Learning from comparative studies<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): International comparative studies about
\neducational performance are always interesting, but very hard to
\ndo. The reason is that performance of educational systems is so
\nmuch influenced by cultural factors that to make a meaningful
\ncomparison you have to take those factors into account. This
\nusually makes the study very complex and very hard to manage. If
\nyou want to reduce the complexity of your study, you have to
\ndefine variables in a universal format that is culturally
\ncomparable. Such variables are very hard to identify and define.<\/p>\n
Despite such difficulties, researchers have persisted in their
\nefforts, and eventually successful international studies are
\nconducted, with their results widely disseminated and discussed.
\nAccording to The Economist (March 29, 1997), the latest of these
\nstudies was the Third International Math and Science Studies
\n(TIMSS), in which 41 countries took part. All 13-year-olds in the
\n41 countries were tested in math and science, using a uniform
\ntest, and the national averages were then compared. These
\nnational averages were then ranked separately for math and
\nscience, and the position of each participating country in these
\ntwo fields was then be determined from the ranked lists.<\/p>\n
Why math and science? I think there are two reasons for this.
\nFirst, math and science are relatively culture-free. Wherever you
\nlive in the world, studying math and science is learning about
\nthe same concepts, the same phenomena, the same methods of
\ninquiry, and the same body of theoretical knowledge. Second, math
\nand science are now recognized as the foundations of modern
\ntechnology and considered indispensable for modern life. No one
\ncan in these modern times afford to remain ignorant about math
\nand science. It was for these two reasons, I think, that
\ninternational comparative studies about math and science have
\nbeen conducted.<\/p>\n
What are the main results of this study? In mathematics, the
\nhighest rank achieved was by Singapore (national average score
\n643). The lowest rank was occupied by South Africa, with a
\nnational average score of 354. In science, the highest rank was
\nagain Singapore (national average score 607), and the lowest rank
\nwas again occupied by South Africa (national average score 326).
\nThe international average score for mathematics was 500, and this
\nposition was occupied by the United States. The international
\naverage score for science was 517, and Spain occupied this
\nposition.<\/p>\n
Among one of the more surprising results was that countries
\nwith a longer history of formal education performed worse in this
\nstudy than countries with younger systems of formal education.
\nCountries like Sweden, Germany, England, Denmark, the United
\nStates, and Scotland ranked lower in both mathematics and science
\nthan Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Hong Kong,
\ncountries whose systems of formal education are known to be
\nyounger.<\/p>\n
Another surprising fact is that countries with a higher
\nexpenditure per pupil, per annum, also ranked lower than
\ncountries which spent less on their students. Denmark, the United
\nStates, and Germany spent around US$6,000 per pupil annually, yet
\nthey did much worse in this study than the Czech Republic, South
\nKorea, and Hungary, each of which spent less than $2,000 per
\npupil, per year.<\/p>\n
I think it is important for us to ponder carefully the meaning
\nof these results. It is important that we do not draw unwarranted
\nconclusion from these findings. It is clear from these results
\nthat countries which ranked high on these lists -- i.e.,
\nSingapore, South Korea, Japan, the Czech Republic -- have a
\nbetter system of teaching math and science at the elementary
\nlevel than lower-ranked countries, such as South Africa,
\nColombia, Kuwait, and Iran.<\/p>\n
It does not necessarily mean, however, that in any other field
\noutside math and science -- language, history, character
\nbuilding, sports, and the arts, for instance -- countries which
\nwere high on the list are also much better than those countries
\nwhich were on the bottom. Thus, it does not necessarily mean that
\nelementary education in Singapore or South Korea is much better
\nthan that of South Africa or Colombia. Maybe they are, but maybe
\nthey are not. We just don't know. There is not enough data in the
\nreport to make that conclusion.<\/p>\n
This study also shows clearly that there is something to be
\nlearned from Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and the Czech
\nRepublic, in the teaching of math and science at the elementary
\nschool level. How does our elementary school system compare with
\nSingapore, South Korea, Japan, and the Czech Republic in math and
\nscience? Again the answer is we do not know. We can claim that we
\nare better, but claims which are not supported by data are not of
\nmuch use. The issue here is not national pride, but national
\nperformance. I personally think that if those four countries at
\nthe top of the list show better results than countries with older
\nsystems of formal education, then they must have something which
\nis worth learning.<\/p>\n
Can we conclude from this study that the teaching of math and
\nscience is the most important part of school education? I would
\nnot say so. Rather, I would say that in these modern times,
\nknowledge of math and science is indispensable, but there are
\nalso other equally important areas of teaching as well. I
\nmentioned in a recent article of mine that the teaching of
\nemotionality is an important agenda, which has so far been very
\nneglected in schools throughout the world.<\/p>\n
In addition, I would also say that the teaching of languages
\nis another very important area -- equally important to the
\nteaching of math and science. The fact that this international
\ncomparative study was conducted in the field of math and science
\nshould not be interpreted that other areas of teaching are not
\nimportant.<\/p>\n
I think it would be very ideal for us if we could assess, in a
\nrealistic manner, how we compare with other countries in our
\nsystems of elementary and secondary education, and decide what we
\ncan learn from other countries to improve these two systems. It
\nis important to note, in this regard, that the 41 countries
\nparticipating in this international study did.<\/p>\n
The question is, do we think it is important to have a
\nrealistic picture of our education, or would we rather live with
\na narcissistic image of ourselves?<\/p>\n
The writer is an observer of social and cultural issues.<\/p>\n
Window: The question is, do we think it is important to have a
\nrealistic picture of our education, or would we rather live with
\na narcissistic image of ourselves?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/learning-from-comparative-studies-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}