Introduction

We see in the OECD (2016) statistical report that Japan scores significantly above the average levels related to performance and outcome equity. However, it is perhaps the ethnographic research conducted by Shinkawa and Arimoto (Reference Shinkawa and Arimoto2012), as they documented the very challenging aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima cataclysm, that foregrounds the themes guiding the construction of this chapter. They observed the social reproduction of “altruism even in adversity,” noting that Japanese interrelationships (kankei) are “rooted in thousands of years of Japanese tradition and [have] withstood outside influences” (p. 67). Shinkawa and Arimoto (Reference Shinkawa and Arimoto2012), of Tohoku University, surveyed secondary students using the Education for Sustainable Development competency questionnaire. It was found that traditional cultural values assisted in the construction of resilient attitudes among the Japanese secondary students in their sample by supporting “cooperative working” or “stress-managing” competencies (p. 67).

The OECD’s report on the 2015 PISA states that “the Japanese school system ensures equity in education opportunities” (2016, p. 1). Further, it makes the connection between examination performance and outcome equity: “Japan … achieves high levels of performance and equity in education outcomes as assessed in PISA 2015, with 10% or less of the variation in student performance attributed to differences in students’ socio-economic status” (p. 6). This finding emphasizes the cultural importance attached to outcome equity. It is a fundamentally important measure of whole-school success. This is partly because the role of Japanese teachers is much more diverse than “exam prep” since Japanese teachers consider the holistic development of students as the most important goal in education (Kasanage, 2013).

In concise terms, contingent feedback interactions follow a basic rule. That is, where there are two interactants (an interactant can be any participant, adult or child) A and B, the quality of the interaction depends on the extent of intersubjectivity as follows: if B senses A’s intentions accurately in that specific moment, then B is able to interact in ways that sustain the interaction to the satisfaction of A. The process of contingent assistance (cf. Vygotsky, Reference Vygotsky, Rieber and Carton1987) is an interactive turn-taking social strategy. Contingent interaction sustains the learning task to successful completion, emphasizing cooperation with others, rejecting control over others. Contingent interaction is the sine qua non required for successful outcomes in collective settings, and yet stable intersubjective states are elusive and difficult to sustain. This is a formidable challenge for teachers, some of whom may even struggle to keep their students inside the classroom. More optimistically, in assessment terms, contingent interactivity is the basis for more effective or, more specifically, reciprocal feedback (Clark, Reference 500Clark2012; Clark & Dumas, Reference Clark and Dumas2015). “Interactive turn-taking” therefore means much more than two or more learners working together. It is a strategy, and from the constructivist ideal learners are interactive when they assist each other equally and mutually while attempting to solve a particular challenge or problem. Equality is defined here as the level of authority or control over the task; pairs exhibiting a high level of equality have the ability to take direction from each other. Mutuality means the extent of engagement between each other’s contributions. As dimensions of equality and mutuality extend, we see the emergence of reciprocal interaction – a more advanced iteration of contingent turn-taking. In due course, it will be seen that the immediate and contingent feedback, the synchronous aspect of formative assessment, is the social norm inside Japanese classrooms, particularly in mathematics.

In general, theoretical similarities, even across cultures, create a firm and flexible basis for comparative analysis of classroom feedback practices. This kind of comparative analysis is, as the OECD indicates, of particular importance where it relates to learning environments that support outcome equity. The OECD notes that in Western contexts, the interactive (or constructivist) foundation of “formative assessment has been shown to be highly effective in raising the level of student attainment, increasing equity of student outcomes, and improving students’ ability to learn” (2005b, p. 2). The OECD’s praise for interactive styles of assessment that ensure outcome equity parallels the dialogic teaching styles found in Japanese classrooms. Inevitably, then, the tacit questions and propositions guiding the construction of this chapter revolve around constructivist and equitable learning environments. Of particular relevance here is kankei, the Japanese word for interrelationships described as equitable, mutual, reciprocal, intersubjective, harmonious, stable, and balanced. The international research community knows that such relationships engage learners, motivating them to express their ideas and to assist each other toward a successful outcome. Put another way, Japanese classrooms optimize or balance stability (often perceived as formality) with interactivity, supporting “good learning” by the method of synchronous collection and strategic use of whole-group feedback (Inoue, Reference Inoue2010). It seems reasonable to denote the quality of kankei found in many Japanese classrooms as simply “contingent plus.”

The Legacy of Masataro Sawayanagi’s “New Education Movement”

As I sit here at the Graduate School of Education (GSE) of Tohoku University (established 1907), I am mindful of this university’s foundational relevance to this interdisciplinary exploration of classroom feedback practice in Japan. The GSE’s work, including that of the Japanese Assessment for Learning Network (JAfLN), has been made more meaningful by the foundational work of Dr. Masataro Sawayanagi (1865–1937), who was Tohoku University’s first president, inaugurated in 1911, and before that, in 1906, a former vice-minister for education. Almost inevitably, his sincere commitment to the integration of global perspectives into traditional discourses led to his appointment as president of the very progressive Kyoto University in 1913. Sawayanagi, the son of a samurai of the Matsumoto clan, is little known outside Japan. In remarkable contrast, his sustainable vision for education has prompted a laudatory admiration here. Japanese historians consider him to be “one of the truly great figures in the history of modern Japanese education” (T. Kobayashi, Reference Kobayashi1990, p. 43). At Tohoku, Sawayanagi’s emphasis on resolving school-related issues through dialogue with students earned him the accolade of “master president.” Today, Sawayanagi is remembered and celebrated for his socially accomplished approach to education and his commitment to the development of mature thinking among his young students.

Creative integrations and adaptations of new and, due to its external origin, contentious knowledge were ignited by the advent of the Meiji Restoration (1868–1912). Under the direction of the Meiji government, a now unified Japan emerged from national isolation, and after more than two centuries drew a deep breath before the plunge into the modern industrial age. In this “new world,” the elite Tohoku and Kyoto universities debated ideological modernizations associated with Japan’s reintegration with the industrial world. What followed was an era remarkable for its highly active interest in the “state of the art.” The new Meiji administration dispatched numerous educational missions to nations in Europe and North America. In due course, they returned with notions of decentralization, local school boards, and teacher autonomy. The formation of the Meiji government was an event with profound impact that propelled global research so that Japan had among the best economic, trade, technological, and cultural intelligence in the world. Ezra Vogel, in his very popular account of Japanese socioeconomics, remarked that, “in post-industrial society, knowledge … became a great rage in Japan’s leading circles. But, these leading circles were merely articulating the latest formulation of what already had become conventional Japanese wisdom, the supreme importance of the pursuit of knowledge” (Reference Vogel1979, p. 27).

It was against this backdrop of global intelligence-gathering that, in 1917, Sawayanagi founded the New Education Movement (NEM, Shin Kyoiku Undo). The NEM’s protagonists were united by an intimate affinity with creative, student-centered teaching methods based on zenjin educational values – to promote autonomous learning strategies and to provide equitable opportunities for students to approach the Japanese ideal of the whole person. The NEM thrived at this time. In close correlation with John Dewey’s laboratory school in the United States (founded in 1894), Sawayanagi founded Seijyo Elementary School in 1917. (Note that Dewey visited Japan in 1919.) It was a facility devoted to research, experiment, and educational innovation. Sawayanagi’s vision connected powerfully with many of his contemporaries, including a notable junior associate of Sawayanagi’s and a figure of considerable relevance to any discussion on twenty-first-century classroom practice, Kuniyoshi Obara (1887–1977). The NEM was significant because it provided Obara with an incubator that he used to enculture his students with zenjin education from 1921. Obara is just one influential figure from a pantheon of radical Japanese reformers of the early twentieth century. However, it is the ideal of zenjin that has shaped the contours of the Japanese national curriculum and the classroom feedback practices it legitimizes.

