Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment - JAfLNjafln.com/wp-content/uploads/toh-edu-ann-2015-1-41.pdf · ... , termed formative assessment, is a classroom ... how classroom

―　　―41

� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1

Abstract There isnodoubt thateducation in the21st-century isadynamicandstimulatingarea.

Studentsandteachersarenowengagingindialoguesofunprecedentedcomplexityinresponseto

changingtimes,needs,andsocialgroupings,andnonationisexemptfromthisprocess.The21st

centuryglobal economy is knowledge-based, as it is drivenby information and skills that

contribute toanacceleratedpaceof technical andscientific advancements, aswell as rapid

obsolescence.Educationalpracticeitselfisthereforeinastateofgreattransitionasmanynations

aremodifyingtheir teachingand learningactivities inaneffort topromoteperformance.One

suchmeasure,termedformativeassessment,isaclassroomassessmentpracticethatisbecoming

theheart of the educational framework.This practice promotes continuous learning and

assessmentdialoguebetweenstudentsandtheir teachers,alongwiththeirpeers ina learning

community. articleexploreshowclassroomassessmentsareembedded into the instructional

process around theworld and details Japanese perspectives on classroom learning and

assessment in an international context. Indoing so, the impact of thedevelopment of the

JapaneseAssessment forLearningNetwork (JAfLN) isdiscussed.TheJAfLNwouldbecomea

non-profitorganizationthatconnectsJapanesepeoplewhoareinterestedintheuseofassessment

forlearningandthedevelopmentofrelatedpoliciesandresearchineducation.

Inpreparationforwritingthisarticle,thefirstauthor,MasahiroArimoto,participatedinthe

InternationalSymposiumonClassroomAssessmentandAssessmentforLearning(AfL)heldon

April 8–12, 2014, inFredericton,NewBrunswick inCanada.This international symposium

CulturalPerspectivesonClassroomAssessment:APathTowardthe“JapaneseAssessmentforLearningNetwork”

MasahiroARIMOTO(Professor,GraduateSchoolofEducation,TohokuUniversity)

IanCLARK(Professor,NagoyaUniversityofCommerceandBusiness)

SayeYAMAMOTO(GraduateStudent,GraduateSchoolofEducation,TohokuUniversity)

MasamitsuSHINKAWA(GraduateStudent,GraduateSchoolofEducation,TohokuUniversity)

―　　―42

Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment

inspiredthewritingofthisarticleasadevelopmentoftheexistingliterature,andinaneffortto

exploreperspectivesonclassroomteachingand learning inJapanaswellas inothernations

(Arimoto,1995;Arimoto&Ishimori,2013).Characterizedasapowerfulseriesofconversations

anddialogues,thesymposiumwasanopenforumwhereacademicsandpractitionersgatheredto

sharetheirwork,ideas,projects,andbestpracticesonformativeclassroomassessmentdescribed

byBrookhart(2007)asaprocessthat“givesteachersinformationforinstructionaldecisionsand

givespupilsinformationforimprovement”(p.43).

Discussion tookplaceunder threebroadumbrellas—policy, professional learning, and

research.Theparticipantswereteamsofexperts fromsixareasacrosstheglobe:Canada, the

UnitedStates, theUnitedKingdom,NewZealand,Australia,andcontinentalEurope.Thisyear

independentdelegateswere invited fromSingapore.Oneof theconclusionsdrawnwas that

assessment isamatterofculture,as indicatedbythefollowingremark:“Iwouldhavelikedto

learnmoreaboutJapaneseculturalaspects that,as Isense,couldbeconducive forsuccessful

implementationofAfL”.Anothernoteworthycommentabout therelationshipbetweenculture

andformativeassessment isas follows: “I thinkyouarerightthatcertainaspectsofJapanese

culture,suchasabeliefinkaizenwouldbeespeciallysupportiveofthedevelopmentofformative

assessments. Indeed,manyaspects of formative assessment are already incorporated into

Japaneselessonstudy,althoughtheyareoftennotwelldeveloped”.KaizenreferstotheJapanese

conceptofcontinuousimprovementthroughprofoundintrospection,anditisoneofmanyvalues

deeplyrootedinJapaneseculture—andthereforeaffectsteachingandlearninginJapan.

InJulyof2008,experts fromtheOrganisationofEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment

(OECD)mettodiscusskeycompetenciesof formativeassessment.AccordingtoJanetLooney,

nowDirectoroftheEuropeanInstituteofEducationandSocialPolicy(EIESP),theseminarwas

the first of its kind tobeheld inAsia. Issues relating to the implementation of formative

assessmentwere furtherdevelopedat theOECD’s2012seminar inJapan. Itwas there that

CanadianresearcherandformeradvisortotheCanadianprimeministeroneducationalmatters,

MichaelFullan,advisedJapan’sMinistryofEducation,Culture,Sports,ScienceandTechnology

(MEXT)“nottorelyonincreasingaccountabilitybyrelyingoncheckandimprovecyclesunless

theyareembeddedintheday-to-daywork.”Atafollow-upseminarheldbytheOECDinSendai,

Japan,Andreas Schleicher, theDirector forEducation andSkills andSpecialAdvisor on

EducationPolicy to theSecretary-General of theOECD,highlighted the importanceof 21st

centurylearningskillsrequiredfortheacquisitionoflifelonglearningcompetencies.

Thisarticleemphasizesculturalcontextandexaminesthetheoryandpracticeofclassroom

assessmentsdesigned to support theacquisitionof lifelong learning skills in Japaneseand

―　　―43


Westerncultures.Understanding the importanceofculture in Japaneseschools requires the

readertounderstandthatJapanisaprocess-orientedsociety.Asanation,Japanisareflective

society,self-awarebutwithinthemeansoftheirculturalidentity,as“theyarealerttotheendto

maintaintheirownculturalvaluesandpracticesatthecoreofanynewsystemadopted.They

regardcultureasanintegral,dynamicpartoftheirsocietyandeconomy”(Fereshteh,1992,p.23).

Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment Manyof the instructionalpractices thathaveadvancedas intrinsicallymotivatingand,

therefore,facilitatehigher-orderthinkingandlearningareinherentinsocio-constructivistlearning

environments (Walker,2010).Onesuchpractice isknownasformativeassessment,which isan

assessmentprocessthatservesteachersandstudentssothatsound instructionaldecisionsare

madeandnextstepsforeffectivelearningmaybeplannedandimplementedcollectively.Italso

providesscaffoldedassistance in takingthenextsteps toward improvingstudents’work.The

notionofscaffolding,firstpresentedinthefoundationalsocio-constructivistworkofWood,Bruner,

andRoss(1976)isanassistedtypeoflearning“bestunderstoodasinvolvingmutualadjustment

andappropriationofideas”(Goos,Galbraith,&Renshaw,2002,p.195).Thepracticeofscaffolding

supports a socially interactive and cognitively flexible approach to thinking, learning, and

problem-solvingthatresidesatthecenterof21stcenturyeducation(Black&William,2006;Clark,

2012). It is, therefore, important tounderstandhowschool staff interactswith learnersand

parents, inorder togatheranduseevidenceof learning todeliverconsistentandeffective

classroomassessmentsthatsupportlifelonglearningcapacities(Clark,2012;2014).InJapan,the

CentralCouncil forEducation (1996) also emphasizes the role of parents, stressing that if

“competencesforpositiveliving”aretobecultivated,itisimportantforschools,parents,andthe

communitytoworktogetheraspartners(ascitedinShinkawa&Arimoto,2012,p.62).

IntheirbookPreparing Teachers for a Changing World,AmericanresearchersBransford,

Derry,Berliner,Hammerness, andBeckett (2005)explain thequalitiesofeffectiveclassroom

assessors,withthegoalofteachersbecomingadaptiveexperts.Adaptiveexpertsaccesswritten

informationsources, solveproblemscollaboratively, experimentwith theirenvironments, and

createnewideastoseeifimprovementsintheirownprofessionalpracticefurtherlearning.For

studentstobecomeeffective learners, theyneedtoobserveand interactwithschoolstaffwho

composerelationshipscharacterizedbyflexibleandinnovativeapplicationsofknowledge(Eisner,

2005).Workingalongsideadults in this typeof learningenvironmentpreparesstudents tobe

confident learnerswhoarecapableofmakinggooddecisions inside,outside,andbeyondschool

(Black&William,2009;Bransfordetal.,2005;ScottishGovernment,2011;Vogt&Rogalla,2009).

