The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODOJapan to allow schools to exclusively use digital textbooks from 2030
TOKYO©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
57 Comments
Mr Kipling
Why the 5 year wait?
BertieWooster
Mr Kipling,
That was my exact thought too. In five years time, digital textbooks are going to be like faxes are today. Why are government agencies so sloooooooooow?
didou
Digital textbooks are a pure mistake.
Nothing better than a textbook to concentrate on learning,.
And spending a day on reading digital texts makes the brain more tired.
Geeter Mckluskie
AI teachers are on the way. Soon, only the homeroom teacher will be necessary to babysit the class who will be taught each subject by AI which has the entirety of human knowledge at its disposal and which can explain things more efficiently and effectively. 2nd language acquisition classes will have AI partners to role play scenarios with and provide conversation partners who are clear, competent and at whatever level that best suits each student's needs. Digital textbooks are just the beginning.
Albert
Already some countries are moving away from digitale textbooks due health issues and the poor concentration students have.
Japan is again to late
Sven Asai
Pure nonsense, only printed textbooks and dictionaries etc will bring results, for many reasons, but especially because they address more senses, like the specific book's touch, the smell, own handwritten side notes and so on. Digital versions can only be useful as an exception, if a student has forgotten to bring his printed exemplar to school.
Abe234
Pick up a real book! All these tablets and screens are just an excuse to have one glued to your hand, so when you become an adult you'll be pinged all the time, and you can't live without it. Books don't need electricity, don't break, we can get them wet, the screen doesn't break, and guess what.......you don't need stupid cables, and we don't need to swipe. I can open my book ten times faster than powering up and recharging a tablet. I can drop it a thousand times and never have to worry. It's just a scam by companies selling junk to the government. With books, I can build a great library, enjoy the artwork on the covers, and walk past all the books I've read, maybe pick one up again, the touch, the smell, and flip open a random page. How many tablets will be around in 20,30.40 years for the next kid to pick up and read a book? Zero! And more importantly, I can give you a paper book! (for free), or even sell it, and it'll still be there in 100 years or recycled, and no E-waste anywhere to be seen.
Garthgoyle
Bad idea. Could work for college books but I don't it's a good idea for es, jhs and hs.
Cephus
"Japan to allow schools to exclusively use digital textbooks from 2030."
And still we will continue complaining about our youths bad eye sight.
Bret T
Our local High Schools here in my US small city have been digital for 5 or more years. The kids have a choice to get textbooks if they choose.
I favor using the actual books, but then, I'm old (8-). I even think the work of carrying the books to and from school is good for the kids.
didou
For sure, this can be expected, and I wonder why politicians and administrations do decide such policies.
Have those politicians tried to learn from a digital textbook, Never
リッチ
Books have no replacement. Electronic learning doesn’t come close to book learning. Actually needing to read and not summarize or be entertained.
virusrex
Sorry but no, not even close. https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/1i4a97w/water_is_not_frozen_at_27_degrees/
Even second language teaching (that should be easier since it does not even depend on AI) shows a drop on quality when AI is introduced, as users of services like Duolingo complain about.
151E
Students can write notes to annotate their digital books - this is ability is not exclusive to paper books. And looking at screens does not in and of itself cause nearsightedness; a lack of UV exposure and subsequent low levels of melatonin are the main driver of the myopia epidemic (which could be largely cured with more time spent outdoors). That all said, tablets are a great distraction as children open other apps, or simply enjoy zooming in and out instead of focusing on their work.
YeahRight
Does language even need to be taught anymore? I mean, sure, it's great as a hobby, and some people might need it, but I can probably count on one hand the number of students I have taught English to that use it in any meaningful way, and I've taught a lot of students.
AI may not be perfect, but it's getting better day by day, and it's good enough for most daily language needs.
virusrex
Unless you expect people to learn completely by themselves that would be a hard yes. That is how everybody learns, by being taught by family, teachers, social interaction, etc.
Geeter Mckluskie
Time will prove me correct...again
wallace
I love books, but I also like digital ones. My iPad has more than 1,000 books, and I listen to audiobooks when cooking. Books are good, and I have quite a collection of oversized art books with beautiful paintings. When I see tiny children struggling to school with those heavy bags, I wonder how many books they are carrying.
