Creativity Research Journal

2005, Vol. 17, No. 4, 337347

Copyright 2005 by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Learning From Each Other:

Creativity in East Asian and American Education
Kyung Hee Kim
Eastern Michigan University

ABSTRACT: Educational systems grow from cultural

expectations and ideologies. Eastern and Western educational systems are as vastly different as the cultures
they spring from and are reflective of the strengths and
weaknesses of those cultures. First, strengths and limitations of East Asian education are discussed. Second,
strengths and limitations of American education are
discussed. Finally, some suggestions to both educations are posed. All educational systems can improve.
A look at the 2 contrasting systems along with the intended and unintended consequences of cultural ideals
as expressed through the educational systems can
bring greater insight into the successes and limitations
of each system and culture.
The differences between education in Asian countries
and the United States are striking, but each approach
has benefits from which the other could learn. Although the lack of enthusiasm about education shown
in the West is disheartening, the abundance of creativity that is fostered is to be admired. In contrast, East
Asian countries often sacrifice creativity due to the
amount of memory work and repetition that is expected. Studying the schools of other nations is a powerful tool for discovering strengths and weaknesses in
ones own educational system (Wollam, 1992). By
learning more about similarities and differences between cultures, educational stakeholders will be better
prepared to deal with an increasingly diverse classroom (Yook & Albert, 1998).
This article explores the differences of the two cultures educational systems with a focus on the impact
on students creativity. First, there is a general discussion of educational issues, focusing on East Asian education. Strengths of Asian education are accentuated
by similar areas of weakness in American education. A

Creativity Research Journal

discussion of Eastern Asias struggles with creativity

follows the educational and cultural background information. After discussing the limitations, there is an exploration of Americas success in incorporating creativity into its educational system. The article ends
with a discussion of the ways each culture is trying to
learn from the other and implications of such transactions.

East Asian Education

Strengths of East Asian Education
Relative levels of importance of education. East
Asian countries are known for the high value they
place on quality education. This high regard for education, due to Confucianism, which is the foundation for
their cultural values and which highly emphasizes education, has contributed to the economic growth of East
Asian societies (Morris, 1996). Virtues attributed to the
economic growth of the East Asian Five Dragons (i.e.,
Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, Korea, and Taiwan;
Hahm, 2003) are skill acquisition, hard work, patience,
perseverance, and education (Chen & Chung, 1994). In
East Asia parents and communities maintain an extremely high regard for education creating positive expectations for student learning as opposed to the
United States where societal support is often lacking
(Henderson, Marx, & Kim, 1999; Hirschman & Wong,
1986; Park & Kim, 1999).
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Kyung
Hee Kim, Eastern Michigan University, Department of Teacher Education, Ypsilanti, MI 48197. E-mail: [email protected] or
[email protected]

337

K. H. Kim

Americans were once the best educated populace in

the world with the highest percentage of citizens obtaining a high school diploma. Unfortunately, the
United States currently has a poor education ethic
(Thomson, 1989). Former President Bill Clinton may
have been correct when he said that he did not believe
the United States would be the leading economy in the
world in 50 years unless its students could graduate
high school with excellent world-class educations
(Haynes & Chalker, 1998). In the United States, too
many students reject educational opportunities to enter
the workplace prematurely causing a very high dropout
rate. Furthermore, more than 30% of the prison population is composed of high school dropouts. This is a
costly trend, as American taxpayers spend more
money feeding and housing one prisoner than on successfully educating a prospective tax-paying citizen
(Hodgkinson, 1991).
East Asian countries avoid this expense by having a
strong education ethic that encourages students to
work very hard and succeed in school (Haynes &
Chalker, 1997). Even within the United States, Asian
American students are overrepresented in gifted programs (Gallagher, 1997), and their college enrollment
rate was higher than that of non-Asians in 1980 (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1984, cited in Hirschman &
Wong, 1986). On the eight University of California
campuses, the Asian undergraduate enrollment is
growing faster than any other ethnic group (Van
Slambrouck, 1999), although one must be careful
about generalizing all Asian Americans.
Funding for schools. The relative importance of
education is reflected in the funding of schools. The
United States is a wealthy and technologically advanced country, and it has the economic and political
power to exercise influence throughout the globe. Although the United States possesses the resources to
propel its schools to the highest level, its educational
system is not superior to other countries (Haynes &
Chalker, 1997, 1998; Thomson, 1989; Yao &
Kierstead, 1984). Funding for educational programs in
U.S. public schools is minuscule compared with East
Asia. The Korean government spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product on education than any
other country in the world (Trotter, 2003).
There is also a noticeable difference in the use of
funds. Much of what money is spent on education in
the United States, which is considered average on a