Theconnectionbetweencurriculathatdrivesformativeassessmentpracticesandtheacquisition

―　　―44


of lifelong learningcapacitieshasbeenestablishedby theOECD (OECD,2005; theJapanese

translationofthisbookwassupervisedbythe leadauthorofthispaper in2008)amongothers

(e.g.,Black&William,2009;Clark,2012;Stiggins,2007). Intheformativeassessmentclassroom,

studentsarebuildingtheirunderstandingofnewconcepts,notonlywiththeirteachersbutwith

eachother,inordertoassessthequalityoftheirownandtheirpeers’workagainstwell-defined

criteria.Whenstudentsareactivelyengaged insuchactivities, theyaredeveloping invaluable

skillsforlifelonglearning(OECD,2005).Thepurposeofthisinteractiveassessmentistocreate

visibleevidenceoflearningandprovideimmediateyetreliablefeedbacktoschoolstaff,learners,

andparentsaboutthestandardsthathavebeenachievedandthenextstepsfor improvement.

Themethods employed to reveal student understanding,making it visible as assessment

evidence,resideinthetheoriesoflearningcollectivelyknownasthesocioculturaltheoryarising

fromthe foundationalworkofRussiandevelopmentalpsychologistL.S.Vygotsky (1896–1934).

However, in Japan, theprescriptive rules of social interaction render thedevelopment of

spontaneous and creative neo-Vygotskian programs, based onmutuality and informality,

culturallyundesirable(Mantero&Iwai2005;Wray1999).

Sociocultural Basis for Effective Classroom Learning Cultureandculturalpracticesareconsidered, fromasocioculturalorsocio-constructivist

perspective, toplayacriticalrole inshapingclassroompractices.Culturalpracticesarevalued

highlyinJapanandareassociatedwithasenseofcommunitycohesion.Cohesionisparticularly

importantinapost-modernJapanesesocietycharacterizedbydramaticchangeanduncertainty.

ShinkawaandArimoto(2012), intheirreflectiononthegreatearthquakeandtsunami(Higashi-

nihon-daishinsai) in2011, refer to theCentralCouncil forEducation’s statement in1996 that

Japan faced “adifficultperiodof rapidchange, inwhich thewayaheadwouldbedifficult to

discern”(p.62).TheleadauthorofthispaperworkscloselywiththeOECDonprojectsdesigned

torestore thecommunityandprepare for thechallengesahead (OECD-Tohoku2.0project),a

taskviewedpositively,asitisanopportunitytoimproveareaschooling.Hence,culturalpractices

areparticularly important intheaftermathofcrises liketheFukushimaearthquake, tsunamis,

andnuclearaccidents.Indeed,incontrasttotheveryseriousviolenceandlootingwitnessedafter

HurricaneKatrinastruckNewOrleansin2005,theJapanesedemonstratedadeepsenseofsocial

solidarity,whichistheenvyofothercultures(seecommentsbyLewisintheconcludingsection).

AsShinkawaandArimoto (2012)observe, theJapanese“displayaltruismeven inadversity” (p.

67).Thereason“isrootedinthousandsofyearsofJapanesetraditionandluckilyhaswithstood

outsideinfluences”(p.67).Afterthe2011cataclysmatFukushima,ShinkawaandArimoto(2012)

surveyedsecondarystudentsusingtheEducationforSustainableDevelopment(ESD)competency

―　　―45


questionnaire. Itwas foundthat the influenceof traditionalculturereinforcedtheresilienceof

currentJapanesesecondarystudentsbysupporting“cooperativeworking”or“stress-managing”

competencies(p.67).

Ingeneral, beingapartof a cultural community that is associatedwithbelongingand

identitydetermines thekinds of discourses found in that particular community (Pryor&

Crossouard,2008).Acrosscultures,belonging,trust,andrespectarenotregardedasperipheral

aspectsoflearning.Theyrelatetotheinnatepsychologicalneedsofthelearnerandtheessential

sociocultural foundation for classroom interactions that teachersneed tomaintain so that

studentsengage in theriskyprocessofnegotiatingmoreappropriateandconfident learning

identities(Willis,2010).PutneyandBroughton(2011)viewtheteacherasacommunityorganizer,

responsible fordevelopingcollectiveclassroomefficacybystructuringactiveparticipation in

appropriate social learningexperiences. In the roleof communityorganizer, the teacher is

concernedwith“developingself-improvementcapabilities,constructingaself-directingcollective,

whilecontinuingtopromoteunityandmotivateinterdependence”(Putney&Broughton,p.101).

Inthe formativeclassroom,knowledge iscreatedcollectively,producinga learningculture

throughthesocialconstructionandsharingofculturally-specificmeanings.When learnersare

participatinginacollectiveculturalsetting,theyarelearningallthetimeabouthowtobeamore

effectivememberofthatparticularsociety.ForWesternsocio-constructivists,feedback,dialogue,

andpeerassessmentareviewedasanopportunityforstudentstolearntheculturalexpectations

aboutbeinganautonomous learnerorcentralparticipantwithin theclassroomsociety: “This

processofbecomingmoreexpertandbelongingwithin thecommunityofpractice involved

studentsnegotiating identitiesofparticipationthat includedknowingbothacademicskillsand

socialexpectationswithintheclassroom”(Willis,2010,p.1).

Interaction, Dialogue, and the Regulation of Learning Theissueofformativeassessmentbecameprominentin1998whenBritishresearchersPaul

BlackandDylanWilliamfromKing’sCollege,London,publishedtheirseminalarticlepresenting

evidenceon thebeneficialeffectsofan “interactivestyle”of teaching.Although thescientific

reliabilityof theirevidencehasbeencontestedbyAmericanstatisticians (Dunn&Mulvenon,

2009;Bennett, 2011; for a full discussion, seeClark, 2011).Nevertheless, by2002, formative

classroominteractionshadbecomeakeyOECDtheme,andquicklytookonaglobalmomentum.

BlackandWilliam(2009)thendevelopedthetheoreticalbasissupporting“formativeinteraction”

(p.2)byintegratingideasfrombothcognitive(cf.Bandura,1997)andsocialtheories(cf.Wenger,

1998) of learning. Itwas in this article that they introduced thenotion of the “moment of

contingency” (p.10).Thesemomentsareopportunitiesto further learningthroughspontaneous

―　　―46


real-timeadjustments in learningdiscourse.Thesemomentsarisecontinuouslyasopportunities

forteacherstoprobe intostudents’responsesandreplyappropriately, inawaythatregulates

learning.Additionally, thesemomentsalsoarisewhenteacherscirculatearoundtheclassroom,

lookingat individuals’work,observingtheextenttowhichtheyareontrack—astrategyoften

used in Japanese classrooms. Inmost Japanesemathematics classrooms, the regulation of

learningisrelativelytight,sotheteacherattemptsto“bringintoline”all learnerswhoarenot

headingtowardtheparticulargoalsought;asinthesecourses,thegoaloflearningisgenerally

bothhighlyspecificandcommontoallofthestudentsinaclass.Incontrast,whentheclassis

doingananalysisorexploratorywork,theregulationismuchlooser.Ratherthanasinglegoal,

there is likely tobeabroadhorizonof appropriategoals (Marshall, 2004), all ofwhichare

accessible,andtheteacherwillintervenetobringthelearnersintolineonlywhenthetrajectory

ofthelearnerisradicallydifferentfromthegoalofthelesson.Inthiscontext,itisworthnoting

thattherearesignificantculturaldifferencesinhowtousethisinformation.IntheUnitedStates,

theteacherwilltypicallyintervenewithindividualstudentswhentheyappearnottobeontrack,

whereas in Japan, the teacher is farmore likely toobserveall thestudentscarefully,while

walkingaroundtheclass,andthenwillselectsomemajor issuesfordiscussionwiththewhole

class.

WolfeandAlexander(2008)summarizedasignificantbodyoflongitudinalresearchindicating

thatexploratorytalk,argumentation,anddialogue“promotehigh-level thinkingand intellectual

developmentthroughtheircapacityto involveteachersand [emphasisadded] learners in joint

actsofmeaning-makingandknowledgeconstruction”(p.1).InaNewZealandstudy,Willis(2010)

observed thenegotiationofmeaningbetween teacherandstudents,andamongpeers.Willis

quotedtheworkofWenger(1998)whodescribedthistypeofdialogueaspossessing“aflavourof

continuousinteraction,ofgradualachievementandofgiveandtake”(p.53).Theongoingdialogue

within theclass, thepowerful learningbetweenpeers, and theway the teacher shared the

ownershipof the toolsgave freedomofmovementwithin theclassand invited students to

developidentitiesasagentive(i.e.self-regulatory)participants(Willis,2010).InWesterncontexts,

aformativeinteractionisthereforeonethatemphasizesagency(individualleadershipincollective

settings).Aformativeinteractionisalsooneinwhichaninteractivesituationinfluencescognition

andplacescognitivedemandsonteachersandstudentsto“thinkontheir feet”orwhatSchön

(1987)calledaprocessof“reflection-in-action”(ascitedinPollard,2002,p.7).

