. The following comments are made, in summary，in regard to these various types of organization, since they affect the English language program:

(1) So far as the correlated curriculum is concerned, certainly every attempt should be made to correlate English with experiences in other subjects. This correlation must be p1anned in such a way as to benefit the pupils in their growth and development. Correlation for the sake of correlation should not be a goal, but correlation to enable pupils to integrate their experiences more easily and better into their whole pattern of growth.

(2) The fusion curriculum applies to English to the extent that all English language experiences, at any given grade level, should be grouped into or organized under one subject, and not be offered serarately in such different subjects as English Grammar, English Composition，English Literature, etc. In other words, at the 7th-grade and other grade levels, there should be one subject offered titled English Language. Except under very exceptional circumstances, it is not considered advisable to attempt to fuse English Language with some other field.

(3) The core curriculum, as pointed out, has little application to the foreign language field. Since the core includes only those areas common to all pupils, and different pupils study different foreign languages, and all foreign language courses are electives, it is impracticable to iuclude English in any core course.

(4) The experience curriculum has some application to all subjects, so far as its philosophy is concerned. Certainly pupils should help determine aims and experiences and participate in evaluation. Every educational activity ought to be planned and carried out as a real pupil experience. But in a foreign language it is impractical to attempt to plan each pupil's curriculum separately. The present pupil-teacher ratios, for one thing, forbid this. For another, teaching a foreign language is a highly technical process requiring a carefully planned series of experiences arranged in a fairly definite sequence. Closer teacher guidance is required in this field than in any other field. It is evident that a foreign language is better taught as a saparately organized series of experiences under a subject title, particularly in the early years.

　Consideration should be given by educators interested and concerned with English language curriculum to the possibility that the unit system of organization may be of value in the field. Thus far the unit system has been applied most commonly in the fields of National Language, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies, and to a much less extent in the field of English language. However, possibility of its adaptation to the field of foreign languages should not be overlooked.

　The unit system is an attempt to group related experiences together under one central problem, theme, or topic. The usual procedure in teaching is to plan a year's work as a whole, then plan each 1esson as a part of the year's work, attempting to keep each day's lesson in line with the aims of year's work and to keepthe lessons arranged in a desirable sequence. This is so difficult that many teachers follow the path of least resistance, which is following the textbook exactly in day-by-day procedure throughout the school year, without paying much attention to aims, assuming that the textbook author has arranged the lessons in such a way that the aims will more or less automatically be achieved.

　Morrison, who did much of thc early work in unit organization and was, perhaps to a greater extent than any other individual, responsible for the introduction of the unit method, defines the unit as“a comprehensive and significant aspect of the environment, of an organized science, of an art, or of conduct, which being learned results in adaptation in personality."² W.C. Ruediger defines it as“any division of subject matter, large or small, that, when mastered, gives one an insight into, an appreciation of, or a mastery over some aspect of life".³ Lorena B. Stretch suggests that“units are organized subject matter and experiences brought together because of relationships, and presented to the pupils in such a manner as to develop within them the right attitudes, and skills..."⁴

　Discarding the idea that subject matter is an aim or an end in itself, we may summarize various definitions and say that the unit method is an attempt to group experiences so that they will be meaningful to the pupil, in terms of his own needs or purposes. Under the unit system of organization some major pupil need is made the basis of the unit, and is incorporated into its title. The unit title often is stated in the form of a problem, and all of the experiences of the unit are arranged and planned so that they are a part of an attempt to solve the problem. Subject matter is not neglected; indeed, as much or more of it is used than under the traditional method of organization. But under the unit approach, subject matter is used as and when it is needed to solve the central problems which are based upon pupil needs, and is not brought in in an unrelated way meaningless to the pupil.

　Prior to the organization of work into units, materials followed one another throughout a school year without any relationships to a central theme or problem, so that pupils tended to learn or memorize materials in an isolated way without seeing relationships which could lead to generalization and often without seeing relationships between these materials and their own lives. The introduction of the unit system gave impetus to a movement to relate the materials of education directly to pupils' lives. Under the early approach to the unit system of organization, the subject was broken down into a number of units, and each unit was concerned with some central thought or problem. The materials and subject matter were then all related to the central problem in a given unit, which tended to motivate pupils to learn materials not for the sake of the materials themselves but because they helped in understanding and solving a problem. Subject matter is not learned indiscriminately, but is limited at any given time to those materials related to the problem.