338

worldwide scale, is siphoned away to pay for ancillary

expenses like transportation, lunches, and custodians;
leaving relatively little money for books, materials, and
teachers, which are the primary reasons for the existence of schools (Haynes & Chalker, 1997, 1998). In
contrast, East Asian students walk or use public transportation, students clean the schools, and mothers voluntarily staff school cafeterias. Thus, they can spend
more money on classroom instruction (Haynes &
Chalker, 1997, 1998).
Family support. In East Asia, informed parental
involvement in schoolwork is a major contributor to
school success. Among most Koreans, families completely support academic achievement, whereas support varies among American families (Wollam, 1992).
A perceptual contrast is evident between the two cultures. When a problem arises at school, American parents are inclined to question the effectiveness of the
school or the teacher in maintaining control of the
classroom. Conversely, East Asian parents will ally
with the teacher in placing the responsibility with the
child (Haynes & Chalker, 1997). American teachers
consider parental indifference to be the most serious
problem facing public schools (Thomson, 1989). Some
teachers specifically mentioned parental attitudes as
problematic, including a lack of support from parents
about discipline issues as well as comments that parents do not help students understand the importance of
planning for the future (Thomson, 1989).
The East Asian education ethic puts special emphasis on early childhood (Haynes & Chalker, 1997, 1998;
Henderson et al., 1999). Historically, mothers have
been intensely involved in their childrens learning.
Because children are still the center of their parents interests and because society places such a high value on
education, parents are willing to put almost all their resources toward their childrens education including
money, time, and energy. Parents prepare their preschool children to accept authority and work diligently
(Haynes & Chalker, 1998).
Asian parents attend their childrens school to observe their childs work habits (Haynes & Chalker,
1997). Teachers are ceded authority by parents to expect their children to put forth greater effort in school
(Sorensen, 1994). They are also partners in motivating
study practices. Parents engage students in learning
and support their schools. Most East Asian students
have desks at home, unlike many American students

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity in Asian and American Education

(Henderson, 1990). Many U.S. parents resist the idea

that students should do homework consistently, and
many American teachers fail to give regular homework
assignments (Haynes & Chalker, 1997). In contrast, it
is common for East Asian parents to sit with children
during a scheduled daily homework period (Henderson
et al., 1999; Kim, 1993; Yao & Kierstead, 1984). As
homework is a valuable learning-enhancement activity
of those countries, the school gives the students inexpensive textbooks in which they can write and highlight. In contrast, most American textbooks are too big,
heavy, and expensive for students to easily transport or
mark in (Haynes & Chalker, 1998).
Korean students are motivated by social tradition
(Park & Kim, 1999), so the motivation is extrinsic
rather than intrinsic (Chong & Michael, 2000). This is
critical because intrinsic motivation is conducive to
creativity, whereas extrinsic motivation is detrimental
(Torrance, 1962). The desire to succeed is endemic to
that society, and they therefore require less motivation
to study than do American students. Children also respond to their parents personal sacrifice. They understand their parents expectations of them and study
hard to make good grades to avoid or alleviate a guilty
conscience and to avoid disgracing their parents. How
a child fares in school is not merely a matter of personal satisfaction but is also a reflection of family concern. Children understand that academic achievement
is a determinant of their parents happiness. The
teacher is the master, the parent is a motivator and facilitator, and the student is a diligent learner (Haynes &
Chalker, 1998).
Belief in effort. East Asian educational philosophy teaches that a strong work ethic and devotion to
learning are ultimately more conducive to achievement than an inherently gifted mind. East Asian parents believe that good grades come from hard work,
effort, diligence, endurance, perseverance, and persistence (Haynes & Chalker, 1998; Henderson, 1990;
Park & Kim, 1999). East Asian students continue
their studies after regular school hours by enrolling in
a private cram school, where elementary school students receive instruction in the arts and older students
receive additional preparation for competitive college
entrance exams (Haynes & Chalker, 1997). After
completing homework, many eventually spend up to
16 hr a day on school-related work, including the
school hours (Haynes & Chalker, 1998). Social con-

Creativity Research Journal

cern for student achievement is a strong incentive to

East Asian teachers (Yao & Kierstead, 1984). They
create an environment of high expectations in students, and there is a symbiotic relation between
parents and school (Haynes & Chalker, 1998;
Henderson, 1990; see, e.g., Sorensen, 1994).
The results of the International Assessment of
Mathematics and Science revealed superior scores
achieved by East Asian students compared to lower
scores by American students (Kim, 1993; Kim, 1999;
Myeong & Crawley, 1993; Thomson, 1989). Many
studies have shown that East Asian students outperform American students especially in math, which East
Asian parents and students believe is due to their hard
work (Henderson, 1990). Within the United States,
Asian American students achievement is consistently
high (Hirschman & Wong, 1986). East Asian parents
emphasize the importance of hard work to academic
success, whereas American parents attribute academic
success to differences in native ability (e.g., Stevenson
& Stigler, 1992). Thus, Asian schools do not have
tracking (Henderson, 1990). Japanese people believe
that the best predictor of later success is receptive diligence, but in America, the best predictors are thought
to be curiosity and originality (Henderson et al.,
1999). Furthermore, hard work is not an abstract credo
but a practical guide in East Asians everyday lives
(e.g., Stevenson & Stigler, 1992).
U.S. educators mistakenly believe that Japanese
students are under such terrific pressure that they commit suicide at alarming rates. Surprisingly, the suicide
rate among school-age Japanese students is one half
that of the United States and is decreasing. (Haynes &
Chalker, 1997). Asian elementary school children appear to be cheerful, enthusiastic, vigorous, and responsive, just like American elementary school children
(Henderson, 1990).
Respecting teachers. The Confucian cultural
tradition emphasizes respect for teachers. Most teachers in East Asia recognize that their occupation has a
tremendous influence on future citizens, and they undertake their role very seriously (Yao & Kierstead,
1984). As role models for their students, they must be
extremely cautious about their moral standards because visible negative behavior can easily provoke a
great deal of criticism and condemnation from the
general public (Yao & Kierstead, 1984). This respect
is demonstrated in Japan where teachers are ad-

