Annual Review of Comparative and International

Education 2014
Trends and Issues in the Teaching of Comparative Education
Patricia K. Kubow Allison H. Blosser
Article information:
To cite this document: Patricia K. Kubow Allison H. Blosser . "Trends and Issues
in the Teaching of Comparative Education" In Annual Review of Comparative and
International Education 2014. Published online: 10 Oct 2014; 15-22.
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920140000025000
Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:14 31 March 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 31 March 2016, At: 04:14 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 27 times since NaN*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Beyond Pure Forms: Appraising the Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Teacher
Training", International Perspectives on Education and Society, Vol. 25 pp. 23-35
(2015),"Preserving the past in the face of a new future", On the Horizon, Vol. 23 Iss 1
pp. 69-71 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OTH-09-2014-0031
(2014),"Introduction to the Annual Review: The Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Education
on Comparative and International Education", International Perspectives on Education
and Society, Vol. 25 pp. 3-11

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

emerald-srm:393177 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books
and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products
and additional customer resources and services.
 Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:14 31 March 2016 (PT)
 TRENDS AND ISSUES IN THE
TEACHING OF COMPARATIVE
EDUCATION

Patricia K. Kubow and Allison H. Blosser

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:14 31 March 2016 (PT)

ABSTRACT

This discussion essay explores trends and issues in the teaching of com-
parative education. We argue that the field of Comparative and
International Education (CIE) must give more attention to the aspect of
teaching, as comparative education courses are increasingly being
affected by diminishing devotion to social foundations of education pro-
gramming in many institutions of higher education and schools.
Ironically, despite growing pluralism, the rise of economic utilitarianism
has led to technicist-driven curriculum and less inquiry about philosophi-
cal, historical, and cultural assumptions underlying educational policy
and practice. Another challenge in the teaching of comparative education
is that students are often ill-prepared to understand and utilize the most
basic social science concepts. Recognizing that teaching and research in
CIE are inevitably linked, it is argued that a transformational model that
advances CIE across disciplines, schools, and departments may reinforce
its importance and ensure that the benefits that comparative inquiry
affords namely critical reflexivity, insight about school society

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2014

International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 25, 15 22
Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-367920140000025000
15
 16 PATRICIA K. KUBOW AND ALLISON H. BLOSSER

relationships, and possibilities for educational improvement are

addressed and safeguarded in tertiary and teacher education. An under-
standing of cultural and national contexts is important to educational
reform and enables educators to view globalization in terms of how it
benefits or undermines humanistic aims, namely the importance of indivi-
duals and the uniqueness of cultures.
Keywords: Comparative and International Education; critical reflexiv-
ity; social foundations of education; teacher education; technicization;
transformation model
Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:14 31 March 2016 (PT)

The purpose of this essay is to identify some important trends and issues in
the teaching of comparative education to influence the discussion of this
topic in the Comparative and International Education (CIE) field. Despite
the benefits of comparative inquiry, we argue that CIE is being affected by
diminished attention to social foundations of education within education
programs and increased attention to technicist-driven, economic utilitarian-
ism at all levels of formal education. These trends raise particular concern
for CIE, namely the movement away from that which is unique or indivi-
dual about cultures, peoples, and systems toward standardized educational
policies and practices applied in local and national contexts.
The stated objectives of the Comparative and International Education
Society (CIES) are to promote and improve the teaching of comparative
education in colleges and universities and to encourage scholarly research
in comparative and international studies in education. We, like Tikly and
Crossley (2001), believe that teaching and research in CIE are inevitably
linked (p. 563). This is because teachers of CIE are also engaged as
researchers and scholars in the field, as well as responsible for the orches-
tration of the teaching of CIE at their respective higher education institu-
tions. Similar to George Beredays observation in 1958, CIE at present is
most commonly taught at the graduate level and more rarely at the under-
graduate level, despite the benefit that comparative perspectives could pro-
vide every educator (i.e., administrator, curriculum specialist, and teacher,
both pre- and in-service).
CIE affords experienced and novice teachers skills in critical reflexivity,
helping them to examine the underlying assumptions of educational policies
and practices. Because comparison is indispensable to our thought pro-
cesses, as Phillips and Schweisfurth (2007) explain, it is natural for
 Trends and Issues in the Teaching of Comparative Education 17