This approach was a considerable improvement over the straight subject matter approach, but still had limitations in that it did not insure that the needs of pupils would be met. In determining what units are to be taught, it is better, in the first stages, to disregard subject matter as such, and determine titles and content of units according to the needs, purposes, and experiences of the pupils. In other words, the unit begins with the learner, and not with what is to be learned. The individual has certain needs, which are determined largely by his own individuality interacting with and conditioned by his physical and social environment in which he lives. It may be said that all pupils of a certain degree of maturity living in a given social and physical environment have many needs in common, while at the same time each individual has special needs. Fulfi11ing these needs, consciously or unconsciously, is a purpose of the individual. Thus if learning experiences are definitely planned so that they fulfi11 the needs of the individual, they will become his purposes and he will then consciously strive to learn in order to fulfi11 his own needs. This works as a very powerful motivation in learning. In order for the learner to accomplish his purposes, he will find that he has a need for certain kinds of experiences. It is these experiences, chosen on the basis of pupil needs, arranged in a desirable psychological sequence, that constitute the unit. Thus a unit may be said to be the sum total of related experiences which carry out the purposes of the learner in fulfi11ing one or more of his own needs. In building units, rather than taking a subject and trying to divide it into parts or units, the approach should be to build up units one by one, all of the units planned for one year's work constituting a subject.

　Under the unit system of organization, related experiences are grouped together under a central problem, theme, or topic, and the problem, theme, or topic is based upon a need which is common to all of the pupils of the class. Each unit has its aims, andd pupil experiences are planned specifically and directly to enable each pupil to achieve the aims. Evaluation of the unit is conducted specifically in accordance with the stated aims, to determine the degree of achievement of the aims. Since the pupil experiences in a given unit will run for two weeks, a month, or perhaps two months, the immediate aims are constantly before the pupils and the teacher, instead of being remote. Units throughout a year are arranged in a desirable psychological sequence, one unit merging into another. The aims of all units are related to the aims of the year's work, and those in turn to the aims of the subject, and those in turn to the major aims of the secondary school.

　There are in general two types of units: (1) The resource unit and (2) the teaching unit. The resource unit is a reservoir of ideas for the teacher; the pupils never see it. It provides for the teacher, in a convenient form, suggestions in regard to titles of units, and in connection with each title, suggested aims, content of the unit, pupil experiences, methods of evaluation, and a bibliography of reference materials for both pupils and teachers. The teaching unit is planned cooperatively by the pupils and teacher. While the resource unit contains many suggested aims, in the teaching unit the teacher and pupils list those they consider desirable. The resource unit covers a considerable scope of content, the teaching unit a much smaller one. The resource unit contains many suggestions as to pupil experiences; the teaching unit those actually practicable and desirable for the class. The resourse unit contains many suggestions as to methods of evaluation; the teaching unit restricts evaluation techniques to those which are useful in evaluating the specific aims selected by the class. Several teaching units may be made from one resource unit. As an author has suggested in the publication, General Methods of Teaching in the Lower and Upper Secondary Schools,⁵ the resource unit is“the mother of teaching units". Resource units may be developed by educators on the national level and printed in Courses of Study. They may be developed by prefectural educators and made available for use by teachers. They may be developed by groups of teachers in a local community or in school. After development, they can be used by each teacher as a source of ideas for the development of teaching units.

　There are several ways of organizing a resource unit. Perhaps the most common way is to have (1) an overview of the unit; (2) a statement of objectives or anticipated outcomes; (3) an analysis of the problem or scope and sequence arragement; (4) a list of suggested pupil activities; (5) suggestions in regard to evaluation; and (6) a list of references and materials which will be useful in the unit.

　The overview is a statement of the significance of the problem or topic around which the unit is centered. It states why the problem is important to the pupils of the grade for which it is intended, and how the problem is related to the needs of the pupils. It shows how the unit may contribute to the three major aims of the secondary schools. Certain significant information about the problem is given here.

　The section on objectives, or anticipated outcomes, lists objectives which the compilers suggest. These need not be and should not be accepted by the class as they are. Learning is the modification of behavior for the better, according to standards set up by the society in which learning takes place. The pupil experiences in any unit must be based on aims, which may be desirably stated as changes in pupil behavior that are anticipated as a consequence of the experiences provided by the unit. The term behavior, as used here, does not refer merely to covert or outward forms or behavior, but to the thinking process, the attitudes and the entire personality of the individual. The statement of aims should be specific and be written in terms of knowledges, understandings, skills, abilities, attitudes, appreciations, habits, and ideals.

