Science History for Humanities and Social
Sciences
（人間社会科学のための科学史）
Session 15: Comparative and International Education
Chiaki Miwa
cmiwa@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
16:20-17:50, August 7, 2020
1
1
Purpose of the Session:
This session discusses the history of education sciences in relation to
other disciplines. Specifically, it focuses on the area of “comparative
and international education,” including the historical development of
comparative education and the emergence of international education,
along with education philosophies and theories behind them.
Contents:
1. What are comparative education and international education?
2. Historical development of comparative education
3. Emergence of international education and the conflict between the two
4.Quiz
1
2
2
1. What are comparative
education and
international education?
Q1: Three tables shows the results of
PISA 2018. For what do these
serve?
3
(Source) OECD (2019) PISA 2018 Results What students know
and can do Volume I, Paris: OECD Publishing.
3
2
4
4
What is Comparative Education?
・“An interdisciplinary subfield of education studies that systematically examines
the similarities and differences between educational systems in two or more national
or cultural contexts, and their interactions with intra- and extra-educational
environments. Its specific object is educational systems examined from a crosscultural (or cross-national, cross-regional) perspective through the systematic
use of comparative method, for the advancement of theoretical understanding and
theory building.” (Manzon, 2011).
・“Comparative education is a loosely bounded field that examines the sources,
workings, and outcomes of education systems, as well as leading education issues,
from comprehensive, multidisciplinary, cross-national, and cross-cultural
perspectives.” (Arnove, Franz, and Kubow, 2019).
・“An interdisciplinary pursuit that applies historical, philosophical, and social science
theories and methods to international problems of education.” (Epstein, 1994).
5
5
・According to Bereday (1964), “comparative education relies on the methods of a
host of other fields, from philosophy to psychology, from literature to statistics.”
・Although diversity of methods and approaches are used in comparative education,
“the field is held together by a fundamental belief that education can be improved
and can serve to bring about changes for the better in all nations.” (Arnove, et al.
1992).
・ Mason (2007) asserts that “comparative education is best conceptualized as a
critical social science, incorporating an emancipatory interest focused on the
distribution of power and its associated attributes: economic wealth, political influence,
cultural capital, social prestige and privilege, and the like.”
・Area Studies, or Foreign Education, which refer to education studies in countries
other than that of the researcher, are also construed as comparative education.
・Quite a few articles published in the field’s journals are not, or only implicitly comparative.
→ Issue?
3
6
6
What is International Education?
・Comparative education and international education are often called “twin fields.”
・According to Postlethwaite (1988), studies in international education “do not compare,
but rather describe, analyse, or make proposal for a particular aspect of
education in one country other than the author’s won country.”
・”International education can be defined in various ways, but when paired with
comparative education, it is commonly taken into imply a more practical and
developmental approach to education which may focus on a single country, and not
necessarily based on a strong foundation of comparisons.” (Bray, 2010).
・Ishizuki (1998) finds the following two domains of International Education:
1) Globalization of education: (International) education development,
Transnational movement of people and education, International organizations of
education; and
2) Education for globalization: Education for international understanding, and
Multicultural education.
7
7
・A major purpose of education development lies in “the production of information and
plans to assist policymakers, the development of appropriate educational methods and
techniques, and the training of personnel to implement programmes.” (Halls, 1990).
・International education includes studies by international education organizations such
as UNESCO, World Bank, UNICEF, IEA, and OECD.
Academic societies
・”Comparative Education Society” established in the US in 1956
→ ”Comparative and International Education Society (CIES)” in 1968.
・The Japan Comparative Education Society (JCES) in 1965.
・British Association for International and Comparative Education (BAICE) in 1997
after a merge between the two societies with similar objectives.
・The World Council of Comparative Education Societies in 1970, as an NGO in
operational relations with UNESCO (37 member societies).
8
4
8
2. Historical development of comparative education
Prehistory
Travelers' tales
・Herodotus, historian in Ancient Greece
・Kukai (774-835), a Japanese priest and the founder of Shingon sect of Buddhism, etc.
