Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper examines recent reforms in English-language testing in Japan using a policy distraction framework. We identify the term ‘washback (effect)’ and other related discourses as major distractors and investigate how ‘washback’ discourses have functioned as political slogans or catchphrases in policy deliberation processes and how they have diverted attention and resources from more essential issues. By analyzing advisory panel minutes and other policy documents, we demonstrate how policy distraction operates. Some committee members initially introduced ‘washback’ discourse in a deliberation meeting, citing studies on language testing. However, this discourse quickly became a political slogan, transforming into a dubious rationale for advocating the use of commercial four-skills English tests in university entrance exams. This ‘washback’ discourse led to policy distraction and the overlooking of more significant issues, such as class size reduction and the improvement of teachers’ working conditions. Additionally, our analysis reveals underlying factors triggering this distraction, including Japanese ideological views on English education and budgetary austerity in education. We discuss the political and pedagogical implications of these findings, particularly regarding the identification of political distractions, their potential threat to teacher agency, and strategies for addressing and correcting these distractions to facilitate social change.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.