General provisions for zenjin education appear in the newest versions of the Japanese National Curriculum’s “Courses of Study.” These were issued between 2011 and 2013 and call specifically for the education of the “total child.” The courses propose that the balanced development of students is encouraged through lessons called tokubitsu katsudo. Usually abbreviated to tokkatsu (special projects), these lessons were formalized as a regular curriculum subject by former Minister of Education Michita Sakata (in office 1968–1971). Sakata was strongly influenced by Obara’s ideas and publicly stated his conviction of the benefits of zenjin education (M. Kobayashi, Reference Kobayashi2004). Since then, general provisions for zenjin education have been present in the guidelines for formal education issued by MEXT. In 2012, Director Hiroshi Sugita announced the priorities of zenjin education: “we decided to emphasise the fostering of abilities to build personal relationships, participating in society and encouraging autonomous abilities” (p. 1). In the same speech, Sugita encouraged teachers to “instruct with the intention of … fostering the ability for each child to do his or her very best in collaborating” (p. 2).

“Special projects” entail student leadership and coordination of various nonsubject activities taking place at lunch, club events, and student councils. The tokkatsu lessons are offered in addition to core curricular disciplines (e.g., mathematics, science, reading, and social studies), contributing less than 4% to the overall teaching hours at both elementary and junior high school levels (University of Tokyo, Reference Tsuneyoshi2017). Tokkatsu represents a uniquely Japanese practice made by the energetic conjunction of Japanese cultural philosophy and imported intellectualism. Obara’s formulation of zenjin education provides an enduring example of the creative integration of ideas from non-Japanese contexts into Japanese policy frameworks and institutional systems. Obara’s standing as an intellectual leader of the time explains his legacy. By 1918, Obara was acknowledged as one of eight leading protagonists of the NEM, each with their own unique specialty in holistic student-centered education. In possession of an advanced capacity to think analogously, he demonstrated a remarkable skill in making conceptual connections requiring high levels of cultural literacy and reasoning ability. Obara fed his intellectual gifts with a fascination for the ancient and modern theories of philosophy, religious traditions, and political ideologies. Commendably, he explored them as an honorable civil servant might, weighing all sides of a philosophical and ideological theory before deciding on its contribution to the enrichment of human perspectives. By 1919, Sawayanagi, recognizing that Obara was a passionate and knowledgeable innovator, had invited him to oversee the day-to-day implementation of the Seijyo Elementary School project.

As coordinator for the project, Obara considered Sawayanagi’s original problem of autonomy and refined his personal perspectives on thinking and learning (M. Kobayashi, Reference Kobayashi2004). He informed his work through consideration of influential European thinkers. The European Enlightenment (ending in the late eighteenth century) had ushered in a new European social and political order. This period of European history offered much to attract the proponents of Japan’s radical NEM. The term “enlightenment” was defined by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) as humankind’s release from its self-incurred immaturity by the acquisition and development of autonomous thinking competences. “Immaturity,” said Kant in 1794, “is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another” (p. 1), a view that later became the unitary purpose of the NEM. The Enlightenment brought philosophical change powered by the challenge to the existing order and the high value attached to autonomous thinking. These ideas resonated deeply with the membership of the NEM, with profound implications for educational practice. Accordingly, Obara advocated for “free development” and confidently asserted that his methods of instruction would ensure the optimal development of the zenjin personality in each and every one of his students. For Obara, this entailed the optimization of six basic values, drawn from Buddhist tradition and global philosophy (e.g., Plato), and that corresponded with the cultural activities of mankind (M. Kobayashi, Reference Kobayashi2004), namely: (1) truth as the ideal of academe, (2) goodness as the ideal of morality, (3) beauty as the ideal of art, (4) holiness as the ideal of religion, (5) health as the ideal of the body, and (6) wealth as the ideal of livelihood (Ajisaka, Reference Ajisaka1960). He attached the highest importance to these universal human values, proposing that they are attainable through the crafting of individuals’ unique features toward models of cultural excellence.

The task for Obara and colleagues at the Kyoto School (established 1913; Obara joined in 1915) was to deliberate on the tensions and synergies between individual development (in Western contexts, personal development is contingent on the conscious regulation of the environment for personal gain), on the one hand, and the fundamentally interconnected nature of (Japanese) culture, on the other. The conception of individual control over the environment in collective settings was described by Stanford University’s Albert Bandura, with the term “personal agency.” Bandura argued that “to be an agent is to influence intentionally one’s functioning and life circumstances” (Bandura, Reference Bandura, Baer, Kaufman and Baumeister2008, p. 16). Put another way, “personal agency refers to one’s capability to originate and direct actions for given purpose” (Zimmerman & Cleary, Reference Zimmerman, Cleary, Urban and Pajares2006, p. 45). Together they capture the key elements of personal agency as defined in the North American context as: (1) self-reference for leadership and (2) environmental influence for personal gain. Personal agency is, therefore, the personal capability to exert influence over environmental factors with the ultimate goal of attaining valued outcomes and personal goals. Continuing that argument, most individuals, irrespective of their cultural perspective, strive to gain valued outcomes. The complexity quickly begins when moving from general observations to cultural specifics. This is because the social strategies by which personal goals are attained are perceived differently by contrasting cultural values systems (see Figure 21.1). In Western contexts, personal agency is a culturally sanctioned “self-referent” social norm (Bandura Reference Bandura1989, p. 1175) on which American capitalism is built. In comparison, Japanese classrooms operate to eliminate asymmetrical, leadership roles in a culture that expects modesty and individual self-sacrifice in deference to group harmony.

Figure 21.1 Schematic describing the processes linking cultural value systems (CVS), social norms (SN), “positive” learning interactions (pLIn), and the dopamine reward-related networks (RRN) to be found in the human mid-brain region. Positive is denoted with a lowercase p because there is no objective measure of whether an interaction is positive. It is a cultural value judgment, and as such differs between cultural contexts. * Denotes bidirectional, mutually reinforcing relationship.

In the Japanese classroom, personal agency is therefore covert. It is not a sanctioned cultural norm for individuals to seek gratification by overtly referencing the self. For exponents of radical constructivism, belonging, reciprocal acts of trust, and mutual respect are regarded as the values of learning in today’s world. These values satisfy the innate psychological needs of the learner and sanction the kinds of classroom interactions so that students engage in the emotionally risky process of becoming zenjin (Willis, Reference Willis2010). In Japanese classrooms, the issue of personal agency may be (for the purposes of our model) creatively integrated into existing culture as autonomy in interdependent settings and the ideals of zenjin education (Cave, Reference Cave2016). The aim of working in support of the total child so that he or she becomes an autonomous thinker, active learner, and effective problem-solver is perhaps the greatest challenge facing educators globally. This challenge is made all the more urgent because everywhere people of all ages are faced with making complex decisions in environments characterized by flux, uncertainty, and rapid change. In 1996, the Japanese Central Council for Education predicted that Japan would face “a difficult period of rapid change, in which the way ahead would be difficult to discern” (p. 62). Whatever the way ahead may be, history has taught us that rapid changes are created by a sudden coalescence of extra-political forces that seek to contest and challenge that which they perceive as oppression. No nation may merely observe in the stillness of its own culture as the world begins to move in new and interconnected directions.

