Learning from comparative studies

Learning from comparative studies

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): International comparative studies about
educational performance are always interesting, but very hard to
do. The reason is that performance of educational systems is so
much influenced by cultural factors that to make a meaningful
comparison you have to take those factors into account. This
usually makes the study very complex and very hard to manage. If
you want to reduce the complexity of your study, you have to
define variables in a universal format that is culturally
comparable. Such variables are very hard to identify and define.

Despite such difficulties, researchers have persisted in their
efforts, and eventually successful international studies are
conducted, with their results widely disseminated and discussed.
According to The Economist (March 29, 1997), the latest of these
studies was the Third International Math and Science Studies
(TIMSS), in which 41 countries took part. All 13-year-olds in the
41 countries were tested in math and science, using a uniform
test, and the national averages were then compared. These
national averages were then ranked separately for math and
science, and the position of each participating country in these
two fields was then be determined from the ranked lists.

Why math and science? I think there are two reasons for this.
First, math and science are relatively culture-free. Wherever you
live in the world, studying math and science is learning about
the same concepts, the same phenomena, the same methods of
inquiry, and the same body of theoretical knowledge. Second, math
and science are now recognized as the foundations of modern
technology and considered indispensable for modern life. No one
can in these modern times afford to remain ignorant about math
and science. It was for these two reasons, I think, that
international comparative studies about math and science have
been conducted.

What are the main results of this study? In mathematics, the
highest rank achieved was by Singapore (national average score
643). The lowest rank was occupied by South Africa, with a
national average score of 354. In science, the highest rank was
again Singapore (national average score 607), and the lowest rank
was again occupied by South Africa (national average score 326).
The international average score for mathematics was 500, and this
position was occupied by the United States. The international
average score for science was 517, and Spain occupied this
position.

Among one of the more surprising results was that countries
with a longer history of formal education performed worse in this
study than countries with younger systems of formal education.
Countries like Sweden, Germany, England, Denmark, the United
States, and Scotland ranked lower in both mathematics and science
than Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Hong Kong,
countries whose systems of formal education are known to be
younger.

Another surprising fact is that countries with a higher
expenditure per pupil, per annum, also ranked lower than
countries which spent less on their students. Denmark, the United
States, and Germany spent around US$6,000 per pupil annually, yet
they did much worse in this study than the Czech Republic, South
Korea, and Hungary, each of which spent less than $2,000 per
pupil, per year.

I think it is important for us to ponder carefully the meaning
of these results. It is important that we do not draw unwarranted
conclusion from these findings. It is clear from these results
that countries which ranked high on these lists -- i.e.,
Singapore, South Korea, Japan, the Czech Republic -- have a
better system of teaching math and science at the elementary
level than lower-ranked countries, such as South Africa,
Colombia, Kuwait, and Iran.

It does not necessarily mean, however, that in any other field
outside math and science -- language, history, character
building, sports, and the arts, for instance -- countries which
were high on the list are also much better than those countries
which were on the bottom. Thus, it does not necessarily mean that
elementary education in Singapore or South Korea is much better
than that of South Africa or Colombia. Maybe they are, but maybe
they are not. We just don't know. There is not enough data in the
report to make that conclusion.

This study also shows clearly that there is something to be
learned from Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and the Czech
Republic, in the teaching of math and science at the elementary
school level. How does our elementary school system compare with
Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and the Czech Republic in math and
science? Again the answer is we do not know. We can claim that we
are better, but claims which are not supported by data are not of
much use. The issue here is not national pride, but national
performance. I personally think that if those four countries at
the top of the list show better results than countries with older
systems of formal education, then they must have something which
is worth learning.

Can we conclude from this study that the teaching of math and
science is the most important part of school education? I would
not say so. Rather, I would say that in these modern times,
knowledge of math and science is indispensable, but there are
also other equally important areas of teaching as well. I
mentioned in a recent article of mine that the teaching of
emotionality is an important agenda, which has so far been very
neglected in schools throughout the world.

In addition, I would also say that the teaching of languages
is another very important area -- equally important to the
teaching of math and science. The fact that this international
comparative study was conducted in the field of math and science
should not be interpreted that other areas of teaching are not
important.

I think it would be very ideal for us if we could assess, in a
realistic manner, how we compare with other countries in our
systems of elementary and secondary education, and decide what we
can learn from other countries to improve these two systems. It
is important to note, in this regard, that the 41 countries
participating in this international study did.

The question is, do we think it is important to have a
realistic picture of our education, or would we rather live with
a narcissistic image of ourselves?

The writer is an observer of social and cultural issues.

Window: The question is, do we think it is important to have a
realistic picture of our education, or would we rather live with
a narcissistic image of ourselves?