Contemporary Comparative Education

NORTHEASTERN COLLEGE
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Santiago City, Philippines
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
Website: www.northeasterncollege.edu.ph
TERM PAPER
IN
CONTEMPORARY COMPARATIVE EDUCATION
Submitted by:
SHARON A. AGUSTIN
MAED Student
Submitted to:
RODRIGO V. PASCUA, EdD

Professor
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
INTRODUCTION
In education, the greatest pressure for improvements and change now tends to
come from the publication of results in international student assessments,
particularly in mathematics, science and literacy. The rankings inevitably encourage
comparisons with countries regarded as ‘successful’ and ‘high-performing’. While
some of these assessments have been in place for decades and have high levels of
recognition and even acceptance in the public domain, there is some concern that
such comparisons now risk simplistic extrapolation from the available data, including
the identification of national educational strategies that may not lend themselves
easily to reproduction in different socio-cultural contexts. International comparisons
vary in their scope and focus, with individual countries/systems as well as national
and international organizations showing interest in the findings. High-profile
international assessment strategies include the Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA), which measures performance in mathematics, science and
reading literacy.
To the extent that international assessments motivate education authorities to
evaluate the effectiveness of their curricula and other critical aspects of schooling,
there appear to be few queries. This area of research has become increasingly
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
contested, however, insofar as there are perceptions of a focus on systemic
improvement without a concomitant appreciation of sociocultural (and other) context,
philosophy of education and capacity to effect change. The risks posed by
inadequate consideration of local issues are raised in discussions of the ‘rationality
and irrationality of international comparative studies’ (Keitel & Kilpatrick, 1999).
According to Keitel and Kilpatrick (1999, p. 247), ‘the high rankings achieved by
some countries on the achievement tests in some international comparative studies
have led commentators inn countries with lower rankings to exaggerate the results,
creating a mystique about education in the high-scoring countries.’ In
Crossley’s(2008, p. 322) view, ‘the most visible manifestation of the contemporary
impact of comparative research in education has emerged in the shape of cross
national studies of educational achievement, and the widespread influence of
related league tables.’
METHODOLOGICAL TENSIONS INHERENT IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATION
RESEARCH
There is evidence that the application of research methodologies to comparative
studies of education is problematic, with some researchers claiming that
‘international comparison bolsters an evaluation mandate that promotes a superficial

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
global awareness while stifling originality by displacing the core objectives of
education’ (Hebert, 2012, p. 18). This reflects a view that comparative research must
move beyond mere comparison of scores (e.g. PISA), and that more studies are
needed in areas such as creativity, talent, ethical sensibilities and also in relation to
values and attitudes more relevant to the needs of 21st century students (Hebert,
2012). If it is expected to contribute to curriculum reform, comparative research may
need to give greater consideration to the philosophy of education and social science
methodologies as well as utilizing empirical approaches relating to student
performance. In rejecting evaluation mandates, Hebert (2012) observes that literacy
and numeracy often overshadow other education objectives(e.g. creativity, ethics,
knowledge of history, etc.) central to educational systems as a consequence of
‘unbalanced policy-making’. As well, driven by a perceived need to be more
‘internationally competitive’, teachers often feel pressured to ‘teach to the test’,
which ultimately contributes to a ‘superficial education.’ If research pays greater
attention to such qualities as originality, creativity, historical/global awareness and
ethics, Hebert argues, the ‘educational policy landscape may be transformed’ (p.24).
International comparisons conducted as part of the Review of the Australian
Curriculum (reported in October, 2014;see Appendix 2) feature a comparison of
school curricula in England, Finland, Ontario (Canada), Hong Kong (China),