339

K. H. Kim

dressed as sensei, in China as master, and in Korea as

seonsangnim, which is one of the highest forms of respect to bestow on a person. In Japan, it is considered
a status symbol to have a teacher live in the neighborhood. In Taiwan, Confuciuss birthday is celebrated
as Teachers Daya national holiday (Haynes &
Chalker, 1997)and in Korea, what the teacher says
is law. Parents, teachers, and students all assume that
the teachers proper role is to impart truth. Thus, it is
rare for students to question a teachers authority
(Sorensen, 1994). This is significant because creativity often requires nonconformity (Torrance, 1962,
1967, 1968, 1977, 2002).
As an extension of respect and the high value placed
on education, there are significant financial benefits for
teachers in East Asia such as better pay and incentives
than are received by their American counterparts
(Haynes & Chalker, 1997, 1998; Thomson, 1989; Yao
& Kierstead, 1984). As a consequence, competition for
teaching positions in East Asia produces a highly qualified and respected body of teachers (Thomson, 1989).
In Japan, the government offers teachers low or no-interest mortgages on their homes. In Taiwan, teachers
do not pay income tax (Haynes & Chalker, 1997).
However, there is an obvious undervaluing of educators in the United States. Teachers are grossly underpaid for the work they perform (Thomson, 1989; Yao
& Kierstead, 1984). Further, because funding for
schools is insufficient to meet student needs for supplies, some educators must spend their own limited salaries to purchase these necessities if they are to have
them, decreasing teachers morale and sometimes negatively affecting the students themselves. Given the
current American national concern about teacher
shortages and the quality of the teaching force,
policymakers should look carefully at the incentive
deficits currently offered talented young men and
women who aim to become educators (Thomson,
1989).

Teacherstudent relationships. With collectivist context of East Asian societies neither a teacher nor
a student should ever be made to lose face (Park &
Kim, 1999; Yook & Albert, 1998). Teachers are highly
respected and never contradicted. Thus, students expect the teacher to initiate communication, and they
speak only when asked to by the teacher. Even if the instructor says something the student does not under-

340

stand, Korean students view it as relatively

inappropriate to interrupt the instructor (Yook & Albert, 1998).
In East Asia, the relationship between teachers and
students is seen as an extension of the motherchild relationship (Park & Kim, 1999). In Korea, there is a
proverb, The king, teacher, and father are the same
rank. There, teachers can influence even students private lives. They seek to know almost everything about
their personal history including their relationship with
parents, siblings, and friends. Importance is placed not
only on students academic progress but also on the
cultivation of character. Parents in Korea respect and
trust the teachers freedom to provide moral guidance
and counseling for students outside the classroom as
well as academic instruction within the classroom (Yao
& Kierstead, 1984) contributing to a more focused atmosphere of learning. Perhaps this kind of relationship
between teacher and student tends to minimize the potential for serious transgressions later by addressing
concerns while they are manageable. The relationship
among parents, students, and teachers could function
effectively as a deterrent to drug and alcohol abuse,
school dropouts, and other risky behaviors regularly
engaged in by Americas youth. Teachers outside-the-classroom concern for and rapport with individual students is vital (e.g., Patrick, Hisley, &
Kempler, 2000).
In contrast, Americas teachers are confronted with
a different set of rules with various degrees of cooperation among the student populace. In an individualistic
society both a students privacy and parental rights take
priority over mentoring. Furthermore, due to role definition, social expectations, underappreciation, and low
pay, teachers may be less inclined to delve into a students life outside of school depriving a child of needed
care and concern from a potential mentor.
Centralized and local school governance. East
Asian school governance includes strategic planning
by a centralized national board of directors (Haynes &
Chalker, 1997, 1998; Morris, 1996). This centralization in East Asian countries has yielded nationwide
uniform curriculum and testing programs, whereas educational decisions are locally controlled in the United
States (Hahn, 2001). With a national curriculum, students can use the same textbook and follow the same
course of study as they move from school to school
(Haynes & Chalker, 1997). Further, national assess-

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity in Asian and American Education

ment systems are established that play a crucial role in

selecting and assigning students through highly competitive and norm-referenced student examinations
(Morris, 1996).
This hierarchical arrangement unfortunately limits
teachers flexibility and therefore creativity within
their classrooms. Teachers in Korea realistically perceive pressure from forces above and beyond the classroom. Although the teachers are an elite and highly respected group, and although they serve as parent-like
mentors to their students outside the classroom, their
sole purposes in the classroom are to maintain control
and cover the content of their lesson plan as dictated by
nationwide uniform curriculum and testing programs.
In the worst cases, some teachers resemble robots with
a tape-recorded message instructional style.
When a student relocates to a different school in a
city, even on the opposite side of the country, the student can be assured that the content and instruction received at his or her prior school will be the same at the
new school with no variance whatsoever. Although educational uniformity is an advantage in regard to mobility making evaluative assessments unnecessary and
missed content unlikely, the fundamental problem with
a nationwide curriculum is that teachers are not encouraged and are, in fact, discouraged from searching
out creative methods of instructing their charges and
from reflecting deeply on the subjects they teach. If the
impressionable minds of the students have as an example a teacher who is restricted from creativity or from
discovering the creativity within them, how can students ever be free to learn and display a sense of originality or creativity within themselves? The political
centralism of decision making is especially dominant
in Korea where policies affecting school curriculum
are always made from the upper echelon of
policymakers.
Limitations of East Asian Education
East Asian culture and creativity. Culture and
the social system are major components in shaping behavior in creative performance (Csikszenmihalyi,
1988). It is harder for Asians than Westerners to think,
feel, and act in a creative manner because Asian society is tightly organized, collectivistic, hierarchical, and
face-conscious (Rudowicz & Ng, 2003). Much of the
cultural limitations may be better understood with a
look at Confucianism, the main cultural influence of

