English Edition
No. 16

February 2017

Report on Public Symposium “Active Learning and Teachersʼ Capability:
Talking on elementary school science”
regarded fundamentally as the same as the mode of
thinking of active learning.

From left to right, Prof. Hioki, Dr. Shimoikura and Prof. Ishii.

This yearʼs annual public symposium planned by the
Curriculum Center for Teachers was held on November
27, 2016, with the title “Active Learning and Teachersʼ
Capability: Talking on elementary school science.” Ourinitial intent at the planning stage was to try to regard
active learning as a problem of teachersʼ capability, as
well as to examine an issue of capability formation in
future teacher students. However, it was far too broad to
discuss. Therefore, we decided to narrow the subject
down to “elementary school” from a perspective of schoollevels and “science” in terms of subjects. I would like tointroduce some points in the lectures given by thefollowing three symposiasts.
Prof. Mitsuhisa Hioki, a specially appointed professor at
The University of Tokyo, made a suggestion under thetitle of “Active Learning and Elementary School Science.”
He pointed out that: (1) The course from the old-days“cramming and dropping out” through “careful selection
and pressure-free (yutori)” and a “zest for life” to theongoing course of study (of the 2008 version) was
organized. Particularly “utilization” has been hammeredout already as an element connecting the “acquisition” ofeach subject to “research” in comprehensive learning. A
mode of thinking leading to active learning, which is a hot
topic today, is included in it. (2) Problem-solving learningin science that has been provided is a cycle that starts
from concrete objects (nature) toward abstraction andverbalization, shares them, and looks at nature once morewith a new perspective and mode of thinking. This can be

Dr. Tomomi Shimoikura, a specially appointed lecturer at
Tokyo Gakugei University, delivered a speciﬁc report entitled“A Teacher Education Curriculum to Foster the Eﬀectivenessof Science Classrooms” based on classroom practice atuniversity and survey data. With regard to university students,
she demonstrated the following notions: The “conﬁdence togive guidance” cannot be improved even in the case in which
the depth of understanding of selected learning units has
been increased by incorporating experiments andobservations; students have a desire to learn “a little bit ofeverything”; according to previous surveys, even if
understanding is ensured, it is not directly linked to the“conﬁdence to teach.” Therefore, although teaching methods
themselves should be valued, ideally it is necessary to ensure
suﬃcient understanding of learning subjects before moving
on to the learning of teaching methods.
Prof. Masayuki Ishii, a professor at Otsuma Womenʼs
University, oﬀered a suggestion with the title “Teachersʼ
Capability Required for Future Elementary School Science
Education.” His lecture included the following points:
Objective, goal, content, method, and evaluation are
indispensable elements for class making. Teachers must makeclasses based on them. It is true that universities cannot foster
work-ready teachers who have mastered all learning units andteaching methods. Even so, it is desirable for students tocultivate interpretation skills for teaching materials to
produce problem-solving style classes that facilitate learningby which children discover, examine, and consider problems,
as well as human skills that form the basis of the teacher.
Following the three lectures, discussion and questioning
sessions were held, in which some participants joined. The
topics discussed there included how “Japanese style science”
should be, general ability and the direction of future
reorganization of subjects, and facts in the fundamental
understanding of subjects. The symposium was an extremely
useful opportunity to reconﬁrm the understanding of active
learning and to think about problems and diﬃculties related toteacher training education. As one of the planners, I would liketo thank all the symposiasts and participants. (Kenji Maehara)