Father of comparative education
Marc-Antoine Jullien (1775-1848), French revolutionary
・Book titled “Sketch and Preliminary Views on Comparative
Education” in 1817.
・“The first scientifically minded comparative educator”
(Bereday, 1964).
(Source) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marc-Antoine_Jullien_de_Paris_-_1842.jpg
9
9
Table 1 Historical development of comparative education
Periods
First
(19C)
Second
(The first half
of the 20C)
Characteristics
Methods/Examples
“The Period of Borrowing”
(Educational borrowing)
・Learning from the best
practices in other countries
and transplanting them to
your own country.
・Unlike travelers’ tales, information and data
collection is done more systematically and
intentionally, with a utilitarian view.
・Horace Mann (1796-1859), American
education reformer and politician.
・Fujimaro Tanaka (1845-1909) of Iwakura
Mission (1871-73). <See Pictures 1>
“The Period of Prediction”
・Led by Ｓｉｒ Michael Sadler
(1861-1943), British
education reformer,
administrator, who criticized
educational borrowing,
claiming that education
systems are intricately
related to societies.
・Attention is paid to social and cultural
factors behind the education system and
practices. A move from merely descriptive
information and data.
・Predicting possibilities of success of the
borrowing.
・Historical and philosophical approaches.
(・Courses of comparative education taught
at
5
universities in USA and UK.)
(Source) Bereday (1964) and Noah and Eckstein (1969) with some more information added by the presenter.
10
10
Table 1 (Continued)
Periods
Third
(The second
half of the
20C)
(The second
half of the 20C
up to now)
Characteristics
Methods/Examples
“The Period of Analysis”
・More theories and
scientific methods are
developed and more
analytical approaches are
employed.
・One example: ”Four Steps of Comparison
Model” by Bereday (1964) and Hilker (1962),
composed of “Description, Interpretation,
Juxtaposition, and Comparison.” <See Figure
1>
・A rise of empirical studies with the adoption of
quantitative methods and statistical analyses
developed in social sciences, such as
economics and sociology.
・Functionalist theory and positivism.
Diversification of
research methods and
targets. Eclectic.
・An increase of studies based on dependency
theory as an antithesis to functional theory.
・More interpretative and ethnographical studies
as an antithesis to positivism.
・Increase of international education studies.
<See Figure 2>
(Source) Bereday (1964) and Noah and Eckstein (1969) with some more information added by the presenter.
11
11
Pictures 1 Iwakura Mission
(Dec. 1971- Sept. 1973)
Fujimaro Tanaka (1845-1909)
(Source) https://www.jacar.go.jp/iwakura/column/column3.html
6
12
12
Figure 1 Fours steps of
comparison model
by Bereday (1964)
and Hilker (1962)
(Source) Adick (2018).
13
13
Figure 2 Bray Thomas Cube Model:
A framework for
comparative analysis
(Source) Bray and Thomas (1995).
7
14
14
An example of comparative education study
Okihara, A (Ed.) (1978) School cleaning- its roles in character building. Tokyo: Gakuji
Publishing (in Japanese).
・Background: An increase of students who hesitate to do a school cleaning. Traditional
practices of school clearing was being reduced to a formality. How should we do with
school clearing?
・Methods: A comparative study on 105 countries around the world. Categorize them into
three groups: by janitors, by students, and by janitors and students, and analyze their
reasons. Conduct an attitude survey of students, teachers, and parents on school cleaning.
Collect data on accidents during school cleaning and clearing practices at home.
・Some of the results <See Table 2>:
1) Janitors (61 countries, 58.1%)
2) Students (36 countries, 34.3%)
3) Janitors and students (8 countries, 7.6%)
A majority of Japanese teachers and parents support the students’ school cleaning;
however, half of teachers and more than one quarter of parents claimed that janitors should
clean unsafe and unsanitary places.
15
15
Janitors
Table 2
Results
of school
cleaning
study
Europe
Asia
Africa
America
(Source) Okihara (1978).
