East Asia emerges as role model for education

UK adopts Chinese textbooks to enhance math skills

By Dr. Chris Baumann

The U.K. is introducing Chinese textbooks in order to enhance mathematical skills in its education _ and for a good reason. According to the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) testing, China scored 531, Korea 524 with the U.K. scoring only 2 points above the OECD average of 490 in math.

Given China's success, other countries too are interested in East Asian curriculum in order to potentially boost their educational performance. But is adopting textbooks sufficient?

In the post-WWII era, curriculum design (in other words, what was taught in education) was largely U.S./Western dominated. Other parts of the world were catching up learning English, and "consume" knowledge from the English speaking world. American and British textbooks were shipped to East Asia for students to learn from.

While knowledge transferred from West to East Asia, in simple terms, the Confucian-driven pedagogy in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan remained localized with a much more disciplined and performance-driven approach.

At the same time, the West embarked on a softening in its approach to pedagogy, but also with dropping or at least flattening academic performance.

More and more, Confucian pedagogy in East Asia resulted in students there outperforming the West in international student competitions such as PISA.

While the U.K. _ and perhaps soon other parts of the West _ now adopt Chinese curriculum in math, East Asia also outperforms the West in other areas.

For science, China also scores high with 518, Korea 516; substantially higher than the OECD average of 493. For reading, Hong Kong scores 527, Korea 517; again substantially higher than the U.K. and OECD average (498, 493).

Perhaps the real difference between the two geographic regions is not the curriculum alone (so what we teach), but equally, if not more so, the pedagogy (how we teach). Recent research has established that the more disciplined East Asian students statistically significantly outperform the rest of the world, including the West.

In addition, it has been found that the relative importance of school discipline (i.e. order in the classroom) on educational performance is 88 percent in comparison to education investment (i.e. how much we spend on education) that contributes "only" 12 percent. (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJEM-05-2016-0099).

A 9:1 ratio of discipline to investment suggests that it is much wiser to focus on good discipline in education rather than simply increasing budgets without direct effects on students' educational performance.

Naturally, that does not mean that investment in education should be neglected _ quite the contrary. But it means that the more effective immediate tool to enhance educational performance is well and truly strict(er) discipline. Notwithstanding, the same study also found that both discipline and educational investment boost a country's global competitiveness, and in an intensified fight for global talent, preparing the next generation for high levels of competitiveness in (job) markets should not be underestimated.

The real difference between the East Asian and Western approach to education is not the curriculum alone, but indeed the pedagogical approach.

While the West by and large practices a permissive approach, East Asia pursues an authoritative teaching style: high level of discipline, focus on respect for teachers and education, strong performance orientation.

The focus is on learning and academic performance, systematic testing, checking of homework with consequences for not completing such, punctuality, compliance with dress code and school uniforms, respect and manners.

Subsequently, students experience an effective learning environment, preparing them well for vocational and tertiary education, and ultimately the workforce.

While the West is now starting to recognize the effective East Asian curriculum design with attempts to integrate such in Western schooling, what is doubtful is its success without also learning from the stricter East Asian pedagogical approach.

The above provides a simplified evolution of how pedagogy and curriculum evolve over time, with a prediction that ultimately, the West will not only learn from East Asian curriculum, but will also aspire to implement a stricter pedagogical approach.

The major difference between the East Asian and Western approach to education is discipline. East Asia understands that "Jade will never become a work of art without being carved." (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Baumann/publication/236164047).

The next generation needs to be guided to learn with structured and disciplined approach to pedagogy. Simply changing textbooks with the same permissive approach to learning may not be sufficient to make the West more competitive again.

There is social and economic value in discipline (better education leads to a better performance, a stronger workforce, a more harmonious society), and ultimately strict discipline in education has also been found to drive work ethic. (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13602381.2015.1129767?src=recsys).

Strict discipline has been the driving force of the development of the Asian Tigers, namely China, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan.

In the future, it is essential for East Asia to keep its Confucian-driven pedagogy without deviation to a more permissive approach, whereas the West may have to view East Asia as a role model for education altogether.

Dr. Chris Baumann is an associate professor at Macquarie University, Sydney, and visiting professor at Seoul National University (SNU) in Korea. He has an MBA from Simon Fraser University (SFU) and a doctorate in business administration (DBA) from Macquarie University. He can be reached at chris.baumann@mq.edu.au.