Introduction of New Visiting Associate Professor

I am an associate professor in Department of
Education at the Chinese Culture University (CCU),
Taiwan. I was the Deputy Executive Oﬃcer of Xiaofen
College at CCU and currently responsible for the
Teaching Excellence Program in CCU funded by the
Ministry of Education. I'd been an assistant professor
and chairperson of Dep. of Early Childhood Education
and Care and the director of Center of Teacher
Professional Development at Meiho University.
My research interests lie, ﬁrstly, in philosophy ofeducation, especially in post-structuralism and theanalysis educational issues with Michel Foucault's
theory; secondly, in comparative education,
particularly focusing on educational policies andeducational systems in European Union; thirdly, insociology of education, emphasizing on social justiceand educational equity; and fourthly, in teacher
education, such as teacher education and teacher
professional development.
There is a wide range of scope and subjects inFoucault's works, and Foucault's theory and methods
have been widely applied till now. Recently,
Foucault's genealogy has been used to analyze
diﬀerent education issues from the historicaldevelopment, the subject of modern education, as
well as the educational subject constructed from themainstream discourse in contemporary society. Someof my works are attempts to analyze education topics
via genealogy, rather than applying the speciﬁc
concepts used by Foucault to illustrate thephenomenon of education.
My recent works include: Social Justice and Capacity
for Self-development in Educational Systems in
European Union, in Education Provision to Every One:
Comparing Perspectives from Around the World(BCES, 2016); Teacher Professional Development in
Taiwan, in Teacher Education in Taiwan (Routledge,2016); Teacher Professional Development Frameworkin European Union and Its Signiﬁcance to the Teacher
Professional Development in Taiwan in Teacher
Education Law:20 Years Retrospect and Prospect (inChinese) (TEAROC, 2015); A Study on Teacher
Professional Competence Development in European
Union in Teacher Professional Standard, Development
and Practice (in Chinese) (TEAROC, 2016); Foucault on
Education (in Chinese) (Taipei: Wha-Kang, 2013).
Together with Tien-HuiChiang co-edited Crisis in
Education: Modern Trends and Issues (in Chinese)(Taipei: Edu-book, 2015).
I currently serve as Secretary-General of Taiwan
Association for Sociology of Education (TASE), theexecutive editor of Journal of Comparative Education,and the executive editor of Journal of Taiwan
Philosophy of Education.

As a visiting Professor of Training Curriculum Center
for Teachers in Tokyo Gakugei University, I am glad toshare studies and information about trends and issuesof educational system in Taiwan with anyone who hasinterests in related issues.
The education system in Taiwan is currently a
6-3-3-4 structure, providing compulsory education as
well as teacher training and vocational education.
Compulsory education in Taiwan extended to 9 years
in 1968, including primary and secondary schools; in2014 it has extended to 12 years to cover senior highschool. Upper secondary education consists of three
years of schooling and includes “general seniorsecondary schools,” “skill-based senior secondary
schools,” “comprehensive senior secondary schools,”
and “specialized senior secondary schools.”
In terms of curriculum, the Nine-Year Curriculum for
National Primary and Secondary Schools is a majorchange in curriculum development since 2000. It
emphasizes competency-based, school-based andstudents' ability acquisition. The Nine-Year Curriculum
has been in place since the 2001 academic year andhas been in progress since the end of the 2004
academic year. In order to meet the needs of thetimes, some emerging issues (such as media literacy,
marine education, etc.) were added into the learning
areas of primary and secondary education. And in linewith the establishment of a consistent curriculum
system for primary and secondary schools, theteachings in schools will carry out a revision of thecompetency indicators in various ﬁelds and topics,
with a focus on the 12-year curriculum convergenceand social change in primary and secondary schools.
Teacher education system consists of diversiﬁed,
training and selection mechanisms. Universities withteacher training institutions and program recruit
candidates and oﬀer teacher-training courses. These
teacher-training
programs
recruitqualiﬁed
undergraduate, masters and doctoral students.
Qualiﬁed candidates must complete the curriculum,
including regular, professional and pedagogy
courses, and then they must attend a six-monthinternship. Candidates will be oﬃcially accredited ifthey pass the teacher certiﬁcation exam. Only thosecandidates who have obtained this certiﬁcation are
eligible to participate in the selection held by local
governments for teaching positions at primary andsecondary schools.
Traditionally, the concept of teacher professional
development in Taiwan is mainly based on teacher
in-service training and learning. In 1990's, themovements of educational reform in Taiwan led tochanges in ideas of teacher education system andteacher professional development. The framework ofteacher professional development gradually attempts
to build up a teacher career ladder and construct a
consortium system of teacher professional
development. With the diversity of teacher education
system and institutions, Taiwan teacher professional
development represents a gradual governance shift
from the model of centralized and state regulation to
new professionalism and marketization.
From February 2017 to August 2017, I will share myresearches with the staﬀ in Tokyo Gakugei University. I
am sincerely looking forward for profound academic
communication in Japan.
Dr. Bo-Ruey Huang
Chinese Culture University