16
Australia
Janitors and students
Students
Andorra
Austria
Belgian
Denmark
Finland
France
West Germany
Greece
Ireland
Iceland
Italy
Lichtenstein
Afghanistan
Cyprus
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Algeria
Mauritius
Morocco
South Africa
Tunisia
Egypt
Rodentia
Luxemburg
Malta
Monaco
Netherland
Norway
Portugal
San Marino
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
UK
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Poland
USSR
Yugoslavia
---
Nepal
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Turkey
Hong Kong
---
Argentine
Barbados
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Dominican Republic
Guatemala
Australia
New Zealand
Honduras
Mexico
Panama
Trinidad Tobago
USA
Venezuela
Uruguay
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Myanmar
China
India
Indonesia
Korea
Malaysia
Botswana
Cameroon
Chad
Gabon
Ghana
Gynia
Lesotho
Libya
Madagascar
Colombia
---
Cuba
Mongolia
North Korea
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Thailand
South Viet Nam
Taiwan
Japan
Malawi
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Swaziland
Tanzania
Zaire
Zambia
8
---
West Samoa
PNG
16
3. Emergence of international education and the conflict
between the two
Figure 3 Education
Lending by the
World Bank
1964-1994
(by education levels, %)
Q2: What can you tell from
Figures 3 and 4?
17
(Source) World Bank (1995)
17
Figure 4 Education Lending by the World Bank 1995-2013 (by education levels)
Million $
9
(Note) General education sector includes more than one sub-sector. About 50% of financing under "general education" is for primary education.
(Source) Commitment base. Data are from http://go.worldbank.org/PMV1NRBM1
18
18
Dominance of education economy
・Behind the World Bank’s focus changes among education levels were:
Correlation study by Harbison and Myers (1964); and Human capital theory and
Rates of return studies.
A study by Lockheed, Jamison and Lau (1980) showing that 4 yeas of primary
education improve agricultural productively by 7.4% in average, in comparison with
no-schooling.
Table 3 Returns to Investment in Education by Level, Full Method,
Latest Year, Regional average (percentage)
(Note)* OECD countries are not included.
(Source) Psacharopoulos, G. and Patrinos, H. A. (2002) “Returns to Investment to Education: A Further Update,”
Policy Research Working Paper No. 2881, Washington. D.C.: World Bank.
19
19
Dominance of production-function studies searching for what works in education
Heyneman and Loxley Effect (1983)
・“The lower the income of the country, the weaker the influence of pupil’s social status
on achievement. Conversely, in low-income countries, the effect of the school and
teacher quality on academic achievement in primary school is comparatively
greater.”
Fuller and Clarke (1994)
・Study to look for universal solutions through production-function based research. The
use of vote tally method. <See Table 4>
Riddell (1989, 1997)
・Heyneman and Loxley Effect does not exist in multilevel analyses. Fuller and Clarke
article neglects local context in education.
Baker, Goesling and Letendre (2002)
・Heyneman and Loxley Effect no longer appears using more recent data, which does
not include SSA. However, the effect may still exist for low-income countries where
10
minimum school inputs are not available.
20
20
Table 4
Effects of School
Inputs, Teacher
attributes, and
pedagogical
practices
(Source) Fuller and Clarke (1994)
21
21
Conflicts between International Education and Comparative Education
・Scholars of CIES based on the dependency theory criticized against the World Bank’s
application of structural adjustments to developing countries, and their subsequent
damages on education during the 1980s.
George Psacharoupolous in 1990, World Bank economist, criticized that
comparative education studies are largely descriptive and not quantitative on
education of a particular country, whose results can hardly be applied for
practices. Meanwhile, his rates of return studies in international education contributed
to convince developing country governments to increase public investment for primary
education, and for the Education for All initiative.
Stephen Heyneman in 1993 asserted that comparative studies at the center are
stagnated being tangled with dependency theory, meanwhile international
education studies at the periphery are active in solving specific education agenda and
receive much of people’s attention and demand. CIES should learn more from other
disciplines such as sociology and economy, and welcome a variety of people to
11
dynamically tackle with global issues of education.