In accordance with Dr. Sawayanagi’s reform agenda, Japanese administrators and school staff pay careful attention to the promotion of student autonomy and provide many opportunities for its cultivation and development (Lewis, Reference Lewis1995). There is consensus that working alongside school staff who enact the role of “fellow travelers” prepares learners to be confident and capable of making good decisions inside, outside, and beyond school autonomously (Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, & Beckett, Reference Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, Beckett, Darling-Hammond and Bransford2005; Black & William, Reference Black and Wiliam2009; Vogt & Rogalla, Reference Vogt and Rogalla2009; Scottish Government, 2011; Sugita, Reference Sugita2012). Naturally, those “good decisions” may be rendered differently according to culture and custom (see Figure 21.1). Sugita (Reference Sugita2012), of MEXT, directs Japanese teachers to work alongside learners, urging them to “observe what children are doing,” to ask “how do you suffer with them, and what do you enjoy together,” and to encourage autonomy by “letting children face problems which they can manage in sincere collaboration” (p. 3).

The very deliberate and creative integration of ideas that became zenjin education is a strong example of the blending of traditional and new, contentious ideas into a functioning cultural framework. Obara, because of his acceptance of the Enlightenment’s ideas on the duality of the mind and heart, has been described as a committed individualist. While this is certainly so, it should be recalled that his guiding purpose was to integrate powerful Western concepts into the Japanese “cultural identity” entirely. Therefore, Obara’s zenjin education realizes the optimal development of the human personality (as embodied by the six basic values) in a well-balanced and harmonious way. For it to be otherwise would result in a certain level of community rejection (as discussed in the work of Lave and Wenger (Reference Lave and Wenger1991), later in the chapter) and the ultimate failure of his own underlying method. Manifestly, as a nation Japan attaches a great deal of value to cultural philosophies related to balance and harmony, explored next.

Buddhism as the “Background Theory” behind High-Quality Learning Environments

While the Japanese academy collaborated in constructing frameworks made from philosophical alloys, as a nation Japan was (and still is) a reflective society, self-aware, but within the means of their cultural identity. As Fereshteh (Reference Fereshteh1992) observed, the Japanese “are alert to the end to maintain their own cultural values and practices at the core of any new system adopted. They regard culture as an integral, dynamic part of their society and economy” (p. 23). Therefore, Japan as a nation is sensitive to the deconstruction of its cultural identity that threatens to turn undeniable truths, thousands of years in the making, into uncertainties with multiple interpretations. This perception, not exclusive to Japan at all, is associated with internationalized lifestyles, globalized political systems, competition of economic interests, and networking patterns that have become organized at the surface layer of society in ways that seem to no longer feel the pull and draw of traditional cultural values.

Despite populist agitation to the contrary, Japan’s cultural identity and the tacit background theories that constrain social norms remain resistant to the unchecked intrusion of destabilizing global forces (Shinkawa & Arimoto, Reference Shinkawa and Arimoto2012). In concise terms, background theories or cultural philosophies “constrain ways in which issues are conceived and types of explanations one gives, and frame one’s descriptions of what needs explaining” (Thompson, Reference Thompson, Gravemeijer, Lehrer, van Oers and Verschaffel2002, p. 197). If those cultural constraints are breached, then it is expected that corrective sociopolitical forces will interlock in ways that characterize breaches as illegitimate. Buddhist tradition, as an aspect of Japanese culture, is therefore producer, constrainer, and, when triggered, gatekeeper of classroom community norms. It is worth noting that the Thompson quotation above was taken from a publication dedicated to radical constructivism. There is a basis for a comprehensive heuristic agreement between Buddhist background theory and radical constructivism. Certainly, both exert similar influences over group learning. Theoretical similarities will be discussed later in this chapter.

The activists who participated in the NEM’s membership enjoyed an intimate involvement with world philosophies. It was their passion to integrate them into the tradition of balance and harmony seen as the foundational principles for human life (Fereshteh, Reference Fereshteh1992). The foundational values and tacit beliefs that define cultural systems exist at a deeper level in the sense that they are hidden and unarticulated social assumptions, understood by all to their fullest potential. In undeniably pervasive abstraction sometimes difficult to grasp, the ancient values of Buddhism “live” inside Japanese classrooms in these tacit forms. The impact of Buddhist thought can be illustrated by two key tenets that facilitate balanced and equitable interrelationships on which interactive styles of assessment depend. One is “citta,” which translates as “heart or mind.” The other is the Brahma-viharas, the four “divine abiding” or mental states.

In the ancient Pali language of India – widely studied as the language of the earliest extant literature of Buddhism – the word citta describes a conceptual nexus between “mind” (cognitive functions) and “heart” (affective functions). The idiom “to learn by heart” emphasizes depth in learning, attainable only when learners are encouraged to express themselves. This may sound like an invitation to chaos. On the contrary, citta recognizes the balanced weighting of cognitive and socioemotional perspectives on learning, and why balance is important for zenjin development. (For general information, see Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, www.casel.org/.)

It is widely understood that Japanese cultural philosophy places high implicit value on the socioemotional aspects of social life and learning. The “mind-heart nexus” is, perhaps without their intent, implied in Black and Wiliam’s (Reference Black and Wiliam2009) reference to learners’ “inner mental life.” As a single concept, inner mental life suggests the interior complexity of the “heart or mind nexus.” It would seem safe to presume that Buddhist canon was not in Black and Wiliam’s deliberations in that paper of Reference Black and Wiliam2009, entitled “Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment.” Coincidentally, then, these differing theoretical constructs, one from twentieth-century social cognition, the other from traditions thousands of years old, underpin similarities in interactive learning environments of the twenty-first century. When educators from self-referent cultures (e.g., North America) accept that their students’ emotional and motivational states are influential over feedback production, they have then adapted their teaching to meet the needs not just of the student but of the whole child. And, although obvious, it may be noted that the needs of an effective learner are not met by “protecting the child,” a concern explored in early Western studies on formative assessment (see Pryor & Torrance, Reference Pryor and Torrance1996). In Japan, expert teachers favor interactive styles that elicit learners’ recondite knowledge for synchronous whole-group feedback. In doing so, they are balancing cognitive needs with emotional/motivational needs to attain valuable and successful outcomes. School-level plans, therefore, operate to legitimize and reproduce interactive assessment methods that pursue zenjin outcomes (Sugita, Reference Sugita2012; MEXT, n.d. a) and assure outcome equity (OECD, 2005a, 2016). One important outcome for Japan is the weakening of the correlation between socioeconomic status and examination results that creates the very asymmetrical achievement gaps experienced by other nations.

Zenjin assessment activities have been confirmed to promote equity among children studying in other Asian contexts. For example, in Hong Kong, Cheng, Lam, and Chan (Reference Cheng, Lam and Chan2008) found that “the quality of group processes played a pivotal role because both high and low achievers were able to benefit when group processes were of high quality” (p. 205). Zenjin assessment practices depend on interactive approaches that have the potential to provide assessment data that deepen understanding of the “wholeness” of the learner. Wholeness is a traditional concept pursued through bhavana – the process of becoming mentally cultivated. The process of “becoming” is, by its own description, a transitional process. Bostock and Wood (Reference Bostock and Wood2014) suggested that transitions are profound periods of change and transformation, and children in schools “should be studied and managed to ensure that [they] are able to grow and thrive during these difficult phases in their education” (p. 3). The balanced cultivation of learners’ “inner mental” lives is also potentially transformative. This idea can be seen in Popham’s (Reference Popham2008) concise discussion of formative assessments, entitled Transformative Assessment.

