Mathematics Education in East Asia

Abstract

Students in East Asia have been performing extremely well in international studies of mathematics achievements such as TIMSS and PISA. On the other hand, education practices in East Asian countries look different from Western practices, and some practices look very backward and contradictory to what are considered as good practices. Given these intriguing phenomena, this plenary panel aims to discuss different aspects of mathematics education in these East Asian countries, and illustrate its salient features with examples. These aspects include classroom teaching in regular schools and tutorial schools, and pre-service and in-service teacher education and development. The reasons behind the distinctive features of mathematics education in East Asia are then explored, and it is argued that the common Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) that these countries share best explain these features. This panel presentation is not meant to promote the superior student achievement or good educational practices in East Asia. Rather, it highlights the cultural differences between CHC and Western cultures, rather than the superiority of one over the other. A cultural explanation also means that simple transplant of educational policies and practices from one culture to another will not work. The panel points to the important role culture plays in accounting for educational practices and student achievement.

Grit and academic achievement: A comparative cross-cultural meta-analysis.

“…Perseverance of effort toward success is a cultural norm in collectivistic cultures (Hong, 2001; Tao & Hong, 2000). Rooted in the Confucian heritage cultures, people in East Asia (e.g., China, characterized by a collectivistic culture) tend to consider studying to be a hardship; therefore, perseverance is essential for success, and the enjoyment of study is less important (Leung et al, 2015). As a result of the high value placed on effort, students in East Asia tend to believe that effort can compensate for lack of ability toward success and therefore tend to attribute their academic achievement to effort (Fwu et al, 2016).…”

American base‐rate neglect: It is not the math, but the context

“…Some of the differences start even before one enters formal schooling (e.g., Siegler, 2007). Many factors like language (e.g., Miura, Okamoto, Vlahovic‐Stetic, Kim, & Han, 1999), cultural emphasis on math (e.g., Hatano, 1990; Leung, Park, Shimizu, & Xu, 2015), or sometimes even math anxiety (e.g., Ramirez, Gunderson, Levine, & Beilock, 2012) contribute to the superior math learning of East Asians. Then, can cultural differences in Bayesian judgments, if there are any, be attributed solely to differences in math proficiency?…”

Untitled

“…PST 6 rejected what he/she described as "traditional didactic manner". In this regard PST 6 manifests the view that principles of learning, potentially emphasising facilitation and co-construction (alignment with "teaching pedagogy evidence"), are preferable to a more didactic approach favoured by the author and East Asian educators (e.g., Huang & Leung, 2004;Lai & Murray, 2012;Leung et al, 2015;Li, 2004), meta-data analysts (e.g., Hattie, 2009;Hattie & Donoghue, 2016), and cognitive load theorists (e.g., Chen et al, 2016;Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;Sweller, 2016;Tricot & Sweller, 2014). It needs to be noted, however, that while the views of PST 6 provide a reasonably coherent justification for existing generic mathematics teacher education programs and curriculum courses/subjects, they are counter to those expressed by the majority of the pre-service teachers enrolled in the mathematics course informing this study.…”