Higher education In Japan

“Mythbusters” series.

I have earlier shared some of the delights of teaching at university in Japan.  I share more today not only to bust some of the enduring myths of the place, but to also check to see if it is I who retain my  sanity while all I work with have lost theirs or the reverse.   

Let’s start with the following which I cut and paste from an email received today, a Friday before a long extended holiday.  “It” is an oral English exam.

“We endeavour to standardise it and make it appropriate for each proficiency level.”

To me, this is mutually exclusive, but I have back ground information.  Without back ground information, is having standardized oral exams consistent with making them appropriate for differing proficiency levels?  I think it is mutually exclusive given what standardized testing is, there should be tests standardized (if they must be) for each proficiency level, not one standardized test for all levels.  Am I wrong?

Now I ask, beg really, you to consider some of the back story and then to reassess “We endeavour to standardise it and make it appropriate for each proficiency level.”.

This medical school has students of a broad spectrum of English language ability despite the entrance exam.  In part, this is due to the fact that a large number of students are admitted each year based upon recommendations only, no testing required.  Additionally, the make up of the student body influences this disparity.   I have in the past had students who scored high enough on English proficiency tests that they can teach the language here in Japan.  Indeed, some of my students have taught English at cram schools while attending class at the med school.  Others have been returnees who have spent their entire education in the US, UK or NZ and are thus fluent in English for a person of their age.  Through elective course geared for those of lower proficiency, I have taught some of those students too.  Capable for their level, they are not native level as many of my compulsory course students are.

Since before I started at this school, 20 years ago this Fall, they have always used the same textbook for all levels of classes.  As each teacher was given the freedom to adopt, cut and add as appropriate for their classes, this was never a problem.  However, this year which is the second year of in person instruction after three online, we are suddenly to teach all classes the exact same, and test them the same while also providing additional materials that suit the differing proficiency levels, a mutually exclusive set of goals I have shared with you before.

Today’s email tasks us with commenting on the syllabus for the Fall semester.  The syllabus for the last semester was changed at least two times after planning was completed and once after all the grades were in.  The following is from an email received on the 29th of last month, grades were due on the 7th of the same for reference.

“I am very sorry to bother you again in the summer holiday, but I need to inform you that the original ratio between Review Test 1 and Review Test 2 was 20 points to 20 points.

So the scores for Review Test 1 you gave us were originally given out of 20 points. 

However, due to some issues during the first trial of Review Test 1, I have made a slight adjustment to the ratio (for all teachers).  

The new ratio is as follows:

Review Test 1: Review Test 2 = 10 points : 30 points. We need to adjust them to reflect the new ratio. 

I hope you don’t mind this. “

The students are obsessed with how they are to be assessed and we are told that the complaints from students and their parents are what is driving all this madness; rather trying to give them nothing to complain about is the driving force. How is changing the grading system twice during and once after the semester ended going to quell complaints of unfairness?

This situation is in no way unique to this school.  Every university has had many of the same, similar and each their own unique bizarreness.  Whether it is a Liberal Arts school, Engineering or Medical, they generally do not live up to the image those outside the country have of Japanese education system.

Now that I have provided some back ground, is the statement in today’s email, “We endeavour to standardise it and make it appropriate for each proficiency level.”, giving us mutually exclusive goals as I believe it is, or am I missing something?