Another key Buddhist concept of relevance to any discussion on interactive feedback in the specific cultural context of Japanese classrooms is the Brahma-viharas. The ancient text in which they appear states the four virtues of “metta” (loving kindness), “karuna” (compassion), “mudita” (sympathetic joy), and “upekka” (equanimity). These endemic cultural meta-values, which may sound a little like romantic evocations from mythopoetry, have in reality a prevailing and pervasive influence over learning relationships. It is a teacher’s responsibility to model these virtues so students may at first through observation reproduce interactive feedback strategies. Success occurs when young learners internalize the virtues and see themselves as becoming interactive and autonomous learners. First, metta addresses the quality of human relationships (e.g., caring and goodwill). Supportive relationships improve academic self-concepts and energize learners’ interconnectedness with the learning environment. Such robust interrelationships improve the quality of “formative feedback.” Careful whole-group probing and elicitation guides young learners in the acquisition of autonomous thinking skills. However, simply instructing students to work harder or recalculate their answers is not feedback that promotes autonomous learning because it does not strategically guide (or scaffold) learning by informing students how or why they need to do this. If positive learning identities are to form, then the insecurity inherent to guesswork should be eliminated by effective scaffolding as observed in Stigler and Hiebert’s (Reference Stigler and Hiebert1999) seminal papers on lesson study in Japanese classrooms. Effective scaffolding, as seen in the foundational work of Wood, Bruner, and Ross (Reference Wood, Bruner and Ross1976), means providing assistance only when the student is unable to complete the next step of a task. To intervene too early would frustrate the development of learners’ capacities to gain control over their autonomous learning strategies. Feedback becomes formative when it is used as information to adapt the content and timing of teachers’ dialogues in ways that meet student needs (Sadler, Reference 502Sadler1989). More specifically, students are provided with instruction or thoughtful questioning that scaffolds further inquiry and deepens cognitive processing.

Second, karuna guides practices that alleviate suffering and recognize that all beings are engaged in some aspect of struggle. As such, it is unwise to judge others hastily. Such values have numerous implications for learning environments, including zenjin approaches to classroom assessment and rigorous approaches to academic research and inquiry. The third virtue, mudita, synonymous with the reciprocal aspects of intersubjectivity, is the capacity to enjoy the accomplishments of others and reject jealousy. Teachers model a collaborative environment that emphasizes that individual success is both a consequence of and a contribution to the whole community. The fourth and final virtue of the Brahma-viharas is upekka, or equanimity. This is to understand impermanence and insubstantiality as natural qualities of reality. It is a source of introspection and interconnection that deepens awareness of the true nature of assessment events unfolding in the classroom.

The importance of the affective component of the mind or heart nexus is implicit in Schilbach et al.’s (Reference Schilbach, Timmermans, Reddy, Costall, Bente and Schlict2013) comprehensive scientific review of brain-to-brain interaction. Schilbach and colleagues found that emotional engagement is required in order to gain intersubjective states of consciousness – a necessary condition for the recruitment of the neural reward-related (dopamine) networks to occur. The relevance of intersubjectivity to educational practice is two-fold. The first component is the extent to which the “hidden” ideas, intentions, and values of one participant are accessible to, understood, and reciprocated by others. The second stems from the increasingly relevant empirical domain of social neuroscience, which clarifies intersubjectivity as the basis for contingent interaction that may recruit the dopamine-releasing networks. As desirable as this sounds, we also know from our own personal experience of others that a stable intersubjective state is sometimes elusive and difficult to sustain. Regulation is needed to reproduce stable learning communities, a fact by no means lost on the global research community. In his MEXT speech, Sugita (Reference Sugita2012) called specifically for the “discipline and stability” required to “understand children … construct a bond with them,” and, in reference to Buddhist tract, “build a classroom community” where learners face the prospect of classroom assessment with equanimity (p. 3). In England, the year-long “SPRinG programme” was aimed at addressing the wide gap between the potential of group interaction to promote learning and its limited use in schools. The project involved working with primary school teachers to develop strategies for enhancing group work and dialogue and to implement a relational and group-skills training program (Baines, Rubie-Davis, & Blatchford, Reference Baines, Rubie-Davies and Blatchford2009). Twenty-first-century neuroscientific findings (e.g., Allen & Williams, Reference Allen and Williams2011) verified Japanese cultural philosophy’s prevailing and pervasive message and indicated that verbal consensus-building, as one would expect to find in formative assessment settings, creates a stable learning environment.

There is a broad intercultural consensus that for all human beings there is the possibility of transformation through mental cultivation, which results ultimately in heightened mindfulness. Kabat-Zinn (Reference Kabat-Zinn2013) expressed this concept well in English: “Mindfulness means paying attention in a particular way; on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgementally” (p. xxvii). In the ancient Pali language, the word is “sati,” which can also mean alertness, recollection, or retention – words that relate directly to the moment-to-moment processes for gathering information from the world around us. Implicit in the idea of mindfulness is impartiality and outcome equity. The inquiry then becomes one of how might practitioners conceptualize and facilitate an interactive learning environment? The capacity of classroom teachers to capitalize on spontaneous opportunities to engage in high-quality feedback practices resides in their mindfulness. The Japanese word for mindfulness is kizuki (Arimoto, Reference Arimoto2017); it approximates to Kounin’s term “with-it-ness” (Kounin, Reference Kounin1977) or, alternatively, realizing, becoming aware of, or noticing (Sakamoto, Reference Sakamoto2011). Kizuki is unique to Japanese culture, drawing from Buddhist teachings about skills that build an attentiveness required for synchronous feedback. Nichiren (1222–1282), a monk known for his devotion to Buddhist studies, provided some quite ancient thoughts on feedback: “a person can know another’s mind by listening to his voice. This is because the physical aspect reveals the spiritual aspect. The physical and the spiritual, which are one in essence, manifest themselves as two distinct aspects” (Thien, Reference Thien2004, p. 256). In the context of assessment, the term kizuki conveys the cultivation of teachers’ whole focus in order to develop insights into the true nature of their students’ learning.

Interpreting “Constructivism” Inside the Japanese Classroom

The purpose of this section is to describe in “optimal definition” the culturally produced classroom processes associated with the collection and use of learning evidence inside the mathematics classrooms of Japanese elementary schools. We coin the term “optimal definition” in recognition of Wiliam’s insightful observation that universal definitions are not useful here because “all research findings are generalizations and as such are either too general to be useful or too specific to be universally applicable” (Wiliam & Leahy, Reference Wiliam, Leahy and McMillan2007 p. 39). While this is undoubtedly true, there is a sense of irony in the admission that some limited generalizability is possible in the Japanese context, even if it is merely the sequence of transitions between lesson stages in mathematics lessons. This is because there is a stable, almost “canonical” order to these lessons. While a traditional and stable “lesson blueprint” exists, it should be remembered that teachers acquire the skills required for a whole-class dialogic style of teaching only after rigorous lesson study (Shimizu, Reference Shimizu1999).

In mathematics lessons, teachers typically transition among four distinct lesson stages: hatsumon (posing a problem, often termed the “hook” question), kikan-shido (instruction at students’ desks), neriage (in-depth dialogic interaction), and matome (summing up). Of particular interest for their potential to provide high-quality feedback are stages two (kikan-shido) and three (neriage). Stage two provides opportunities for observations of student work and some individual questioning. Stage three, neriage, is the “heart” of the lesson and provides opportunities for the collection and use of synchronous formative feedback (Clark, Reference 500Clark2012) on a whole-group basis. The term neriage relates to the work of a craftsman and embodies the spirit of a true worker or artisan with good spirit, technique, and physical condition. When it is applied to classroom interaction, the neriage stage alludes to elevating, elaborating, and kneading, not clay, but the substance of student reasoning using blackboard and peer equitable assessment interaction in the whole class.

