Implications of Summative and Formative Assessment in Japan – A Review of the Current Literature

Jennifer Ngan Bacquet

Abstract


My personal experience as a teacher in Japan has raised questions about the usefulness of both summative and formative assessment, the possible benefits of non-traditional approaches to classroom instruction, and the influence of assessment measures in the success of Japanese students. For instance, the use of collaborative, inquiry, task or project-based learning in Japanese high schools is nearly non-existent because of the structure of government-led educational standards, which mostly focus on preparing students for university entrance examinations. By critically looking at the latest existing literature on the uses and impact of assessment in Japanese education, this paper aims to further contribute to the discussion on the topic by elucidating possible implications for teachers and researchers who are interested in the context of Japan or similar educational settings. This paper also attempts to look at Japan’s current educational practices and how cultural tradition is woven into the integration of teaching philosophy.

Keywords


Educational Models, Formative Assessment, Japan, Non-Traditional Education, Summative Assessment

Full Text:

PDF

References


Amano, I. (1992). The Bright and Dark Sides of Japanese Education. RSA Journal, 140(5425), 119–128.

Andrade, H. and Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting Learning and Achievement through Self-Assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 12-19.

Benesse Education Research and Development Institute, (2009). Opinion, Survey, Research. Retrieved on 10 December 2019 from https://berd.benesse.jp/english/Opinion_Survey_Research

Biggs, J. B. (Ed.) (1996). Testing: to educate or to select? Education in Hong Kong at the crossroads. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Educational Publishing Co.

Black, P. & William, D. (2006). Assessment and Classroom Learning, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.

Boston, C. (2002). The Concept of Formative Assessment, Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8(1), 1-6.

Butcher, J. (2014). Can tablet computers enhance learning in further education? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(2), 207–226.

Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing And Undermining Intrinsic Motivation: The Effects Of Task-Involving And Ego-Involving Evaluation On Interest And Performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 1-14.

Canfield, M. L., Kivisalu, T. M., Karr, C. V. D., King, C., & Phillips, C. E. (2015). The Use of Course Grades in the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for General Education, SAGE Open, 5(4), 1-13.

Carless, D. (2011). From Testing to Productive Student Learning: Implementing Formative Assessment in Confucian Heritage Settings. New York: Routledge.

Daşkın, N. C., & Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2019). Reference to a past learning event as a practice of informal formative assessment in L2 classroom interaction. Language Testing, 36(4), 527–551.

de Jong, N., Savin-Baden, M., & Cunningham, A.M. (2014). Blended learning in health education: three case studies, Perspectives on Medical Education, 3, 278–288.

Forsythe, E. (2015). Improving Assessment in Japanese University EFL Classes: A Model for Implementing Research-Based Language Assessment Practices, 21st Century Education Forum, 10, 65-72.

Elshout-Mohr, M. (1994). Feedback in Self-Instruction. European Education, 26(2), 58–73.

Gikas, J. & Grant, M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media, The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18-26.

Guo, L. (2011). Research of Confucianism Education Method in Chinese College Students Ideological and Political Education, Scientific Research: Creative Education, 7(7), 1051-1055.

Han, M. & Yang, X. (2001). Educational Assessment in China: Lessons from History and Future Prospects, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 8(1), 5–10.

Hattie, B. & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 99-113.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1988). The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth, Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5–21.

Irons, A. (2008). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and Feedback, New York, NY: Routledge.

Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online Vs. Blended Learning: Differences in Instructional Outcomes and Learner Satisfaction. Online Learning, 11(2), 27-42.

Lok, B., Mcnaught, C., & Young, K. (2015). Criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments: compatibility and complementarity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 450–465.

Kimura, T., Iso, H., Honjo, K., Ikehara, S., Sawada, N., Iwasaki, M. (2016). Educational Levels and Risk of Suicide in Japan: The Japan Public Health Center Study (JPHC) Cohort I, Journal of Epidemiology, 26(6), 315-331.

Kuramoto, N. & Koizumi, R. (2016). Current issues in large-scale educational assessment in Japan: focus on national assessment of academic ability and university entrance examinations, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(4), 415-433

Kyei-Blankson, L. N. E., Kyei-Blankson, L., & Ntuli, E. (2014). Practical applications and experiences in K-12 blended learning environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Maruyama, F. (2018). Education Reform and Social Class in Japan: The Emerging Incentive Divide, Education Reform and Social Class in Japan’, Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, 8(1), 169-171.

Mestenhauser, J. (1983). Learning from sojourners. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of

intercultural training. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2016). Chapter 3: Measures to be implemented comprehensively and systematically for the next five years Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/lawandplan/title01/detail01/sdetail01/1373812.htm

Mori, I. (2014). Trends in Socioeconomic Achievement Gap in Japan: Implications for Educational Inequality, American Sociological Association Annual Meeting 15 August 2014.Available at http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p721872_index.html

Mork, C. (2014). Benefits of using online student response systems in Japanese EFL classrooms, Japanese Association of Language Teaching (JALT), 10(2), 127-137.

National Center on Education and the Economy (2011) Figure 1. Retrieved from shorturl.at/aAMUY

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2008). Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy, OECD Headquarters, Paris, on 15-16 May 2008.

Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87–100.

Riley, R. W., Takai, R. T., & Conaty, J. C. (1998). Educational system in Japan: Case study findings. National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/JapanCaseStudy/index.html

Roux, P. W., Matsuba, R., Goda, Y., & Suzuki, K. (2018). Developing Cultural Intelligence (CQ): Designs for Blended Learning. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 12(1), 18–28.

Şahin, M. (2019). Classroom Response Systems as a Formative Assessment Tool: Investigation into Students’ Perceived Usefulness and Behavioural Intention. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 693–705

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives on curriculum evaluation (Vol. 1, 39-83). Chicago: Rand McNally. AERA

Tong, SYA, & Adamson, B. (2015). Student voices in school-based assessment. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 15-28.Usuda, S. (2013). Implementing Rubrics as Formative Assessment in English Writing Classes in Japan (MA Dissertation). University of Northern British Columbia. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84873041.pdf

Wicking, P. (2020). Formative assessment of students from a Confucian heritage culture: Insights from Japan, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 180-192.

Xerri, D., & Briffa, V. (2019). Teacher Involvement in High-Stakes Language Testing. Cham: Springer

Yusoff, S., Yusoff, R. & Md Noh, N. H. (2017). Blended Learning Approach for Less Proficient Students, SAGE Open, 7(3), 1-8.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.8n.2p.28

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2020 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies  

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.