Creativity Research Journal

Eastern Asian countries. Confucianism and the ways it

manifests itself in human systems creates a rigid structure of expectations and behaviors that may limit creativity (Kim, in press). The four principles are Emphasis on Education, the Family System, Hierarchical
Relationships, and Benevolence (Chen & Chung,
1994). Emphasis on Education may decrease creativity
through rote learning, extreme competition, a
workplay dichotomy, and a devaluation of play. The
Family System value may stifle creativity through
rigid parentchild relationships and an overemphasis
on obedience, filial piety, and loyalty. Hierarchical Relationships may inhibit creativity through unequal relationships, gender role expectations, rigid social structure, and authoritarian relationships between teachers
and students. Benevolence may block creativity
through suppression of emotion, value of humility, silence ethic, conformity, and stigmatized eccentricity
(Kim, 2004, in press).
Although there are positive elements to Confucianism, the ways the aforementioned characteristics are
practiced within many Asian societies and school systems are detrimental to creativity (Kim, 2004; Kim &
Sergent, 2004). According to Kims findings (2004),
some elements of Confucianismparticularly obedience and hierarchy, gender inequality, conformity, suppression of expression, and workplay dichotomymay present cultural blocks to creativity.
Asian parents socialize their children to be psychologically dependent on the in-group and to avoid conflict, whereas Western society is loosely organized, individualistic, and egalitarian. Western parents socialize
their children to be independent and to have a positive
outlook on conflict. Thus, democratic exchange of
opinion is important (Rudowicz & Ng, 2003). With
this difference in mind, it makes sense that people from
collectivistic Eastern societies may be less creative
than people from the more individualistic Western societies (e.g., Bond, 1992; Fielding, 1997; Kim, 2004;
Kim & Michael, 1995; Kim & Sergent, 2004;
Rudowicz & Ng, 2003; Saeki, Fan, & Dusen, 2001).
In Chinese society, individuals exist only as members of a community. In East Asia, education is viewed
as a means of socialization (Cheng, 1998). Students
seek to avoid appearing different from others, individuals learn to restrain themselves to maintain group harmony, and the fear of making a mistake or feeling embarrassed keeps many students silent. These
expectations are related to their propensity for compro-

341

K. H. Kim

mise and conflict avoidance (Martinsons &

Martinsons, 1996). Under collectivism, slow speakers
are perceived as more competent than fast speakers,
whereas in the United States, the opposite consensus is
held (Lee & Boster, 1992). Moreover, Confucian ideals
consider the emphasis on individual rights and creativity to be secondary (Park & Kim, 1999). As an example, in East Asia the class as a collective is an important
element of school education (Stevenson & Lee, 1997).
Small class sizes are not always preferred because children need to learn to relate to various kinds of children
in various kinds of situations and being in a large group
is part of this process (Tobin, Wu, & Davison, 1989).
This cultural press toward uniformity and conformity
can explain, in part, the weakness in creativity (Cheng,
1998). Conformity sometimes conflicts with the creativity and initiative required in scientific and technical
fields (Cummings, 1994).
Korean education and creativity. Mothers in
Korea express a distinct need for knowledge about
childrens creative development (Chung, 1993). Young
childrens literacy has traditionally been taught
through repetition and memorization (Lee, Park, &
Kim, 2000; Lee & Schallert, 1997). This practice is
supported by most parents (Lee et al., 2000). Most Korean children begin their studies at an early age, sometimes at only 2 years old, and many of them are able to
read and write before they begin formal schooling. The
use of worksheets (hakseupjee) is widespread, focusing on exercises to teach letter names, letter sounds,
pictureword correspondence, and writing order (Lee
et al., 2000).
After children begin their formal school years, the
narrowing of their minds intensifies. Compared to children in U.S. classrooms, in Korean classrooms children talk less and are less frequently urged to participate in larger class activities (French & Song, 1998).
Korean students are not placed in a group learning situation in which discussion with their peers can foster a
sense of interactive learning that is impossible to
achieve in a teacher-centered environment. A tradition
based on a hierarchical society, teacher-centered, and
total class instruction (Bathory et al., 1992) commits
them to listening without speaking to teachers and
adults. They are prohibited the opportunity to argue,
discuss, and suggest, all enriching activities that can
strengthen the brains ability to assimilate more complex thought. Moreover, to excel academically, stu-

342

dents are asked to repeat, memorize, and remember the

textbook information for monthly exams, commonly
referred to as exam hell (e.g., Anderson, 1957; Foster, 1973; Wollam, 1992). It can be said that the goal of
schooling is to prepare students to pass the examinations (Joo & Grow-Maienza, 1997). Exclusive reliance
on standardized testing for educational assessment
also forces administrators and teachers to emphasize
rote learning and memorization, which ultimately inhibits creativity (Jeon, 2000; Kim, 1999; Kim & Michael, 1995; Lee & Schallert, 1997; Wollam, 1992).
The cultural priority of clearly delineating ones status in the collective leads to an educational system that
emphasizes examinations and competition (Cheng,
1998). Exclusive reliance on standardized testing for
educational assessment forces administrators and
teachers to emphasize rote learning and memorization.
Korean educators have recognized this and are now
calling for educational emphasis on flexibility and new
teaching methods that encourage students critical
thinking, logical reasoning, and the use of inquiry
skills and creative approaches to problem solving
(Wollam, 1992). Fundamentally, however, to change
the mechanistic bureaucratic organizational structure,
the formal system of political and administrative reality would need to be changed into a more decentralized
natural or open system that allows teachers the flexibility to think creatively and encourage their students to
do likewise (Lee, 1999).
Japanese education and creativity. Torrance
(1980b; Torrance & Sato, 1979) identified a stereotype
of the Japanese originating before World War II as unoriginal thinkers: adaptors, imitators, and copyists.
The original concern of the Japanese was to keep
abreast of world development and to acquire the most
current knowledge rather than to create it (Cummings,
1994). Thus, an emphasis was placed on rote memory
at the expense of self-expression and creative thinking
(Anderson, 1957).
In the aftermath of World War II, Japans rebuilding
efforts required a revamping of the educational system
to compete as a nation on a global scale. It advanced
the principles of democracy and equality, replacing the
former principles of seniority and elitism (Cummings,
1994). After the war, Japan adopted the American education system and the democratic education philosophy. Thus, the goal of Japans education was to develop
a free and creative approach that was more along dem-

