Major Teacher Reforms in Japan

• In Event: A Cross-National Examination of Knowledge, Policy, and Practice in Learning to Teach: Part I

Abstract

1. Objectives or purposes

Japanese teacher education largely takes place “on the job” (Shimahara and Sakai 1995; Howe 2005) with a highly institutionalized set of professional development practices resulting in a core of widely shared, and effective, instructional strategies (Lewis and Tsuchida 1997; Linn, Lewis et al. 2000). Compared to other nations, Japanese teachers have maintained far greater control over their own professional development, and university-based teacher education has played a small role (Shimahara, 2002). Over time, the national government moved to assert more control over teachers and teacher education with a series of certification reforms spanning from 1983-2012. In this paper I analyze these major reforms.

2. Perspective or Theoretical Framework

Following a neo-institutional framework, the changes in Japan represent a long-term battle for control over valid “teaching” knowledge between the state, teachers and academe, with universities playing a surprisingly passive role. From the 1960-1980s, teachers developed a significant body of pedagogical knowledge and training practices were systematized into an ongoing set of professional development experiences. This erosion of control over what counts as valid knowledge or skills in teaching, means that universities now carry a burden on providing empirically based practices that they are ill-suited to carry out, and they have responded by turning to teachers to incorporate professional development (Akiba 2013).

3. Methods, techniques or modes of inquiry

I review national Japanese policy materials from the Ministry of Education (1980-2015) using four questions as foci: How are effective teaching practices defined? What groups or organizations (e.g. universities) are acknowledged as legitimate sources of valid knowledge on teaching practice? Is there reference to empirical studies, particularly those that focus on pedagogical content knowledge? What types of teacher evaluation or testing mechanisms, if any, have been proposed?

4. Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials

Policy documents and scholarly analysis of teacher-related reforms (in Japanese and English).

5. Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view

University-based teacher education was largely written off for much of the post-war period. Shimara (1998) described the contribution of universities to teacher’s professional development as “quite limited.” More recently, Akiba found that universities were successful in implementing license-based reforms precisely because they incorporated practices and procedures already used in district or regional “lesson study.” She argues that universities turned to this “boundary practice” as a way to access valid knowledge and gain legitimacy among teachers. The universities, facing their own crises during this period (Eades, Goodman et al. 2005), have failed to advance a cohesive view of pedagogical content knowledge or even basic pedagogy.

6. Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work

This study highlights an often overlooked dimension in teacher preparation: the relative strength of university-based versus professional-based learning. The case of Japanese teachers highlights the key role of teacher-led mentoring and professional development. University-based teacher education in Japan has played a much smaller role in advancing pedagogical content knowledge than in other nations, and provides alternative models for how we seek to understand where and how teaching-knowledge is generated.

Author

• Gerald K. LeTendre, The Pennsylvania State University