Social Assistance and the Regulation of Learning

Theconnectionbetweenformativeclassroompractices,mentionedintheprecedingsection

ofthisarticle,andself-regulatorylearning(SRL)strategieshasbeenestablishedbyanumberof

―　　―47


studies(seeClark,2012forareview).StudentmasteryofSRLstrategiesareseentobeessential

inpost-modernJapan.TheCentralCouncilforEducation(1996)emphasizesthatthechildrenwho

livein21stcenturyJapanneedtoutilizethefollowingstrategies:identifyingandsolvingproblems

independently;studyingontheirowninitiative,andthewillingnessandabilitytocooperatewith

others. If thestrategiesare tobeusedeffectively, learnersneed tohavedeveloped learning

identities,whichsupportthishigh-levelofself-regulation(ascitedinShinkawa&Arimoto,2012,p.

62).American researchers, Zimmerman andPons (1986), specifiedwhat these potentially

formativestrategieslooklikeintheWesternclassroomandfoundtheyfocusonself-evaluation,

organizationandtransformation,goal-settingandplanning, information-seeking,record-keeping

and self-monitoring, environmental structuring, giving self-consequences, rehearsing and

memorizing,seekingsocialassistance(frompeers,teachers,orotheradults),andreviewing(notes,

books, or tests).ZimmermanandPons (1986) found that theuseof the strategiespredicted

academicsuccessinallbutaveryfewcases;thus,studentswhousethestrategiesroutinelycan

beexpectedtoreachtheirpersonalandlearninggoalssuccessfully.

Stanleyetal. (2009)emphasizesthatthepracticeofassessingmorecomplexthinkingskills

expectedof 21st century learnershasmovedaway fromsummativeevaluationand toward

gatheringawidersampleofbehaviors. It isworthnotingthat thewordbehavior isnotoften

found in theWesternvocabularyregarding formativeassessmentbecause itarises fromthe

behavioristperspective,asseenintheworkofSkinner(1954),inwhichthelearnermerelyreacts

to environmental stimuli. Inneo-Vygotskiancontexts, the learner is seenasproactiveand

employsavarietyofconsciouspersonalandsocialstrategiesthatregulateandtransformtheir

learningenvironment, so theycanachieve their learninggoals (Pintrich&Zusho,2002).More

specifically,learnersareengagedin“anactive,constructiveprocesswherebytheysetgoalsfor

theirlearningandthenattempttomonitor,regulate,andcontroltheircognition”(p.250).Socio-

constructivistselaborateonthecognitiveperspectivesprovidedbySRLtheorists(e.g.Pintrich&

Zusho2002;Zimmerman&Pons,1986)andgiveanalyticalandtheoreticalprimacytothesocial

world over the individualworld (Walker, 2010).Thishas led to the recognition thatwhile

observationsplayavital role inassessment, teachersshouldharness theunderstanding that

observationaldataaregreatlyenhancedbyaninteractivestyleofteachingandlearning.

Studies related to classroom interaction inEurope (e.g.Allal, 2011) indicate thatwhen

studentsactivelyparticipateinadialoguewiththeteacherandwiththeirpeersaboutthesubject

matter, it ispossible to identifyprocessesof co-regulationconducive togood learning.For

example, inSwitzerland, 5thgradeelementary school studentswereengaged inwhole-class

discussionon the learninggoals of awriting task.This, as seen in theworkofPurdieand

colleagues (1996) inAustralia, standsas somethingof a contrast to the strategiesusedby

―　　―48


Japanesestudents,whoseeksocialassistance lessactively than theirWesterncounterparts.

FromaEuropeanperspective,discussingstudentunderstandingofthelearninggoalsandcriteria

is theessential ingredient forany formativeassessmentactivity (Black&William,2009).Asa

result,Allal(2011)foundthatthefinalproductsreflectedthecollectiveunderstandingofthegoals

of theworkandalso thestudents’ individual, self-regulated interpretationof thegoals.This

means that theoutcome is inpartdeterminedbystudents’dialogiccontributions to thegoal-

settingandlearningprocess.ANorwegianstudy(Gamlem&Smith,2013)foundthatthedialogic

feedbackpractice,whilerarelyused,wasperceivedasusefulbystudentsbecause“itgenerates

learning, provides information about achievement, gives targeted individual information to

proceedanddevelopunderstanding,andisusedasaninteractivedialoguebetweentheteacher

and the student(s) or among the students” (p. 164). Japanese teachers favorwhole-class

interaction,inordertodrawoutimplicationsforthelearningofthewholeclass,ratherthanfor

eachindividualstudent.Evidencedoes indicatethatJapanesemethodsarehighlyeffective.For

example,BrommeandSteinbring (1994) discovered in their expert-novice analysis of two

mathematicsteachersthatthenoviceteachertendedtotreatstudents’questionsasbeingfrom

individual learners,whereas theexpert teacher’s responses tended tobedirectedmore toa

“collectivestudent”.Thisteachingstrategyalsofindssupportintheinfluentialtheoreticalworkof

BritishformativeassessmentresearchersBlack&William(2009).

Social and Peer Interaction

Although rarelypracticed, the research on formative assessment indicates that peer-

assessmentandthemoderationofeachother’sworkenhancesstudentlearning.InWillis’(2010)

NewZealandcasestudy,sheexploredclassroomswherestudentswereexpectedtoworkwith

theirpeers,either in “highlystructuredways,” “informallystructuredgroups,”or in “fluidand

unstructured”ways.Itwasfoundthatstudentsexpressedastrongpreferenceforlearningfrom

peers: “It justhelpstotalktothembecausesometimestheyunderstandoryouunderstandso

youcandiscussandseewhatyouhave learned” (Student,Year8, 12yearsold), and “Other

studentslikeknowhowwelearncoswearewiththemeveryday.SoIguesswegetfeedback

abouthowtheydoitandhowwedoitandhowwecanimproveandstuff”(Student,Year8,12

yearsold).

ThepreferenceforpeerlearningwasalsofoundbyHallam,Kirton,Pfeffers,Robertson,and

Stobart (2004) in their report on thewide-spread implementation of formative assessment

practicesacrossScotland.InEngland,Harrison(2009)suggeststhatstudentsshouldbetrainedin

socialandrelationalskillsrequired foreffectivepeer-assessmenttotakeplace. InEnglandand

Wales,teachersoftentraintheirstudentstoassesstheworkofothersbygivingthemanonymous

―　　―49


workso that students’ confidenceandself-esteem isnot impactednegatively. Itwas found

(Harrison,2009)thatmanystudentsfinditeasiertoassesstheworkofothersasitreleasesthem

fromthesubjectivebiasassociatedwithassessingtheirownwork.

Theefficacyofpeer-interactiontosupport “good learning”hasbeenconfirmed in the last

threeor fouryearsbyneuroscientificstudiesonsocial interaction.Evidencehasemergedto

indicatethatcollaborativepeer-interactionrecruitsthemesolimbicdopaminerewardsystemin

thehumanbrain, providinga feelingof intrinsic fulfillment to the learners engaged in the

interaction (e.g.Krill&Platek, 2012).Learnersexperiencepositive feelings inanticipationof

mutualinteraction(Salamone&Correa,2013),andofcourse,duringaninteraction,learnersfeel

motivated tocreateandcapitalizeonopportunities tocollaborate together inorder tosolvea

particularproblem(Redcayetal.,2010).ThisscientificevidencesupportsthefindingsofPurdie,

Hattie,andDouglas(1996)inAustralia,andofZimmermanandPons(1986)intheUnitedStates,

astheyfoundthathighachieversaremoresociallyinteractiveandenjoyusingtheirpeersand

teachersassocial sourcesofassistance. Inreality,peer-assessment israrelypracticed inany

culturalcontext.Forexample,intheUnitedKingdom,TiknazandSutton(2006)foundthatpeer-

assessmentswereconductedonlyonceortwiceayear.Similarly,ArimotoandGoda (2013), in

theirstudyofJapanesehighschools, foundthatpeer-assessmentswereusedthe leastoftenof

anyformativeassessmentstrategy.Nevertheless,itwasfoundthatJapanesestudentsemployed

arangeofstrategiesforsuccess,andthatacrossculturesthosestudentswhousedself-regulatory

strategies(seePintrich&Zusho,2002)attainedhightestresults(Purdie&Hattie,1996;Purdie,

Hattie&Douglas,1996;Zimmerman&Pons,1986).