In the language of the neo-Vygotskian constructivists Goos, Galbraith, and Renshaw (Reference Goos, Galbraith and Renshaw2002), whole-group feedback strategies are “best understood as involving the mutual adjustment and appropriation of ideas” (p. 195) inside the “collaborative ZPD [zone of proximal development]” (cf. Vygotsky, Reference Vygotsky1978). For many educators, the often-quoted constructivist concept of the “zone of proximal development,” originated by Vygotsky, elucidates classroom feedback practices most completely. The ZPD is the conceptual gap, or distance between the current level of understanding, and the next (or proximal) level of understanding. Vygotskian theory guides practitioners to reject reductionist modes of thinking. Both Buddhist philosophy and Vygotskian theory concur on the importance of contingent social interaction. However, Japanese cultural tradition constrains social norms in ways that require a more specific term than “contingent.” Japanese interrelationships depend on reciprocity, or in the language of the constructivist, collaboration. To illustrate the inseparability of self and environment as they interact to create meaning, Vygotsky (Reference Vygotsky, Rieber and Carton1987) analogizes that in order to understand how water extinguishes a flame one does not attempt to reduce it to its elements. To do so means that the scientist will “discover, to his chagrin that hydrogen burns and oxygen sustains combustion. He will never succeed in explaining the characteristics of the whole by analyzing the characteristics of the elements” (p. 45). In accordance with constructivist theory, traditional Japanese values reproduce the social norms from which reciprocal learning interactions arise (see Figure 21.1).

Radical constructivists Lave and Wenger (Reference Lave and Wenger1991) completed their anthropological study of craft apprenticeships in rural West Africa and concluded that “learning involves the whole person; it implies not only a relation to social communities – it implies becoming a full participant, a member, a kind of person” (p. 3). The constructivism of Lave supports the formative assessment literature’s emphasis on sharing assessment criteria, learning goals, and collaborative learning. For example, Lave (Reference Lave, Resnick, Levine and Teasley1991) observed of the Vygotskian novice–expert relationship that “newcomers furnished with comprehensive goals, an initial view of the whole, improvising within the multiply structured field of mature practice with near peers and exemplars of mature practice – these are characteristic of communities of practice that re-produce themselves successfully” (p. 72). Lave and Wenger’s fieldwork supports the proposition that the use of formative assessment creates active and engaged participants with an increasing potential to acquire “mastery … without didactic structuring and in such a fashion that knowledgeable skill is part of the construction of new identities of mastery in practice” (Lave, Reference Lave, Resnick, Levine and Teasley1991, p. 64). This is seen in the Japanese public school system’s strategy of interyear collaborations between older and younger students who learn together for their mutual benefit. In Japan, the cross-grade study partner system is an energetic national strategy, entirely consistent with the MEXT focus on the positive association between autonomous life skills and equitable collaboration skills.

Constructivist practices are ubiquitous, and therefore the observations of Lave and Wenger are also consistent with the perspectives of the early twentieth-century New Education Movement and with twenty-first-century policy perspectives (Sugita, Reference Sugita2012). The rationale behind Lave and Wenger’s concept of social reproduction – legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) in “social communities” – intersects with aspects of Japanese social structure: hierarchical social structures that exist as the foundation for culturally sanctioned processes that, despite the vertical structure, promote collaboration and stability in pursuit of wholeness. It also shares a great deal of spirit with the practice of Japanese lesson study. Consistent with the discussion on constructivism, Shimahara (Reference Shimahara1998) described the uniqueness of the Japanese model of lesson study as “craft knowledge” based on “apprenticeship through which occupational practice from the past is perpetuated” (p. 451). Shimahara (Reference Shimahara1998) noted that when teachers are engaged in lesson study, they are collectively “committed to creating and regenerating craft knowledge of teaching” (p. 451), because Japanese teachers’ activities are embedded in their lives.

LPP is, in part, a process of becoming “whole.” As seen in the fieldwork of Lave and Wenger (Reference Lave and Wenger1991) and foundational studies on contingent feedback (Vygotsky, Reference Vygotsky, Rieber and Carton1987), learners share knowledge and learn best from each other through reciprocal interaction (cooperation) as opposed to didactic “top-down” instruction and assessment (control). Classrooms that nurture reciprocal learning relationships establish a cultural ambience, or climate, that encapsulates students within a uniquely harmonious sociocultural context for an interactive style of assessment and feedback. This (1) negates the psychological risks associated with being verbally assessed in front of the whole room and (2) promotes a sense of self-worth among students as valuable contributors whether their answers are right or wrong. The assurance of equitable learning environments is a constant across the theoretical spectrum, ranging from social cognition theories (as seen in Bandura’s social cognitive theory) to radical constructivism (as in Lave and Wenger’s LPP) and the theoretical space in between where theories of formative assessment are conceived (Clark, Reference 500Clark2012). The process of “becoming” through participation in community norms and the outcome of wholeness are manifest in the active social construction of legitimate identities as interactive learners (Lave, Reference Lave, Resnick, Levine and Teasley1991; Wiliam, Bartholomew & Reay, Reference Wiliam, Bartholomew, Reay, Valero and Zevenbergen2004; Willis, Reference Willis2010).

The emphasis on the social negotiation of meaning is entirely consonant with Japanese learning policy and practice. In this chapter we have seen that this is particularly true of the dialogic neriage stage of mathematics lessons. In the Vygotskian conception of interactive learning, students traverse the ZPD by interacting either with peers who have the knowledge to assist or with experts (e.g., teachers). The Japanese Central Council for Education (1996) emphasized that parents are also important participants. If “competences for positive living” are to be cultivated, it is important for schools, parents, and the community to work together as partners (as cited in Shinkawa & Arimoto, Reference Shinkawa and Arimoto2012, p. 62). In this environment, young learners may work alongside adults in synchronicity. In the twenty-first-century classroom, many teachers of every cultural extraction are encouraged to use well-practiced observational and verbal strategies to elicit feedback in a process that Schön called “reflection in action” (Reference Schön1987). Wenger (Reference Wenger1998) described the social component of Schön’s reflection in action as possessing “a flavour of continuous interaction, of gradual achievement and of give and take” (p. 53). Here, “continuous interaction … of give and take” parallels the sustained and reciprocal norms of social interaction expected of Japanese students.

Teachers who have become professionally adapted to the use of dialogic feedback practices, such as those seen in neriage and formative feedback lesson stages are, according to the US National Research Council (2000), “adaptive experts.” These are expert teachers who are flexible and able to respond contingently by modifying existing or inventing new procedures to meet learners’ moment-to-moment needs. Such practitioners are more likely to innovate approaches that better equip them to capitalize on opportunities and solve problems that could otherwise appear mystifying (Hatano & Oura, Reference Hatano and Oura2003). Bransford et al. (Reference Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, Beckett, Darling-Hammond and Bransford2005) noted the difference between adaptive experts and “routine experts.” They emphasized that for students to become effective learners, they need to be taught by teachers who have received initial and continuing training (as seen in Japanese lesson study) in interactive feedback strategies (Black & Wiliam, Reference Black and Wiliam1998; Vogt & Rogalla, Reference Vogt and Rogalla2009; Inoue, Reference Inoue2010). Routine experts have a range of core competencies that they consistently deploy across the span of their lifetimes to attain increasing efficiency. Adaptive experts, however, have core competencies such as “adaptability, creativity and innovativeness.” They are “people who aren’t focused only on payoffs but do the best they can to learn, adapt, improve” (Benkler, Reference Benkler2011, p. 85). In Benkler’s vision of a process without payoffs, we see the concept of altruism, a concept residing at the deeper levels of Japanese culture. The quest for the adaptive expert, as described earlier, is consonant with the cultivation of professional skills during Japanese lesson study. US-based Japanese authority on mathematics education Noriyuki Inoue and colleagues presented a paper entitled “Deconstructing adaptive teacher expertise for inquiry-based teaching in Japanese elementary classrooms: Neriage as inter-subjective pedagogy for social mind-storming” at the 2016 European Educational Research Association conference (Inoue, Asada, Maeda, & Nakamura, Reference Inoue, Asada, Maeda and Nakamura2016). In Inoue et al.’s title, there are many keywords of relevance to the discussions in this chapter; “inquiry-based,” “inter-subjective,” and “social mind-storming” are particularly evocative collocations. The adaptive-expert model, in its idealized form, is described by Bransford et al. (Reference Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, Beckett, Darling-Hammond and Bransford2005) as “the gold standard.” No matter how benchmarks and standards are described, it seems reasonable to expect that the criteria recognizing teachers’ quality as interactive assessors would be intrinsically similar for cross-cultural contexts of neriage, formative assessment, and adaptive expertise. How, then, do Inoue et al.’s claims of “inter-subjective pedagogy” demonstrate their sociocultural foundation in the practical reality of the Japanese mathematics lesson? We turn to that next.

