― ―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
� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1
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
Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment
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
� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1
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
Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment
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
� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1
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
Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment
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
� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1
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
Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment
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
� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1
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
Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment
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
� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1
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
Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment
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
� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1
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
Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment
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
� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1
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
Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment
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
� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1
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
Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment
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
� Annual�Bulletin,�Graduate�School�of�Education,�Tohoku�University�Volume�1
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
Cultural Perspectives on Classroom Assessment
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.