Socio-Constructivist Perspectives on Interaction and Learning

Thediscussion on culture and identity in theprevious section entails amoredetailed

explorationofcultureand learning inclassrooms. In theWesterncontext,effective formative

practiceisfoundeduponsocio-constructivisttheoriesarisingfromtheworkofWoodetal.(1976)

andVygotsky (1978).Socio-constructivist theoriesgiveanalytical and theoreticalprimacy to

active social participationover thepassive receptionof the individual (Walker, 2010).This

perspectivehasbeenendorsedbyrecentfindingsbysocialneuroscientists.Forexample,German

neuroscientist, Schilbach (2014), found the “ontogenetic primacy of social interaction over

observation” (p. 1).Thecomplexbi-directionalitybetween individual learnersand the social

environmentmaybedescribedasadynamicinterdependencebetweenthesocialandindividual

worlds.Concepts,suchasVygotsky’szoneofproximaldevelopment(ZPD),explainhowaspects

of thesocialworldareselectively internalizedandthenexternalizedassocial interaction.This

concept is particularly important in Japanese culture,where the externalization of social

―　　―50


interaction isoftenbasedon formalconventionandconformity,andso thesocial interactions

foundinJapaneseclassroomswilldifferfromthoseobservedinWesterncontexts(Clark,2008).

In theirEuropean study,Allal andPelgrimsDucrey (2000) observed that interactive

formativeassessment is intendedtoprovidescaffolding intheZPD,theplacewhereVygotsky

(1978)hypothesizedthat learningtakesplace.Ingeneral, formativeassessmentischaracterized

asadiscursivesocialpracticeinvolvingthesocialconstructionofmeaningbetweenteacherand

studentsand(theoretically)amongpeers(Pryor&Crossouard,2008).Thisbringsintoplayissues

ofsocialpowerandcollaborationbetweenpeopleengaged ina learning interaction.Whenthey

takeoncollaborativerolesinaninteraction,asshouldbefoundintheformativeclassroom,they

areassistingeachothermutuallyandequallywhileattemptingtosolveaparticularchallengeor

problem.Goos,Galbraith,andRenshaw(2002)appliedtheterm“collaborativezoneofproximal

development” to their research regardingmathematics education.ToGoos,Galbraith, and

Renshaw(2002),theinternalizationofknowledgeisaprocessofscaffoldinglearningtowardthe

next (ormost proximal) step in an individual’s learningprogression.A collaborativeZPD

therefore“involvesmutualadjustmentandappropriationofideas”betweeninteractants(p.195).

FromaWesternperspective,everyoccasionofjointactivityprovidesapotentialopportunityfor

thedevelopmentofallparticipants(Rogoff,2003).Aspreviouslynoted(Mantero&Iwai,2005),the

extent towhich thiswill occur in Japan remains to be seen, as these schools discourage

spontaneityandcreativity,aslanguageandsocialcustomsoftenemphasizedistance.

Therehasbeen somemovement towardwhatmaybe seen asWesternperspectives.

Although,itshouldbenotedcarefullythattheblendingandconsequentfusionofnewideashas

createdauniqueJapanesesystem, fromwhichWesternnationsmight learn.Japaneseschools

havealonghistoryofundifferentiatedgroupinstructionandrotelearning.Bythemid-1980s, it

wasbecomingclearthatreformwasrequired,andbythe1990sthereweremovestopromote

activeparticipationandtheproductionofknowledgeamongstudents,particularlyatelementary

andmiddleschool levels (CentralCouncil forEducation,1996).Anemphasiswasalsoplacedon

schoolsbecomingintegralplayersinthewidercommunity—thisbecameapriorityofparticular

importance to theTohokuregion in thewakeof the2011Fukushimadisasters.However, the

creation of open and spontaneously dialogic classrooms, as expressed by suchWestern

educationaltheoristssuchasWenger (1998), facesculturalobstacles inJapaneseschools (Clark,

2008).Verbosityisfrownedupon,andproverbslike“silenceisgolden”and“stillwatersrundeep”

areused favorably.AccordingtoLebra (1976) “implicit,nonverbal, intuitivecommunication” is

valuedabovean“explicit,verbalexchangeofinformation”(ascitedinMasahiko&McCabe,1991,

p.46).AstheAustralianworkofPurdie,Hattie,andDouglas(1996)indicates,Japanesestudents

seeksocialassistancelessactivelythantheirWesterncounterparts.Thiscouldalsobeduetothe

―　　―51


Japaneseethicofpersonaleffort (Holloway,1988).AstheVygotskianZPDis foundeduponthe

creativityandspontaneityfoundindialogueduringperiodsofassistedlearning,aclearcultural

schismcanbeseenseparatingWesternstrategiesfromJapanesestrategiesintheregulationof

learning.Yet, it isprobablethatJapanese learnersdonotthinkdifferentlythantheirWestern

peerstoanysignificantdegree,buttheirthoughtsaretransformedintoovertandverbalaction

differentlyduetotheinfluenceofJapaneseculturalcontextoversocialinteraction.AsTakanashi

(2004)notes,“Japanesesocietytendstovalueformalityinpubliccontexts.Thisistrueofschools

inJapan.Hence,formalityismoreimportantthancreativity”(p.9).

Feedback loops.As social learning theorists (e.g.Wenger, 1998;Hattie, 1999;Hattie&

Timperley, 2007)note,a formofdialogueofparticular importance iscontinuous feedbackon

studentthinkingandlearning.Therefore,buildingintimeforresponsesisacentralfeatureofthe

elementaryandmiddleschoolsysteminJapan.Forexample,inmiddleschoolscience,ateaching

unit is typicallyallocated14 lessons,but thecontentusuallyoccupiesonly10or11 lessons,

allowingtimeforshortteststobegiveninthe12thlesson,andfortheteachertoreteachaspects

oftheunitthatwerenotwellunderstoodinlessons13and14(William&Leahy,2007,p.37).The

shortest feedback loopsare those involved in theday-to-dayclassroompracticesof teachers,

whereteachersadjusttheirteachinginlightofpupils’responsestoquestionsorotherpromptsin

realtime.Thekeypointisthatthelengthofthefeedbackloopsshouldbetailoredaccordingto

the ability of the system to react to the feedback.However, this doesnotmean that the

responsivenessof thesystemcannotbechanged.Throughappropriateproactiveregulation,

responsivenesscanbeenhancedconsiderably.Whenteachershavecollaboratedtoanticipatethe

responses that pupilsmightmake to a question andwhichmisconceptionswould lead to

particularincorrectresponses—forexample,throughtheprocessofLessonStudy(LS)practiced

inJapan (Lewis,2002)—teachershavebeenable toadapttheir instructionmuchmorequickly.

Theymightevenhavealternative instructional lessonsready. In thisway, feedback for the

teacherthatinthenormalcourseofthingsmightneedatleastadaytomodifyinstruction,could

affect instruction immediately (William&Leahy, 2007).BlackandWilliam (2009) term this

formativefeedbackstrategyas“synchronous”(i.e.immediate)feedback;thereforesuchpractices

areentirelyconsistentwitheffective formativeassessment. Indeed,William (2011)noted the

similaritybetweenthepatternofteachinginJapanesemiddleschoolmathematicsclassrooms(i.e.

kaizen),andmasterylearningstrategiesusedbypractitionersofformativeassessment.

Professional Development and Lesson Study Therigorousmoderationofclassroomassessmentpractices isnotpossiblewithoutthefull

commitmentof staffwhen facedwith the inevitablechallengesassociatedwith transforming

―　　―52


classroompractice intodialogicand interactivestylesof teaching. Inarecentreport,Hayward

andSpencer (2010) identifiedpositive typesofstaffdevelopmentactivities that fosteredsuch

commitment: “Acombinationofexternalexpertiseandschool-baseddevelopmentsbyteachers;

peersupport,ratherthanleadershipbysupervisors;encouragementandextensionofprofessional

dialogue;andprocessestosustaintheprofessionaldevelopmentovertimeandallowteachersto

embednewpracticeinclassroomwork.Acrucialndingwasthatnosingleelementworkedonits

own”(p.174).

