Encountering otherness in different educational contexts and settings brought about opportunities for the students to reflect on and negotiate their taken-‐for-‐granted attitudes, behaviours, and beliefs institutionalised through education. Whether the transition was from high school to university or from Japan to the US, the students reflected on how particular sets of thought had developed through school experience and had driven their behavioural choices until they encountered otherness in another
environment. In the reflective journal during the preparatory sessions, the following student, Hiro, described how startling it was to find his Japanese expression incomprehensible among other Japanese friends he made upon entering University A in Japan. He knew that dialects exist but he never doubted that the expression used and taught by his teacher was in fact regional. He also discovered different learning styles as he studied with international students on campus. Drawing on these experiences, he reflected on his previously held belief about the absoluteness of teachers’ role as well as the validity of knowledge taught at school, and concluded with his intention to develop criticality and flexibility while studying in the US:
自分の過去を振り返ってみて、今まで自分が学校で習ってきた教育はすべ て正しいことだと思ってきたが（中略）日本の教育では絶対だといわれて きたものが、世界ではそんなに重要なことではなく（中略）また、今まで 学校で習ってきたことだけが正しいことなんだということを疑い、多文化 社会であるアメリカでは柔軟な思考で相手の文化や考えを理解していきた い。（ひろ、事前授業ジャーナル）
Looking back at my past, I have always thought that the knowledge taught at school is right. . . . What is considered to be absolute in Japanese education may not be important in other countries’ education systems. . . . I want to be critical in that the knowledge learned at school is not the only truth, and be flexible in understanding other thoughts and cultures in the multicultural American society. (Hiro; reflection before studying abroad)
Another student, Ami, also learned at University A how her taken-‐for-‐granted discussion style had been institutionalised in the past educational context. She saw other international students actively expressing opposite views until they felt satisfied as opposed to her simply agreeing with their opinion. This experience triggered Ami to relate her attitude to the way she used to socialise at school. Furthermore, she delved
into deconstructing what had actually held her back from being candid about her opinions: 小学校などの教育では、「皆で仲良く」や「けんかしない」などと教育さ れ、皆で同じ事をしたり、考えたりする事が「善」とされる事が多かった。 なので、私は当初ディスカッションの中で、意見に同意すれば仲間意識が 生まれ、良い関係になれると思っていた。共通意識が生まれ、話も弾むと 考えていた。（中略）そこで、いままで私は誰かの意見に同意し、馴れ合 いをしていたのだなと実感した。反対意見を言えば嫌われ、もう立て直せ ないと思って、躊躇していた。（あみ、事前授業ジャーナル）
In primary school, we were taught to get along with each other and not to fight/quarrel with each other. It was often considered ‘good’ to think together and do the same way. That is why at the early stage of university life, I had thought that a sense of comradeship would be created, and that we could get along with each other if we agree with others during discussions. I had thought that by agreeing with others, we would be on the same page and the discussion would become more lively. . . . But [as I observed other international students’ interaction] I realised that I had been expecting a cozy relationship with others. I had hesitated to give opposing opinions because I might make myself a nuisance and might not be able to recover the relationship. (Ami; reflection before studying abroad)
Ami not only drew on her primary school experience as an influential context where group togetherness and relationality had been typified, but also analysed how the assumptions and interpretations would differ from one another:
恐らく彼らは「自分の意見が無い人」と判断するのだろう。そしてその人 はディスカッションの中で役割を果たしていないと判断される事もあるか もしれない。つまり、ディスカッションは皆で一緒だね。と確認し合う事 ではなく、互いの少しでも違う考えを衝突させ、吟味していく事だと学ぶ 事ができた。そこから、自分の意見を述べる事に恐れず、自信を持って発 信していきたい。彼らも自分と違う意見を聞く事を求めていると思う。 （あみ、上記続き）
I will probably be judged as ‘a person without an opinion’ [by other international students]. And I might be evaluated that I am not
is not the place to identify the common ground, but where we put out even the slightest difference of opinions and examine them. I want to get rid of my fear of expressing opinions and speak up with confidence. I think [other international students] are expecting to hear different views, too. (Ami; continued from the above excerpt)
During and after studying abroad, some other students also touched on aspects such as teaching/learning styles and choice of topics dealt with in class to explain how educational contexts and resources are influential in normalising certain behaviours and values, such as a sense of freedom. Drawing on the interactions and communication occurring in the classroom contexts, the students developed an understanding of the underlying assumptions and meanings of particular attitudes and behaviours in the respective settings.
The above accounts indicate that education served as a cultural resource (Holliday, 2011, 2016c) for the students to reflect on and understand the particularity of human behaviours and beliefs internalised in the self and others. Education offers the context of secondary socialisation (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) where institutionalised knowledge is produced and distributed as ongoing human activities at a macro level. In such contexts, the institutional tradition is explained and justified as legitimisation (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). In other words, education is one of the cultural resources underpinned by ‘the universal need for group cohesion to provide social continuity’ (Holliday, 2011, p. 138), and the validity of knowledge generally remains unquestioned as long as it functions satisfactorily in the given context (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Thus, the students’ experiences of moving from high school to university (i.e., regional and academic transitions) or travelling from Japan to the US (i.e., international
academic, cultural, and social transitions) triggered the students’ awareness towards what they had taken for granted from the preceding educational process. As a result of the experienced dissonance, they reflected on the ‘system of ideas which drive behavioural choices’ (Holliday, 2010b, p. 261) in their consciousness and conceptualised how multiple realities (e.g. beliefs and assumptions, underpinning particular ways of expression, behaviours, and attitudes) develop on the basis of the respective educational structures.