Geeter Mckluskie
Tick tock...Tick tock...Tick tock...
The writing is on the wall
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240221/p2a/00m/0na/018000c
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2018/10/af3be9aa244b-ai-robots-may-lend-hand-in-japans-english-classes.html
https://techhq.com/2023/07/how-is-ai-education-coming-to-japanese-schools/
virusrex
In how many centuries? when you depend on crystal ball arguments you are conceding the current situation simply do not support your predictions, so you have to say things will change in the future.
A completely different thing from your first claim where teachers would supposedly become irrelevant. Not to mention that this is about "AI promises..." Technology provides example not only of successes, but also many different failures, and most venture companies end up never delivering in their promises.
Currently AI is unable to reliably provide correct answers, and it is already being polluted by wrong data that is including in its training (with no realistic solution in view for the problem). Pretending this will be solved no matter what is not a claim based on reality, more like wishful thinking (and blindly believing those that want to profit from AI and need to push it for everything).
deanzaZZR
As someone with experience in academic libraries I do hope that districts shy away from going all digital. With different learning styles students need a variety of learning materials including print, ebooks and increasingly audiobooks.
Geeter Mckluskie
I've seen ALTs unable to explain the subjunctive mood...in English, let alone Japanese.
AI can do so accurately in less than a second...in both languages
virusrex
So you plan to replace competent teachers with something that is worse than incompetent ALTs?
You were trying to argue how AI could replace teachers, are you lowering now the standards to argue it can only replace people that are obviously bad at their work? That is like saying that AI can replace doctors because you have seen some that can't even read an EKG strip.
Ai is still completely unreliable, and corruption of the data used for training is projected to make the problem much worse without any practical or realistic way to solve it (since there is no way to eliminate AI produced data to train AI). Plenty of examples to show unconceivable mistakes being still common, I have never seen a teacher explaining how water will freeze at 32F, but remain liquid at 27F.
Geeter Mckluskie
I don't plan on doing anything...
No one said anything about "only", only that AI already outperforms most teachers in terms of accuracy and efficiency in terms of time...as well as the ability to accommodate and service students with varying abilities in a single classroom by acting as both teacher and interactive partner (something a single person is unable to do, and something by which students get confused and stumped when paired up with equally deficient learners to perform a given task)
Mewl all you like about the inevitable...but the writing is on the wall. I'm in education and have been for more than 30 years. We are already using interactive AI in the classroom and getting training on more and more AI technologies as they become available.
Mewl on...Ferris Mewler...It's happening despite your milquetoast whimpers about it.
virusrex
So you are **suggesting **to replace competent teachers with something that is worse than incompetent ALTs?
When the best example you could find to compare with AI are incompetent people that is what you are arguing.
If someone came here to say his invention can replace automobiles, and then, to make his point, compares his invention with steam-powered cars of the 19th century, what else is there to interpret than the person have such a low confidence that he has to use the worst example he could find in order to have an argument.
Any source for this? because you are making a claim nobody has made, AI can (under heavy supervision) facilitate single tasks, not everything a teacher can do. It is as valid as saying a scientific calculator can replace a math teacher since it can solve equations faster and without any mistake
when you depend on crystal ball arguments you are conceding the current situation simply do not support your predictions, so you have to say things will change in the future. (for sure, because just trust me bro)
Geeter Mckluskie
AI has already been implemented in classrooms throughout Japan. Teachers have received training in AI technologies to be used in classrooms. These technologies are not going away. They will be used more and more, the more classroom applicable they become.
PS. The above is not a prediction but a schooling on MEXT’s stated initiatives:
virusrex
Yet no report about it replacing any teacher, strangely similar to calculators being used in classrooms around the world without math teachers being replaced.
Yeah, same claim as pagers and palm pilots, they were never to go away, until they did.
So strange that the initiative mentions absolutely nothing about making teachers necessary only to babysit the students and instead treat it exactly as what it is, a limited tool that can be exploited as long as is used properly by the teachers.
