The aim of this study is to unveil the self-perception and group dynamics of individuals identified as “global human resources,” shedding light on the criteria they use to define their group affiliations from the perspective of Symbolic Boundaries.

In recent studies, studying abroad has been characterized as a reproductive strategy for the elite class during this age of globalization. As higher education is evaluated through university rankings in the global education arena, those who attend “world class” universities are cast as “global elites,” capable of seamlessly traversing the world and reaping the maximum benefits from the global economy. Japan is also ardently pursuing the development of “global human resources.” In response to this trend, numerous criticisms have emerged concerning the definitions and requirements for “global human resources,” primarily focusing on objective aspects such as the presence or absence of study-abroad experience, language proficiency, and nationality. However, the subjective aspect of how those designated as “global human resources” perceive the question “Who are the global human resources?” has not been clarified.

In this regard, 44 participants in the “Tobitate Study Abroad Program,” the largest benefit-type scholarship project implemented by the Japanese government, were interviewed. These students can be considered a classic example of “global human resources” in Japan. The findings are as follows:

First, “global human resources” delineate their identity through their study abroad experiences and form a boundary of “what one wants to do” between themselves and “university students” or “classmates.” This boundary of “what one wants to do” functions as a cognitive framework that acknowledges their distinctiveness while contrasting with “academic background” and “elites.” Second, when the boundary of “what one wants to do” is directed toward Tobitate students, it assumes a certain desirability and frequently becomes a criterion for determining superiority or inferiority. They refer to “going outside the orthodoxy” as desirability, contrasting “exchange students” and “the standard route.” Third, when studying abroad as “global human resources,” the emphasis is on making the connection between “going outside the orthodoxy” and “contributing to society.” These perceptions are shaped by the institutional context of the Tobitate program. Fourth, there are differences in the way these boundaries are experienced by different classes and genders.

Based on the results, it is evident that their collective identity can play a role in promoting disparities and inequalities within their study abroad experiences. As the number of Japanese students studying abroad increases, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to stand out solely due to their study-abroad experience. In such circumstances, they establish their own distinctiveness by forming a symbolic boundary of “what one wants to do.” Such findings are part of the mechanism that generates and reinforces disparities among those who hold a relatively advantageous position within the social hierarchy, especially in comparison to other university students and those who have studied abroad. In addition, such perceptions are formed based on a logic distinct from the global pecking order of knowledge as indicated by university rankings.

In this article, the discussion of academically underachieving children （Retto-ji） in the late Meiji period is examined from the perspective of Kai T. Erikson （1966=2014）. The article reveals how teachers’ perceptions, norms and the boundaries of children enrolled in school changed when the teachers began teaching groups with different levels of academic achievements. The following processes were involved in the emergence of problems in academic underachievement.

First, differences in academic achievement occurred within the class. As a result of the abolition of progression examinations in 1900, children were grouped according to age rather than academic ability. Therefore, the differences in academic ability within the child group appeared as difficulties in the classroom.

Second, Retto-ji were seen as deviants who interfered with teaching. The problem was not so much that they were underachieving, but rather that they interfered with the learning of other children. Pupils began to be asked by teachers not to disrupt lessons.

Third, the causes of underachievement were mainly found in the children's families. Previously, children who flunked their progress exams and dropped out of school and their families were rarely the subject of teachers’ concern. However, when Retto-ji were positioned as deviant and needing treatment, their families were also recognized as responsible for their underachievement. The families were expected to adopt a cooperative attitude towards schools.

Fourth, teachers imposed new problem perceptions and norms on themselves. Whereas previously Retto-ji were neglected in schools and underachievement was not recognized as a problem to be addressed, teachers took responsibility for not neglecting such children. In addition, teachers came to perceive that they should treat them with compassion. As Retto-ji were unable to develop academic skills on their own, and their families could not afford to improve their environment, the teachers took the children's circumstances into account so that they could keep up with their lessons.

Fifth, the treatment of Retto-ji was not so much to solve poor performance as it was to make teaching child groups with different levels of academic ability possible. Resolving underachievement was considered one of the means of making teaching viable.

Sixth, children who did not improve through the encouragement of teachers were excluded. By excluding such children, the conditions for staying in school and the boundaries of the group were clarified. In such cases, the boundaries of the group were determined by the subjective and ambiguous judgements of the teachers.

As discussed above, Retto-ji were established as a result of changes in policies, recognitions, norms, and treatments. They emerged not as disruptors to the new group, but as the shapers of group norms and order.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of instructional comprehension in simultaneous instruction by clarifying the use of negative-inducing questions, which are often observed in kindergartens.

In simultaneous instruction, it is necessary for the teacher to grasp whether or not the learner correctly understands the instruction that is being given. “Confirmation of instructional comprehension” is a known method of checking whether the learner “understands” through “daring to make a mistake on the teacher's side” as a method of practical knowledge. This paper focuses on negative-inducing questions as an actual mutual action that corresponds to such practical knowledge and analyzes how it is used in a production scene in a young kindergarten class.

The findings of the analysis are as follows. First, the negative-inducing question is designed to prompt a response of negation by presenting a situation in which the difference from the prior instruction is made visible. The utterance asserting the difference from the correct state itself indicates a certain understanding of the teaching, and the response of negation makes it possible to further question the core of the teaching. Second, the confirmation of instructional under- standing through negative-inducing questions publicizes the knowledge being taught, thereby confirming the understanding of the group of preschoolers rather than the understanding of individual preschoolers. Third, negative-inducing questions can be used not only to confirm teaching comprehension, but also to encourage preschoolers’ participation in the teaching activity. Through the above analysis, we have shown that negative-inducing questions are used adaptively in the context of the teaching activity of production at the kindergarten level.