InanearlierScottishstudy,Hallametal.(2004)addressedthereasonswhythedevelopment

and implementationof formativeassessments inScotlandhadsucceeded,whereasprevious

attemptsatreformhadfailed.Thereportidenti　edfourmajorfeaturesthatcontributedtothe

project’ssuccess:peercollaborationamongteachers,researchers,andpolicy-makers;supportto

encourage informed risk-taking from the head teacher and seniormanagement team; a

developmentalapproachtotheprocess;andalesshierarchicalapproachthatfocusedonlearning

“wherepeopleenjoyedwhattheyweredoingandfoundpleasureinthechildrendevelopingand

learning” (p.134).Afurtherkeyaspectofprofessionalismforteacherswasthesenseofbeing

listenedto.ThedecisionbyScottishprogrammanagerswastoengageteachersaspartners in

constructing innovativeprojectsand indetermining theirownstrategies forhowtouseand

conductinstructionandassessmentintheirclassrooms,whichenhancedtheircommitmenttothe

formative assessmentprocess.Thisparticipative rolegave teachers the feeling that their

professionalismwasrespectedandcrucialtotheprogram(Hayward&Spencer,2010).Thissense

of professionalismand commitment further ensured that the classroompractices remain

consistentwithcurriculastandards.

Harrison (2009) reports onefforts inEnglandandWales to support theconsistentand

frequentuseofformativepracticesbyincorporatingtheJapaneseconceptofLSbyconducting

“lessonobservations”andothermethodssuchas,“scrutinizingstafffeedbackinstudentexercise

books,anddiscussions” (p.10).This,remarksHarrison,made it “possible to identify individuals

whoarealreadyincorporatingmanyofthebasicideasofgoodpracticeintheirteaching”(p.10).

However,theuseofLSisnotembeddedasaregularpracticeinschoolsintheUnitedKingdom

as it is in Japan,and ingeneral itneeds tobedevelopedasaresearch toolused inexplicit

situationsandadvancedintoaregularaction-researchprocess.StiglerandHiebert(1999)describe

LS(jugyou kenkyuu)intheJapanesecontextasaprocessoffirstdefiningtheproblem,followed

byasuccessionofprocesses:planningthelesson;teachingthelesson;evaluatingthelessonand

reflectingonitseffect;revisingthelesson;teachingtherevisedlesson;evaluatingandreflecting

again;andsharingtheresults.

MEXTrevealed that99.5%ofelementaryschoolsand98%ofmiddleschoolsconductLS

―　　―53


onceayear,butonly21%and9%implementLS15ormoretimes.Thesurveycouldnotfinda

statisticalrelationshipbetweenthefrequencyofLSandtheacademicperformanceoftheschools.

Nevertheless,many researchers andeducators attest to theeffectiveness ofLSbecause it

facilitatesprofessional learningcommunities (PLCs)and forgescloserconnectionswith their

students.PLCsareverysimilartothecommunitiesofpracticementionedearlierastheyprovide

anintra-schoolandinter-school forumacrosswhichthemoderationofclassroompracticesmay

occur. In2008, theAkitaEducationalCentresurveyedteachers (n=300) inAkitaPrefecture.

Theyaskedthequestion“WhatdoyouthinkisimportantforenrichingyourLSexperience?”In

clear reference to the centrality of schoolPLCs, themost frequently stated opinionwas

“Discussion (kyougikai)amongteachersof thegradeor thesubjectafterobserving lessonsby

eachother” (84.7%) followedby “Evaluation frompeer teachers” (81.7%).ThePLC isa forum

whereteachersdiscussandcommunicatewithotherteachers (communicatingabouthowthey

communicate);discussionscenteraroundthecollectivecreativityofteachersandhowtoimprove

thequalityof instruction.ChichibuandKihara (2013)notedthatvery fewhighschools invite

themto theirschools forobservationpurposes.Theycontinued, “whenweobserveresearch

lessons inhighschools,we tend toseea tedious lesson thatreliesheavilyon the traditional

lectureformat…thusfailingtoencouragestudents’higherorderthinking”(p.23).Theyalsonoted

thatthePLCsinhighschoolsareratherdysfunctional,exhibitingonlylimitedinteractionbetween

teachers.Thesituation inJapanesehighschoolsstands incontrast to those found inJapanese

elementaryandmiddleschoolswhere“elaborateandrigorous” (p.23)LSsareconducted.The

issuesofcommunication,creativity,andqualityarethoroughlydiscussedinJapaneseelementary

andmiddleschools.Theseareissuesthatalsohighlightkeyaspectsoftheformativeassessment

processandcharacterizethekindofexpertiseteacherswhodeliverthemneedtohave.Such

teachersareexamplesofBransfordandcolleagues’(2005)adaptiveexperts,astheyareteachers

whoexhibitagreatertendencytoenrichandrefinetheirknowledgestructuresonthebasisof

continuingexperienceand learn fromproblem-solvingepisodes.Thus, it isnotsurprising that

Bransford’s conceptionof teachingexpertisearose from the foundationalworkof Japanese

theoristsHatanoandInagaki(1986)whodefineadaptiveexpertsasteacherswhoareableto(1)

comprehendwhytheprocedures theyknowwork; (2)modify thoseprocedures flexiblywhen

needed; and (3) inventnewprocedureswhennoneof theknownproceduresare effective.

Therefore, if teachersare todevelopan interactive styleof teachingrequired foreffective

formativeassessment, itwould seemreasonable to suggest that theymaydevelopadaptive

expertiseby incorporating theLSprocessessuggestedbyAmericanresearchersStiglerand

Hiebert(1999).

Lessonstudiesprovideavitalresourceintheformofalegacyofexpertise.WhenAmerican

―　　―54


teachersretire, their lessonplansandresourcesretirewiththem(Chenoweth,2000).Similarly,

whengoodteachersleavetotakeabetterposition,thepracticesthatwonthemtheirpromotion

alsoleavewiththem,aproblemnotedinliteraturefromtheUnitedKingdombyHarrison(2009).

Lewis(2002)remarksthatifformativeassessmentpractices,orindeedanyinnovativepractices

aretobedevelopedandcontinuouslyimprovedusingLS,educatorsneedtoagreeuponashared

goalforimprovement,usuallycalleda“researchfocus,”“researchtheme,”or“importantaim,”and

alsocollectevidenceofstudentlearning.Theprocessofevidencecollectionisattheverycoreof

theformativeassessmentprocessandalsoofJapaneseLS.

TheemphasisonstudentlearninganddevelopmentinJapandiffersfromthatoftheUnited

Stateswheretheteachers’strategiesarethesubjectofgreaterinterestthanthoseemployedby

theirstudents(Lewis,2002).Incontrast,Japaneseteachersoftenmentionedthatamajorbenefit

oflessonstudiesisthatitgivesthem“theeyestoseechildren”(kodomo o miru me)orobserve

lessonsastheyoccur.TheJapanesepreferlive“performances”becauseitallowsthemtoobserve

thestudents’wholedemeanortowardlearning.Forexampleevidenceonstudents’engagement,

persistence, emotional reactions, quality of discussionwithin small groups, under-breath

exclamations(tsubuyaki),inclusionofgroupmembers,anddegreeofinterestinthetask.Thisis

unliketheUnitedStates,wherevideo-tapedfootageisusedextensivelyandrecordedlessonfeeds

areseenasasupplementforliveobservations.Justasformativeassessmentplacesthestudent

atthecenteroftheprocess,sodoestheJapaneseconceptionofLS.Again,thefactthatLScan

supporttheacquisitionoftheadaptiveexpertisethatformativepractitionersrequireseemstobe

averyreasonableassertion(Lewis,2002;Yoshida,1999).

Lesson Study and Collective Efficacy

Collectiveefficacy is “concernedwithhowpeoplework togetherwithin teamsandother

socialunits”(Lentetal.,2006,p.74).Bandura(1997)definescollectiveefficacyas“agroup’sshared

beliefs in its conjoint capabilities toorganizeandexecute thecoursesof action required to

producegiven levelsofattainment” (p.477).Collectiveefficacyhas important implications for

teacher trainingandcontinuedprofessionaldevelopment.Forexample,Bandura (1993)dida

collectiveefficacystudywithstaffmembersin79schools,anditwasfoundthatthestrongerthe

collectivebelief in their instructional efficacy, thebetter theschoolperformedacademically.

Goddard (1998)confirmedthepotentialofcollective teacherefficacy, finding that itexplained

approximately 50%of between-school variance inmathematics and reading achievement.