Compulsory Education System and Teacher Qualiﬁcation ‒A premise for comparison of teacher training
Kazuko Takano
Professor, Meiji University
Member of the Advisory Board for the Curriculum Center for Teachers
Some people ask me about characteristics of teacher
training in England compared with those in Japan. To
answer the question, I would have to explain that paths
to obtain a teacher qualiﬁcation are extremely diverse in
England, diﬀerent from Japan, where the paths arealmost strictly limited to those via training courses atuniversity, and that elementary and secondary schools
play a major role not only as providers but also as places
to give training, which cannot be said of Japan (Looking
at the number of new postgraduate entrants in theacademic year 2015‒2016 [a provisional ﬁgure], thehigher education institution-led courses alreadyaccounted for only 49% (DfE, Initial teacher training
census for the academic year 2015‒2016，England)).
However, a persistent feeling bothers me: “The promise
is diﬀerent from Japan, whose people take it for granted
that everybody goes to a similar school and where it will
make the news immediately if a teacher teaching at theschool is unlicensed…” Nonetheless, I have nevermentioned it.
Because it is often introduced into Japan inmovements to include free schools in the public
education system, the duty of parents in the entire UK,
including England, is the duty to secure “education” ofchildren of compulsory age (compulsory education), notthe duty to send a child to school (compulsory
schooling). Diﬀerent from Japan, where parents are
required to “send” their children to “schools” prescribedin Article 1 of the School Education Act, it is necessary for
UK parents to induce their children of compulsory school
age to receive eﬃcient full-time education suitable (a) totheir age, ability and aptitude, and (b) to any special
educational needs they may have, “either by regularattendance at school or otherwise” (Article 7 of the
Education Act 1996). As a method of education
otherwise, education by parents at home is legallypermitted. Information about home education has been
provided on the comprehensive information website of
the government (https://www.gov.uk/home-education).
It would not have been possible without a culture andhistory that tolerate individualism and diversity. It goes
without saying that parents need not have a teacher
qualiﬁcation.
From the beginning, teachers of private schools thatreceive no support from public funds, which are called
independent schools, have not been required to have aqualiﬁcation. Joining the schools were City Technology
Colleges (CTCs), which were schools of a type newly
established by the Education Act 1988. There have beenschools with no restriction in terms There have beenschools with no restriction in terms of teacher
employment, other than passage of a criminal
background check. Furthermore, after schools of new
types were established (e.g., Academies in the 2000s andFree schools in the 2010s), such schools have spread
rapidly, which has created situations in which persons
without a teacher qualiﬁcation can be employed asteachers in such schools. In the course of the reform ofschool systems to promote competition among schools
and to make use of private sector vitality, which has
continued after the Thatcher Government, the types ofschools for which the acquisition of qualiﬁcation is not a
condition for teachers working there are increasing. Thismeans that the useful scope of teacher qualiﬁcation itself
is narrowing. Referring to the association with teacher
training, the opportunities that various training “reforms”
and eﬀorts present as educational improvement at
school sites is declining. Although the teachingcertiﬁcate system was once brought to the public eye in
discussions of regulatory reform in Japan as well, theUnited Kingdom has moved much ahead in this respect.
Japanese pre-service and in-service teacher training
related policies which will be put into practice based on
the law revision last year seem to follow the British
manner, by which teacher training programs andqualities and abilities of teachers are assured throughthe setting of standards and competencies. However,what we should be conscious of when comparing
todayʼs Japan with the United Kingdom is rather a senseof scale and thoroughness of inﬂuence that “reform” will
spread throughout public education: in elementary andsecondary education, teacher training, and higher
education in general. The reform will be undertaken to
perform quality management over the professional lifeof teachers and to establish a curriculum that serves as amodel. Typical Japanese features such as the ratio ofchildren who go to schools prescribed in Article 1 of the
School Education Act, the certiﬁcate possession ratio ofteachers working there, and the ratio of persons via
teacher training courses in qualiﬁcation acquisition
should be considered along with comparisons to theUnited Kingdom.