Geeter Mckluskie
That bit was a prediction…
based on what I’ve seen in the classroom to date, which is how effective and efficient AI centered learning works in the 2nd language acquisition field. We are now in the infancy stage of AI classroom application and already all the teacher has to do is direct the students to their tasks and related goals. The interactive AI does all the rest. Considering that AI is at its “Pong” stage, it’s not hard to imagine the “direct the students to their tasks and goal” role becoming that of AI rather than the teacher’s. One can easily envision the role of teacher simply becoming an overseer who “babysits” the class to ensure they’re studying rather than playing or sleeping.
Yes, this is a prediction…based on what I’ve seen, heard, read and have been trained on through MEXT’s directive…directly.
Geeter Mckluskie
Kyoto University is one of Japan’s elite universities. Entrance exams are checked, double checked and triple checked prior to printing, yet elite educators are prone to not only making mistakes but overlooking them consistently.
virusrex
And that bit is the one that I am criticizing and you trying to defend. An exaggeration that has no real possibility to happen in the foreseeable future.
And as in all infancies this is something that can go very differently by unexpected factors, so there is no real value in getting fixated only on the best case scenario as if nothing could go wrong (including better technologies replacing AI).
Appeals to authority from anonymous accounts are not relevant. If someone came here to say this is a fad that has already been decided to be abandoned in 2 to 3 fiscal years no matter the results, would you simply trust this claim? what if the person says this is based on his personal experience in the committees that decide such matters? would this appeal constitute an argument?
virusrex
So people can be as bad as AI, that does that all the time (with the euphemism of "Hallucinations"). If anything this would indicate that the persistent problems with AI are unlikely to ever be solved since this would depend on people not making (and not overlooking) problems before the corruption of source materials for the training of AI makes the process progressively more unreliable and prone to further mistakes.
Geeter Mckluskie
The appeal to authority fallacy applies to an argument. I’ve simply cited MEXT’s directive vis a vis AI application in the classroom, which can be verified via MEXT.
My argument is that as a result of MEXT’s directive, along with the advance of AI technologies, more and more of those technologies will be implemented in Japanese classrooms. I also contend that among those technologies will be AI teachers…That is my argument. What MEXT’s initiatives and directives are…are a matter of fact, on which I’ve based my conclusions.
Geeter Mckluskie
Elite educators, not just flunky ALTs, can be and are worse than AI in some cases.
virusrex
Not at all, you explicitly tried to use a supposed personal experience (training) that nobody can verify, that is the appeal to authority fallacy. If you recognize this as being worthless that is fine as well, anybody can try to argue about their supposed experience as well and it would have the same lack of value.
No, that is your claim, not an argument since it completely depends on a personal prediction about what the future will be, without any further argument to support it.
In some cases means that AI is worse in the rest of the cases.
And once again this also means that it is even less likely that the problems that are projected to happen with AI training will be ever solved, after all even the elite makes mistakes, and the window of opportunity before training data becomes completely inadequate (since it already been contaminated with AI produced content) is also closing quickly.
Geeter Mckluskie
This from MEXT:
I'm such a teacher who has received such training.
I work at Tokyo Univerisity of Agrucilture's Third High School, Higashimatsuyama Saitama
Anyone can verify whether or not we've received training in the application of AI technologies in the classroom.
I enjoin you to call our administration to ask such a question. You'll find our admin staff courteous and accommodating.
Geeter Mckluskie
Not necessarily. It could also mean that in some cases AI is better than elite educators while in others AI could be just the same, i.e. a teacher could teach a student that 2+2=4, just as AI could.
virusrex
Someone that claimed that during training the text was treated as an exaggeration not to be taken seriously would have an argument of the same value, none. This would still be the same if someone came saying they provide the training and that they explicitly tell people this is at much a tool, and a very limited one so people should not expect much of it. Once again, things that are not possible to be verified have no value as argument. If this person gives the name of an institution where training is given, would that change the value of this claim? obviously not. It would required identification, without proof of credentials that can be confirmed this becomes again just hearsay, so it is irrelevant as an argument.
Yet your claim do not depend on receiving the training, but what you personally claim is being done on the training, and predictions that you say are based on it.
Wait, so you think people can just call an institution because an anonymous person on the internet mentions their name and ask "Are you saying teachers are going to be replaced by AI? because someone on the internet said so"? That makes no sense. Specially when not even the name of the school is written properly.
