|
The image of students from Asian cultures as rote memorizers being taught
by authoritarian teachers has led to a concept deemed the "paradox of
the Chinese learner" (Watkins & Biggs, 2001). Despite large classes,
expository instruction, relentless norm-referenced testing, and a
teacher-centered classroom climate which, by Western standards, seem not
to be conducive to optimal learning, Asian students typically outperform
Western students in mathematics and science. As noted above, this has
been shown repeatedly in multi-national assessments such TIMSS and PISA.
Youngsters from Japan, Korea, Singapore, Chinese-Taipei, Hong
Kong-China, and Macao-China (to date, the PRC has not participated) all
demonstrate deeper content knowledge and better conceptual development
than American students of similar age and grade levels (Tatsuoka &
Corter, 2004).
Researchers suggest at least two hypotheses to account
for this apparent paradox. One hypothesis is that Chinese students learn
at early ages how to be "active memorizers," how to use memorization as
a tool for concept development rather than a block to it (DeHaan, 2006).
When first-year students entering Nanjing University were queried about
their conceptions of learning, they did not see memorization as a
barrier to conceptual understanding. They were able to distinguish
between mechanical memorization versus memorization with understanding
(Wong & Wen, 2001). According to Li and Chang (2001), rote learning as
used in the Chinese classroom "is not mere memorization, but a
consolidation of knowledge and a deepening of understanding." One
suggestion is that this superior ability of Chinese students to use
memorization to assist in concept development stems from their very
earliest experiences of language learning as children. Chinese (also
Korean and Japanese) mothers are reported to use more verbs and other
relational words in the "baby talk" they address to their infants and
fewer nouns, while English-speaking mothers use more nouns and focus
more on object naming (Gopnik, Choi, & Boumberger, 1996; Tardif, Gelman,
& Xu, 1999). Thus, by the age of two, Chinese children's vocabularies
contain a much higher proportion of verbs than English-speaking
children. Moreover, Chinese parents place greater emphasis on mastery of
practical knowledge by their preschoolers than do U.S. or Australian
parents. "English-speaking preschoolers must also master new knowledge,
but the Chinese emphasis on knowledge acquisition at an early age is
remarkable" (Wellman et al., 2006, p. 1077). Evidence is accumulating
that these early language-learning experiences may influence a child's
problem-solving and theory formation capacities later in life (Gopnik et
al., 1996; Wellman et al., 2006).
A second hypothesis that may explain
the apparent paradox is that the image of the Chinese instructor as
authoritarian may be misconstrued when examined in light of Asian
expectations. Ho (2001) reviews an extensive body of literature showing
that in authority situations, Westerners focus on the restriction of
freedom of choice, whereas Asians looking at the same situation focus on
the responsibility of the person in authority to care for the interests
of their charges. Where strictness in Western classrooms may be viewed
as reflecting animosity or inadequate teaching skills, it is seen in the
Chinese context as parental-like nurturing that enhances motivation in
students.
The importance of context and motivation in learning is made
clear from experiences of students displaced from their countries of
ethnic origin. In the United States, for example, ethnic Korean students
are usually found among the "Asian model" group of high-achievers. In
Japan, in contrast, Korean families often occupy lower socioeconomic
levels and their children perform poorly in school (Park, 2007). The
inadequate performance of Korean students in the Japanese schools, like
that of many African-American students in U.S. schools, may result from
factors such as language differences, low level of school engagement,
lack of educational motivation, and social identity threat (Walton &
Cohen, 2007). But much more research is needed to understand causal
relationships in this area. |