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
Shanghai (China), Republic of Korea and Singapore. With an emphasis on
England’s 2011 review of the national curriculum, the Australian reviewers
concluded that: There are inherent dangers in simplistic international comparisons
with systems which perform highest on international tests, and these are well
documented by Oates in commenting on Finland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan,
and other nations. They include the underestimation of cultural and contextual
factors such as the high esteem in which teachers are held, parental active
engagement in education of children at home, community support of schools,
mandating of literacy through legislation in other parts of the public sector, length of
school day, and automatic extra personal tutoring for low achievers. (Donnelly &
Wiltshire, 2014, pp. 40-41) Reflecting on research underway in the Asia-Pacific
region, Denman and Higuchi (2013, p.17) emphasize that comparative studies in
education should not be grounded in a sense of competition. Rather than focusing
on rankings, any comparisons should provide a ‘socio-cultural lens that offers.
Literature review: contemporary approaches to comparative education research
(March 2017) To the extent that international assessments motivate education
authorities to evaluate the effectiveness of their curricula and other critical aspects
of schooling, there appear to be few queries. This area of research has become
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
increasingly contested, however, insofar as there are perceptions of a focus on
systemic improvement without a concomitant appreciation of sociocultural (and
other) context, philosophy of education and capacity to effect change. The risks
posed by inadequate consideration of local issues are raised in discussions of the
‘rationality and irrationality of international comparative studies’ (Keitel & Kilpatrick,
1999). According to Keitel and Kilpatrick (1999, p. 247), ‘the high rankings achieved
by some countries on the achievement tests in some international comparative
studies have led commentators in countries with lower rankings to exaggerate the
results, creating a mystique about education in the high-scoring countries.’ In
Crossley’s(2008, p. 322) view, ‘the most visible manifestation of the contemporary
impact of comparative research in education has emerged in the shape of cross
national studies of educational achievement, and the widespread influence of
related league tables.’ Methodological tensions inherent in comparative education
research There is evidence that the application of research methodologies to
comparative studies of education is problematic, with some researchers claiming
that ‘international comparison bolsters an evaluation mandate that promotes a
superficial global awareness while stifling originality by displacing the core
objectives of education’ (Hebert, 2012, p. 18). This reflects a view that comparative
research must move beyond mere comparison of scores (e.g. PISA), and that more
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
studies are needed in areas such as creativity, talent, ethical sensibilities and also in
relation to values and attitudes more relevant to the needs of 21st century students
(Hebert, 2012). If it is expected to contribute to curriculum reform, comparative
research may need to give greater consideration to the philosophy of education and
social science methodologies as well as utilizing empirical approaches relating to
student performance. In rejecting evaluation mandates, Hebert (2012) observes that
literacy and numeracy often overshadow other education objectives(e.g. creativity,
ethics, knowledge of history, etc.) central to educational systems as a consequence
of ‘unbalanced policy-making’. As well, driven by a perceived need to be more
‘internationally competitive’, teachers often feel pressured to ‘teach to the test’,
which ultimately contributes to a ‘superficial education.’ If research pays greater
attention to such qualities as originality, creativity, historical/global awareness and
ethics, Hebert argues, the ‘educational policy landscape may be transformed’ (p.24).
International comparisons conducted as part of the Review of the Australian
Curriculum (reported in October, 2014;see Appendix 2) feature a comparison
ofschool curricula in England, Finland, Ontario (Canada), Hong Kong (China),
Shanghai (China), Republic of Korea and Singapore. With an emphasis on
England’s 2011 review of the national curriculum, the Australian reviewers
concluded that: There are inherent dangers in simplistic international comparisons

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
with systems which perform highest on international tests, and these are well
documented by Oates in commenting on Finland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan,
and other nations. They include the underestimation of cultural and contextual
factors such as the high esteem in which teachers are held, parental active
engagement in education of children at home, community support of schools,
mandating of literacy through legislation in other parts of the public sector, length of
school day, and automatic extra personal tutoring for low achievers. (Donnelly &
Wiltshire, 2014, pp. 40-41) Reflecting on research underway in the Asia-Pacific
region, Denman and Higuchi (2013, p.17) emphasize that comparative studies in
education should not be grounded in a sense of competition. Rather than focusing
on rankings, any comparisons should provide a ‘socio-cultural lens that offers
Literature review: contemporary approaches to comparative education research
(March 2017) fresh perspectives and alternative approaches that highlight “good” if
not “best” practices.’ Their summary is that: There is no one template for research in
comparative education, but structure and agency can elevate quality standards.
Both structure and agency are required with agency as offering a cultural lens as to
how to approach the topic in question, what to analyses (when, where, and why),
and how to interpret findings (p. 17).