ContemporaryeducationalresearchshouldaffordparticularconsiderationtoGoddard,Hoy,and

Woolfolk-Hoy’s (2000)reflectiononBandura’s1993study: “Bandura’sconclusionsarepowerful

onesthatoffergreathopetoschoolsstrugglingtoincreasestudentachievementandovercome

―　　―55


theassociationbetweensocioeconomicstatusandachievement”(p.497).Ifresearchofthisnature

wasconductedinJapaneseelementaryandmiddleschools, itcanbehypothesizedthatpositive

correlationsbetweenLSandimprovedacademicperformancewouldindeedbegintoemerge.

A very significant benefit of LS andPLCs, therefore, is the creation of a collegiate

atmosphereinwhichteachersfeelcomfortableandconfidentinrelyingontheexpertiseofothers

(Lewis, 2002). Japanese teachershavemanyopportunities to observe anddiscuss teaching

practicewiththeircolleagues. Incontrast,only5–13%ofAmericanteachersvisiteachother’s

classrooms“often”or“veryoften”(CenterfortheFutureofTeachingandLearning,1998,p.9),

greatlydiminishing theircollectiveefficacy.Theemphasison thispotentiallyverypowerful

collective social concept,which is at the heart of formative assessment, is based upon

socioculturalperspectives,holding that school success requires interdependentefforts from

individualsincollaboration.

Questioning Strategies and Neriage

BarkeandNakamura (2012)undertooka small-scale study thatpresents an interesting

precursorforfuturelarger-scaleresearchthatinvestigatestheuseofquestioningstrategiesfrom

teachersofdifferentcultures.Inthiscase,teachersfromNewZealandandJapanwerestudied.

Bothemployedclosedfloor(specificstudentselection)andopenfloormethodsofquestioning.The

Japaneseteacherpreferredclosedfloorstrategiesinaratioof4:1overopenfloor,whereasthe

NewZealand teacher’s ratiowas2:1 in favorof closed floor selection.Thismay indicate a

preferenceforcontrol;however,utterancessuchas“Iwonderifthere’sanybodywhohasn’thad

aturn”suggeststhattheJapaneseteacher’sstrategieswouldbemoreaccuratelyinterpretedas

systematic.This thenbecameaneffective formativepractice as it gaveevery student an

opportunity toparticipateandequated the “nohandsup”policyonquestioningadvocatedby

practitionersof formativeassessment (Maher&William,2007).Certainly, there isconsiderable

scope for futureresearch tobroadenBarkeandNalamura’s studybychoosingmathematics

classes (auniversal “language”) inorder tominimizevariations incontentand theeffectsof

culture.

Whatevertheirquestioningstrategy,teachershavetostartalessonwithanopeningmove.

Inmanyclassrooms, thiswillbeanexploratoryquestion,designedtoelicit students’existing

conceptions.However,thewayinwhichteachersthenproceedmaydifferprofoundlydepending

onthebroaderculturalcontextwithinwhichtheywork.Forexample,accountmustbetakenof

thecomplexities introducedby the requirementof the teacher toassumeresponsibility for

organizingthelearningofalargenumberofstudents(20–40inthedevelopedworld,oftenmuch

largerinthedevelopingworld).Ofthemanypossibilitieswithinthisbroaderagenda,thisarticle

―　　―56


expands on one example. Inmany communities all over theworld, there is an increasing

acceptanceofacanonicallessondesignthatmaynowbesufficientlywidespreadtoqualifyasa

“signaturepedagogy” (Shulman,2005).The lessonbeginswitha“bigquestion” (hatsumon) that

hasbeencarefullydesignedto leadstudents towardthe intendedoutcomes (howeverbroadly

theymaybedefined).Studentsareaskedtoworkonthisquestioninpairsorsmallgroups,and

thentheteacherconductsawhole-classsessioninwhichdifferentgroupspresenttheirproposals.

Typically, the teacher then conducts awhole-class discussion,which is termedneriage in

Japanese; thiswordmeans“kneading,”andwasoriginallyappliedto thetechniqueof layering,

cutting,andre-combiningdifferentcolorsofclaytoproduceablockwithintricatepatterns.Itisa

termused inJapaneseeducation todescribe thewhole-class interactionphaseof structured

problem-solving, and it is thecoreof teaching throughproblem-solving.Thishappensafter

studentshavesharedvarioussolutionstrategies.Duringthisphase,students,carefullyguidedby

theteacher,criticallyanalyze,compare,andcontrastthesharedideas.Theyconsiderissueslike

efficiency, generalizability, and similarity topreviously learned ideas (Takahashi, 2008). In

conductingtheneriagesession,theteachermustbalancearangeofdifferentconcerns,someof

whichmayconflictwith theothers.Theteachermustretain the focusof learning. If student

contributionsraisenewpossibilities, theteacherhastomakesplit-seconddecisionswhetherto

followthenewthread,orbringtheconversationbacktowheretheteacher intended it tobe.

This isveryclose toBlackandWilliam’s (2009) “momentsofcontingency.”Thesemomentary

learningopportunitiesariseduringdialogue,and teachersneed tocreateandcapitalizeupon

theminorderto further learning.Thepressuretovalueeverycontribution isstrong,sinceas

wellasadvancingthe learningof thewholeclass, theteacherseekstominimizethesenseof

rejectionthatstudentsmight feel if theircontributionsaredismissed (alsoseen intheworkof

Canadianresearcher,AlbertBandura,1997).

Conclusion CatherineLewis,aDistinguishedResearchScholarfromMillsCollegeinOakland,California

waskindenoughtosend leadauthorthefollowingcommunication: “IntheU.S., thenewspaper

accountsoftheTohokutragedyimpressedAmericanswiththeirdescriptionsofthewaytensof

thousandsofdisplacedpeoplewereabletoorganizesurvivalinschoolsandotherpublicbuildings,

byworkingtogether...Iwasstruckbyhowwell thebasichabitsofmindandheart learned in

elementaryschoolserveJapaneseadults:thesenseofresponsibility,awarenessofothers'needs

and feelings, and commitment to everyone’swelfare...I don't know if anyother country so

successfully integrates academic learning, social learning, and ethical learning” (personal

communication,2014). It is thishigh-level integration thatWesternnationsshouldattempt to

―　　―57


replicate(see,Putney&Broughton,2010).

Atthe2014Sendaiconference,importantcommentsweremadebyShinHamada,aretired

principal andpart-time lecturer fromAkitaUniversity.He stated thatTohokuUniversity’s

collaborationwiththeOECD(onthe2.0project)shouldincludetheessenceofAkitaprefecture,

astopscorersoftheNationalScholasticAssessment,throughteachers’networkandconnections

(tsunagari) and teachers’ tacitknowledge.ManyJapaneseculturalpractices, includingkankei

(interrelationships),kizuna (bonds),andkizuki (with-it-ness),providemuchneededempathy for

otherswithinthisglobalcontext (Howe&Arimoto,2014).Asmentionedearlier,kaizen,which

refers to thecontinuous improvementdown to the smallestandmostdetailed level of self-

introspection,isanotherimportantculturalconcept.TheAmericanadageisoftenexpressedas,“If

itain’tbroke [if it'snotbroken],don’tfix it.” Incontrast, thephilosophyofkaizen is, “if it isn’t

perfect, improve it.”More specifically, “if it isn’t perfectwhen it comesoff the endof the

productionline,redesignit'tillitis”(Scriven1989).

TohokuUniversity'sfirstpresident(1911-1913),MasataroSawayanagi,formerlyViceMinister

ofEducation, firmlybelieved that academic research shouldbe integratedwith education.

Sawayanagiestablishedkyouiku-kyoujyu-kenkyuukai(theInstituteforResearchinEducationfor

Teaching),whichiscloselyrelatedtotheeducationpolicyofMonbu-syo(EducationMinistry)and

Teikoku-kyouiku-kai (the ImperialEducational Society, 1883-1944; later renamedasNihon-

kyouiku-kaiJapanEducationalSociety,1948),andheprovideda facility fortheadvancementof

scientificeducationalresearch. In1917,heestablishedSeijoPrimarySchoolasapilotschoolto

transformpubliceducationandachievehisownheartfelt ideals. In1918,Sawayanagimadea

classroomvisittoanopenhouseandperformedademonstrationlessonatTokyoCity’sTaisho

ElementarySchool.ThiswasapioneeringactinthedevelopmentofLSandcurriculumdesign,

asheisonrecordasusingtheword“curriculum”asearlyas1925,andhelaterwrotethatJapan

ismakingastrongefforttounderstandhumannatureinthelightofherownancientculture.A

greatmotivator, he strengthenedefforts to inspire teacherswith confidence and courage.

