I am writing this column in Japan, where I am doing some classroom research on mathematics education.
It is revealing to see classrooms in other countries because we often simply rely on perceived wisdom or caricatures about them. International comparisons can tell us something about the differences between countries, but in the end they can only really be a starting point of discussions, not the final say.
Take the topic of differences in classroom practices between the East and West. I have read many times that East Asian countries are all about practice and procedures, and that the teaching methods there are mainly teacher-led. This is not completely without grounds, but we need to unpick it to really understand what is going on.
In the past I have written about an that I undertook to explore the truth behind proclamations that East Asian countries did so well in international tests like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (Timss) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) because of particular instructional practices.
Comparing international education systems
I analysed Timss 2019 data from lower secondary school from 46 regions and countries. I constructed scales for instructional practices, supplemented with information on barriers to instruction. I then looked at the relationship between the instructional practices and mathematics achievement.
Overall, there was a limited relationship between instructional practices and achievement, but barriers to instruction and, to a lesser extent, instructional time were predictive of achievement.
More from Christian Bokhove:
In the Timss data such barriers reported by teachers included students lacking the prerequisite knowledge or skills; a lack of basic nutrition; a lack of sleep; absence from class; disruption; disinterest; mental, emotional or psychological impairment; and students having difficulties understanding the language of instruction. I did not unpick all these barriers any further, but some of them correspond with recent concerns about classroom culture.
Having said that, there were also huge differences between countries. One example is that the instructional mathematics time per week in Japan was about two-and-a-half hours, and in Hong Kong about four hours. For reference, teachers in England reported three hours and 20 minutes on average.
There was no consistent pattern of instructional practices across all countries, and also not among East Asian countries.
It would be best not to deal in caricatures of countries. I have seen numerous people herald the education system in Finland, and others then criticise that same system, with both sides citing the impact of curriculum changes from decades ago.
It may surprise people that in East Asia many curricula do not really see a contradiction in heavily debated binaries in the West. Recent changes in, for example, the Singapore lower secondary mathematics curriculum include references to metacognition, ideas, creativity, and real-world problems, next to routine mathematical procedures. So predictable reactions to “soft skills” like that have to be set against the complete picture of a country.
We can learn a lot from the education systems of other countries, but to do that we need to know what is happening in their classrooms. I hope we can continue to share such classroom experiences.
Christian Bokhove is a professor in mathematics education at the University of Southampton and a specialist in research methodologies