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
Suggesting that policymakers should be cautious about trying to model their
education systems on international examples that appear to be more effective, Raffe
et al (1999) draw on a football analogy to explain the decision to compare the
national curricula of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. These are
categorized as ‘home internationals’ and, at least in broad terms, seem more similar
than different. The decision to conduct this intra-national study was based on their
premise that any ‘differences among the UK systems are not just a nuisance and a
problem to be coped with. They are also an opportunity for research (Bell & Grant,
1977; Smith, 1983), a source of empirical and theoretical challenges and of lessons
for policy and practice’ (Raffe et al, 1999, p. 10). There is resistance to the
assumption that ‘each society has clear and unambiguous boundaries and that the
boundaries of the education and training systems coincide with the economic, social
and political institutions which provide their societal context’ (Raffe et al, 1999, p.19).
Some countries and systems may reflect evolutionary influences that are neither
easily explained or transferred, but a strong focus on these can nonetheless reveal
rich sources of inspiration. Likewise, some countries may not appear regularly in the
higher rankings of international assessments, but their national priorities for
education include a commitment to other areas of intellectual, cultural and social
value. This may be particularly true for the learning areas and subjects that do not
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
carry the high-profile of mathematics and science, such as philosophy, history, the
arts, health and physical education and foreign languages.
Canada, France, Belgium and Spain are examples of countries that encompass
systems that are both independent and interdependent in relation to the delivery of
school education. While Australia’s federal system devolves responsibility for the
delivery of education to the states and territories, these administrations, like their
counterparts in the United Kingdom, also belong to a larger political entity and share
its ‘homogenizing influence’ (Raffe et al, p. 19). This influence is a key reason for
adopting a methodology focusing on ‘home internationals’ and is defended on the
basis that: • theory development based on analysis of these interdependent systems
may be more useful, particularly in identifying similarities, and assist in the
development of an overarching conceptual framework • identification and analysis of
differences that reflect core problems of educational research, and including, for
example, issues of inequality and differentiation in schooling • global trends and the
imperatives of supra-national organizations make it essential that policymakers have
detailed knowledge of educational systems and their similarities and differences •
consideration of data and developments across interdependent systems offers the
potential to draw practical policy lessons • data collection and cost-effective analysis
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
are more likely because of the common language, cultural connections,
administrative practices, geographic location and mutual appreciation of the benefits
of collaboration. (Raffe et al, 1999) Comparative education research takes account
of these trends. For example, Chou (2014, p.133) argues for a simultaneous focus
on national characteristics and individual education systems, concluding that
national data continue to play a key role in comparative studies and that
‘international assessments of student achievement have continued to reinforce this
as one of the dominant themes in the field’. As discussed by Bray et al (2014),
education systems across the globe are under pressure from a range of
perspectives and are responding in various ways. Such pressures and responses
include deregulation of education in response to free-market economic policies;
increases in measurable gaps between rich and poor at school, national and
international levels; greater competitiveness (particularly through students’
participation in international assessment tasks) and accountability; the adoption of
benchmarking to inform curriculum design and other reforms; and the influence of
information and communication technology on teaching and learning. The choice of
methodology remains key to meaningful research in comparisons of educational
practice. Chou (2014, p. 133) considers the work of George Bereday (1964) to be
foundational in the field; his four-step method involved description, interpretation,