comparison to guide decision making in education, wherein teachers must

make all kinds of judgments as to what course of action to take in particu-
lar circumstances and at particular times (p. 13). CIE also encourages tea-
chers of all experience levels to be self-reflective, for the study of
educational practices in other societies helps one better understand ones
own practices (Bereday, 1964). Kubow and Fossum (2007) add to that line
of reasoning and argue that the ability to inquire comparatively is impor-
tant for citizenship in pluralistic societies because it enables one to suspend
judgment of that which is unfamiliar (people, places, and systems) so as to
understand and learn from those differences and similarities. Increasing
attention to CIE in both pre- and in-service teacher education can ulti-
Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:14 31 March 2016 (PT)

mately stimulate professional curiosity of education elsewhere, which is

particularly important in the present era of education accountability and
standards-based reform that is constraining teacher autonomy and making
teaching more parochial in focus (Kubow & Fossum, 2007).
Moreover, educators and governments around the world seek to under-
stand the pedagogical practices of other countries, especially that of nations
earning top scores on tests like PISA and TIMSS. Understanding such
practices requires comparative education knowledge and cultural compe-
tencies. CIE affords teachers with the practical ability to ascertain why par-
ticular policies and practices work or do not work in specific social,
cultural, and political settings. As Tikly and Crossley (2001) explain, The
globalization of education policy has many implications for how continu-
ing professional development can be made relevant to the needs of both
home and overseas students (p. 569). However, governments have also
become increasingly concerned with how higher education institutions can
make teaching and research relevant to national concerns and economic
development, which has led to a kind of teacher education that is practical
and technicist-driven. Students, therefore, are keenly aware of the need for
qualifications that make them more competitive in the labor market, and
this plays a role in constricting formal educations purposes to that of eco-
nomic utilitarianism (Tikly & Crossley, 2001).
In considering formal educations purposes as it relates to CIE, Tikly
and Crossley (2001) identified three models for teaching CIE: specialization,
integration, and transformation. These categories inform our discussion of
the trends and issues in the teaching of CIE. Specialization and integration
are currently practiced in universities around the world, and transformation
is a model for teaching CIE in the future. Specialization refers to the view
of comparative education as a specialty or separate subfield of education
studies, with distinctive attributes, perspectives, and literatures. Toward
 18 PATRICIA K. KUBOW AND ALLISON H. BLOSSER

this end, the question as to whether there is a canon or literature base from
which to introduce students to CIE has been the focus of discussion and
debate and also the topic of a report by Bergh, Classen, Horn, Mda, and
van Niekerk (1998) at the 10th World Congress of Comparative Education
Societies in Cape Town, South Africa. Integration, according to Tikly and
Crossley (2001), refers to the infusion or integration of comparative per-
spectives into other courses or programs of educational study. We see inte-
gration as increasingly prevalent in both graduate and undergraduate
education courses and, accordingly, addressed it in a paper at the CIES
2013 Annual Meeting in which we explored the implications of the integra-
tion of CIE into undergraduate multicultural education courses (Kubow &
Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:14 31 March 2016 (PT)