An Introduction to Strategic Interactions Inside Japanese Mathematics Classrooms

The inherent systemic stability typical of Japanese classrooms makes it possible to move from the general sense of “a math lesson in Japan” to the more specific “Japanese mathematics lesson” or what Shulman (Reference Shulman2005) terms as “signature pedagogy.” Japanese lesson study tends to prescribe whole-class interaction, so students have the opportunity to engage in feedback that raises whole-class attainment rather than that of individual students. The skill of directing questions to the “collective student” was found in the practice of expert Japanese mathematics teachers, and typically absent from that of novices, who tended to treat students’ questions as being from individual learners (Bromme & Steinbring, Reference Bromme and Steinbring1994). Inoue (Reference Inoue2010) worked with fourth- and fifth-grade mathematics teachers in San Diego, California, who wanted to develop neriage-like skills. Participating teachers reported that interacting with the collective student was a “major problem” and could not be established as a legitimate social norm. Some teachers scaffolded their lessons heavily, distributing written prompts to help students begin thinking and articulating their ideas to the group.

The teachers in the study overcame their tacit preconceptions around cultural identity, requiring only two months to transition into more competent facilitators of whole-group student interaction, in part by interjecting their own ideas less frequently. Black and Wiliam (Reference Black, Wiliam and Gardner2006), in their research on the dialogic classroom with UK and US teachers, reported similar findings: “the task of developing an interactive style of classroom dialogue required a radical change in teaching style for many teachers … some were well over a year into the project before such changes were achieved” (p. 14). As with all transitions, community cohesion is integral to success, as displayed in the “highly interactive and complex discussions” (Inoue, Reference Inoue2010, p. 13) that took place among teachers during rewarding (collaborative) meetings.

The Japanese Mathematics Lesson Deconstructed

The following discussion is applicable to any curriculum subject that can be taught through inquiry and problem-solving. It continues the trend in this chapter of emphasizing mathematics as an important discipline and a key research area. The Japanese mathematics lesson, the structure of which was introduced earlier in the chapter, again opens with the hatsumon. This opening question should be refined so that it engages student attention. It deals with concepts, yet it can be based on a simple math problem, such as 84 divided by 14. The task is not to calculate the answer; the point is to understand that both dividend (84) and divisor (14) can be divided by the same number without changing the result. The hatsumon often deals with the reconstruction of generalizable concepts of this kind to similar problems. To plan for and effectively set up lessons where learners talk about meta-strategies is seen as particularly important by Pellegrino et al. (Reference Pellegrino, Chudowsky and Glaser2001). In their policy document for the National Research Council, they emphasized that assessments should assess the “efficiency and appropriateness” of students’ problem-solving skills: “Assessments should focus on identifying the specific strategies children are using for problem solving, giving particular consideration to where those strategies fall on a developmental continuum of efficiency and appropriateness for a particular domain of knowledge and skill” (p. 3). In mathematics as in life, if problem-solving strategies are to be reconstructed successfully, then learners must have a strong understanding of the underlying principles of what was learned. In this way, they can recognize novel situations that relate closely to those previously encountered, and deploy zenjin strategies to resolve any challenges and problems.

In the second, kikan-shido stage, teachers gather evidence of the students’ problem-solving methods through observation. It is a generally silent stage of collection used along with evidence collected from teachers’ prior experience of teaching this topic to other students. Some teachers will also use questioning to elicit evidence of individual learning if they think it is useful to the “collective student” in the next group-discussion stage of the lesson. While doing so, they decide which student groups will be the first to attend the board so that the third stage, the heart of the lesson called neriage, may begin.

In accordance with the Japanese emphasis on consensual meaning-making, teacher and students engage in a “dynamic” and “collaborative” (Shimizu, Reference Shimizu1999) process known as neriage. Inoue et al. (Reference Inoue, Asada, Maeda and Nakamura2016) described it as “inter-subjective pedagogy for cultural mind-storming.” Neriage is an ancient term borrowed from the traditional pottery-craft industry. It offers a rich cultural metaphor that deconstructs classroom dialogue as the “kneading,” “layering,” and “polishing” of students’ ideas. Inoue (Reference Inoue2010) emphasized whole-class consensus building dialogue as the sine qua non of successful learning because it assists “students [to] build consensus on the best mathematical strategy and think deeply about problem-solving” (p. 5). In Japanese society, consensus-building is the social norm. In everyday conversation, phrases such as so desu ne (yes, I see your point) create a sense of reciprocal understanding resembling agreement. They are intended to facilitate further harmonious interaction. Such courteous sensitivities are called kizukai (or kikubari), meaning alertness and attention to others’ needs or feelings. This requires not only accommodative positive behavior but also enryo (self-imposed restraint) to avoid causing meiwaku, an extremely common word that covers a comprehensive gamut of meanings, including trouble, burden, inconvenience, annoyance, displeasure, and discomfort.

As a microcosm of wider social life, the Japanese classroom is fully engaged with interactions that build and consolidate consensus (Takahashi, Reference Takahashi2008; Inoue, Reference Inoue2010; Walshaw Reference Walshaw2011). Walshaw (Reference Walshaw2011) remarked that “neriage is centred on whole-class discussions in which the teacher compares and contrasts different students’ strategies and, rather than pointing to the best solution, works to build consensus amongst students” (p. 2). The reciprocal interactions of neriage parallel the “synchronous feedback” (Black & Wiliam, Reference Black and Wiliam2009) at the heart of a more effective dialogic style of teaching. In the abstract, neriage and formative feedback originate in the heart–mind nexus. It is therefore entirely logical to state that where the needs of the zenjin are not being met, it is just as damaging to neriage as to formative feedback, or any kind of interactive assessment founded on interrelationships. It is, after all, a logical justification for the general adoption of zenjin approaches to classroom instruction and assessment.

Neriage has been described as the “heart of the lesson [that] begins after students come up with solutions” (Takahashi, Reference Takahashi2008). After students have done their best to formulate solutions (in the kikan-shido stage), students are assisted in their efforts to uncover important mathematical ideas as they analyze and compare solutions. In the neriage stage, students are carefully guided by the teacher as they critically analyze, compare, and contrast the shared ideas. The concept of neriage also uses the artisan (waza) as a symbol for the whole person, who is in possession of good spirit, technique, and physical condition. It is by more than rhetorical connection that the neriage metaphor signals to all participants that this stage of the lesson is a culturally venerated process. As such, it surpasses superficial student presentations (micro-summative assessments) by accommodating a careful, multiphase collection of learning evidence for immediate (synchronous) use or for use later, asynchronously (Black & Wiliam, Reference Black and Wiliam2009; Clark, Reference 500Clark2012).