22
22
David Wilson in 1994 refuted Heyneman’s claim by arguing that both researchers of
comparative education and of international education are “academic-practitioners”
frequently traversing academic pursuits in comparative education and practices in
international development. Comparative education oriented towards theory research
and international education studies with more practical and applied research
cannot be separated.
Robert Arnove in 2001 concluded that comparative and international education could
produce positive effects by “contributing to a more realistic and comprehensive
understanding of the transnational forces influencing all societies and education
systems.” And “comparative and international education can—and should—play a
significant role in contributing to the possibility that new generations will use their talents
on behalf of international peace and social justice in an increasingly interconnected
world.”
23
23
Q+A
12
24
24
<References>
Adik, C. (2018) “Bereday and Hilker: Origins of the Four Steps of Comparison Model,” Comparative Education 54 (1), pp.35-48.
Arnove, R., Franz, S., and Kubow, P. K. (2019) “Comparative Education,” Oxford Bibliographies.
Arnove, R. F., Altbach, P. G., and Kelly G. P. (1992) Emergent issues in Education, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., and Letendre, G. K. (2002) “Socioeconomic Status, School Quality, and National Economic Development: A Cross-National
Analysis of the “Heyneman-Loxley Effect” on Mathematics and Science Achievement,” Comparative Education Review, 46 (3), pp. 291-312.
Bereday, G. (1964) Comparative Method in Education, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wrinston.
Bray, M. (2010) “Comparative Education: Societies and Associations,” in Peterson, P., Baker, E., and McGaw, B. (Eds.) The International Encyclopedia of
Education, Third Edition, pp. 257-265. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Bray, M. and Thomas, R. M. (1995) “Levels of Comparison in Educational Studies: Different Insights from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel
Analysis,” Harvard Educational Review 65 (3).
Epstein, E. H. (1994) “Comparative and international education: Overview and historical development. In Husen T. P. and Neville, T. (Eds.) The International
Encyclopedia of Education, pp. 918-923. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Fuller, B. and Clarke, P. (1994) “Raising School Effects While Ignoring Culture? Local Conditions and the Influence of Classroom Tools, Rules, and
Pedagogy,” Review of Educational Research, 64 (1), pp. 119-157.
Heyneman, S. P. and Loxley, W. A. (1983) “The Effect of Primary-School Quality on Academic Achievement across Twenty-nine High- and Low-Income
Countries,” American Journal of Sociology 88 (6), pp. 1162-1194.
Ishizuki, M. (1998) Comparative and International Education, Tokyo: Toshindo (in Japanese).
Manzon, M. (2011) Comparative Education: The Construction of a Field, Hong Kong: CERC/Springer.
Marshall, J. (2019) Introduction to Comparative and International Education, London: Sage Publications.
Mason, M. (2007) “Comparing cultures,” In Bray, M. Adamson, B., and Mason. M.(Eds.) Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods. Hong
Kong: Springer.
Mason, M. and Evers, C. W. (2010) “Comparative Education: Philosophical Issues and Concepts,” in Peterson, P., Baker, E., and McGaw, B. (Eds.) The
International Encyclopedia of Education, Third Edition, pp. 257-265. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Noah, H. and Eckstein, M. (1969) Toward a Science of Comparative Education. New York: Macmillan.
Okihara, A. (1978) School cleaning- its roles in character building. Tokyo: Gakuji Publishing. (in Japanese).
Postlethwaite, T. N. (1988) The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and National Systems of Education, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Psacharopoulos, G. and Patrinos, H. A. (2002) “Returns to Investment to Education: A Further Update,” Policy Research Working Paper No. 2881,
Washington. D.C.: World Bank.
Riddell, A. R. (1989) “An Alternative Approach to the Study of School Effectiveness in Third World Countries, Comparative Education Review 33 (4), pp.
481-497.
Riddell, A. R. (1997) “Assessing Designs for School Effectiveness Research and School Improvement in Developing Countries,” Comparative Education
Review 41 (2), pp. 178-204.
World Bank (1995) Priorities and Strategies for Education: A World bank Review, Washington D.C.: World Bank.
25
13
25