Generally speaking, the Japanese love productive activity and value progress highly.

Consequently, thestaticphilosophyofBuddhawasreconstructed intoadynamicreligion for

practicallife(Sawayanagi,1925).

Anumberof famousphilosophershavesince interpretedhisworks,written inthemidto

late1920sandonward,as thesewereattemptstogobeyondthe limitationsofEuropeanneo-

Kantianthoughtbydrawingon ideasderived largely fromJapaneseBuddhism(Nishida,1965a;

Nishida1965b;Suzuki, 1977cited inMorris-Suzuki, 1995).Morris-Suzuki (1995)noted thathis

attempts togobeyond, or transcend thechallengesof Japaneseculturecreatedbymodern

―　　―58


Westernculturesarejustpartofanintellectualtraditionthathascontinuedunbrokenfromthe

pre-war period to the present day. In 1959,EzraVogel ofHarvardUniversity beganhis

sociological/anthropologicalfieldworkinJapan.Followinghisemeritus,TetsuroSasakifromthe

FacultyofEducationatTohokuUniversityhelpedhis fieldworkatKesennuma,Oshima,and

OnagawainMiyagiprefecture.Aftermorethantwodecadesofdedicatedresearch,heconcluded

that,“ifanysinglefactorexplainsJapanesesuccess,itisthegroup-directedquestforknowledge”

(Vogel,1979).

ThereisaconsensusthatJapanshouldreachbeyondandmovetowardeducationalreform

asactivelyaspossible.Recently,Shields (2009), asserted that to succeed, educational reform

initiativesneed to transcendexternal institutional changeandconnect toaprocessof inner

transformationrootedinasociety’shistoricculturalfoundations.Onesuchapproachisthestudy

ofsacredarchitecturalsitesthatprovideuniqueandpowerfulresearchtoolsforstudyingcultural

meaning,education,socialchange,andthebasisforanalysisoftherelationshipbetweenreligion,

education,andsocialreform.TherearemanyfundamentalJapaneseculturalconceptualthemes,

forexamplethe“Ba”perspective,butthatpropositionmustwaitforanotherday.

Going forward, theAustralian teamwhoattendedFredericton in 2014has tentatively

proposed thenextculturalexploration—agathering inAustralia in2016,andCanadianshave

recently established the “CanadianAssessment forLearningNetwork (CAfLN).”Asglobal

educationalinstitutionsseektogobeyondandtranscendthelimitsoftheircurrentsystems,so

Japanmustcontinuethe foundationalandpioneeringworkofMasataroSawayangibydrawing

deeplyonitsrichculturalheritagebeforetakingtheplungeintothefuturebyestablishingthe

“JapaneseAssessmentforLearningNetwork”(JAfLN).

ReferencesAllal,L. (2011).Pedagogy,didacticsand theco-regulationof learning:Aperspective fromtheFrench-speaking

worldofeducationalresearch.Research Papers in Education, 26(3),329–336.

Allal,L.,&PelgrimsDucrey,G. (2000).Assessmentof—or in—thezoneofproximaldevelopment.Learning and

Instruction, 10(2),137–152.

Arimoto,Masahiro. (1995). JapaneseEducational System ImprovingOngoingPractice in Schools. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(4),380–388.

Arimoto,M.,&Ishimori,H.(2013).Reconceptualizingassessmentforlearningfromculturallyembeddedpedagogy

toaddfurtherimpetustocurriculumasaschool-basedinitiative.東北大学大学院教育学研究科研究年報，62(1),

303–323.

Arimoto,M.,&Goda,Y.(2013).Classroom-embedded assessment based on subject differences for high school teachers

focused on “learning to learn” behind the PISA. (Ikeda,K.UnpublishedMaster’sThesis.GraduateSchoolof

Education:TohokuUniversity)http://www.iaea.info/documents/paper_5bc1e290.pdf

―　　―59


Bandura,A.(1993).Perceivedself-efficacyincognitivedevelopmentandfunctioning.Educational Psychologist, 28(2),

117–148.

Bandura,A.(1997).Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.NY:Freeman.

Barke, J.,&Nakamura, I. (2012). Culture in the classroom:A comparative study of classroomdiscursive

managementstrategies.The Foreign Language Journal, 7,1–16.

Bennett,R.(2011).Formativeassessment;Acriticalreview.Assessment in Education, 18(1),5–25.

Black,P.,&William,D. (2006).Assessment for learning in theclassroom. InJ.Gardner (Ed.),Assessment and

learning(pp.9–25).London:Sage.

Black,P.,&William,D.(2009).Developingthetheoryofformativeassessment.EducationalAssessment,Evaluation

and Accountability, 21(1),5–31.

Bransford,J.,Derry,S.,Berliner,D.,Hammerness,K.,&Beckett,K.L.(2005).Theoriesoflearningandtheirrolesin

teaching.InL.Darling-Hammond&J.Bransford(Eds.).Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers

should learn and be able to do(pp.40–87).SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Bromme,R.,&Steinbring,H. (1994). Interactivedevelopmentof subjectmatter in themathematicsclassroom.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3),217–248.

Brookhart,S.M.(2007).Expandingviewsaboutformativeassessment:Areviewoftheliterature.InH.McMillan

(Ed.),Formative assessment classroom: Theory into practice(pp.29–42).NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Center for theFutureofTeachingandLearning. (1998).The status of the teaching profession: Summary report.

SantaCruz,Ca.:CenterfortheFutureofTeachingandLearning.

CentralCouncilforEducation/MEXT.(1996).Priorities for a lifelong learning society: Increasing diversification and

sophistication chapter 3. The future of lifelong learning section 3. Encouraging zest for living.Tokyo:MEXT.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpae199601/hpae199601_2_042.html

Chenoweth,K.(2000).Homeroomcolumn,Montgomery Extra,Rockville,MD.

Clark, I. (2008).Collaborative learning:The cultural barriers to effective language acquisition in Japanese

classrooms.Journal of English as an International Language, 3,99–126.

Clark,I.(2011).Formativeassessment:Policy,perspectivesandpractice.FJEAP,4(2),158–180.

Clark,I. (2012).Formativeassessment:Assessmentisforself-regulatedlearning.Educational Psychology Review,

24,205–249.

Clark, I. (2014).Equitable learningoutcomes:Supportingeconomicallyandculturallydisadvantagedstudents in

‘formativelearningenvironment’.Improving Schools, 17(1),116–126.

Chichibu,T.,&Kihara,T.(2013).HowJapaneseschoolsbuildaprofessionallearningcommunitybylessonstudy.

International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2(1),12–25.

Dunn,K.,&Mulvenon,S. (2009).Acritical reviewofresearchon formativeassessments:The limitedscientific

evidenceoftheimpactofformativeassessmentineducation.PARE, 14(7),1–11.

Eisner,E. (2005).Whatcaneducationlearnfromtheartsaboutthepracticeofeducation?InE.Eisner(Ed.),Re-

imagining Schools: The selected works of Elliot E. Eisner(pp.205–214).NY:Routledge.

Fernandez,C.,&Yoshida,M. (2004).Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and

learning.NewYork:Erlbaum.

―　　―60


Fereshteh,M.H. (1992).The U.S. and Japanese education - should they be compared.PaperpresentedatLehigh

University’sconferenceoneducationandeconomicsintechnologicallyadvancingcountries.Bethlehem,PA.

Goddard,R. (1998).The effects of collective teacher efficacy on student achievement in urban public elementary

schools.Dissertation,OhioStateUniversity.

Goddard,R.D.,Hoy,W.K.,&WoolfolkHoy,A.(2000).Collectiveteacherefficacy:Itsmeaning,measure,andeffect

onstudentachievement.American Education Research Journal, 37,479–507.

Goos,M.,Galbraith,P.,&Renshaw,P. (2002).Sociallymediatedmeta-cognition:Creatingcollaborativezonesof

proximaldevelopmentinsmallgroupproblemsolving.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2),192–223.

Hallam,S.,Kirton,A.,Pfeffers,J.,Robertson,P.,&Stobart,G.(2004).Evaluation of Project 1 of the Assessment is for

Learning development programme: Support for professional practice in formative assessment.London:Institute

ofEducation,UniversityofLondon.

Harrison,C. (2009),Assessing the impactof assessment for learning10yearson.Curriculum Management,

November 2009,4–10.

Hatano,G.,&Inagaki,K. (1986).Twocoursesofexpertise.InH.Stevenson,H.Azuma&K.Hakuta (Eds.),Child

development and education in Japan(pp.263–272).Freeman&Co.

