Important Questions Of Comparative Studies In Asian Countries

• Authors: Natalia Pazyura
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The issue of the “identity” of comparative education as a field of study or a discipline has been discussed for decades. Yet a kind of systematic structure that provides the basic principles for a coherent exposition of the field remains open. “Comparative education” is no longer conceived as an imaginary field’s coherence but, rather in terms of distinct branches of comparative and international studies in education and their underlying issues. Such an understanding is fostered through a deepened awareness of the basic problems, and successive solutions, constitutive of the emergence and further conformations of the comparative approach in education and the social sciences. Thus, academic journal publications of the past decade to shape education policy research within an Asia-Pacific context have been analyzed. Facts of increasing research collaboration, growing policy evaluation research, and growing attention to higher education have been presented. Significant difference in research impact and diffusion between Asia-Pacific and American education policy studies has been shown. Perspectives for future research directions in education policy research in an Asia-Pacific context have been suggested.

Keywords

EN

education policy research; comparative studies; globalization; regionalization; Asia-Pacific region; international studies on education; neo-institutional theory; private tutoring; language education

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Comparative Professional Pedagogy
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 7-12

Dates

published

2015-06-01

online

2015-06-23

Contributors

author

Natalia Pazyura

• National Aviation University, 1 Kosmonavta Komarova Ave., Kyiv, 03680, Ukraine

References

• 1. Anderson-Levitt, K. (2012). Complicating the concept of culture. Comparative education, No. 48 (4), p. 441–454.[WoS][Crossref]
• 2. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, No. 76 (8), p. 597–604.
• 3. Lee, M. (2005). Major issues of university education policy in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Education Review, No. 6 (2), p. 103–112.[Crossref]
• 4. Luo, W. (2007). A study of native English-speaking teacher programs in elementary schools in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, No. 8 (2), p. 311–319.[Crossref]
• 5. Mori, I., & Baker, D. (2010). The origin of universal shadow education: What the supplemental education phenomenon tells us about the postmodern institution of education. Asia Pacific Education Review, No. 11 (1), p. 36–48.[Crossref][WoS]
• 6. Mok, K. H., & Xu, X. (2008). When China opens to the world: A Study of transnational higher education in of Zhejiang. China. Asia Pacific Education Review, No. 9 (4), p. 393–408.[WoS][Crossref]
• 7. Schriewer, J. (2014). Neither orthodoxy nor randomness: differing logics of conducting comparative and international studies in education. Comparative Education, Volume 50, No. 1, p. 84–101.[Crossref]
• 8.Wiseman, A., Astiz, M. & Baker, D. (2014). Comparative education research framed by neo-institutional theory: a review of diverse approaches and conflicting assumptions. Journal of Comparative and International Education, Volume 44, No. 5, p. 688–709.[WoS]
• 9. Wook, J., Lee, Ho Jun, Seung, Ho Lee, Eunjoo, Wi. (2014). Shaping education policy research in an Asia-Pacific context. Seul : Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, p. 38.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/rpp-2015-0033