@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:00029531,
 author = {埜嵜, 志保 and NOZAKI, Shiho},
 issue = {2},
 journal = {名古屋大学大学院教育発達科学研究科紀要. 教育科学},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {In 1947 during the post-war educational reforms in Japan, the new subject of social studies was launched. Social studies courses spread the idea of Problem-Solving Learning (PSL) based on empiricism and the promotion of democratic school education. Recently, PSL has been taken up as a model for active learning with various methods of PSL proposed. The literature suggests that how teacher should conduct PSL, but with little attention to why PSL may be essential for pupils. This paper hopes to illustrate the educational value of PSL for pupils, as well as to further develop the theory of PSL. Towards this purpose, this research looks at one of the voluntary educational research organizations in the social sciences named Shoshi no kai, which, established in 1958, has continued to promote PSL. In order to explore the Shoshi no kai’s knowledge of PSL, an important controversy regarding PSL is re-examined here; one that occurred in the 1980s between Kazumasa Arita and Fumio Nagaoka, then members of Shoshi no kai. Although this controversy had an impact on recent discussions regarding PSL, its significance has not been examined thoroughly. The results of the rearrangement of PSL are as follows: 1) Arita and Nagaoka argued over how to design PSL, especially how to identify the core concept of PSL, namely Setstujitsu-sei which is a pupil’s earnest wish to solve a problem. Arita focused on the development of securing the surprise element of learning issues as he thought Setsujitsu-sei would be cultivated earnestly if a pupil could investigate his or her own learning with eagerness. Nagaoka argued against Arita’s idea, and claimed that having deep insight into a pupil is the more important than the focus on the surprise. He thought learning issues should be connected with Setsujitsu-sei, which is based on the notion that a pupil must feel valuable and able to reflect on how life is lived. 2) Akihide Tanigawa, also member of Shoshi no kai, mediated. He distinguished the difference between Arita and Nagaoka, suggesting that one must learn how to choose learning issues. However, subsequent discussions on the subject of Setsujitsu-sei then became limited to choosing learning issues according to Tanigawa’s defined distinction. Although Tanigawa’s mediation seemed to have settled the controversy, he misled the point of discussion. He treated Setsujitsu-sei as an attribution of learning issue instead of the pupil’s wishes, so that some features of Setsujitsu-sei were lost. This paper proposes an alternative viewpoint for the “potential of Setsujitsu-sei,” which enables an understanding of the feature of Setsujitsu-sei. An analysis from this viewpoint defines the noteworthy commonality and difference between the two standpoints represented by Arita and Nagaoka. Both scholars mention the potential of Setsujitsu-sei and consider it to exist in the pupil’s mind. But Arita regards the potential of Setsujitsu-sei as an operable factor in a lesson, whereas Nagaoka regards it as inoperable one. Though they share a viewpoint regarding the potential of Setsujitsu-sei, their difference regarding how to understand the potential of Setsujitsu-sei is crucial. A reconsideration of the controversy suggests that PSL fosters a pupil’s skills and attitudes for problem solving utilizing the student’s earnest wishes as a living being with purpose. In addition, it is indicated in the theory of PSL that 1) the teacher should design PSL lessons not around learning issue and activities but also with the pupil in mind, 2) PSL requires teacher insights regarding their pupils’ concerns, ways of thinking, and wishes for living, and 3) pupils should be regarded as subjects, rather than objects, of the lessons.},
 pages = {33--44},
 title = {「社会科の初志をつらぬく会」における問題解決学習の今日的意義 : 「切実性論争」の再検討を手がかりに},
 volume = {66},
 year = {2020}
}