[Feature: The Future of Digital Education] Kazuhisa Fujimoto: Classroom Practices Visualized by the Progress of the GIGA School Program

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

What is "proactive, interactive, and deep learning"? If we try reversing these phrases, the sense of urgency in the current reforms of curricula and educational methods becomes clear. If it is not proactive, it is objective, heteronomous, or 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 what happens in traditional classroom spaces conveys a poignant critical awareness: are classes becoming normalized where students blindly follow the sequence of the Academic Advisory Board's guidelines or authorized textbooks, proceeding only through one-sided lectures by the teacher or, at best, a dialogue between the teacher and individual children?

That said, even without the educational administration pointing it out, 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" simply failed to materialize due to various factors.

In the midst of envisioning learning where understanding of educational content deepens while agency and individuality are demonstrated or reshaped through dialogue with others, the current classroom situation is one where the symbolic device of the tablet has been introduced. Schools are bewildered by its diverse nature—is it a tool (teaching aid), a new teaching material in itself, or "spectacles" that provide us with a new field of vision?

In this short essay, I would like to introduce what exactly is happening as teachers in schools attempt to overcome traditional lecture-style teaching through trial and error toward "proactive, interactive, and deep learning," following the introduction of tablet devices. 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.

As "dialogue" becomes 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 their opinions will be written on the blackboard along with their nameplates. Few children wish to spend energy on the task of 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 are instead self-obsessed and self-defensive. Contrary to the children's thoughts, the characteristic of this type of lesson is the creation of rich and beautiful writing on the blackboard; once all opinions are out, everyone spends the allotted time copying the blackboard into their notebooks.

However, with tablet devices, the task of visualizing others' opinions is completed in an "instant"—literally in seconds. The opinions, thoughts, and ideas of children that used to take tens of minutes to list on the blackboard—requiring hands to be raised and time for presentations to the whole class—are now listed instantly 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 group (opinion consolidation) to the whole class (listing and organizing)?

Of course, it is an undeniable fact that it was precisely within the temporal margin of non-instant analog time that students organized their thoughts, caught up, or transformed their thinking. As the group size expands, the probability of encountering diverse minority opinions also increases. Moreover, since such interactions unfold with the facial expressions and tones of voice of peers, it cannot be denied that this was a time that increased the depth of understanding 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 that previously appeared to be the "core" or "climax" of the lesson in a semi-habitual way will recede significantly.

The listing of diverse opinions on the blackboard (electronic blackboard or tablet) was, in many subjects and units, merely a "starting point" from which dialogue involving scrutiny was supposed to begin. ICT technology prepares us for that, and those gathered in the classroom may become able to engage in dialogue without missing the right moment.

Learning within the classroom finds its meaning in the presence of "others." However, as the time spent on tasks and browsing on tablets increases, the intersection of gazes and lines of conversation with others decreases. It is not hard to imagine that the significance of others being physically nearby is becoming diluted. Despite being in an environment where it is easier to access knowledge on the wide internet than the ideas of nearby peers, the current situation is that many operations are actually being 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 performed 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 accustomed 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 evident that the traditional tripartite relationship between teacher, child, and teaching material is being shaken by the suppression stemming from such (natural) caution held by teachers.

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

For example, in a classroom working on Kenji Miyazawa's "Yamanashi" (6th grade elementary school Japanese), it is very common for children's free imagination to expand regarding the "Clambon" that appears on the first page, and for their murmurs about what it might be to be turned into a "goal" for the class to examine 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 development have been "common examples" due to children who have already studied ahead at Juku, but the same phenomenon occurring through internet access far exceeds the level of simply appearing "tasteless" to the instructor.

First, it cannot be overlooked that the trust in the knowledge constructed by the teacher may decline 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 that are induced and habituated by it.

In observations this spring (2021), there were many classrooms where the flow of the lesson became "decisive" due to 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 classmates. 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 spirit of inquiry for facing unknown or complex things are diminishing.

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

The discourse promoting media literacy—that appropriately selecting from the vast amount of information while freely accessing the internet is also 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 originally no room for appropriate selection or scrutiny of information. How can teachers bring about trust in knowledge collaboratively created with others in the classroom and expectations for creative development?

There has always been a certain tension 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 with each other 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 privacy of the device display is an environment that is essentially non-existent, but it is a fact that there is a sense of discomfort or caution regarding something being exchanged secretly in places invisible to the teacher's eye (it is also a fact that tragic incidents have occurred due to malicious posts invisible to teachers).

It is surprising to realize that while "dialogue" with others is so loudly advocated, it was assumed that everything should occur within the range that the teacher can grasp. This relates to the teacher's view of evaluation, but the background is a strong belief held by teachers that they need to grasp (as much as possible) all matters concerning children surrounding learning, not just within 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 it rather healthy for mutual realizations and difficulties to be flying around with specific names and recipients, whether physically in the classroom or on tablets?

The way children spend time murmuring 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, it is now possible to 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; it means entering a task accompanied by the tension of being exposed to public view. We need to pay close 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 children's screens can clearly read who is trying to look at whose opinion and whose opinion they are disregarding. Most opinions are swiped away with 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 by). In other words, even if listed, there is no indiscrimination like looking at writing on a blackboard; it becomes 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 deepens "proactive and interactive" learning.

The discourse that ICT equipment such as tablets should be seen as merely tools (teaching aids, sometimes stationery) to supplement analog lessons remains influential. However, it is a fact that they are "tools" that already possess functions far exceeding the framework of replacement functions for notebooks and blackboards, and are giving new directions to the learning experience. Tablet devices have sufficient capacity to even perform "service proxy" for intellectual inquiry and problem-solving, and they are currently in a state of being blocked so as not to 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 resort to restricting 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 even within the previous physical environment, and they resided precisely 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 separated by seating) while a mixture of good and bad knowledge tempts them more than teachers or peers, and the meaning of discoveries that depend on contingency generated in the classroom. For some reason, there is a preconception in schools that the key phrase "proactive, interactive, and deep learning" is somehow incompatible with the advocacy of 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.