EXPRESAMENTE RECHAZAN CUALQUIER GARANTÍA DE

Watanabe (2004) describes the Japanese university entrance examination as “an emotionally charged issue” (p. 126). Indeed, entrance exams are generally seen as the defining

measurement of student success. Watanabe also claims that a grammar translation method of teaching is prevalent due to factors such as the university entrance exams. Gorsuch (2000) identifies the entrance exams as an “institution in Japanese education” (p. 7). At the same time, she outlines that apart from the “Centre Exam”, these exams are not created by or under the scope of influence of MEXT, but are instead the creation of public and private

guidelines for studying foreign languages; nevertheless, these exams have a huge impact on Japanese media (Nishino and Watanabe, 2008) and the public perception of educational goals. According to Gorsuch (2000), teachers therefore feel they need to prepare students for exams. Referencing Cohen and Spillane (1992), who claim that university entrance exams are an essential element of instructional guidance, she feels that entrance exams create the main target of school language instruction. This sentiment is echoed by Mulvey (2010), who claims that entrance exams have long served as an important source of objective evaluation in Japan, “ensuring a level of quality control (however inadequately)” (p. 18). The Chuuo Kyouiku Shingikai (Central Education Council, 1999) states that despite changes in the teaching of language instruction by MEXT, a number of high-school educators continue to hold the opinion that unless entrance exams to universities are changed, the curriculum itself cannot be changed.

In my own context, this habitual perception of the importance of summative testing also prevails, albeit with the entrance exam now switching to a focus on receptive tests such as TOEIC, which rely heavily on grammatical knowledge and contain no productive speaking elements. Law (1995) claims that teachers are focusing instruction on students’ linguistic knowledge rather than their linguistic skills. The high value placed on university entrance exams therefore preserves an approach that favours grammar translation. Although MEXT guidelines appear to call for alternative methodologies, the strong influence of assessment procedures on public, teacher and student perceptions means that in reality (in the classroom), very little change has taken place in teaching practices since the guidelines of the 1960s. A key element in the prevalence of grammar translation methods in teaching practice in Japan therefore seems attributable to the assessment system. However, a change in the assessment system is not entirely impossible: the Central Education Council states that changes are being made in the entrance examination system, and have been for some time. Mulvey (2010) also claims that as the number of test applicants in Japan, with its rapidly falling birth rate,

continues to decrease, the entire system of entrance examinations will have to change. Mulvey explains that the number of applicants applying for university is beginning to equal the break-even point for financial stability, thus rendering the entrance examinations futile: in other words, all applicants are accepted in university courses.

2.3.5.1 Alternative forms of assessment

According to Davison and Leung (2009), teacher-based assessment has become

institutionally adopted in a number of education systems across the globe; including Asian contexts such as Hong Kong, China and Singapore, where assessment for learning procedures has become supported by policy. Hill and Sabet (2009) conducted a study in Japan involving speaking assessments that utilized “Dynamic Assessment”: the results suggested significant cumulative improvement in learners’ speaking performance. Ishihara (2009), also in Japan, considered that there was potential for using teacher-based assessment to develop learners’ productive skills in communication. However, the widespread adoption of assessment for learning practice has not enjoyed the same institutional recognition in Japan as in other Asian countries.

In Japan, summative assessment procedures such as university entrance exams, or TOEIC, remain the primary recognized measurement of student achievement (Cohen and Spillane, 1999; Mulvey, 2010; Watanabe, 2004). As previously stated, attempts by MEXT to address this situation in 2004 (Takayama, 2008), by introducing learner-centred

methodologies, were abandoned as “misguided”. This does not, however, mean that there is no future for these assessment procedures in Japan beyond individual teachers. Takayama (2008) points out the homogenizing effect of the PISA rankings and the strong regional competitiveness Japan holds with high-ranking PISA nations such as Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Since these regions have adopted policy-supported assessment for learning procedures, and have performed well in PISA rankings, factors such as homogeneity and

regional competitiveness, which Takayama (2008) describes as being highly influential on educational policy, may compel Japan to follow suit. The Central Education Council (1999) claims that changes to the entrance examination system have been under way for some time. Mulvey (2010) predicts that changes are inevitable, due to rapidly falling admission rates for universities, which make the entrance examinations redundant.

Adoption of assessment for learning practices does not necessarily entail abandoning traditional Japanese assessment procedures, or creating a dichotomy between summative and formative assessment, but rather requires integrating them with new methods. Black (2009) argues that assessment for learning practice can provide a formative use of summative assessment tasks by treating them as an occasion for formative feedback. This can be done via peer or self-assessment activities that require students to think about the purposes of the work to be tested, or mark each other’s test responses, in order to focus attention on criteria of quality. Kennedy et al. (2006) argue that the polarization of formative and summative assessment is not useful, and that we should look at summative assessment methods as productive learning opportunities. Davison (2008) prescribes summative assessment as an integral part of assessment for learning in the classroom, providing that results are used formatively to guide future learning and syllabus design. He promotes summative tests at different stages of a syllabus, from a level focused on criteria that help students decide what to do next, conducted by students and peers themselves, to system-wide published scales and standards, and formal tests. Therefore, if implemented correctly, assessment for learning could provide opportunities to achieve an assessment methodology that complements existing practices in Japan, rather than offering an alternative or contrasting view.