On the other hand, the students’ accounts also support the fact that education does not confine individual beliefs and behaviours (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Holliday, 2011, 2016b). For example, the aforementioned reflection of Ami concerning the difference in discussion styles illustrates how she developed willingness to adopt a different approach in discussions: she deconstructed the assumption and meaning of her internalised behavior, and reconstructed alternative interpretations based on the interaction with the international students. The following student, Maya, also demonstrated her understanding that individuals are influenced by, but not necessarily confined by educational structures:
This educational difference makes the difference of communication style between Americans and Japanese but one thing I have to remind myself is that it depends on each person (Aoi; reflection while abroad; original writing).
While recognising the influence of secondary socialisation on different groups of individuals (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), Aoi’s increased awareness on the multiplicity of subjective realities guided her not to essentialise individuals on the mere basis of large educational structures.
Lastly, the following experience of Ken illustrates the student’s agency in that he attempted to negotiate conflicting realities between the instructor and himself while abroad. As one of the learning goals was to develop public speaking skills in class, the instructor expected him to instantly give his opinion whenever asked; however, he had given more value to allowing pauses so that he would be prepared to give appropriate comments from his own perspective. He explained in the interview his challenge and frustration over the conflicting expectations and backgrounds:
でもだから自分は言えなかったから、後悔してるとかじゃなくて。（中略） 恥ずかしくて言えないとかっていうわけじゃないっていうのを先生に何回 も説明してて。意見があるときは本当にちゃんと言います、って何回も言 ってたんですけど。先生（中略）カウントウントして成績つけてたってい うのもあるんでしょうけど、（中略）次がなかったら成績落とすからね、 みたいな感じで言われて。すごいそれが嫌で嫌でしょうがなくって、ちゃ んとした意見も言えない、まともなことも言えないのに、こんな状態で意 見を言っても自分はなんか・・・っていうのもあって、先生とちょっと喧 嘩しちゃったりとかして。そのアメリカでは直感的な意見っていうのをす ごい大切にしてるのかな、と思ったり。（けん、インタビュー）
It doesn’t mean that I regretted that I hadn’t been able to speak up [as much as the instructor expected in class]. . . . I explained to the instructor over and over that I wasn’t being shy. I told her many times that I would definitely speak up when I certainly have an opinion. . . . She even mentioned that she would fail me if I don’t speak up next time because my participation was counted in the
grade. I hated [that I had to do so]. I would have [felt bad2] if I said
something when I wasn’t ready to give a decent comment. I even had a quarrel about that with her. I thought that intuitive opinions seemed to be more valued in America. (Ken; post-‐return interview)
What he found difficult was the instructor’s expectation of quick responses, and that she did not see the point of his not being able to do so. In fact, he had multiple reasons
behind his reaction, involving his personal trajectories, the small culture in class, and his cognitive process. First, he intended to increase his active listening skills since he had realised during the preparatory sessions that he had paid less attention to what was being said, and had often negated others’ perspectives by taking over the conversation with ‘but…(demo in Japanese)’. Drawing from this part of personal trajectories (i.e. what he learned from the interactions with his peers before arriving in the US), he developed awareness that he needed to be more mindful about listening to understand others. The second reason was the influence of a particular peer on his participation in class. He felt intimidated by the student who aggressively ‘attacked’ his opinions and did not feel comfortable about expressing himself. In other words, the small culture being formed in the class affected him in a negative direction. Finally, he drew on his cognitive processing, acknowledging that he needed time and efforts to generate ideas. As all of these factors came into operation, he struggled with conflicting realities emergent between himself and the instructor. His struggle signifies the classroom culture which involves ongoing constructions and negotiations of expectations, assumptions, and stories brought in by the instructor and students (Holliday, 1994, 2016a). It also denotes his autonomy in the form of resistance (Holliday, 2011) insofar as he did not simply conform to the expected norm legitimised in the US class setting, but attempted to express and maintain what he considered to be important.
In sum, educational structures served as a common context for the students to recognise and make sense of their taken-‐for-‐granted knowledge. They understood and explained their beliefs and assumptions, which had been institutionalised, legitimised,
and consequently, internalised within themselves in the respective contexts of educational structures. In other words, the students demonstrated their awareness and criticality to a greater or lesser extent in questioning the ‘natural’ constructed through secondary socialisation (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Furthermore, the students’ accounts indicated their realities of being active agents against social structures (Holliday, 2011, 2016c). As the students travelled through different educational structures, they developed alternative interpretations and began to reevaluate and/or modify their own behaviours based on the new context. At the same time, existing power structures may work against the students (Holliday, 2016a). As in Ken’s experience, conflicting realities may emerge in the form of dilemma, struggle, and resistance in the classroom context.