[Special Feature: The Future of Digital Education] Kazuhisa Fujimoto: Classroom Practices Visualized Through the Progress of GIGA Schools

2021/11/05

The GIGA School Program, promoted by the government, is now permeating public elementary and junior high schools. Tablet devices are present on many children's desks in class, almost like a piece of stationery. While we must note that the progress of digital education accelerated rapidly under the pandemic, I would like to focus on the fact that it is occurring amidst the promotion of "proactive, interactive, and deep learning."

What is "proactive, interactive, and deep learning"? Reversing these phrases reveals the sense of urgency in the current reforms of curricula and educational methods. If it is not proactive, it is objective, heteronomous, and forced; if it is not interactive, it is monological, one-way, or "chat-like"; and if it is not "deep," it is "shallow." Whether something forced, one-way, and shallow can still be called learning is unclear, but a critical awareness comes through: are traditional classroom spaces merely following the sequences of the Academic Advisory Board or authorized textbooks blindly, with lessons progressing only through one-way lectures or, at best, Q&A between the teacher and individual children?

That said, even without being pointed out by educational administrators, schools have always had a sense of the problem and a desire to "do something about it." It is likely that "proactive, interactive, and deep learning" has simply been difficult to achieve due to various factors.

In the midst of envisioning learning where agency and individuality are expressed or reshaped through problem-solving via dialogue with others, deepening the understanding of educational content, a symbolic device—the tablet—was suddenly introduced. Schools are currently bewildered by its diverse nature: is it a tool (teaching aid), a new teaching material in itself, or "glasses" that provide us with a new perspective?

In this short essay, I would like to introduce what is happening as tablets are introduced to school teachers who are trying to overcome traditional lecture-style teaching through trial and error toward "proactive, interactive, and deep learning." I believe there are things that can be visualized precisely because of the current timing. Therefore, rather than introducing examples of high-quality practices in new trends, I want to emphasize that the operational practices of lessons (practices) that were previously taken for granted, as well as the underlying views on evaluation and children, are now being called into question.

With "dialogue" as a keyword, scenes of active speech by children are praised, often appearing intensively in moments where diverse opinions and solutions are listed. Children compete to speak, hoping to see their names and opinions written on the blackboard. Few children wish to spend energy on examining or organizing the listed items. Ideally, the teacher hopes they will relativize these items and update their concepts, but in scenes where "various opinions and methods" are raised, individuals tend to be self-obsessed and self-defensive. Contrary to the children's thoughts, the characteristic of such lessons is the creation of rich and beautiful writing on the blackboard; once all opinions are out, everyone spends the allotted time transcribing the blackboard.

However, on a tablet, the task of visualizing others' opinions is processed in an "instant"—literally in seconds. The opinions, thoughts, and feelings of children that used to take tens of minutes to list on the blackboard—requiring hand-raising and time for presentations to the class—are instantly listed on tablet screens via learning support apps. Why have we spent so much time on such "scenes" until now? Furthermore, why have we made children repeat the exchange of opinions on the same "question" multiple times while subtly changing the group size from individual (independent solving) to small groups (opinion consolidation) and then the whole class (listing and organizing)?

Of course, it is an undeniable fact that organizing, catching up, or transforming one's own thoughts occurred precisely because of the analog time buffer that was not "instant." As group size expands, the probability of encountering diverse minority opinions also increases. It is also indisputable that such interactions, unfolding with the facial expressions and tones of voice of peers, served as a time to deepen the understanding of others. However, now that listing others' opinions has become so easy and it is possible to move on to the next (other) task, activity, or thought, it is inevitable that the parts previously seen as the "core" or "climax" of a lesson—half-habitualized—will recede significantly.

The listing of diverse opinions on a blackboard (electronic or tablet) is, in many subjects and units, merely a "starting point," from which dialogue involving scrutiny should begin. ICT technology prepares us for this, and perhaps those gathered in the classroom will be able to avoid missing the right moment for dialogue.

Learning in the classroom has meaning because "others" are there (present and necessary). However, as time spent on tablet tasks and browsing increases, the intersection of gazes and lines of conversation with others decreases, and it is not hard to imagine a thinning of the meaning of others being physically nearby. Despite being in an environment where it is easier to access knowledge on the wide internet than the ideas of nearby peers, the reality is that many operations are artificially suppressed by teachers.

Of course, since standard parental lock functions are active, it must be said that usage is quite restricted from the start. In addition to internet access, online communication between children (including file exchanges) cannot be done without the permission of the administrator (the teacher). Some children are warned that "the Curriculum Advisory Committee is monitoring where and when you access," and for children who own private devices and are used to handling them, the devices lent by the school likely appear as equivalents to the reference books or "math sets" distributed at school.

It is visible that the traditional three-way relationship between teacher, child, and teaching material is wavering due to the suppression stemming from such (natural) wariness held by teachers.

Free access to the internet during class may appear as a direct threat to teachers. Of course, it involves restricting access to harmful sites, but more than that, there is a danger in the blurring of the outlines of "school knowledge."

For example, in a classroom working on Kenji Miyazawa's "Yamanashi" (6th grade elementary school Japanese), it is common for children's free imagination to expand regarding the "Clambon" appearing on the first page, and for their mutterings about what it might be to become the "goal" for the class's investigation in "today's lesson."

