![]()
Part I
Background
Principles of small class teaching
![]()
The East Asian context
This opening chapter sets out the argument that the case for having smaller classes in Asian countries differs from that normally put forward by educators from the developed countries from the West. It explores the specific demands emerging in East Asia as a result of these governments’ attempts to shift the balance of existing classroom practice from one where teacher talk dominates to one of more active pupil participation with both teachers and peers. The need for change is supported by recent indications that some Asian pupils, while outwardly on-task, are not fully engaged. This suggests that the present curriculum and its mode of delivery may not be sufficiently stimulating. In advocating this shift the view that this approach, based as it is on constructivist principles, is alien to Confucian notions of instruction is considered and rejected. The chapter ends with a review of recent research on small class teaching which has taken place in an Asian context.
Background
The development of school education in East Asian countries and cities, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, has received worldwide attention, which is largely due to the continually excellent performance of their students in international tests such as the Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) (OECD, 2012). Their school systems have even been commended as ‘the world’s best-performing’ (Barber and Mourshed, 2007). As a result, Western governments have looked to Asian classrooms for ‘secrets’ that could possibly improve student performance in Western contexts (Chan and Rao, 2009). Paradoxically, since the mid-1990s, governments of East Asian countries have been enthusiastic in borrowing Western ‘progressive’ theories and practices to guide their large-scale reforms in curriculum and pedagogy. There is a shift in focus from traditional teacher-directed education to student-centred learning and development of generic skills that facilitate lifelong learning (Kennedy and Lee, 2010).
This era of reform coincided with a period of rapid decline in student enrolment, which has provided favourable conditions for these countries to adopt policies to reduce class sizes. These policies are universally known as small class teaching (now abbreviated to SCT), xiaobanjiaoxue [小班教學], or small class education, xiaobanhuajiaoyu [小班化教育]. As the term suggests, SCT advocates change in classroom practices in small class environments, that is a shift from a teacher-directed approach to learning to a student-centred one. In this regard, the emphasis of SCT in East Asia is noticeably different from class-size reduction (CSR) initiatives in the West which are primarily targeted towards raising academic achievement (Lai, 2011).
In the first part of this chapter, we will review the extensive efforts to reform teaching and learning amidst the education reforms in East Asia since the mid-1990s. We will then analyse the impact of the simultaneous demographic decline and the development of SCT in various countries which aims at improving teaching and learning.
Yet some academics hold to a view that the adoption of constructivist principles and student-centred approaches in learning may run counter to the Confucian tradition and practice of the East which emphasises collectivism over individualised learning, and which links wisdom with experience and therefore values a didactic form of teaching with the pupil in the role of apprentice. We will argue in the second part of this chapter that increased active pupil participation is not necessarily at odds with ideas associated with Chinese Confucian culture. We will first review the body of literature which has attempted to depict the learning approaches of the Chinese learner in contrast to typical Western approaches to learning, followed by an exploration of the alternative viewpoints that challenge such generalisations and sometimes stereotypes. We subscribe to the view that an over-generalised view of student learning in Confucian heritage classrooms is prone to bias, as it has underestimated the enormous contextual changes and diversity arising from wide-ranging socioeconomic changes and education reforms in East Asia in the past two decades (Biggs, 2009; Chan and Rao, 2009; Mott-Smith, 2011).
Education reforms in East Asia
In the past two decades, East Asian countries and regions have been carrying out nationwide and drastic educational reforms, aiming to enhance their competitiveness and meet the challenges of knowledge-based economy and globalisation in the twenty-first century (Kennedy and Lee, 2010; Phillipson and Lam, 2011). These large-scale reforms often took place following profound political, cultural and socio-economic changes in a country or region. For example, in Taiwan, the Executive Yuan set up a high-level Educational Reform Committee in 1994 to study the reform strategies after Taiwan had entered into a new era of democratisation and decentralisation following the lifting of martial law in the late 1980s. In Hong Kong, the education reform was initiated by the first Chief Executive of the new Special Administrative Region (SAR) after the resumption of Chinese sovereignty in 1997 (Hong Kong, Chief Executive, 1997). In some regions, there was wide public participation in shaping the education reforms. For instance, in Taiwan, non-government organisations and private citizens have become very active in the past two decades in proposing reform plans to replace the traditional, rigid and examination-driven curriculum with a more humanistic, creative and student-oriented education (Peng et al., 2011).
The reforms are characterised by a vision of transforming learning, fostering holistic development of individual learners and building up their capacity for lifelong learning. For instance, in China, the Ministry of Education issued the document on basic education curriculum reform in 2001, in which a key objective was to pay ‘attention to learning processes and approaches, encouraging development of active, interdependent learning strategies’ (Zhou and Zhu, 2007: 24). In other words, it aims to shift the emphasis from teacher-centred pedagogy to student autonomy (Liu and Fang, 2009).
In 1997, the Singapore government announced the vision statement ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ as the overarching descriptor of the transformation in the education system, alongside the Desired Outcomes of Education. The subsequent ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ movement from 2005 is aimed at transforming learning, particularly the quality of interaction between teachers and learners. It is about ‘teaching better, to engage our learners and prepare them for life, rather than teaching more, for tests and examinations’ (Singapore, Ministry of Education (MOE), 2009). It attempts to reduce quantity in terms of ‘rote-learning, repetitive tests, and following prescribed answers and set formulae’, and strives for quality ‘in terms of classroom interaction, opportunities for expression, the learning of life-skills and the building of character through innovative and effective teaching approaches and strategies’ (ibid.)