What if someone said he called and the school said it was false? is that an argument?
That is why verifiable references are necessary, not hearsay from anonymous accounts.
Realistically speaking that has no chance to be correct, and less and less likely the more time it passes thanks to the countdown until improvement by training becomes realistically impossible.
Geeter Mckluskie
Incorrect...as usual.
My argument is based on MEXT's explicitly stated directive to implement...and I quote
along with the certainty that AI technologies will improve...ergo my argument is (I'll highlight it for those who find such things difficult to identify):
Due to the Ministry of Education's directive to implement AI technologies in the classroom and the fact that AI technologies are adready being used in the classroom and are advancing in terms of classroom applicability, I deduce that, more and more, AI will assume the role of educator in the Japanese classroom.
virusrex
Not incorrect, your source do nothing to support your argument, IT can clearly be interpreted as a limited tool without nothing in your quote contradicting this perfectly valid interpretation.
That claim is still unsupported, AI may or not improve, (it can be peaking already) that do not means it will be able to make teachers unnecessary in the classroom as you claimed. It is definitely not certain that AI will improve beyond the point of being a tool. Your deductions are not arguments since other people can "deduce" different things from the same source.
For example MEXT information (and training) is available nationally, with thousands of people being informed about it, so it is not unreasonable to think that at least few of those people, that are very present online would reach the same deductions if they were justified. Yet I can not find anyone with identifiable credentials claiming AI will "certainly" represent a huge change in the paradigm of teaching, just repeating the same, that it is being promoted without any guarantee about the results.
Geeter Mckluskie
Then they would have a different argument, a weak one.
Geeter Mckluskie
LMFAO! Looks like you’re in need of an AI proofreader.
virusrex
Well, that is the same one you have, a personal opinion about something that do not support that claim. Same strength.
So, no source where anybody else out of thousands that have been trained with MEXT materials support your personal opinion? that is telling.
Imagine that, giving up trying to use arguments and instead "arguing" grammar, it is common for people that recognize lack of ability to defend their points to stop doing it and focus on irrelevant things. Probably AI will soon begin to "discuss" in this invalid way as well.
Geeter Mckluskie
The system uses AI to determine conversation content based on the student's level of spoken English. A high school student who has tried the system said, "I was able to talk naturally, and I want to speak more."
This is just the beginning
Geeter Mckluskie
It’s not a claim. It’s a prediction based on MEXT’s initiative and the supposition that AI will advance and become more applicable in the classroom.
Geeter Mckluskie
I’d already made my argument. There was nothing more to add.
Geeter Mckluskie
>
virusrex
Blackberry said the same, still crystal ball arguments that means there is no actual current basis to assume this.
That is the claim you make, that the MEXT materials inevitably lead to that prediction, even if nobody else have done such out of thousands that have know about it.
That is the point, when you have nothing to add against the arguments that refute yours it is good enough to stop, but to make off topic comments or begin to criticize the grammar indicate you are not willing to accept it so you have to say something even if not an argument.
Exactly, nothing more than a tool for one specific task, a very long way of replacing a professional that make a very wide variety of such tasks every day at work.
Geeter Mckluskie
Nothing you've said refuted my argument.
How long, only time will tell. "Very long" is as much a guess as "soon" is.
The point I was making was that AI is already being used in the Japanese classroom.
My argument is that it will not only continue being used but it will be used more and more...until eventually it will have replaced all but the overseer function of the homeroom teacher. Now, to be clear for the deliberately obtuse among those coming across this thread, this is an argument of prediction...that is...I predict this will happen based on MEXT's directive of implementing AI technologies in the classroom and the supposition that AI will improve and thus make it more efficient and more applicable in terms of assuming the role of educator in the classroom.
Geeter Mckluskie
Compare Blackberry's capabilities with those of the latest Smartphone
Geeter Mckluskie
MEXT's initiatives are clearly written for anyone to read. Thousands need not say a word about that to make that so.
These words "actively promoting...for...the application of AI technologies in the classroom" don't require a single person out of billions to utter a single word about them for them to exist.
It's up to you to come up with a directive from MEXT that contradicts their statement that they are promoting training programs for teachers to enhance their understanding and application of AI technologies.