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity in Asian and American Education

ocratic lines. The centralization of educational authority was changed to an Americanized system of local
control by American soldiers (e.g., Anderson, 1957;
Hidaka, 1957; Morito, 1973; Reid, 1975). In recognition of their own unhappy memories of prewar education and the postwar American reforms, the Japanese
have kept their classrooms free from politics or ideology (Reid, 1975). They recognized several problems of
education (Anderson, 1957) including the use of morality instruction that was previously used as an effective tool to prepare for war. Teaching of morals was replaced by social studies in which citizenship could be
taught. They also tried to fix a lack of prestige for vocational education because of a shortage of scientists and
technologists, all of which was a departure from Confucianism. These changes helped the Japanese to become more creative.
In many ways, Japan has taken some of the best
qualities from Eastern and Western education. A major
factor in its economic success was the emphasis placed
on a national commitment to the fulfillment of every
citizens creative potential (e.g., Dobinson, 1974;
Torrance, 1980a, 1980b, 1982). Japan also believed
that creativity would come after long hours of practice
involving concentrated imitation of the teacher and
that expertness would require persistence, hard work,
self-discipline, diligence, energy, effort, and competence as East Asians are accustomed (Reid, 1975;
Torrance, 1980a, 1980b). Japan emphasized developing students ability to think and learn creatively for the
future (Todd & Shinzato, 1999). To this end, tremendous importance was given to the preschool years and
creative skills and motivation were diligently and enthusiastically encouraged (Torrance, 1980a, 1980b,
1982).

American Education
Strengths of American Education
American classrooms and creativity. In stark
contrast to most of East Asian education creativity is a
vital component in American education, which
deemphasizes rote memorization and develops higher
order thinking skills (Garkov, 2002). The American
educational system encourages the exercise of creativity by providing an environment that promotes free and
open discussion. American educators have flexibility

Creativity Research Journal

and freedom because of their rights, their academic

freedom. The use of creativity can even be found in
American students writing, which is far different from
that of Asian students. Writing in Asian schools, even
everyday self-report journals, is supposed to be based
in moral codes with acceptable topics including such
themes as loyalty to the state and filial piety, determination of diligence, public morality, and harmony
among people including friends. In contrast, American
teachers are free to encourage their students to write
something creative, imaginative, and original. In the
United States, students can exercise their creative processes through competitions designed for enhancing
creative thinking such as the Future Problem Solving
Program (begun by E. P. Torrance in 1974) and Odyssey of the Mind (begun by S. Micklus in 1979;
Cramond, 2001; Karnes & Riley, 1996; Torrance &
Sisk, 1997). Another example showing the value of
creativity in American schools is that students in many
states qualify for gifted education services through
multiple criteria one of which is creativity (e.g., Georgia Gifted Education Law, 1998).
Creativity theory into practice. Torrance (1992)
concluded that there has been recognition of the connection between creativity and invention and national
economic prosperity. Thus, he urged educators to create a national climate favorable to creativity and invention and to identify and develop such talent for the future. Torrance (1963, 1981, 1994) and many other
American educators have been able to offer suggestions for promoting creative learning situations including in-the-classroom mentoring of teachers in which
they offer suggestions and demonstrate their theories
in practice. The effort to promote creativity in American classrooms extends to suggestions from researchers including giving students opportunities for inquiring, exploring, manipulating, experimenting, risking,
testing and modifying ideas, and giving open-ended
tasks (Leroux, 1986; Penick, 1983; Torrance, 1980a,
1980b, 1992). American teachers are also encouraged
to refrain from criticism before creative thoughts are
voiced (Leroux, 1986; McVey, 1991), to reinforce diversity and novelty in childrens various learning activities (Kawenski, 1991), and to be facilitators whose
main role is to record the students opinions (DeLellis,
1991).
American researchers also warned teachers that potential creativity can be limited by time compromises,