In addition to transforming learning, a strategy in the curriculum reforms was a move to organise traditional school subjects into major learning areas (Curriculum Development Council, 2001; Singapore, MOE, 2006; Zhou and Zhu, 2007). Schools and teachers are also encouraged to reduce their reliance on textbooks and engage in school-based curriculum development to help students develop to their fullest potential (Peng et al. 2011). Emphasis is also given at developing students’ generic skills or core competencies that are necessary for every citizen in the modern society (Curriculum Development Council, 2001).
Demographic changes and class-size reduction in East Asia
During the era of education reforms, most East Asian countries have also faced an unprecedented drop in birth rate and student enrolment. The imminent threats of school closure and teacher redundancy have created immense pressure on the school system. Educators have often urged the government to seize the opportunity to reduce class sizes so as to improve the quality of teaching and learning as well as solving the problem of teacher redundancy. Nevertheless, the attitudes of governments towards adopting a class-size reduction policy varied – while the governments of Shanghai and Nanjing in mainland China were proactive in initiating experimental schemes, the Hong Kong SAR government was initially far more reserved towards implementation of SCT because it considered the evidence problematic.
Table 1.1 Enrolment in primary education | 2001 | 2010 | % Change |
| Country/Region | | | |
| Shanghai, PRC* | 788,600 | 671,200 | −14.9 |
| Nanjing, PRC | 454,100 | 283,200 | −37.6 |
| Hong Kong SAR | 498,175 | 348,549 | −30.0 |
| Macau SAR | 45,663 | 25,326 | −44.5 |
| Taiwan | 1,925,491 | 1,519,746 | −21.1 |
| Japan | 7,394,582 | 7,098,862 | −4.0 |
| Republic of Korea | 4,099,649 | 3,306,192 | −19.4 |
| Singapore | 314,642^ | 263,906 | −16.1 |
| Western Countries | | | |
| USA | 25,297,600 | 24,393,002 | −3.6 |
| UK | 4,596,110 | 4,421,903 | −3.8 |
Sources: UNESCO Institute for Statistics; Singapore Government. Census of Population 2000 Statistical Release 2: Education, Language and Religion; Singapore Education Statistics Digest 2011, 2012; China City Statistical Yearbook (中國城市統計年鑑): 2001, 2007, 2010, 2011; Education Statistics – The Republic of China 2013 Edition.
Notes:
* Enrolment of Shanghai was 533,700 in 2007 (a decrease of 32.3% compared with 2010), but this has rebounded in the past few years mainly due to provision of education to children of immigrant workers.
^ Singapore: Year 2000 data.
Irrespective of initial differences, many countries and cities in East Asia (including mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Korea and Japan) have implemented policies to reduce class sizes starting from the mid-1990s. These initiatives are commonly known as ‘small class teaching’ in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan and ‘small class education’ in China. The definition of a small class is roughly around 30, but there are significant deviations among countries because of the different socio-economic backgrounds. Yet the nomenclature suggests that the key objective of class-size reduction is to improve teaching and learning and not merely reduction in numbers. This differs from Western countries where the main benefit of smaller classes has been an increase in pupil engagement with a consequent reduction in the time spent by teachers on classroom management and a corresponding increase in instruction (Finn and Achilles, 1999). However, measurements of the ‘time on task’ do not tell the whole story. While it is clear that when pupils are disengaged their capacity for learning is reduced, we cannot be certain what goes on in the minds of students who from the outside appear to be focused and paying attention. Indeed, recent international studies such as PISA and PIRLS have pointed to the fact that in these high-scoring Asian countries, such as Hong Kong, there is increasing diversity in scores with the ‘high flyers’ outperforming previous generations while the ‘poorest performers’ do worse. These studies also noted that some pupils appeared reluctant to participate in lessons, whether to ask or respond to questions, suggesting that motivation was at a low ebb and that the curriculum and its delivery was not sufficiently stimulating.
Table 1.2 Class-size reduction in primary schools in selected countries/regions | Country/City | Target Class Size |
| South Korea | 80 → 35 |
| Singapore | 40 → 30 (Primary 1–2) |
| Shanghai, PRC | over 50 → 30 or below |
| Nanjing, PRC | 45 → 28 |
| Taiwan | 40 to 50 → 29 |
| Hong Kong SAR | 32 to 37 → 25 |
| USA | 20 or above → below 20 |
| UK | to 30 (aged 4–7) |
SCT therefore advocates a change in classroom practices in small class environments, that is a shift from teacher-directed approach to learning to student-centred learning. Small class education, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on the developmental process towards quality education, and is underpinned by core educational values. In the words of Mao Feng (2004), a senior education official responsible for shaping the direction of small class education in Shanghai:
Small class education is the process of implementing small class teaching under the guidance of core educational values. In other words, it is guided by a principle based on student development, and adoption of appropriate teaching contents, methods and technologies which support SCT. Through interaction between teaching and learning and optimization of use of resources, the process of every student having full development will be realized.
(p. 4)
SCT shares a common purpose with the prevailing education reforms in these countries which also emphasises a more student-centred education. This connection was explicitly acknowledged by some education departments. In Shanghai, Mao (2004) remarked, ‘the promotion of small class education facilitates the deepening of education reform in primary schools, as well as constructing...