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
juxtaposition and comparison, a combination that remain characteristic of much
contemporary work and can apply equally to studies of curriculum and
implementation. However, many other methods have been trialed since the 1960s.
Often a reflection of the socio-political climate of a country or region, these have
included an emphasis on:
• history • positivism • phenomenology • ethnography • narrative • problem •
developmental (neo-Marxism, dependency theory and world order) • postmodernism
• globalization • neo-institutional theory
Since 1970, numerous academics and organizations have undertaken research in
the field of comparative education under the aegis of the World Congresses of
Comparative Education (WCCE). The WCCE grew out of the International
Committee of Comparative Education Societies, formed in 1968 by Joseph Katz of
the University of British Columbia in Canada. Each member society has had its own
publications with which to contribute to the knowledge base in this field of endeavor.
A longstanding example is the Comparative and International Education Society’s
Comparative Education Review, founded in 1957, which publishes peer-reviewed
articles that pursue ‘educational issues, trends and policies through comparative,
cross-cultural and international perspectives.’ In a field characterized by recurrent

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
changes in methodological approaches, Bray (2002, p. 125) notes that ‘the nature of
the themes, and the methodological approaches, have been very different in
different parts of the world at particular periods in history.’ He claims that ‘it remains
the case that the topics chosen for comparative analysis, and the methodological
approaches, have continued to vary considerably in different parts of the world’
(p.126). Believing that ‘globalization has changed the agenda in which corporativists
can and should work’, Bray (2002, p.115) describes the shift in methodological
approaches from those primarily based in the social sciences (e.g. literature
reviews, historical studies, positivist theory, questionnaires and interviews) to a
mixed use of qualitative and quantitative data. Mixed method designs have the
capacity to enhance the validity and reliability of research studies (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2011). In addition to large-scale surveys of student achievement that have
dominated the field of comparative education in past decades, bodies including the
National Research Council (USA) (2002) and other researchers (for example,
Hebert, 2012; Voogt and Roblin, 2012) identify a need for a wide range of other
cross-national research, such as ethnographic studies, case studies, small-scale
focused, quantitative and qualitative studies, and historical studies, that would allow
stakeholders to understand what it means to be educated in diverse global settings
and contexts. On one hand, multi-case studies have the capacity to contribute to an
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
understanding of the impact of cultural, social, economic, historical and political
forces on educational decisions, policy construction and changes over time.
However, case studies alone are insufficient, particularly if the aim is to achieve a
thorough understanding of the relationship between ‘globalizing trends and policy
developments’ (Chong & Graham, 2013, p. 2). These researchers argue for an
ecological or scaled approach that sees methodological approaches move through
’macro, meso and micro levels to build nested case-studies to allow for more
comprehensive analysis of the external and internal factors that shape policy making
and education systems’ (p. 2). This means that embedded analytical approaches
should provide richer datasets capable of producing contextualized, accurate and
more authentic research findings(Broad foot 2000; Crossley 2000).

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
CONCLUSION
Contemporary Education is, most fundamentally, a framework for teaching
and learning. Based on this framework, Contemporary Education offers curricula,
institutes and a blog to reimagine education for the 21st century .
The Contemporary Education mission is to transform education to empower
students to make meaningful decisions in their lives. The vision is to transform
schools into centers of meaningful reflection on how we respond to our human
needs practically and theoretically, in the pursuit of healthier lives and more just,
peaceful and sustainable societies. There are 5C Principles of Contemporary
Education: Connect, Care, Critique, Collaborate and Create. The core values of
Contemporary Education are: Health (Mental, Physical & Spiritual); Social Justice
and Peace; and Environmental Sustainability.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Tel.: (078) 682-8256 Telefax: (078) 682-8454
REFERENCE:
Al Hmouz, H. (2008). A comparison of gifted high, moderate and low achievers in

their motivation. self-regulation, motivational goals, goal orientations, and
attitudestowardstheirschool and teachers. University of Wollongong, Faculty of
Education. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1763
Bereday, G. Z. (1964). Comparative method in education . New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Bray, M. (2002). Comparative Education in the Era of Globalisation: Evolution,
Missions and Roles. Revista Española de Educación Comparada5, 8, 115-135.
Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (. (2014). Comparative Education Research:
Approaches and Methods. (M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason, Eds.) Hong Kong:
Springer.
Broadfoot, P. (2000, August). Comparative Education for the 21st Century:
Retrospect and Prospect. Comparative Education, 36(3), 357-371.
Chong, P. W., & Graham, L. N. (2013). The ‘Russian doll’ approach : developing
nested case-studies to support international comparative research in education .
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 36(1), 23-32.