Blosser, 2013). Tikly and Crossley (2001) recognized the limitations of these
two approaches and thus proposed transformation, a model that transcends
the divide of CIE being located only within educational departments by
positioning it within continuing professional development in advanced
courses across disciplines, professional schools, and departments.
Ultimately, though, we agree that there is a pressing need to consider how
CIE should be taught and to what end.
In examining the history of the teaching of CIE, Harold Benjamin
(1956) explained that for about the first decade of the 20th century, for
every hundred American teachers who had at least one course in history of
education during their professional preparation, probably not more than
four or five had a course in comparative education (p. 141). The following
decades witnessed increasing attention to CIE courses not only at the
advanced level of graduate study, but also at the level of undergraduate
teacher preparation, with the fields greatest period of expansion between
the 1950s and the 1970s (Wolhuter, Popov, Manzon, & Leutwyler, 2008).
Today, however, the future of CIE looks somewhat bleak. As Wolhuter
et al. (2008) found in their study of comparative education in universities in
47 countries, only 8 countries currently require a comparative education
course for pre-service teachers at the bachelors level. Further, CIEs place
in teacher education is also threatened as teacher education programs place
more emphasis on skills and competencies and subsequently less emphasis
on the social foundations of education (Kubow & Fossum, 2013; Wolhuter
et al., 2008). Thus, from our perspective, CIE research will not significantly
impact teacher education, professional development, and classroom prac-
tice in the future unless systematic attention is given to the viability of the
field as a whole. There needs to be a better articulation of how CIE has
practical value for novice and veteran classroom teachers so as to safeguard
the philosophical and in-depth approach to inquiry in teacher education
 Trends and Issues in the Teaching of Comparative Education 19

that the social foundations of education provides. In order to do so, com-

parativists need to first acknowledge this pressing issue for the field.
Foremost, comparativists must address the technicization of schools of
education. In 1966, the preoccupation for Noah and Eckstein was to
teach students in comparative education courses how to formulate and
test fruitful, non-trivial hypotheses about the relationship between educa-
tion and society, using cross-national and/or cross-cultural data (p. 511).
Their attention was to the teaching of a systematic method (p. 511).
Such a focus, in their estimation, provided students with a tool-kit
(however imperfect as yet), which they could in future apply to the com-
parative analysis of propositions about education and society (p. 511).
Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:14 31 March 2016 (PT)

The paradox is that while there have been calls for more data-driven,
policy-oriented, quantifiable measures to aid educational decision making,
the CIE researchers engaged in these studies (via consultancies, educa-
tional agency positions, nonprofit and for-profit sector work, and even
academic faculty positions) have also contributed to the continued
demand for practical-oriented courses, more parochial and prescriptive
education reform policies, and utilitarian purposes with technicist inter-
ests. Ironically, research efforts aimed at determining patterns of educa-
tional organization, curriculum, evaluation, and best practices may be
the undoing of the humanistic impulse. The humanist bias, what
Kneller (1963 1964) referred to as, the emphasis upon the individual
and the unique, seems to be waning in the face of systematic empirical
investigation (p. 403).
Moreover, as Heyneman (1993) has argued, The Comparative and
International Education Society is faced with a new and similar challenge.
It is faced with brand new interests. It is faced with new actors whose main
affiliations do not depend at all on our blessing, whose sources of income
and support are totally independent from the traditional field (pp.
387 388). Tikly and Crossley (2001) explain that universities are no longer
the only institutions asked to assist in educational development; now there
are consulting firms and other organizations designed for just that purpose.
This change is also reflected in the career trajectories of CIE graduate pro-
grams. Graduates of CIE programs are not necessarily pursuing careers in
academia. Instead, they work for think tanks, private consulting firms, gov-
ernments, NGOs, and other development organizations. To be sure, one
only needs to look at the institutional affiliations of CIES attendees. No
longer is the society made up of only academics. Therefore, professors of
CIE need to begin asking themselves if it is the job of CIE professors to
prepare their graduates for such careers, and if so, how they will meet their
 20 PATRICIA K. KUBOW AND ALLISON H. BLOSSER

graduates needs while also teaching the theories, methods, and concepts
central to developing the comparative mind.
Another pressing issue concerns the integration of CIE into other educa-
tion courses as described by Tikly and Crossley (2001). As it stands, CIE
has been described as field that is hard to define and ever changing
(Wolhuter et al., 2008). These qualities are both a strength of the field and
its Achilles heel. On one hand, the field is adaptable to the educational
issues and methods of a given time; on the other hand, its lack of definition
can result in CIE being overlooked as a necessary component of teacher
preparation (Wolhuter et al., 2008). For Eckstein (1970), no subject can
be considered as well-taught unless its characteristic modes of thinking and
Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:14 31 March 2016 (PT)

