Physical education lessons foster experiences, reflections, and arguments that students make explicit as language practices that, in turn, are different from the statements of other school curriculum subjects. Thus, curriculum making in physical education is complex and linked to space, activity and relationship. When we add technological considerations to the mix, there is a “pedagogically necessary time” that needs to be socially just for all students within physical education classes. Furthermore, for Charlot (2020), advocacy for education is the ongoing choice we all should make to confront prejudice, discrimination and social injustice. In this sense, during recent years, how can physical education effectively contribute to promoting social justice when schooling is forced to go online? How can physical education contribute to a socially just present and a future worth living in world facing global pandemic and regional conflicts? These questions critically direct this self-study and draws on the reflections and perceptions of two university professors for preservice and in-service teacher education of teachers working in basic education (K-12). The objective is to problematize the relationships to knowledge and the best-loved self of the two university professors – as teacher educators – and their (self)educative experiences shared within a collective of teachers from public schools in Fortaleza, the capital city of Ceará, in northeastern Brazil. The context includes remote teaching (synchronous and asynchronous) in a school site linked to two institutional programs of preservice teacher induction – PIBID and Pedagogical Residency.

In this self-study, we examine my (author-A) experience designing and implementing a roundtable at the conference of Japanese language education for Japanese (JLEJ) in 2024 that triggered the spread of self-study in JLEJ.

I am a teacher educator of JLEJ. I encountered self-study in 2020 and tried to introduce it among JLEJ colleagues. However, the concept of “Kotai-Shi-Kenkyu”(KK) already existed in this field. I found KK is quite similar to self-study. KK practitioners keep records of themselves and analyze them to improve their practices. With a tradition of KK in JLEJ, introducing self-study can cause conflicts. Therefore, I analyzed our conference experience with critical friends (author-B and C).

The roundtable preparation began in April 2023 and was implemented in May 2024. Data included my reflective notes, SNS and e-mail exchanged with critical friends, and Zoom meeting recordings. I analyzed my experience through a collaborative dialogue with critical friends.

Findings revealed my awareness of always standing back and not taking sides in either self-study and KK. I tried to remain a calm researcher. I thought that if I took sides with one, I would not be able to compare and examine both objectively. Even though I was dealing with self-study and KK, both involve “self,” I was trying to remain in a neutral position.

Through this roundtable, I could verbalize my worries and struggles in the team. In addition, I saw a speaker (author-C) analyzing and verbalizing her own conflict between self-study and KK. Through these experiences, I learned that expressing my own struggles and realizations as a participant in the discussion was not a hindrance to the comparison and examination of self-study and KK, but rather led to a dialogue that reconciled cultural and linguistic differences.

The context of this self-study is a fully online asynchronous Master’s and PhD program focused on the value-creating approaches to education, which is an Eastern philosophy expounded by three Japanese educators, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, Josei Toda, and Daisaku Ikeda. The theoretical framework of this study is Makiguchi’s (1981-1996, Vol. 5) theory of value, which considers the purpose of education as cultivating students’ ability to apply knowledge in order to create value in terms of beauty (what is pleasant when perceived by the five senses), gain (what benefits the entirety of an individual), and good (what benefits the larger community or society) (Goulah, 2021; Goulah & Gebert, 2009). Creating value can also be understood as making meaning (Garrison, 2019; Garrison et al., 2014; Goulah, 2021). I conducted a self-study (LaBoskey, 2004; Samaras, 2011) to examine how I could be more intentional in helping my students create positive value through my course materials, assignments, and teaching practices. The primary data consisted of journal entries from Spring 2022, Spring 2023, and Winter 2024 quarters, as well as course materials and formal and informal student feedback. I gradually identified and developed teaching practices that were value-creative, such as assessments that are enjoyable (value of beauty), lead to personal growth (value of gain), and benefit those around them (value of good). An example of this was having students create an imaginary dialogue with one of the authors so that students can create concrete changes in their practice to address certain issues within their own context. The framework of value creation can contribute to the conversation on what constitutes quality education. Doing this in an fully online asynchronous program that serves a global student body can address the issue of equity in terms of access to quality education.