Mathematics education in different traditions: A comparative study in Asian and
Western countries.
Introduction
Mathematics is a subject taught in every country of the world, and increasing
globalisation is encouraging the assumption of universalism in mathematics education.
The increase in journals and books about mathematics teaching, the multitude of
conferences in every part of the world, the availability of materials via the World Wide
Web, and the activities of multinational computer companies all increase the pressure for
adopting similar practices in mathematics teaching around the world. International
comparative studies such as SIMS and TIMSS also emphasise a canonical curriculum,
since in order for comparisons to be sensibly made, there must be a large amount of
uniformity.
At the same time, however, the globalisation processes are producing reactions from
mathematics educators in many countries who are concerned that regional and local
differences in educational approach are being eradicated. This is not just a mathematical
ecology argument, about being concerned that the rich global environment of
mathematical practices is becoming quickly impoverished. It is also an argument about
education, which recognises the crucial significance of any society’s cultural and
religious values, socio-historical background and goals for the future, in determining the
character of that society’s mathematics education.
As research in mathematics education has increased in quantity and scope, we can see
developments in areas such as ethnomathematics, and comparative studies such as the
SIMS and TIMSS studies, that have produced data indicating that there may be some
systematic reasons for differences in achievements and practices between countries. In
part these differences can be attributed to the availability of educational resources, to the
levels of teacher training and to aspects such as teacher ‘job satisfaction’.
However one aspect of difference that is increasing in interest concerns what is
euphemistically referred to as the East/West difference. Countries such as Japan, Korea,
China, and Singapore consistently show differences in mathematical achievements and
practices from countries in Europe, North America and Australasia. Whilst this state of
affairs may be both startling and worrying to economically-minded politicians in the
West, it is also surprising and intriguing to mathematics educators in both East and West
countries.
The focus of this interest is on the differences in educational traditions, which have
cultural and social implications for the practices of mathematics education. This not a
narrow interest in how to improve scores on tests, but a deeper interest about what each
tradition can learn from the other, as well as what others can learn of relevance in their
own traditional contexts. We all learn by contrast, and contrasts in mathematics education
practices can tell us much about the interplay of cultural tradition and modern
technological values in the context of mathematics teaching everywhere.
This ICMI study should not therefore be seen as a narrow comparison between two small
and select groups of countries for their own benefit. This study takes the East/West
contrast as a case, to reveal what can be learnt to benefit mathematics education
everywhere. It will bring together, both virtually and in reality, a group of scholars
already involved with some aspects of this difference, and will encourage the writing of a
report that will consider East/West contrasts from multiple perspectives. The challenge
will be not just to record differences between countries’ practices, but to account for
difference in ways that reveal the nature and role of significant contrasts in values,
beliefs, interpretations and evaluations.