During neriage, students are called on to consider issues like efficiency, generalizability, and similarity to previously learned ideas (Takahashi, Reference Takahashi2008). This is more clearly illustrated in a video funded by the US Department of Education (Lesson Study Group, n.d.). In the video, Takahashi interacts with US fourth-grade students as they calculate the area of a polygon. However, the desired learning outcome is not to find the area. The “big idea” is for students to reconstruct the same method in order to find the areas of similar yet novel shapes. In the video, students are seen working in pairs or small groups. At the end of the group-work phase, the students are invited to the marker board where they explain their method while the teacher probes their conceptual understanding and annotates a picture of the polygon with their ideas. Eventually, six different methods of solution are written on the marker board. In the latter part of the lesson, the teacher asks the students how they are different.

From neriage, the lesson transitions to the fourth and final stage: matome (summing up). Although neriage is seen as the heart of the lesson, the overall quality of the lesson depends on planning and monitoring during kikan-shido and the essential reflection during matome. Japanese teachers see matome as indispensible. Shimizu (Reference Shimizu1999) noted that matome “is identified as a critical difference” (p. 111) between Japanese classroom activities and those documented elsewhere. Japanese mathematics teachers, through rigorous lesson study, are practiced in making “a final and careful comment on students’ work in terms of mathematical sophistication” by “theorizing key ideas and applications of the ideas to new problems” (Inoue et al., Reference Inoue, Asada, Maeda and Nakamura2016, p. 2). In the aforementioned US Department of Education video, the lesson is shown to end with a clear statement from the teacher on the general applicability of the “agreed on” method: “Let’s use the way that we solved this problem with other shapes.” In the Japanese context, “consensus building discussions” (Inoue, Reference Inoue2010) reproduce and reward reciprocity and diminish the negative motivational states associated with public comparison.

The neriage stage’s constructivist methods create a direct parallel with the methods arising from Vygotsky’s ZPD or Wood’s (Reference Wood, Bruner and Ross1976) scaffolding. All refer to forms of assisted learning, and “assisted learning is the method by which instructional and motivational goals are integrated” (Sivan, Reference Sivan1986, p. 211). If the integration of these goals is to take place, then teachers, their students, and their peers need to sustain intersubjectivity (Walker, Reference Walker, Peterson, Baker and McGaw2010). This is an interpersonal process that entails the making of subjective inferences in order to gain insights about the intentions and perspectives of others. Subjective inference is a fundamental process that determines whether interactions are contingent and support learning, or whether they are noncontingent and will not. This process of meaning-making has been described as a neural basis for learning relationships (Clark & Dumas, Reference Clark and Dumas2015). Higher-level intersubjectivity (or “cognitive empathy,” a term that combines mind and heart) reveals the actions and emotional states of others and forms the basis for contingent responses that sustain learning interactions to a successful conclusion. In Japan, intersubjectivity plays a particularly powerful role in sustaining the reciprocity required for legitimate learning interactions. Lebra (Reference Lebra1976) explains that “implicit, nonverbal, intuitive communication” is valued above an “explicit, verbal exchange of information” (p. 46). In Japan’s unique cultural circumstance, intersubjectivity maintains and sustains culturally sanctioned reciprocal interrelationships. Indeed, reciprocal interactions exist at the very center of effective social and learning interactions, as the neuroscientific work of Sakaiya et al. (Reference Sakaiya, Shiraito, Kato, Ide, Okada, Takano and Kansaku2013) indicates, discussed next.

Cultural Values, Neural Reward, and “Positive” Learning Interactions

Sakaiya et al. (Reference Sakaiya, Shiraito, Kato, Ide, Okada, Takano and Kansaku2013), a team of research scientists at the University of Tokyo, conducted a neuroimaging study to investigate neural recruitment during live face-to-face interaction. They reported two findings with major implications for learning. First, the intensity of emotion associated with reciprocal styles of interaction presents in the mesolimbic dopamine reward system of the brain. Put another way, when humans engage in reciprocal interactions in pursuit of a common outcome, the mid-brain structures produce dopamine, a chemical that creates a sense of well-being and even excitement. In terms of their general findings, Sakaiya et al.’s study confirmed those of an earlier study by Redcay et al. (Reference Redcay, Dodell-Feder, Pearrow, Mavros, Kleiner, Gabrieli and Saxe2010). However, to pause briefly on a quite salient cultural point, the Japanese study focused intentionally on the cultural cornerstone of “reciprocal” social interactions, going as far to specify that Japanese society may not function at all without reciprocal relationships. In contrast, Redcay et al.’s functional magnetic resonance imaging study in the North American context does not confer a similar emphasis on interrelationships. It does, however, confirm that those key neural structures recruited for everyday social interaction (right temporoparietal junction, anterior cingulate cortex, and right superior temporal sulcus) are “consistently linked” to the activation of the dopaminergic reward system. The same study emphasized “the powerful and pervasive drive” (p. 7) for humans to seek out social interactions and reiterated that contingent interactions with another person recruits the reward systems (Redcay, et al., Reference Redcay, Dodell-Feder, Pearrow, Mavros, Kleiner, Gabrieli and Saxe2010; Guionnet et al., Reference Guionnet, Nadel, Bertasi, Sperduti, Delaveau and Fossati2012; Krill & Platek, Reference Krill and Platek2012; Sakaiya et al., Reference Sakaiya, Shiraito, Kato, Ide, Okada, Takano and Kansaku2013; Schilbach et al., Reference Schilbach, Timmermans, Reddy, Costall, Bente and Schlict2013). The neuroscientific evidence regarding contingent interaction provides empirical basis for Black and Wiliam’s notional “moments of contingency” (Reference Black and Wiliam2009, p. 10). These “moments” are described as a series of opportunities to interact in ways that further learning. Moments may be created by an accomplished teacher, and where they arise spontaneously, moments should be capitalized on immediately. This requires synchronous, yet well-considered adjustments in learning discourse. In formative environments, such moments of contingency arise continuously and can become teachable moments when teachers listen carefully, probe into students’ conceptual understanding, and respond in ways that construct further understanding from learners’ previous answers. In addition, contingent interactions cultivate autonomous verbal reasoning in collective settings. So, when a teacher is in a contingent iinteraction, he or she is also scaffolding learning in the constructivist tradition.

In related neuroscientific work, US scientists Salamone and Correa (Reference Salamone and Correa2012) found that the simple expectation of a rewarding interaction based on past experience recruits dopamine production. This response makes it more likely that learners will engage enthusiastically and sustain the next interaction to a mutually agreeable conclusion. In a carefully structured group-learning ecology, the dopamine effect has a clear potential to motivate, reinforcing engagement and succeeding negative psychological states caused by teachers’ negative public comparisons between students. However, Salamone and Correa (Reference Salamone and Correa2012) emphasized that beneficial outcomes are not inevitable or equally distributed among the participants, so that there is significant variability in how children identify themselves as good or poor learners in any cultural context. The second, and equally important, finding by Sakaiya and colleagues (Reference Sakaiya, Shiraito, Kato, Ide, Okada, Takano and Kansaku2013) was that intersubjectivity is so essential that without it, cooperative human relationships appear impossible. Although the emphasis on the intersubjective basis for reciprocal social interaction arises from unique cultural tradition, it is also a proposition supported by European research, for example, as noted in Schilbach et al.’s (Reference Schilbach, Timmermans, Reddy, Costall, Bente and Schlict2013) German-based review of the neural basis for social interaction (also see Clark & Dumas, Reference Clark and Dumas2015). Such findings suggest the inherent capacity of Japanese communities to reproduce reciprocal relationships for successful zenjin outcomes.

What Is a “Positive” Learning Interaction?

