On 2013/07/29 17:39, SSJ-Forum Moderator wrote:
I kind of understand
what Earl wanted to say from his experience but I also want to say that claiming Japanese textbooks is not a major source of knowledge of Japanese history for Japanese people only by considering some poor performing students is a little extreme. This claim seems to be equivalent of saying that most Japanese students are so stupid or bored that they cannot learn almost anything from history textbooks (if this may be true).

First, I do not know where you are getting this "poor performing students" business. The two universities where I teach Japanese history are at the top of the private university pecking order and are typically linked with the old imperial universities (旧帝国大学)
to indicate their status.

Second, I do not think you understand the textbook approval system. If a textbook is approved and if it is adopted, the students in an adopting school district get a copy. That is all you can say with any certainity. Without surveying a teachers and students, you do not really know

(1) is Japanese history actually being taught to the extent required or is some or all of the time being used for other things including subjects that carry more weight on entrance exams;

(2) whether teachers are actually using the textbook;

(3) how much of the textbook they are using ;

(4) what if any supplementary commentary or materials the teacher provides;

(5) how seriously students take Japanese history relative to other subjects, especially those that carry weight on entrance exams;

(6) how much they retain of what they learn.

Maybe I am exceptional, but I remember absolutely nothing of my high school history courses. I can remember having them, but that is all. And, I am an historian. I was, however, very interested in history in high school and read numerous novels, especially those of Upton Sinclair, that dealt with American social history.

Here are two of the questions I use to get a sense of what my students know about Japanese history.

Have you read a book (including manga), seen a movie or television documentary, or heard personal recollections about Japanese history that made a strong impression on you? If so, describe briefly.

Have you had any previous course dealing with Japanese history? If so describe briefly.

Perhaps my questions could be better worded, but I think even within the current wording there is sufficient latitude for students to say something about official textbooks or school courses. Overall, they do not. Comments about school courses in Japanese history tend to be "I had one but I don't really remember anything from it" or "I had one but we only got as far as the Meiji Restoration." In the few cases I have had where a student said a school course left a strong impression, it was because the teacher had used his or her own materials and put a very personal spin on the subject. Manga come up frequently, NHK costume drama, and novels (Shiba Ryutaro, for example).

And, let me say once again, that my survey base is students at the two most prestigious private university in Japan. Got it?

But, let's for the sake of argument assume

(1) Japanese history is taught to the degree mandated by the official curriculum guidlines (学習指導要領);

(2) the teacher follows the textbook cover to cover;

(3) the students are paying attention;

(4) all the "nasty bits" are in the textbook being used.

Given the way Japanese school textbooks are written, each "nasty bit" would get a few lines and perhaps a supplementary "bubble" alongside the main text with additional information. Further, given that the "nasty bits" with the possible exception of Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea are modern and given that the textbooks treat the whole of Japanese history from the bone age to the near present, all of the "nasty bits"
unless they are given exceptional treatment totally different from everything else will amount to perhaps two or three percent of the narrative. Skip a day and you will miss them Doze off in class and you will miss them UNLESS the teacher makes a point of taking up these subjects. And, teachers can take up subjects that are not in the textbooks if they are so inclined.

Further, consider the number of courses a high school student will take plus the hours they will spend in juku or yobiko if they are aiming at a high prestige university. Their one history course is going to be a small fraction of their total time, the "nasty bits" a microscopic fraction of everything else they are doing in high school. And, because as I have pointed out (1) modern Japanese history is not a mandatory Sentaa Shiken subject and (2) even if you elect Japanese history, the exam is weighted to Meiji or earlier history, there is no incentive to learn the "nasty bits" even if they are in the textbook. Unless individual teachers make an issue of the "nasty bits,"
it is unlikely that their presence or absence will have much if any impact on what kids learn about Japanese history.

One way to judge where the effort goes with Japanese history is to look at jukenjuku and yobiko advertisements. I have done this only casually so my conclusion is tentative, but if what the exam preparation industry offers is indicative of where would-be high flyers are putting their energy, it would appear that Japanese history is virtually off the radar screen although world history and "ancient" 古典
history and texts as well as kanbun 漢文 get some attention.

I stick with my original point. The textbooks are symbolic. To find out what kids are are learning, you need to survey teachers and students. You have to survey the teachers to find out what the kids might potentially learn. You have to survey the kids to find out what they have learned and remembered.

EHK