Terminology of Teacher Education

Japan Association of Universities of Education
A federation of universities of education in Japan was founded in 1949 under the direction of the Supreme Commander
for the Allied Powers (SCAP) in the form of developmentally reorganizing the former Principalsʼ Committee of Normal
Schools. In addition to national universities and faculties of education, it organizes their aﬃliated schools and some
general universities as members. Although private universities used to take part, the membership is now restricted tonational universities because the rules were changed in 2010. The oﬃce has continuously been at Tokyo Gakugei
University, which took over the old Tokyo 1st Normal School. The president of the university and the chief of theadministration bureau serve successively as the chair of the association and the head of the oﬃce, respectively. The
Association has exchanged information related to teacher training, has conducted research activities (e.g., holding
research meetings and issuing annual research report), and has made policy proposals. It has a strong tinge of being akind of pressure group of teacher training universities and faculties and their aﬃliated schools. However, after national
universities were reorganized as corporations in 2004, the authority of presidents of universities and that of deans offaculties of education in comprehensive universities have become substantially diﬀerent, which made it diﬃcult for themto have common interests. As a result, strong policy proposals have been decreasing. (Yasuyuki Iwata)Sites Where Teachers
Are Nurtured
A Cooperation Agreement between Tokyo
Gakugei University and Ninohe City Board of
Education
Hideaki Matsuoka

Head of Regional Cooperation Section, Public Planning Division,
Tokyo Gakugei University

Ninohe City in Iwate Prefecture is at the northern
extremity of the inland area of the prefecture,
located on the prefectureʼs border with Aomori
Prefecture. Of the 420-square-kilometer area, 280
square kilometers are occupied by mountains,forests, and wilderness. It is a town withapproximately 27,000 inhabitants. Although
blessed with an abundance of naturalenvironments, such as Oritsume Basenkyo
Prefectural Natural Park and Kintaichi Hot Spring,the city has been addressing problems of how to
improve academic achievement among students inschool education while simultaneously confronting
population decline and aging of the population.
Tokyo Gakugei University was to be involved in
Ninohe Cityʼs project for academic achievement
improvement started in 2010 because the intent of
the city to improve academic achievement among
students matched the intent of the university topromote cooperation and collaboration withboards of education.
In 2015, a cooperation and collaborationagreement was signed between Tokyo Gakugei
University and the Ninohe City Board of Education,
which was to strengthen the collaborative
relationship between the two parties. “Satellite
Study Meeting/ Disaster Prevention Education
Program Training” is the project that was launchedbased on the agreement.
The project was intended for students from
Tokyo Gakugei University to give disasterprevention education through the observation ofareas aﬀected by the Great East Japan Earthquake,as well as experience educational guidance forelementary and junior high school students in
Ninohe City. This year, which marked the second
time, it was held as a ﬁve-day program from August
1. Eleven students participated; I accompanied withthem as a leader.
A satellite study meeting was held during thethree days of the ﬁrst half, in which approximately
60 elementary and junior high school students
participated. The person in charge of the board ofeducation asked students who were going to be
lecturers to support the improvement of desire tolearn, attaching great importance to each childʼsautonomy. There was also a request to speak
actively to children when seeing them in trouble
Staﬀ of Curriculum Center for Teachers
Director
MAYAMA, Shigeki(Professor, Phylogeny and taxonomy)
Center Researchers[Division of Curriculum Research and Development]
KANEKO, Mariko(Associate Professor, Educational Sociology)[Division of Teacher Preparation Research and Development]
IWATA, Yasuyuki(Professor, Historical Studies on Teacher Training)
UESUGI, Yoshimi(Associate Professor, Media Education)[Division of Research and Development for In-Service Teachers]
MAEHARA, Kenji(Professor, Educational Administration)

