Mathematics and Science Curriculum Change in the People's Republic of China (review)

Reviews 193 Xiufeng Liu, editor. Mathematics and Science Curriculum Change in the People's Republic ofChina. Mellen Studies in Education, vol. 27. Lewiston, New York: Edwin MelJen Press, 1996. viii, 196 pp. Hardcover $89.95, isbn 0-7734-8863-4. Xiufeng Liu is the editor of this volume, the author ofthree chapters, and coauthor with Xin Ma of two further chapters. Xueshu Zhao and Jianjun Wang have authored one chapter each. The Table of Contents lists chapters on school curriculum changes in biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics, as well as several chapters on curriculum change from a historical and sociopolitical perspective and a critique to round out the volume. The style of the book is in keeping with the mission of Edwin Mellen Press to provide scholarly reference materials on education. The introductory and summary chapters are informative, substantive, and insightful. Xin Ma and Xiufeng Liu quite rightiy cite the high academic achievement of Chinese students in math and the sciences as having "caught the attention of the world in recent years." Chinese student achievement in, for example, the Second International Assessment of Education Progress, the Second International Science Study, and the International Mathematics Olympiad seems extraordinary in light of China's relatively low level ofeconomic development, the educational black hole that was the Cultural Revolution, and the theoretical emphasis on rote memory in science education mandated by the Chinese college entrance exams. Ma and Liu present a concise summary ofthe literature that attempts to explain this achievement, such as the well-known work of cross-cultural educational psychologists Stevenson and Stigler and team members Lee, Chen, Lucker, Kitamura, and Hsu. The main factors usually cited are academic motivation and effort among students, the high expectations ofparents, general satisfaction with school, and the culture-specific characteristics of chüd socialization. One factor of particular importance appears to be a difference in what achievement is attributed to, in the cultures of China and North America. Chinese parents and teachers stress that achievement is directly related to effort, whereas North American parents emphasize talent or strength ofcharacter. In the latter case, in recent years success has become less and less linked to effort, particularly in schoolwork. The fundamental question in the present volume is Whether centralized edu-© 1999 by University canon, ^6 0fcurriculum, and mediods ofassessment are the important factors in high student achievement. Ma and Liu submit that in both Canada and the United States, a national curriculum and national standards have recendy become popular as a panacea for public-school woes in general and low student achieve- 194 China Review International: Vol. 6, No. ?, Spring 1999 ment in particular. Rather than addressing the cultural factors behind academic achievement that are already found in the literature, North American leaders are pushing toward the establishment of a centralized national curriculum. Ma and Liu organize their introduction and final chapter tighdy around this theme. The main body ofthe work, however, offers a different point ofview. Chapters 3 through 7 are sweeping historical essays covering centuries of Chinese educational thought, starting with Confucian, Legalist, and Daoist influences on the traditional subject matter and culminating in a discussion ofthe official examination system. In these chapters, descriptions ofthe curriculums and instructional approaches in chemistry, physics, mathematics, and curriculum change all but drown in an intra-Chinese cultural discourse on die benefits of Dengist reform ideology and national development policy. A few illustrations will suffice. In Xiufeng Liu's chapter on the chemistry curriculum, the first twelve pages are devoted to a Marxist political history oftwentieth century China giving vent to strong anti-Maoist sentiments for the post-1949 years. The remaining 17 pages give a socio-political perspective on educational policies regarding chemistry instruction. In the chapter on physics, Jianjun Wang, after making the cogent argument that the scientific method itself requires an anti-dogmatic stance, goes on to praise the post-Mao regime for using dialectical materialism as the proper ideological foundation for science teaching. Dialectical materialism, we are told, is the official curriculum philosophy promoted by the State Education Commission at the time ofthe writing of this book. Chapters 3 through 7 give the impression ofbeing intended primarily for the eyes ofChinese educational authorities...