The process of planning and implementing lessons to tackle testimonial injustice in Japan: challenges and remedies in selecting teaching materials

• In Event: Poster Session 2
  In Poster Session: The process of planning and implementing lessons to tackle testimonial injustice in Japan: challenges and remedies in selecting teaching materials

Proposal

Introduction
Among various democratic educational theories (Oliver & Shaver, 1996; Andolina & Conklin, 2021) that aim to correct testimonial injustice (Friker, 2007), currently, the global educational community is focusing on Implicit Bias Training (IBT) lessons for children (Williams & Wright, 2020; Mandhana & Caruso, 2022). The causes of testimonial injustice are individual cognitive characteristics and the environment (Saul, 2017), and IBT is oriented toward improving them (Kahn, 2019). Williams and Wright. (2020) and Mandhana and Caruso. (2022) have provided examples of IBT implementation.
In Japan, however, practices aimed at correcting testimonial injustice is scarce. Because Japanese school education strives to maintain harmony in the classroom, focusing on children who can put forward their claims through testimonial injustice (Tsuneyoshi, 2015). Therefore, this study explores planning and implementing lessons that aim to correct testimonial injustice in the Japanese context. By doing so, this study presents how lessons that aim to correct testimonial injustice and teacher education can be achieved. Using a Japanese case study, this study aims to explore the following two questions:

(a) What materials did teachers choose when planning lessons aimed at correcting testimonial injustice? What materials were not chosen? Why?
(b) What materials did teachers choose when implementing lessons aimed at correcting testimonial injustice? What materials were not chosen? Why?

Methodology
As this study was operating in the context of planning and implementing lessons, it was based on interpretive practitioner research and took a social constructionist epistemological perspective (Hawley & Crowe, 2016).
I had two stances: as a “graduate student researching lessons aimed at correcting testimonial injustice” and as a “Japanese junior high school teacher”. As a “graduate student”, I compared the lessons planned by me as a “Japanese junior high school teacher” based on IBT implementation discussed in previous studies and interpreted the process of planning the lessons to fit the Japanese context. Similarly, I compared the lesson I planned with the lesson I implemented and interpreted the process of adapting the lesson to the Japanese context. I worked with critical colleagues to enhance the validity of the interpretations.

Findings and Discussion
The results presented two differences between planning and implementing the lessons.
The first difference was in the teaching material. In the planned lesson, the material was a discussion among children about the gymnastic festival, it is a discussion among children about the competitions they will play. While in the implemented lesson, the material was a discussion among different age groups. It is discussion between adults and children about Policy and Economy.
The second difference was the criterion for selecting the material. In the planned lesson, the criterion was “whether the material is easy for Japanese children to realize testimonial injustice”. In contrast, in the planned lessons, the criterion was “whether or not the material would affect other educational activities”. This is because (1) testimonial injustice is context-dependent and (2) Japanese teachers are not only subject matter experts, but also classroom managers (Tsuneyoshi, 2015).

Author

• Ryouto TANAKA