Purpose of the Research Project

Purpose of this study is to find categories for the conceptions of failure that the students and teachers mention in both countries and to compare the numbers of mentions in order to show different weightings and their meaning for learning processes in. Our main research question is: Are there differences between Germany and Japan regarding conceptions of failure?

Theoretical Framework

Academic and cultural differences between Germany and Japan

In most of the Federal States of Germany, students undergo a relatively early selection process. After the 4th grade, there is a tracking into three different types of school: Hauptschule, Realschule and Gymnasium. At the end of the 4th grade, parents can ask the class teacher to issue a recommendation for a specific kind of secondary school. This recommendation is based on the marks of the main subjects like mathematics, German and social studies, as well as on the appraisal of the social behaviour, learning behaviour and work habits. An important point is that the German school system is permeable, which means that students can switch between the different types of secondary schools after each year if they show certain competences (especially good marks).

In Japanese school system there is nearly no between-class ability grouping during the compulsory education for nine years.

Even in schools there is no external form of performance differentiation.

Any external form of differentiation is rejected because it provides social and emotional damage to the pupils with learning difficulties.

It is generally known in Japan that the results of entrance exams for universities are very important for students’ future career. The importance of school success determines the behavior of Japanese students and their parents: Students learn more intense and more persistent than students of the same age in Germany and they are intensively supported by their parents, i.e. by funding private lessons at a cram school (Juku).

Empirical research on cultural differences between western and eastern countries focus on the different role of school in society (i.e. Sakurai, 2007). One finding is that Japanese students are encouraged to study by their parents even if their teachers are not very motivated (i.e. Ichikawa 1990). In German school system there are selection processes during and between each academic year. In Japan however, the school itself has no function of selection as this is linked to entrance examinations (i.e. Schubert, 2001; 1992; Ichikawa, 1990).

Reusser et al. (1998) summarize main results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in which there were more than 230 lessons in mathematics recorded on video in Japan, Germany and in the USA. Comparative analyses (both quantitative and qualitative) showed serveral cultural differences in class between the three countries: The aspiration level regarding the content was the most distinct in Japan, followed by Germany and the USA. Mathematical terms and operations in German and Japanese classes were more often discussed whereas US-teachers more often explained and demonstrated them. During lessons in Germany and in the USA students mostly mastered exercise tasks, whereas Japanese students more often solved mathematical problems that were new to them. There were also differences in organization of lessons and in both teachers´ and students´ activities in class.

Crucial is how students deal with experiences of failure, i.e. (with a focus on mistakes as learning opportunities) in a positive way, or (with a focus on mistakes as deficiencies that should be hidden) in a negative way (i.e. Helmke, 2009; Oser & Spychiger, 2005).

There are no particular results to differences regarding exposure to failure between Japan and western countries to be found yet.

References Heinrich, M., Urban, M. & Werning, R. (2013). Grundlagen, Handlungsstrategien und Forschungsperspektiven für die Ausbildung und Professionalisierung von Fachkräften für inklusive Schulen. In: Döbert, H. & Weishaupt, H. (Hrsg.), Inklusive Bildung professionell gestalten. Situationsanalyse und Handlungsempfehlungen. Münster: Waxmann, 96–133. Helmke, A. (2009). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung. Seelze-Velber: Klett/Kallmeyer. Ichikawa, S. (1990). A Proposal for Comparative Study concerning Japanese Education. Comparative Education: Bulletin of the Japan Comparative Education Society, 16, 5-17. Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz. Oser, F. & Spychiger, M. (2005). Lernen ist schmerzhaft. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz. Reusser, K., Pauli, C., Zollinger, A. (1998). Mathematiklernen in verschiedenen Unterrichtskulturen - eine Videostudie im Anschluss an TIMSS. In: Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 16 (3), 427-438. Sakurai, K. (2007). Erscheinungsformen und Wahrnehmung von Gewalt bei Schülern und Schulverweigerung im deutsch-japanischen Vergleich. Frankfurt: Lang. Schubert, V. (2001). Lernkultur in Japan Pädagogische Arrangements und ihre Kontexte. Die Deutsche Schule, 93. Jg. H. 2, 228 241. Schubert, V. (1998). Kooperatives Lernen lernen? Zur Diskussion über das Bildungswesen in Japan. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik. 44. Jg., Nr. 3, S. 409. Schubert, V. (1992). Die Inszinierung der Harmonie Erziehung und Gesellschaft in Japan. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.