However, while they are exchanging ideas and interpretations, a boy types "the true identity of Clambon" into the search box of his tablet's browser. Just by doing that, numerous sites are suggested and various views are shown. "The theory that it's bubbles seems quite strong," he says. Such problems in lesson progression have been "common examples" due to children who have already studied ahead at a Juku, but the same phenomenon occurring through internet access far exceeds the meaning of simply appearing "tasteless" to the instructor.

First, it cannot be overlooked that the trust in the knowledge constructed by the teacher may decrease on the learner's side. I do not wish to praise the authority of the knowledge provided by the teacher; rather, I want to question what children are seeking authority in for knowledge and the learning attitudes induced and habitualized by that.

In observations this spring (2021), there were many classrooms where the flow of the lesson became "decisive" through decontextualized suggestions like "it said this on the internet," which easily surpassed textbooks, reference materials, the teacher's blackboard writing, and even the views of peers. In an era where the temporal distance between a question and an answer is short and answers can be obtained digitally, we can see an aspect where the tolerance and inquisitiveness to face uncertainty and complexity are diminishing.

If it is a "given question" within the scope of school knowledge, a certain "answer"—regardless of whether it is accurate or inaccurate—can always be found in cyberspace. There is a high possibility that activities will degenerate into mere proxy searches in response to the teacher's questions. From the child's perspective, the experience of pouring energy into a question in the classroom that can be "found" immediately by searching must be incredibly boring.

The discourse promoting media literacy—that appropriately selecting from a vast amount of information while accessing the internet freely is an important literacy—is of course correct, but it only functions when the original question is of high quality. Under static questions with stable correct answers, there is no room for appropriate selection or scrutiny of information to begin with. How can teachers bring about trust in knowledge created collaboratively with others in the classroom and expectations for creative developments?

Tension has always existed between the existence and systems of knowledge in the outside world and the construction of knowledge within the classroom, but with the internet spreading "at hand," that threat is now incomparable.

Tablet functions also include features for children to exchange comments in real-time or to disclose and share works only with specific people. However, as mentioned earlier, these functions are usually turned "off" by many teachers. For those who spend time physically close in the classroom, the confidentiality of the device display is an environment that is practically non-existent, yet it is a fact that there is a sense of discomfort or wariness about something being exchanged secretly out of the teacher's sight (it is also a fact that painful incidents have occurred due to malicious posts invisible to teachers).

It is surprising that while "dialogue" with others is so loudly advocated, it was assumed that everything should occur within the range the teacher can grasp. This relates to the teacher's view on evaluation, but the background is a strong belief held by teachers that they need to grasp (as much as possible) all matters concerning children regarding learning, even beyond the classroom. It could be said that this has visualized the fact that teachers' trust in children (or communication between children) was unexpectedly low. In the process of deepening knowledge during a lesson, isn't the sight of mutual realizations and difficulties flying around with specific names and recipients—whether physically or on a tablet—actually healthy?

The way children spend time muttering or directing comments at others' opinions while using tablets is no different from when they were writing on paper worksheets. However, because writing on a tablet worksheet is almost certainly based on the premise that it will be "published" later, we can observe them going through considerable revisions in their own way. In other words, writing on a tablet no longer means the stage of organizing one's own thoughts, but rather entering a task accompanied by the tension of being exposed to public view. We need to pay attention to the fact that the environment is becoming difficult for deep internal dialogue during individual work time.

Furthermore, although invisible to the teacher standing in front, a lesson observer standing where they can see the screens can clearly read whose opinions they are trying to see and whose opinions they are disregarding when viewing each other's opinions. Most opinions are swiped away at a glance, and their gaze stops on only a few opinions (which is why it has become easier to see "from behind" whose and what kind of opinions they are caught on). In other words, even if listed, there is no indiscrimination like looking at writing on a blackboard; it is becoming clear that they are facing others' opinions extremely "selectively." We must now practically confront the question of whether an environment where what touches their eyes is accompanied by extreme "directionality" is truly an environment that is "proactive and interactive" and deepens learning.

The discourse that ICT devices such as tablets should be seen as mere tools (teaching aids, sometimes stationery) to supplement analog lessons remains influential. However, they are "tools" that already possess functions far exceeding the framework of alternative functions for notebooks and blackboards, and it is a fact that they are giving a new directionality to the experience of learning. Tablet devices have sufficient capacity to even perform "service proxy" for intellectual inquiry and problem-solving, and we are currently in a state of blocking them so they do not run out of control.

I have no intention of denying the value of analog lessons; rather, I am convinced that situations where people face common tasks at a physically close distance or encounter new knowledge through direct experience remain deeply significant. Therefore, it is understandable that teachers instinctively rush to restrict tablet functions.

Could the appearance of this "tool" not serve as an opportunity to reflectively capture previous teaching activities, without hindering children's intellectual or collaborative inquiry through functional restrictions? As illustrated here, we cannot overlook the fact that brakes are being applied to individual ways of inquiry and understanding of knowledge (individualization of learning). Moreover, those brakes actually existed within the previous physical environment, rooted in the strong beliefs of the teachers.

I would like to re-examine the meaning of each child's thoughts being visualized and published, the meaning of learning with others who are here together (or connected online even if physically distant) while a mixture of high and low-quality knowledge tempts them more than teachers or peers, and the meaning of discoveries dependent on contingency generated in the classroom. There is somehow a preconception in schools that the key phrase "proactive, interactive, and deep learning" is incompatible with advocating learning through ICT (digital) devices. The acceleration of the latter does not crush the former; rather, it exposes the classroom practices that are the main cause of crushing the former.