Sakai Akira

The purpose of this paper is to present, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, a critical analysis of dominant traditional teaching methods deeply rooted in the culture of teaching. The previous studies on this research topic were influenced by Western scholars and failed to offer a clear understanding of the process of learning teaching methods. We use an ethnographic approach to study the Process. Based on an analysis of our ethnographic data we conclude that: (1) Teachers uncritically accept the traditional teaching method as a taken-for-granted approach to teaching. These methods are not used as a survival strategy to cope with constraining situations they encounter. (2) The reason why teachers predominantly use the traditional method is grounded in ethnopedagogy which integrated various aspects of teaching. Beginning teachers come to share ethnopedagogy through intersubjective interaction with experienced teachers. Its emphasis is placed not on instructional methods but on the relationship of trust between teachers and students. Because the traditional instructional method is compatible with ethnopedagogy, teachers are not actively seeking new methods. (3) Structural factors contribute to the perpetuation of ethnopedagogy. First, the absence of interaction that exists between universities and schools tends to prevent infusion into schools of innovative pedagogical theories formulated by scholars. Second, relatively closed interaction among teachers is conducive to the continuation of traditional pedagogy. Third, ethnopedagogy is the most influential practical approach that integrated various aspects of teaching and teacher responsibilities. (4) Influence of official policies of the Ministry of Education on deciding teaching strategies is not obvious. Rather it is established in its control of curriculum and the legitimacy that suggest traditional instructional methods.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the factors which influence high school teachers' "consciousness" that supports ability grouping. This grouping causes hierarchical structure in school. First, I point out two kinds of knowledge component which construct their "consciousness". One is about subject, and the other is about pedagogy. Especially the hierarchical structure of the former knowledge urges them to think that they should give an appropriate level of knowledge to students, and to support ability grouping. Secondly, I pay attention to their role image. They tend to regard themselves as specialists of subject. Through this, knowledge component of the subject influence their "consciousness."