　The scope and sequence section of the unit is the sum total of problems or topics into which the major topic or problem is divided, or analyzed. The central problem is likely to be too broad in its scope to be attacked as it is. Hence the large problem must be analyzed into a number of basic problems which will be useful to pupils in their study. The sequence is a suggested arrangement of these subsidiary problems for studay, according to psychological principles of organization, the nature of the learner, the nature of the learning process, and the nature of the subject.

　The list of suggested pupil activities or experiences is usually, or often, the largest part of the unit. Here are listed many possble type of pupil activities which might serve to accomplish the aims of the unit. There are different ways of listing these activities, but they often are listed as being initiatory, developmenta1, and culminating. The purpose of the initiatory activities, of course, is to introduce the unit in such a way as to challenge the interest of the class and to get the unit activities organized. The developmental activities are concerned with collecting data about the problem or the topic, analyzing it, discussing, or considering it, or, in the case of language and some other subject,, engaging in necessary study of the dataor drill in connection with it. The culminating activities are those in which the pupils reach what conclusions they can, apply the conclusions to their lives, sum up what they have learned, and concentrate on sharpening the experiences they have had in the unit for long retention. This section of the unit lists many more activities than any one class could or should use.

　The evaluation section of the unit lists suggested techniques for evaluating the achievement of the knowledges, understandings, attitudes, appreciations, skills, abilities, and ideals which were listed as objectives. It is essential to evaluate the degree of accomplishment of each of these aims in the case of each pupil. Evaluation should always be based on the listed aims.

　The bibliography section contains lists of books, magazine articles, motion pictures, newspapers, slides, recordings, community resourses, and other materials which will be useful in developing the unit. This is usually a very inclusive list, and more materials are likely to be listed than will be available to any one class, or could be used by any one class even if they were available. These references are of varying degrees of difficulty, in order to meet the needs of all students. They are of many kinds, and locating them will teach pupils the techniques of locating information. Separate lists of materials for use by the teacher and the pupils may be included.

　There is no essential difference between the resource unit and the teaching unit in organization. A teaching unit may have exactly the same sections as the resource unit. The difference is that the teacher would use, from the resource unit, only those items which were applicable to the local situation or which are considered desirable.

　In developing a teaching unit, the following principles are pertinent:

(1) The teacher should engage in considerable amount of planning in advance. He should, using the resource unit, tentatively plan the overview, scope and sequence, objectives, pupil activities, and evaluation. He should prepare an extensive list of all useful materials which are available. But this advance planning is for the teacher's background, to aid him inguiding the experiences of pupils. The teacher's plan should not be handed to the pupils as it is. In fact, pupils should not see the resource unit at all.

(2) The teacher should work out a plan to introduce the unit skilfully to the class, to make the pupils feel that the unit is a problem of their own, and to create in them a desire to engage in the experiences or activities which are a part of the unit. Pupils should recognize each of the problems of the unit as their own, and be able to state it in their own terms. This should not be difficult if the unit actually is based upon a careful study of pupil needs.

(3) The pupils and the teacher should set up the objectives cooperatively, through discussion. The teacher has some aims in mind, gained from the resource unit or his own work, but pupils should be encouraged first to suggest aims of theirown. The teacher should ask questions which will stimulate pupils to make suggestions as to aims. The teacher can make suggestions when important aims have been overlooked. As aims are suggested, they should be listed on the blackboard, be discussed, and when the list is complete, be consolidated and arranged in a desirable sequence.

(4) The next step is to analyze the problem into its component parts. This also should be done cooperatively by pupils and the teacher. Pupils can make suggestions as to problems which are a part of the main problem or topic, and the teacher can suggest those which the pupils have omitted. The teacher should not arbitrarily announce that certain problems must be added, but make the suggestion in some such way as this:“We may have forgotten an important problem. What do yo think about listing this as a problem? (Give statement of problem)"

(5) The pupils and the teacher cooperatively can and should plan the activities of the unit. All of them should be related to the aims. Pupils should be asked to suggest types of activities, and to discuss thoroughly all suggestions made.

The teacher can suggest certain important ones which seem to be omitted, and point out reasons why some of the activities suggested are not practical or will not achieve the aims of the unit. Pupils and teachers together should plan interesting culminating activities.

(6) The teacher should conduct his own separate evaluation of the degree to which each pupil has achieved the aims of the unit. The class as a whole can conduct its evaluation, and each pupil can evaluate his own progress.

　This is only a brief discussion of unit organization. It is suggested that before proceeding further each reader refer to Chapters Ⅲ and IV of the professional book General Methods of Teaching in the Lower and Upper Secondary Schools, published by the Ministry of Education in 1950 and the book The Course of Study in Social Studies, I, to be published in 1951.