Hattie,J.(1999).Influences on student learning.UniversityofAuckland,NewZealand:Inauguralprofessoriallecture.

Retrievedfromciteseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi010.1.1.114.8465.pdf

Hattie,J.,&Timperley,H.(2007).Thepoweroffeedback.Review of Educational Research, 77(1),81–112.

Hayward,L.,&Spencer,E. (2010).Thecomplexitiesofchange:Formativeassessment inScotland.Curriculum

Journal, 21(2),161–177.

Holloway,S.D. (1988).Concepts of ability andeffort in Japanand theUnitedStates.Review of Educational

Research, 58,327–345.

Howe,E.,&Arimoto,M. (2014).Narrative teachereducationpedagogies fromacross thepacific.Advances in

Research on Teaching, 22,217–238.

Krill,A.L.,&Platek,S.M. (2012).Working togethermaybebetter:Activationof rewardcentersduringa

cooperativemazetask.PLoS ONE, 2,e30613.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030613.t002

Lebra,T.(1976).Japanese patterns of behavior.Honolulu:TheUniversityPressofHawaii.

Lent,R.W.,Schmidt, J.,&Schmidt,L. (2006).Collectiveefficacybeliefs instudentworkteams:Relation toself-

efficacy,cohesion,andperformance.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,73–84.

Lewis,C.(2002).DoeslessonstudyhaveafutureintheUnitedStates?Nagoya Journal of Education and Human

Development, 1(1),1–23.

Looney, J.,&Poskitt, J. (2005).NewZealand:Embedding formativeassessment inmultiplepolicy initiatives. In

OECD (Ed.),Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms (pp. 177–184).Centre for

EducationalInnovationandResearch.Paris:OECD.

Maher,J.,&William,D. (2007).Tight but loose: scaling up teacher professional development in diverse contexts.

SymposiumattheannualconferenceoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.Chicago,IL:AERA.

Mantero,M.,&Iwai,Y.(2005).ReframingEnglishlanguageeducationinJapan.Asian EFL Journal, 7(2),164–173.

Marshall,B.(2004).Goalsorhorizons-theconundrumofprogressioninEnglish,orapossiblewayofunderstanding

―　　―61


formativeassessmentinEnglish.Curriculum Journal, 15,101–113.

Minami,M.,&McCabe,A.(1991).Haikuasadiscourseregulationdevice:AstanzaanalysisofJapanesechildren’s

personalnarratives.Language in Society, 20,577–599.

Morris-Suzuki,T.(1995).Theinventionandreinventionof“Japaneseculture.”The Journal of Asian Studies, 54(3),

759–780.

OECD/CERI.(2005).Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms.Paris:CERI/OECD.

Pintrich,P.R.,&Zusho,A. (2002).Thedevelopment of academic self-regulation:The role of cognitive and

motivationalfactors.InA.Wigfield&J.S.Eccles(Eds.),Development of achievement motivation(pp.250–284).

SanDiego:AcademicPress.

Pollard,A.(2002).Readings for reflective teaching.London,UK:Continuum.

Prior, J.,&Crossouard,B. (2008).A socio-cultural theorization of formative assessment.Oxford Review of

Education, 34(1).1–20.

Purdie,N.,&Hattie, J. (1996).Culturaldifferences in theuseofstrategies forself-regulated learning.American

Educational Research Journal, 33(4),845–871.

Purdie,N.,Hattie,J.,&Douglas,G. (1996)Studentconceptionsoflearningandtheiruseofself-regulatedlearning

strategies:Acrossculturalcomparison.Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1),87–100.

Putney,L.,&Broughton,S. (2011).Developingcollectiveclassroomefficacy:The teacher’s roleascommunity

organizer.Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1),93–105.

Rogoff,B.(2003).Theculturalnatureofhumandevelopment.NY:OUP.

Salamone,J.,&Correa,M.(2012).Themysteriousmotivationalfunctionsofmesolimbicdopamine.Neuron, 76,470–

485.doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.021

Sawayanagi,M.(1925)Japan.Teachers College Record, 1(1),285–308.

Scriven,M.(1989).Evaluation thesaurus.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Shields,J. (2009).Sacred architecture, religious traditions and education in Japan.PaperpresentedattheAnnual

ConferenceoftheComparativeandInternationalEducationSociety.Toronto,Ontario,Canada.

Schilbach,L.(2014).Ontherelationshipofonlineandofflinesocialcognition.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8,

278.doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00278

Schön,D.(1987).Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

ScottishGovernment. (2011).Curriculum for excellence: Building the curriculum 5 a framework for learning and

teaching.Edinburgh,UK:ScottishGovernment.Retrievedfromhttp://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/

BtC5Framework_tcm4-653230.pdf

Sebba,J. (2012).Policyandpracticeinassessmentforlearning:TheexperienceofselectedOECDcountries.InJ.

Gardner(Ed.),Assessment and learning(pp.157–170).London,UK:Sage.

Shinkawa,M.,&Arimoto,M.(2012).ResearchforJapanese-likecompetencyandassessmentthroughchallengesof

eagerschools forsustainabilityafterthegreatearthquakeandtsunami. International Journal of Sustainable

Development, 3,61–69.

Shulman,L.(2005).Signaturepedagogiesintheprofessions.Daedalus,134,52–59.

Stanley,G.,MacCann,R.,Gardner,J.,Reynolds,L.,&Wild,I.(2009).Review of teacher assessment: Evidence of what

―　　―62


works best and issues for development.CentreforEducationalAssessment;OxfordUniversity.

Stiggins,R. (2007).Conquering the formativeassessment frontier. InH.McMillan (Ed.),Formative classroom

assessment: Theory into practice(pp.8–28).NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Stigler,J.,&Hiebert,J.(1999).Teaching gap.NewYork:TheFreePress.

Takahashi,A. (2008).Neriage: An essential piece of a problem-based lesson. Teaching through problem solving: A

Japanese approach.Paperpresented at theAnnual conference of theNationalCouncil ofTeachers of

Mathematics.SaltLakeCity,UT.

Takanashi,Y. (2004).TEFLandcommunicationstyles inJapaneseculture.Language Culture and Curriculum,

17(1),1–14.

Tiknaz,Y.,&Sutton,A. (2006).Exploringtheroleofassessmenttaskstopromote formativeassessment inKey

Stage3geography:Evidencefromtwelveteachers.Assessment in Education, 13(3),327–343.

Vogel,Ezra.(1979).Japan as number one: Lessons for America.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress.

Vogt,F.,&Rogalla,M.(2009).Developingadaptiveteachingcompetencythroughcoaching.Teaching and Teacher

Education, 25(8),1015–1060.

Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).Mind in Society.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Walker,R. (2010).Sociocultural issues inmotivation. InP.Peterson,E.Baker,B.McGaw (Eds.), International

encyclopedia of education(pp.712–717).Oxford:Elsevier.

Wenger,E.(1998).Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversity

Press.

Willis,J.(2010).Assessmentforlearningasaparticipativepedagogy.Assessment Matters,2,65–84.

William,D.(2007).Keepinglearningontrack:classroomassessmentandtheregulationoflearning.InFrank,K.,&

Lester,Jr.,(Eds)Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics(pp.1053–1098),Charlotte,NC:IAP.

William,D.(2011).Whatisassessmentforlearning?Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37,3–14.

William,D.,&Leahy,S. (2007).Atheoretical foundation for formativeassessment. InJamesH.McMillan (Ed.),

Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice(pp.29–42).NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity.

Wolfe,S.,&Alexander,R.J. (2008).Argumentation and dialogic teaching: alternative pedagogies for a changing

world.London,UK:Futurelab.http://www.robinalexander.org.uk/docs/wolfealexander.pdf

Wood,D.J.,Bruner,J.S.,&Ross,G.(1976).Theroleoftutoringinproblemsolving.Journal of Child Psychiatry and

Psychology, 17(2),89–100.

Wray,H. (1999). Japanese and American education: Attitudes and practices.Westport,Connecticut:Bergin&

Garvey.

Yoshida,M.(1999).Lesson study: A case study of a Japanese approach to improving instruction through school-based

teacher development.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofChicago.

Zimmerman,B.J.,&Pons,M.M.(1986).Developmentofastructuredinterviewforassessingstudentuseofself-

regulatedlearningstrategies.American Educational Research Journal, 23(4),614–628.

Documents

Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment - JAfLNjafln.com/wp-content/uploads/toh-edu-ann-2015-1-41.pdf · ... , termed formative assessment, is a classroom ... how classroom