“Positive” learning interactions are, on the surface, definitively “good,” particularly for classrooms that claim to value interactive styles of assessment. Right? Perhaps not: the idea of “positive” is entirely subjective, depending on cultural perception. Findings from empirical psychology (Kitayama, Marksus, & Kurokawa, Reference Kitayama, Markus and Kurokawa2000) and social neuroscience (Sakaiya et al., Reference Sakaiya, Shiraito, Kato, Ide, Okada, Takano and Kansaku2013) indicate that cultural values place unique constraints and pose problems around the social norms from which legitimate and rewarding moment-to-moment interactions arise. Kitayama et al.’s study found that cultural values constrain social interaction, and where those constraints are breached, cultural values regard those interactions as erroneous. Neural rewards are available only when people are engaged in culturally sanctioned modes of social interaction. This relationship is elaborated on in Figure 21.1.

Just as the field of social neuroscience began to explain the neural (intrinsic) rewards experienced during social interaction, Kitayama et al. (Reference Kitayama, Markus and Kurokawa2000) published their psychological study on cultural values, motivation, and social interaction. They drew their sample from Japanese and US college students. Kitayama et al. hypothesized as follows: “Feelings of well-being are associated with independence and interpersonal disengagement in America, and with inter-dependence and interpersonal engagement in Japan” (p. 97). Contrasting datasets were expected based on the given differences in culture and the resultant social psychology of the nations under review. These differences were framed as “culturally sanctioned views.” In the United States, the view of the self as independent is associated with asymmetrical relationships and social disengagement. The social reproduction of this view entails “asserting and protecting one’s own rights, acting on the basis of one’s own attitudes or judgements, and separating or distinguishing the self from the context” (p. 95). In comparison, the Japanese view of the self as interdependent is reflected in a socially engaging disposition, which emphasizes empathy, personal sacrifice, and a uniquely constructivist perspective on the relationship between self and significant others in the social environment (Lebra, Reference Lebra1976, Reference Lebra2004).

Participants from both countries were provided with a list of “positive” emotions of two types. The first type, “interpersonally disengaging positive emotions,” included superiority, pride, and “top of the world”; generally speaking it is the nationalistic concept of “number one.” The second type, “interpersonally engaging positive emotions,” included closeness, friendliness, and respect. Kitayama and colleagues (Reference Kitayama, Markus and Kurokawa2000) found that the US students in the sample derived more intrinsic pleasure from socially disengaging emotions such as feelings of superiority during an interaction. In contrast, their Japanese counterparts reported a greater sense of well-being when experiencing socially engaging positive emotions, such as those experienced during reciprocal interaction.

Reflection

This chapter has placed heavy emphasis on the importance of cultural influence over whole-group dialogic processes and on the interconnectedness that Japanese students find intrinsically rewarding. More specifically, it explored how culture constrains the social norms that sanction legitimate community participation from within. Research in this area would benefit greatly from new and interdisciplinary branches of neuroscience, such as “sociocultural neuroscience” (see Sakaiya et al., Reference Sakaiya, Shiraito, Kato, Ide, Okada, Takano and Kansaku2013) and “educational neuroscience” (see Clark & Dumas, Reference Clark and Dumas2016). Regrettably, many otherwise brilliant scientists look to the past and reject interdisciplinary studies that seek to blend social psychology and neuroscience together as mixing oil and water. We contest this and note that one of the fundamental pillars supporting the link between education and neuroscience is the ability of the brain to learn. This challenges the perspective that the human brain and learning should be viewed in different ways and, further, suggests a neural basis for learning.

From the global perspective, it is correct to say that Japanese cultural values constrain social norms so that “Japanese society tends to value formality in public contexts. This is true of schools in Japan. Hence, formality is more important than creativity” (Takanashi, Reference Takanashi2004, p. 9). Yet, in Japan, formality is better understood as stability, a necessary condition for intersubjectivity. Eurocentric evocations of formative assessment’s creative and spontaneous qualities are treated as items of only potential interest in non-Western contexts, not least for their self-referent bases. For example, North American researchers Macintyre, Buck, and Beckenhauer (Reference Macintyre, Buck and Beckenhauer2007) enthusiastically described the “qualities integral to formative assessments” as “resisting imposed routine, demanding reason alongside ongoing judgments” (p. 6). This proposition raises the question of how these qualities might be transformed and integrated as a legitimate community practice in non-self-referent contexts such as Japan. In the same paragraph, the authors go on to describe formative assessment as “a creative enterprise, consideration of alternatives, openness, and inventiveness” (p. 6). These dynamic qualities of imagination and creation are seen as fundamental to success across cultures, and from a Japanese perspective are essential to and constitutive of zenjin. As this chapter moves toward its conclusion, it is appropriate to encourage further cross-cultural and interdisciplinary studies on the fine grain of classroom dialogue, and how legitimate learning identities are constructed through reciprocal interactions in the heart and mind nexus. So it is complex, and from our earlier discussion we understand that any so-called positive frameworks for activity are transformed by the cultural context to which they are applied. Consequently, formulations of creativity and formality are problematized differently depending on where they exist.

The discussion presented in this chapter suggests that care should be taken not to read too much into or mishandle the word “formality” in the Japanese context. A compelling body of evidence (as seen in OECD reports) supports the contention that Japanese interrelationships ensure successful task outcomes, even in times of extreme crisis (Shinkawa & Arimoto, Reference Shinkawa and Arimoto2012). Consider the words of Catherine Lewis, a distinguished research scholar from Mills College in Oakland, California. In a personal communication, she reflected on the Fukushima disasters that shook the Tohoku region and the world in 2011, remarking:

This chapter has in part discussed a framework connecting the role of culture and social and classroom interaction in the cultivation and reproduction of the basic habits of mind and heart. These are based squarely on the high value attached to the concept of kankei (interrelationships) as the foundation of cultural identity. Put another way, Japanese cultural identity is created in the mind or heart nexus. When teachers in Western contexts cultivate postintervention awareness (kizuki) of their students’ emotional and motivational needs, they have adapted “their own work to meet pupils’ needs” (Black & Wiliam, Reference Black and Wiliam2010, p. 82). Perhaps with careful pre- and in-service moderation, all teachers can reproduce a community of adaptive experts by their commitment to the dialogic and collaborative essence at the heart of the formative assessment movement. Zenjin education requires teachers to possess and model the expert regulation of relational skills, so transcending didactic methods that disaffect large numbers of students in all cultural contexts. This is seen in Sugita’s (Reference Sugita2012) speech to novice teachers, in which he analogizes that teachers should never “use reins and whips by force,” because such methods “are ineffective” (p. 6).

We argue for discursive progress in the educational research sciences. Video examples of what interactive whole-group dialogue looks like in practical settings are the essential stimuli for successful outcomes from intercultural discussion. Underpinning this effort, universities need to build robust mixed-methods research capacities in order to conduct complex and international collaborations and test the hypothesis that “Teachers, regardless of their cultural identity, resist interacting with their students inside the inherently motivating heart-mind nexus.” Fundamentally, it is the pervasive influence of the (European) Enlightenment over Western contexts, and strongly emphasized in the United States, that continues to value the mind over emotion and discredits emotion as a distraction from “mature” thought. We have also seen, and not without a sense of irony, how fractious European ideals were successfully integrated into Japanese cultural identity by local reformers tacitly guided toward balanced and harmonious interrelationships. In terms of what is intellectually producible, one must remember that the products of critical scholarship and creative development are constrained and sanctioned (or not) by prevailing cultural philosophies. In this regard, this chapter has built a case to suggest that thousands of years of Japanese cultural tradition are a powerful reproducer of learning communities organized to sustain reciprocal and intrinsically rewarding learning and feedback interactions.