This paper aims to explore the theoretical background and practical appli- cations of Moisès Esteban-Guitart’s Funds of Identity approach as an effort to create learning experiences that emphasize learner identity within educational practices, essentially practicing pedagogy from a student voice perspective. The paper sets two objectives and elucidates the following:

Firstly, a retrospective analysis of the theoretical evolution of the Funds of Knowledge/Identity approach reveals a conscious effort within certain research groups to counter the risks of depoliticization. This effort is seen as a response to the challenge of deficit thinking, suggesting an opposition to the depoliticized use of Funds of Knowledge/Identity.

Secondly, examining practical cases of early childhood education utilizing the Funds of Identity approach highlights the possibility of practices that not only avoid depoliticization but also respect children’s unique experiences and creativ- ity. This is achieved without imposing the kind of ’top-down’ interventions often associated with radical pedagogy, ensuring a balanced and respectful educational practices.

Furthermore, the paper sheds light on the concept of student voice in educational practices. It suggests that student voice, traditionally understood as a metaphor for direct and active expression by students, can also be interpreted through cultural artifacts as seen in the Funds of Identity approach. This broader inter- pretation of student voice implies a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of how students can express and engage within their learning.

A “lesson for the correction of epistemic injustice” teaches students to understand the situations in which epistemic injustice occurs, its causes and effects, and how to communicate while paying attention to them. However, agreement on the need to plan and implement “lessons for the correction of epistemic injustice” does not exist in the U.S. The reasons for the need to correct epistemic injustice are not understood, or teachings involving a similar problematic concept are already being implemented. Therefore, this study aims to reveal the rationale that justifies the planning and implementation as well as the development of the discussion about “lessons for the correction of epistemic injustice” in the U.S. Specifically, this study explains why education needs to correct epistemic injustice and the elements of the curriculum design in “lessons for the correction of epistemic injustice,” which have not been included in previous implementations.

Consequently, education needs to correct epistemic injustice in the U.S. to ensure it can be regarded as a fundamental problem that prevents the realization of deliberative democracy. To rectify the situation, education should cultivate citizens capable of communicating with attention to epistemic injustice and establish the institutions and cultural framework that will enable them to do so. The special feature of the lesson lies in the fact that unlike existing lessons based on assumptions that differ from actual human characteristics and communication, the “lesson for the correction of epistemic injustice” establishes goals and organizes the learning process following reality.

This article aimed to elucidate in detail some methods of “evaluation” for the “lesson where every child wants to speak up” through conversation analytic investigation of lesson videos of Hiroshi Imaizumi, a former Tokyo public elementary school teacher, and thereby propose the methods as widely shareable know-how to school sites across Japan.

The study findings are as follows. First, two types of TRS (Topically Related Set): “TRS for designedly eliciting mistakes” and “TRS for bouncing off various knowledges or opinions” were set in Imaizumi’s lesson, and different types of evaluations were implemented in each TRS.

Second, in the first TRS, “metaprocess evaluations” were implemented in the AER format composed of “Acknowledgement + Evaluation words + Reason of evaluation,” and thereby “know-how” and “attitude of attentive listening” used in the pupils’ responses were shared with the whole class.

Third, in the second TRS, “evaluations for expandability of knowledge” were implemented with the applied AER format of “change-of-state-token + ‘You said something good’ + driving another IRE sequence,” and it helped expand the knowledge network in the whole class triggered by the pupil’s response.

Fourth, in the second TRS, “direct positive evaluations of mistakes” were implemented by replacing “driving another IRE sequence” with “explanation of the mistake + of intellectual contribution of it” in the “R” slot of the above applied AER format. This affirmed the pupil’s mistake generously in collaboration with “evaluation for expandability of knowledge.”