343

K. H. Kim

additional tasks, and ineffective or insufficient study

materials. Excessively rigid scheduling can impair a
students freedom to explore creative ideas or return to
a previously unsolvable problem and use fresh insights
to solve it (Kester, 1978; Penick, 1983). Furthermore,
some traits have been recognized that can obstruct both
the teachers and students creativity such as traditional
cultural and emotional blocks to creativity, conformity,
excessive faith in logic, fear of mistakes or failure,
self-satisfaction, perfectionism, negativism, lack of independence, and reliance on authority (Leroux, 1986;
Penick, 1983; Torrance & Sato, 1979).
Current U.S. National Policy
The education reformers in the United States have
spoken of the need for a national curriculum and testing and absolute standards insisting that schools compare themselves to each other (Cuban, 1986; Ohanian,
2000). Former President Bill Clinton called for national education standards and voluntary achievement
testing (Clinton, 1997a, 1997b). The original needs for
the national standards were from mobility (Allen &
Brinton, 1996; Zuckerman, 1996), equity, obsolescence, and accountability (Allen & Brinton, 1996). Political leaders insist that without testing there is no way
to know if reform is actually working, that only high
national standards that achieve broad credibility with
the public and educators prove that reform is working
(Ravitch, 1995) and that the adoption of national standards would raise expectations and encourage more
educational funding (Aronowitz, 1996).
Following the National Education Act (1999), the
No Child Left Behind Act (2001) was announced by
President George W. Bush (Bush, 2001). Both of these
include increased accountability of states, school districts, and schools; greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending low-performing
schools; more flexibility for states and local educational agencies in the use of federal education dollars;
and a stronger emphasis on reading, especially for the
youngest children. Therefore, the National Standards
Act and No Child Left Behind Act have basically the
same rationale.
This movement is largely externally influenced
with advocates citing centralized education structures
in European countries and Japan (e.g., Aronowitz,
1996; Hamilton & Goodling, 1999). The results of the
International Assessment of Mathematics and Science

344

were a part of the driving force for the national standards because they revealed superior scores achieved
by other countries students compared to lower scores
by American students (e.g., Clinton, 1997a, 1997b;
Kim, 1993; Kim, 1999; Myeong & Crawley, 1993;
Thomson, 1989; Zuckerman, 1996). Several state departments of education in the United States, including
the Georgia Department of Education, revised their
mathematics curriculum to reflect the characteristics
of the Japanese standards: Rigor and Complexity
(e.g., Cox, 2003, p. 2). Because of the rise of Japan as
an economic superpower and a political influence in
the world, serious research also began to identify the
cause for the surge and recognize the differences from
Western approaches to business (Thomson, 1989;
Torrance & Sato, 1979).
National policy and implications for creativity.
However, it is a simple-minded notion that the United
States should have a national curriculum merely because other nations have centrally controlled educational systems. No country has an educational system
that is close enough to perfection that it can justify the
imposition of an exact duplication onto another country; moreover, America has taught Japan most of what
it knows (Morgan, 1992). Nordquist (1993) claimed
that Some American experts on Japanese education
are convincing the general public that the only way to
improve our American educational system is to copy
the Japanese (p. 65). Such a movement ignores the
fact that there is little evidence linking central control
and educational achievement (Noddings, 1997). Perhaps more important, the European national curriculum directed by national standards did not originate
from democracy (Aronowitz, 1996). America, as a
symbol of democracy, is a more egalitarian society in
which many decisions are made from the bottom up
and in which individualism is valued over ones position in a hierarchy. On the other hand, East Asian societys needs have always been obtained at the sacrifice
of individual needs (Yao & Kierstead, 1984). Not only
can too much individualism breed anarchy, but too
much conformity can prove stifling to a society (Reid,
1975).
Exclusive reliance on standardized testing for educational assessment forces administrators and teachers
to emphasize rote learning and memorization. Drill
work, emphasis on curriculum, lack of time, and the
use of a large number of worksheets and teacher-cen-

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity in Asian and American Education

tered strategies can block creativity (Fleith, 2000). The

constant assessment and evaluation of students has
been shown to promote dependency, discourage inquiry, and devalue curiosity (Kawenski, 1991). There
have been several reports that an emphasis on standardized test scores results in a classroom emphasis on
strategies such as basic skill instruction and drill and
recitation with less emphasis on subjects that are not
tested and less use of innovative instructional strategies
(e.g., Brown, 1992; Herman & Golan, 1990; Moon,
Brighton, & Callahan, 2002; Shepard & Dougherty,
1991). School administrators focus on reviewing test
scores, discussing ways to improve test scores, and
providing materials for test score improvement.
Teachers cannot include instructional strategies that
emphasize creativity and enrichment until after the
state tests are completed (Moon et al., 2002).

Conclusions
Education is a socialcultural process so the process
of borrowing educational practices from another culture implies an acceptance of cultural values (Cheng,
1998). Although the American decentralized education system has some faults, it does allow some room
for creative pedagogy and curricular diversity
(Aronowitz, 1996). To be engaged, students need creative and innovative teaching through best practices.
All forms of coercion are questionable in a democracy
including the coercion of children (Noddings, 1997).
Therefore, it is imperative that America defend the opportunity for its students and teachers to think flexibly,
critically, and creatively, an impossibility in a controlled system of nationwide curriculum and testing.
Because students in East Asian countries, to pass the
test or earn better scores, need to learn solely by repetition and memorization, processes that leave no room
for creative growth and expression, East Asian countries should appropriate some of Americas values into
the educational process. Similarly, America could
learn from East Asian countries by adopting the strong
belief in the importance of education, emphasizing
hard work as a road to achievement, fostering a societal
mood of respecting teachers, and hiring more qualified
teachers by raising salaries. It can be concluded that
both cultures have much to learn from each other and
that a high respect for education as well as support of a

Creativity Research Journal

creative atmosphere are both necessary for a high quality education.

