The Learner > Evaluation
The learner paradox
The paradox we are addressing here concerns a mismatch between the style of learning manifest by Chinese students and the nature of their actual achievements. Before we consider this tension, it will be useful to acknowledge how contemporary theories of learning have directed ideas about what defines good educational practice and what makes for good dispositions among students. The paradox does hang on an appreciation of these theoretical influences.
A thorough review of learning theories is well beyond the scope of the present essay. However, it is possible to identify the main intellectual traditions that have come from these theories and that have impinged upon classroom practice. One of the longest-lasting traditions of thinking in this field is Behaviourism. It captures a conception that is, arguably, resonant with common sense thinking about learning. Namely, that learning comes about through various forms of association. Any individual acquires ways and thinking and action from an environment that applies to their behaviour rewards and punishment in systematic and strategic ways. It is a view that locates what is to be known as something objectively “out there” in the learner’s environment: knowledge waiting to be internalised through this strategies of instruction that are built on “example” and “feedback.”
This view attracts few disciples today. What has replaced it is a cocktail of influences derived from three traditions in Psychology that may be termed “constructivist”, “cognitivist” and “socio-cultural”. Very broadly, the key ideas emerging from this trio of perspectives are these: (i) Knowledge is not to be found ready-made in the world but is to be constructed by the exploratory actions of individual learners. (ii) That exploration should be grounded in understandings that learners bring to the instructional setting. (iii) The explorations, when in progress, should be accompanied by reflection and synthesis that will be ultimately self-generated and privately monitored. (iv) Until that autonomy of reflection is achieved, it is a significant responsibility of teachers to scaffold the process: through an externalised form of reflection that takes place within teacher-learner dialogue. (v) These social exchanges are best organised within communities where effort is invested in achieving shared knowledge and purpose.
This is not an exhaustive list of theoretical principles but it is indicative of modern ideas about good conditions for learning. One theoretical tradition that might be appended to the above list is that which is concerned with defining “learning styles.” This posits that individual learners may acquire distinct motivational and cognitive dispositions within and educational system is an attractive idea. It is a line of thinking that has clearly encouraged the exploration of differences that are culturally correlated. However, the core ideas of modern learning theory remain those listed above. Learning, if it is to be richly stimulated, must be a matter of individual construction, self-managed reflection, and guided participation in an authentic setting of action.
Thus one side of what is introduced here as a paradox is the observation that common characterisations of Chinese learning do not tend to prioritise the experiences and opportunities that have been identified above as ideal. The profile of Chinese learning is one that lacks independence and autonomy and that seems to marginalise assertive forms of individual participation.
The other side of the paradox is simply stated. It is that Chinese educational practice produces impressive outcomes. Biggs (1996) observes that – at first sight at least - the typical classroom environment for Chinese learners looks the antithesis of that which is associated with good learning in the West. Yet it seems to produce results. The work of Stevenson and Stigler (1992) and Stevenson and Lee (1996) are often cited as research that demonstrates the superiority of the Chinese learner in comparative measures of achievement.
So the paradox concerns how an apparently “conservative” mode of learning can be so successful at producing results. There are two ways to address this paradox. First it is possible to argue that the measures of success need more careful scrutiny. It is widely noticed how Asian cultures are successful in some domains more than others. Japanese science funding is about half that of the USA and yet in the 1990s Japan only achieved one Nobel Prize compared to the USA’s 44. For this same prize, other non English-speaking European countries, with much less funding than the US, also did rather better than Asian countries, in comparative terms.
In short, the successful outcome side of the paradox may need qualifying. Cai (2000) and Cai, Lin and Pan (2000) have recently added research weight to the idea of seeing success more selectively. The record how Chinese mathematics learners outperformed US peers on process constrained tasks but not on process open tasks – where the difference was reversed.
Re-visiting the other side of the paradox – the characterisation of Chinese learner profile is a more challenging enterprise. Accordingly, it will be considered next, in a section of its own.
References
Biggs, J.B. (1996), Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In Watkins D. A., Biggs J. (Eds.), The Chinese Learner. Hong Kong and Melbourne: CERC and ACER. 25-42
Cai, J. (2000). Mathematical thinking involved in U.S. and Chinese students' solving process-constrained and process-open problems. Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An International Journal, 2, 309-340.
Cai, J., Lin, F., & Pan, L. (2004) How do Chinese Learn Mathematics? Some Evidence-Based Insights and Needed Directions. In Fan, L. (Ed.), How do Chinese Learn Mathematics? Some perspectives from insiders . Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, Incorporated.
Stevenson, H. W., & Lee, S. (1996). The academic achievement of Chinese students. New York: Oxford University 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 Books.