because children in Ninohe City were shy.
I felt that students watched over children gently
as their good big sisters and brothers and gave
careful guidance. Responses given to a participantquestionnaire included: “It was good to be taught ina gentle manner” and “My learning progressed”(elementary school students); and “I was taught inan easy to understand way” and “They created an
atmosphere in which it was easy to speak to them”(junior high school students). Nearly all children
responded that they wanted to participate next
year as well.
In the disaster prevention education program
training, we listened to a lecture given by Ms. Miyuki
Muto, Chief Supervisor of the Iwate Prefectural
Board of Education. Additionally, we visited TaroTown, Miyako City to observe the seawall,
earthquake disaster remains, and the aﬀected TaroFirst Junior High School, and to hear a talk deliveredby the president of a company in Taro Town, who
addressed the reconstruction of businesses.
Chief Supervisor Muto, who was working in
Otsuchi Town at the time of the earthquake
disaster, talked about the experience of bustlingabout trying to reopen aﬀected schools in an
extreme situation in which severe damage had
been sustained. We heard the experience of anoﬃcial of the board of education who strove for the“guarantee of education,” ﬁrmly maintaining abelief that schools and teachers exist for children.
The event seemed to have left a deep impression
on students in thinking about themselves,
overlapping with images of their future selves, who
would be entering educational sites.
Throughout the project period, I met oﬃcials of
the Ninohe City Board of Education. I felt their
passionate desires from end-to-end in their simple
way of talking about how they loved theirhometown, how they wanted to devote theireﬀorts to human resources development torevitalize the region, and to that end, how they tried
to improve educational ability in the region. They
also highly appreciated students who participated.
Students were deeply touched by the hospitality
shown by the people of Ninohe City.
Tokyo Gakugei University and Ninohe City arealso actively conducting other cooperative projects,
including observational visits to our aﬃliatedschools and participation in study groups byteachers from Ninohe City and mock classes on
demand by teachers of our aﬃliated schools. It issaid that since the cooperative projects started, theacademic achievement of children in the city isimproving steadily. Teachers in Ninohe City also areapparently improving their capabilities as teachers
by having opportunities to learn devices for classes
and advanced eﬀorts.
Interaction between Tokyo Gakugei University
and Ninohe City is certainly producing results inboth the growth of students of the university andthat of teachers of the city.
編集・発行
The CCT is produced by the Curriculum Center for Teachers,
東京学芸大学教員養成カリキュラム開発研究センター
Tokyo Gakugei University.
編集協力
Editor: Yoshimi Uesugi
東京学芸大学／美術・書道講座／青山司研究室／青山司／大浦恵実

Designer: Tsukasa Aoyama and Emi Oura

＊ご不要の方はその旨を以下の連絡先にお知らせください。
(Aoyama Lab., Calligraphy and Arts, Tokyo Gakugei University)

Curriculum
Center for Terachers, Tokyo Gakugei University
184-8501 東京都小金井市貫井北町４−１−１
4-1-1
Nukui-kitamachi
Koganei, Tokyo 184-8501 Japan
東京学芸大学教員養成カリキュラム開発研究センター
Tel:
81-42-329-7776
Fax: 81-42-329-7786
Tel: 042-329-7776 Fax: 042-329-7786
Email:
currict@u-gakugei.ac.jp
E-mail: currict@u-gakugei.ac.jp
Website:http://www.u-gakugei.ac.j/~currict/english/index.html
Web: http://www.u-gakugei.ac.jp/~currict/index.html