References
Allen, D. W., & Brinton, R. C. (1996). Improving our unacknowledged national curriculum. Clearing House, 69, 140143.
Anderson, R. S. (1957). An American view of Japanese education.
Phi Delta Kappan, 39, 99103.
Aronowitz, S. (1996). National standards would not change our cultural capital. Clearing House, 69, 144147.
Bathory, Z., Vari, P., Tamir, P., Miyake, M., Im, I.-J., Yeoh, O. C., et
al. (1992). Profiles of educational systems of countries participating in practical skills testing. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 18, 301318.
Bond, M. H. (1992). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Quarry Bay, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Brown, D. F. (1992, April). Altering curricula through state testing:
Perceptions of teachers and principals. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No ED344925)
Bush, G. W. (2001, January). Paige joins President Bush for signing
of historic No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [Press release]. Retrieved September 4, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/news/
pressreleases/2002/01/01082002.html
Chen, G.-M., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on
organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42,
93105.
Cheng, K. M. (1998). Can education values be borrowed? Looking
into cultural differences. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2),
1130.
Chong, S., & Michael, W. B. (2000). A construct validity study of
scores on a Korean version of an academic self-concept scale
for secondary school students. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 60, 1730.
Chung, M. J. (1993). Parent education for kindergarten mothers:
Needs assessment and predictor variables. Early Child Development and Care, 85, 7788.
Clinton, W. J. (1997a). Remarks in a roundtable discussion on education. Weekly Compilation of President Documents, 33,
443447.
Clinton, W. J. (1997b). Remarks in a roundtable discussion on education. Weekly Compilation of President Documents, 33,
848850.
Cox, K. (2003, December). Mathematics performance standards:
Grades K12 [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved June 23,
2004, from http://wc.gpb.org/vs/binary_data/vs_webcasting/
Cramond, B. (2001). Fostering creative thinking. In F. A. Karnes &
S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the
gifted (399444). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Csikszenmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A system
view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp.7698). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cuban, L. (1986). Persistent instruction: Another look at constancy
in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 711.

345

K. H. Kim

Cummings, W. K. (1994). From knowledge seeking to knowledge

creation: The Japanese universitys challenge. Higher Education, 27, 399415.
DeLellis, A. J. (1991). Tapping creativity in others. Training and Development, 45(11), 4852.
Dobinson, C. H. (1974, January). A proposal for education in Japan.
The Educational Forum, 38, 217222.
Fielding, R. M. (1997). A socio-cognitive perspective on cross-cultural attitudes and practices in creativity development. Australian Art Education, 20, 2733.
Fleith, D. S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in
the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22, 148153.
Foster, E. (1973). Exam Hell in Japan. Change, 5, 1619.
French, L., & Song, M.-J. (1998). Developmentally appropriate
teacher-directed approaches: Images from Korean kindergartens. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30, 409430.
Gallagher, J. J. (1997). Issues in the education of gifted students. In N.
Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education
(2nd ed., pp.1023). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Garkov, V. (2002). Is the American approach to science education
the best in the world? Market forcesDriving science education in the United States. Journal of College Science Teaching,
3(6), 399401.
Georgia Gifted Education Law. (1998). Education program for
gifted students (Rep. No. 160-4-2-.38). Retrieved June 24,
2004,
from
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/doe/
legalservices/16042-.38.pdf
Hahm, C. (2003). Law, culture, and the politics of Confucianism.
Colombia Journal of Asian Law, 16, 254301.
Hahn, C. L. (2001). Democratic understanding: Cross-national perspectives. Theory Into Practice, 40, 1422.
Hamilton, L. H., & Goodling. B. (1999). Should there be national education standards? CQ Researcher, 9, 417.
Haynes, R. M., & Chalker, D. M. (1997). World-class schools. American School Board Journal, 184(5), 2026.
Haynes, R. M., & Chalker, D. M. (1998). The making of a
world-class elementary school. Principal, 77, 56, 89.
Henderson, B. B., Marx, M. H., & Kim, Y. C. (1999). Academic interests and perceived competence in American, Japanese, and Korean children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 3250.
Henderson, Z. P. (1990). Myth of native ability hurts American education. Human Ecology, 19, 2930.
Herman, J. L., & Golan, S. (1990). Effects of standardized testing on
teachers and learningAnother look (Report No.
CSE-TR-334). Los Angeles: University of California at Los
Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED341738)
Hidaka, D. (1957). From a friendly critic in Japan: Problems of exporting education. Phi Delta Kappan, 39, 9598.
Hirschman, C., & Wong, M. G. (1986). The extraordinary educational attainment of Asian-Americans: A search for historical
evidence and explanations. Social Forces, 65, 127.
Hodgkinson, H. (1991). Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan,
73, 816.
Jeon, K.-W. (2000). An evaluation of gifted pre-schoolers in the creative thinking program in South Korea. Gifted Education International, 14, 277295.

346

Joo, C.-A., & Grow-Maienza, J. (1997, March). Ideal goals for

schools and real emphases: Perspectives of undergraduates in
Korea compared to those of teacher candidates in the United
States. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Karnes, F. A., & Riley, T. L. (1996). Competitions: Maximizing your
abilities. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Kawenski, M. (1991). Encouraging creativity in design. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 25, 263266.
Kester, E. (1978). The childrens hour. Creative Child and Adult
Quarterly, 3, 5154, 68.
Kim, H. (1993). A comparative study between an American and a
Republic of Korean textbook series coverage of measurement
and geometry content in first through eighth grades. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 123126.
Kim, J., & Michael, W. B. (1995). The relationship of creativity measures to school achievement and to preferred learning and
thinking style in a sample of Korean high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 6074.
Kim, K. H. (2004). Cultural influence on creativity: The relationship
between creativity and Confucianism. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Kim, K. H. (in press). Exploring the interactions between Asian culture (Confucianism) and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior.
Kim, K. H., & Sergent, D. F. (2004, August). The relationship between Confucianism and creativity among American and Korean teachers for gifted children. Poster presented at the International Council of Psychologists conference held in Jinan,
Shandong, China.
Kim, Y.-H. (1999). Recent developments in Korean school education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 5571.
Lee, H. O., & Boster, F. J. (1992). Collectivismindividualism in
perceptions of speech rate: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 377388.
Lee, J., Park, E., & Kim, H. (2000). Literacy education in Korea: A
sociocultural perspective. Child Education, 76, 347351.
Lee, J.-K. (1999). Historic factors affecting educational administration in Korean higher education. Higher Education Review, 32,
723.
Lee, J.-W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2
language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context.
TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713739.
Leroux, J. A. (1986). Making theory real: Developmental theory and
implications for education of gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 9, 7277.
Martinsons, M. G., & Martinsons, A. B. (1996). Conquering cultural
constraints to cultivate Chinese management creativity and innovation. Journal of Management Development, 15, 1835.
McVey, K. (1991). Memories are made of this. Gifted Child Today,
14, 3943.
Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., & Callahan, C. M. (2002). State standardized testing programs: Friend or foe of gifted education?
Roeper Review, 25, 4960.
Morgan, R. M. (1992). Educational reform: Top-down or bottom-up? Educational Technology, 32(11), 4751.