I've based my argument on their initiative along with the "likelihood" of AI advancing in terms of classroom applicability.
What's your argument? "Well...uh...er...what about the Blackberry?"
Cosell
Shocking.
virusrex
Everything you refuse to address do, from the invalidity of considering a subjective interpretation as the only one to the lack of any other person reaching the same conclusions from the same materials.
Again, crystal ball arguments means you have nothing to support your claim in the current situation, that is my point that there is no basis for this conclusion you are fixated with, no available capabilities that would come much sooner than what is necessary for AI to actually do all the tasks of a teacher.
As a limited tool, like calculators.
Which again is not an argument because it proves nothing, it is a prediction for which you could use actual arguments to prove but you have not because is only a completely personal opinion. Is like saying that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor, that is not an argument is a claim, and when it is based on "is the flavor that I like the most so I think is the best" then that means is just a personal belief.
Which is not an argument either since there is nothing in the directive that allows this prediction and many different factors that indicate the opposite, from the current bottlenecks in development of new capabilities to the contamination of training materials with products of AI. Arguments that again you are trying to ignore precisely because they disprove what you want to believe, ignoring these arguments means they remain valid and refute your prediction. A prediction that once more is not shared by anybody else that has been trained in the same materials.
Blackberry has no longer importance in communications or development of technology, if your point is that AI will be treated in the future like Blackberry is treated right now then that is correct, but nobody can validly claim it dominates anything.
But that nobody in thousands share your views do say something. Specially when lots of people like to talk about these kind of directives when they are implemented.
But they don't support your personal opinion about their meaning, they don't mean what you think they mean, promoting the application of a tool do not mean the tool is projected to replace more functions than what it already have, nor it says that the application will end up being successful, much less transformative.
You based your opinion, not an argument.
My argument is that there have always be people saying "just wait and see" only for them to be completely wrong. Plenty of examples of that are available.
Geeter Mckluskie
Yes, it's been replaced by more advanced, superior technology.
Wrong.
My opinion is that AI will eventually replace "teachers" in their role as the educator in the classroom.
My argument is "This will ocurr as a result of MEXT's directive regarding the "application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in the classroom...along with advances in AI technology, specifically in terms of classroom applicability...in other words...the capacity to teach, give instructions, correct wrong answers, clarify explanations and provide interactive capabilities congruent with each individual student's level and specific needs."
My opinion is followed by my argument.
Geeter Mckluskie
Your argument is "there have always been people who are wrong...ergo, you are wrong".
There have also been plenty of people who have been proven to be right after having been told otherwise.
Your argument is faulty.
Negative Nancy
If this is a means of allowing the kids to walk to and from school without having to carry so much stuff with them, its a reason to support digital books. Honestly, I think there are great benefits of print books that cannot be replaced, but when used properly, digital counterparts can do just fine. I'd like to see certain parts of books replaced by multimedia that can be accessed by QR code, meaning students could access things like audio for listening practice, video or high-definition images for sciences and social studies, and so on. That way, the books can be halved in size, but actually contain more content. QR codes also mean that the media content they link to can be easily updated and replaced as necessary.
virusrex
Even when the owners said the best was still to come, it happens no matter how convinced the people that support it may thing.
That is still not an argument because this is not something objective that anybody can simply accept. It is still your opinion.
An argument would be for example:
"AI will be very successful because MEXT decided to direct people to focus on it and use it, and it previously have worked this way, for example like the time MEXT decided to fund and support the SCARDA project 3 years ago to focus on the development of drugs and vaccines against covid and we all can see how this ended up in dozens of new vaccines..."
An argument is not based on how you feel about something that is written, specially when you use the text to conclude something that is not written in them, an argument would be when you use evidence of past successes (or failures) to argue how this time the same thing will happen again.
Your opinion about the future is followed only by your opinion about the importance of a directive, not by an argument.
virusrex
That is completely incorrect, the argument is that there have always been people that have turned up wrong even if they were convinced to be right, ergo it does not matter how convinced you are AI will replace teachers on the classroom you can still be wrong and there are no guarantees.
The argument for this to be wrong (not just possibly wrong) is that apparently nobody reading the same materials is as convinced, and the problems AI is already facing to have a reliable performance outside of single tasks in a controlled environment.