Contemporary Comparative Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Comparative Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Comparative Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NORTHEASTERN COLLEGE

RODRIGO V. PASCUA, EdD

come from the publication of results in international student assessments,

particularly in mathematics, science and literacy. The rankings inevitably encourage

comparisons with countries regarded as ‘successful’ and ‘high-performing’. While

easily to reproduction in different socio-cultural contexts. International comparisons

and international organizations showing interest in the findings. High-profile

international assessment strategies include the Program for International Student

Assessment (PISA), which measures performance in mathematics, science and

To the extent that international assessments motivate education authorities to

contested, however, insofar as there are perceptions of a focus on systemic

improvement without a concomitant appreciation of sociocultural (and other) context,

philosophy of education and capacity to effect change. The risks posed by

inadequate consideration of local issues are raised in discussions of the ‘rationality

and irrationality of international comparative studies’ (Keitel & Kilpatrick, 1999).

some countries on the achievement tests in some international comparative studies

creating a mystique about education in the high-scoring countries.’ In

Crossley’s(2008, p. 322) view, ‘the most visible manifestation of the contemporary

impact of comparative research in education has emerged in the shape of cross

national studies of educational achievement, and the widespread influence of

related league tables.’

METHODOLOGICAL TENSIONS INHERENT IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATION

There is evidence that the application of research methodologies to comparative

studies of education is problematic, with some researchers claiming that

‘international comparison bolsters an evaluation mandate that promotes a superficial

global awareness while stifling originality by displacing the core objectives of

2012). If it is expected to contribute to curriculum reform, comparative research may

methodologies as well as utilizing empirical approaches relating to student

performance. In rejecting evaluation mandates, Hebert (2012) observes that literacy

and numeracy often overshadow other education objectives(e.g. creativity, ethics,

knowledge of history, etc.) central to educational systems as a consequence of

‘unbalanced policy-making’. As well, driven by a perceived need to be more

‘internationally competitive’, teachers often feel pressured to ‘teach to the test’,

which ultimately contributes to a ‘superficial education.’ If research pays greater

attention to such qualities as originality, creativity, historical/global awareness and

International comparisons conducted as part of the Review of the Australian

Curriculum (reported in October, 2014;see Appendix 2) feature a comparison of

school curricula in England, Finland, Ontario (Canada), Hong Kong (China),

Shanghai (China), Republic of Korea and Singapore. With an emphasis on

England’s 2011 review of the national curriculum, the Australian reviewers

concluded that: There are inherent dangers in simplistic international comparisons

documented by Oates in commenting on Finland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan,

engagement in education of children at home, community support of schools,

Wiltshire, 2014, pp. 40-41) Reflecting on research underway in the Asia-Pacific

education should not be grounded in a sense of competition. Rather than focusing

on rankings, any comparisons should provide a ‘socio-cultural lens that offers.

Literature review: contemporary approaches to comparative education research

(March 2017) To the extent that international assessments motivate education

increasingly contested, however, insofar as there are perceptions of a focus on

systemic improvement without a concomitant appreciation of sociocultural (and

posed by inadequate consideration of local issues are raised in discussions of the

‘rationality and irrationality of international comparative studies’ (Keitel & Kilpatrick,

by some countries on the achievement tests in some international comparative

results, creating a mystique about education in the high-scoring countries.’ In

Crossley’s(2008, p. 322) view, ‘the most visible manifestation of the contemporary

impact of comparative research in education has emerged in the shape of cross

national studies of educational achievement, and the widespread influence of

related league tables.’ Methodological tensions inherent in comparative education