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity in Asian and American Education

Morito, T. (1973). Prospects of the third educational reform in Japan.

Prospects, 3, 164177.
Morris, P. (1996). Asias four little tigers: A comparison of the role
of education in their development. Comparative Education, 32,
95109.
Myeong, J.-O., & Crawley, F. E. (1993). Predicting and understanding Korean high school students science-track choice: Testing
the theory of reasoned action by structural equation modeling.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 381400.
National Education Act, B. D. 2542 (1999).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, 115 Stat.
1425 (2002).
Noddings, N. (1997). Thinking about standards. Phi Delta Kappan,
79, 184189.
Nordquist, G. (1993). Japanese education: No recipe for authentic
learning. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 6467.
Ohanian, S. (2000). Goals 2000: Whats in a name? Phi Delta
Kappan, 81, 345355.
Park, Y.-S., & Kim, U. (1999). The educational challenge of Korea in
the global era: The role of family, school, and government. Chinese University Education Journal, 26, 91120.
Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., & Kempler, T. (2000). Whats everybody
so excited about? The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student
intrinsic motivation and vitality. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 68, 217236.
Penick, J. E. (1983). What research says: Encouraging creativity.
Science and Children, 20, 3233.
Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Reid, T. R. (1975). Japanese schools: Drifting right again? Learning,
4, 3643.
Rudowicz, E., & Ng, T. S. (2003). On Ngs Why Asians are less creative than Westerners [Book review]. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 301302.
Saeki, N., Fan, X., & Dusen, L. V. (2001). A comparative study of
creative thinking of American and Japanese college students.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 2438.
Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991, April). Effects of
high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No
ED337468)
Sorensen, C. W. (1994). Success and education in South Korea.
Comparative Education Review, 38, 1035.
Stevenson, H. W., & Lee, S. (1997). The East Asian version of
whole-class teaching. In W. K. Cummings & P. G. Altbach
(Eds.), The challenge of Eastern Asian education: Implications
for America (pp. 3350). Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our
schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and
Chinese education. New York: Summit.
Thomson, S. D. (1989). How much do Americans value schooling?
NASSP Bulletin, 73, 5167.
Tobin, J. J., Wu, D. Y. H., & Davison, D. H. (1989). Preschool in
three cultures: Japan, China and the United States. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.

Creativity Research Journal

Todd, S. M., & Shinzato, S. (1999). Thinking for the future: Developing higher-level thinking and creativity for students in Japan and elsewhere. Childhood Education, 75, 342345.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1963). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1967). Understanding the fourth grade slump in creative thinking: Final report. Athens: University of Georgia
Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth
grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12, 195199.
Torrance, E. P. (1977). Creativity in the classroom. Washington, DC:
National Education Association.
Torrance, E. P. (1980a). Lessons about giftedness and creativity from
a nation of 115 million overachievers. Gifted Child Today, 15,
1014.
Torrance, E. P. (1980b). What might we learn from the Japanese
about giftedness and creativity? Gifted Child Today, 13, 29.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Predicting the creativity of elementary school
children (195880)And the teacher who made a difference.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 5562.
Torrance, E. P. (1982). Education for quality circles in Japanese
schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education,
15(2), 1115.
Torrance, E. P. (1992). A national climate for creativity and invention. Gifted Child Today, 15, 1014.
Torrance, E. P. (1994). Creativity: Just wanting to know. Pretoria,
Republic of South Africa: Benedic Books.
Torrance, E. P. (2002). The manifesto: A guide to developing a creative career. West Westport, CT: Ablex.
Torrance, E. P., & Sato, S. (1979). Figural creative thinking abilities
of United States and Japanese majors in education. Creative
Child and Adult Quarterly, 4, 216221.
Torrance, E. P., & Sisk, D. A. (1997). Gifted and talented children in
the regular classroom. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.
Trotter, A. (2003, September 24). S. Korea tops U.S. in key education ratings. Education Week, 23, 3.
Van Slambrouck, P. (1999, March 18). Asian students struggle with
high rate of success. Christian Science Monitor, 91, 1.
Wollam, J. (1992). Equality versus excellence: The South Korean dilemma in gifted education. Roeper Review, 14, 212217.
Yao, E. L., & Kierstead, F. D. (1984). Can Asian educational systems
be models for American education? An appraisal. NASSP Bulletin, 68, 8289.
Yook, E. L., & Albert, R. D. (1998). Perceptions of the appropriateness of negotiation in educational settings: A cross-cultural
comparison among Koreans and Americans. Communication
Education, 47, 1829.
Zuckerman, M. B. (1996, September 16). Why schools need standards. U. S. News & World Report, 121, 128.

347