The purpose of this paper is to clarify structure and characteristic of “Politikdidaktik,” a theory of didactics of politics by Hermann Giesecke, who is one of founders of the academic discipline for didactics of politics in Germany. Firstly, based on the issues of political education theory in the 1950s, I clarified the meaning and characteristics of Giesecke’s concept of “conflict”. Secondly, I discussed Giesecke’s theory of educational contents, i.e., the concept of “Bildungswissen,” “Orientierungswissen,” and “Aktionswissen” as knowledges obtained through the analysis of actual political conflicts, and pointed out that he emphasized the formation of subjective political judgment that cannot be rationalized by science. Thirdly, I discussed the category-analysis that Giesecke conceived as a method for creating Aktionwissen, together with his teaching model and the teaching practices based on it. Through this study, we reconsider the meaning of “treating controversial issues as teaching materials” in Japanese education, where the study of controversial issues is flourishing, and provide suggestions for locating learners’ subjectivity in the study of controversial issues. Giesecke not only proposes to treat controversial issues, but also defines politics as a state in which there is room for value judgments that cannot be captured by an objective framework of recognition. Therefore, by emphasizing learners’ subjectivity, he shows how education should not be substituted for political indoctrination.

In this paper, based on the arguments of Kiyonobu Itakura, we explore how empiricism and systematism were ‘unified’ within hypothetical experimental lessons. ① Itakura’s critique of empiricism was directed towards the educational method of thematic unit learning and Machism in science education. ② To surpass Machism, Itakura aimed to consider the life experiences of students as a problem and intended to create a “conflict” between “common-sense intuition” and the “logic of science.” ③ The democratization of educational content based on the ‘child-centered’ philosophy, as understood by Itakura as the ideology of empiricism, was realized through this “conflict” and its associated “teaching methods.” ④ While Itakura developed a critique of empiricism, he had a favorable evaluation of its philosophy. Therefore, within the context of hypothetical experimental lessons, the life experiences of students were understood as an important term. In this sense, ⑤ hypothetical experimental lessons were born with the aspect of ‘unifying’ empiricism and systematism. The above points have become clear through the study in this paper.

The 1950s is considered a period in the history of education studies by teachers when the narrative practice document, described by the teacher in the first person, was the major style of education studies. Shigenori Tsuchida is positioned as one of the representative teachers of such studies. This paper clarified the evolvement of education study by Tsuchida in the late 1950s, focusing on the descriptions in his “Education Notebooks,” which are unutilized historical materials. It can be concluded that the education study by Tsuchida in the late 1950s shifted from studies that had the possibility of understanding “children,” “society,” and “methods” in an integrated approach to studies focused solely on “methods” as the positioning of “children” changed and perspectives from the “social science” receded.

This case study suggests three things about the evolvement of education studies by teachers during the 1950s and 1960s. First, it suggests that education studies by teachers lost their literary perspective in the late 1950s. Second, it suggests that at the end of the 1950s, the possibility of participation by people other than teachers and researchers shrank from the circles as the foundations of education studies by teachers. Third, it suggests that the content of the meaning of “science” valued in education study by teachers differed between the 1950s and the 1960s. In the above evolvement, Tsuchida lost the possibility of studies that reconsider conventional perceptions through the description of singular facts, or “elliptical” studies that have the dual focus of the lesson and the “social science”.

This study clarifies the characteristics and significance of the conception of the “system of educational methods” (system) in Tetsufumi Miyasaka (1918-1965). I focused on the documents in which Miyasaka’s educational practices, in which he had a leading role, involved life guidance (seikatsu shido) based on teachers’ emotional guidance and collaborative classroom management. As a result, the concept of the “system of educational methods” was clearly proposed in response to the “unification of subject instruction and life guidance (seikatsu shido).”

An examination of the records of practices revealed three characteristics of Miyasaka’s system. First, the teaching was based on children’s feelings and thoughts. Second, the combination of various areas through the collaborative classroom management. Third, the purpose and methods of education should be reflected and restricted from the perspective of children.

Miyasaka’s system meant extra-curricular activities and subject instruction as part of the process of formation of a class as a collective in which children could freely express their feelings through emotional guidance. Here, the “class” is being “collaboratively managed” by the teachers; furthermore, teachers were given the opportunity to deepen their understanding of children, and lessons were created and reconsidered based on children. In conclusion, I posited the significance of “collaborative classroom management” for creating and teachers group formation and proposed the necessity of examining the system from the perspective of lesson study and group making for learning to deepen the substance of the “unification of subject instruction and life guidance (seikatsu shido)” in the future.