| Popis: |
This paper aims to examine critically the lesson improvements described in the Japanese Ministry of Education’s National Curriculum Standards revised in 2017. An analysis of the Ministry’s perception of what entails “proactive, interactive and authentic learning (syutaiteki taiwatekide fukaimanabi)” highlights problems with their revision. The documents of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and previous studies on the National Curriculum Standards were reviewed from the three perspectives: 1) the concept of “subjectivity” in “proactive learning (syutaiteki na manabi),” 2) the idea of “dialogue” in “interactive learning (taiwateki na manabi),” and 3) the structure of the relationship between “subjectivity” and “dialogue.” The resulting three points are suggested: 1) “Proactive learning” is a perspective that emphasizes “subjectivity” as being a student’s persistence, intention, and self-regulation as motivating factors that promote learning. However, “subjectivity,” which has long been valued in Japanese school education, is not a means to promote learning but rather an aspect of a students’ personality. “Subjectivity” itself must be respected without replacing it as one means of promoting learning. 2) “Interactive learning” is the perspective which emphasizes student interaction through dialogue, but does not explain how dialogue can encourage student interaction and develop their thought and expression. Lacking guidance, the method often secures activism and formalism in the lessons, rather than the intentional interaction. Interactional dialogue occurs when students consider the content of their learning as a problem that cannot be left unaddressed and relate to each other as problem-solvers. 3) The “subject” and “dialogue,” which are essentially unified, are viewed in a bifurcated manner as an end-means relationship, which is increasingly the case in current educational policies. Educators should be reminded of the evidence from Bakhtin’s and Vygotsky’s theories that suggest that “proactive learning” is realized when “dialogue” comes first, and that “interactive learning” is established on the premise that the student who participates in learning is involved as a “subject.” In this sense, “proactive learning” and “interactive learning” are essentially unified structures, a point that should not be overlooked when forming policy and promoting practice. |