study are conveyed to students one way or another (p. 280). CIE research
is needed, therefore, to examine what happens to the central concepts and
methods of CIE when it is integrated into existing school society or multi-
cultural education courses.
CIEs position as a subspecialty of education, however, also raises
concerns for the field. As Tikly and Crossley (2001) assert, specia-
lization does not always maximize the kind of cross-fertilization with
other disciplines and subfields that is necessary if the comparative and
international canon is to advance creatively (p. 573). Further, Eckstein
(1970) laments about how ill-prepared students are to utilize and under-
stand the most basic social science concepts and methods. As a result,
how to help [students] grasp fundamental ideas and general concepts, and
still give a course of study which introduces students to the substantive pro-
blems in education and society in a comparative context remains the most
difficult problem (p. 282).
In the end, until CIE professors and practitioners alike start critically
and creatively addressing the changing nature of the field and its impact
upon the teaching of the field, the future of CIE in teacher education
remains uncertain. Tikly and Crossley (2001) perhaps say it best when they
describe an urgent need for comparativists to become active change agents
in the broader transformation of their institutions if they are to better
meet the contemporary challenges posed by globalization, changing geopo-
litical relations, and reform in the higher education sector (p. 562). One
way to do this is by regularly engaging in forums with colleagues that
address these issues. And we are encouraged by recent interest in doing so.
For example, the Teaching Comparative Education Special Interest Group
(SIG) for CIES has quadrupled in size in only two years since its founding
in 2011. Top scholars and professors in the field were willing and eager to
take up these issues in the SIGs highlighted sessions for the 2014 CIES
 Trends and Issues in the Teaching of Comparative Education 21

Annual Meeting in Toronto. Further, we encourage comparative educators

to share program and teaching resources via archive projects like CIECAP
(Comparative and International Education Course Archive Project), a
long-time commitment of Erwin Epstein, and CEIMA (Comparative
Education Instructional Materials Archive), now both housed at Indiana
University-Bloomington (ciedr.indiana.edu), to be able to improve the
teaching of CIE and to keep abreast of the fields changing interests, meth-
ods, and problems. In our view, the words of Bereday (1964), one of the
fields forefathers, are now more important than ever: That students in the
field gain an impression of rigorous scholarship, excitement, and a convic-
tion that their study is worthwhile is vital to the sound establishment of
Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:14 31 March 2016 (PT)

comparative education as a respected discipline (p. 171).

REFERENCES

Benjamin, H. R. W. (1956). Growth in comparative education. Phi Delta Kappan, 37(4),

141 144, 165.
Bereday, G. Z. F. (1958). Some methods of teaching comparative education. Comparative
Education Review, 1(3), 4 9.
Bereday, G. Z. F. (1964). Comparative method in education. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Bergh, A-M., Classen, C., Horn, I., Mda, T., & van Niekerk, P. (1998, July). Teaching com-
parative and international education. Report on a workshop held at the 10th World
Congress of Comparative Education Societies, Cape Town, South Africa.
Eckstein, M. A. (1970). On teaching a scientific comparative education. Comparative
Education Review, 14(3), 279 282.
Heyneman, S. P. (1993). Quantity, quality, and source. Comparative Education Review, 37(4),
372 388.
Kneller, G. F. (1963 1964). The prospects of comparative education. International Review of
Education, 9(4), 396 406.
Kubow, P. K., & Blosser, A. (2013, March). Teaching comparative education and multicul-
tural education: A cartographic representation of convergent and divergent epistemolo-
gical influences and social aims. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Comparative and International Education Society, New Orleans, LA.
Kubow, P. K., & Fossum, P. R. (2007). Comparative education: Exploring issues in interna-
tional context (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Kubow, P. K., & Fossum, P. R. (2013). Comparative education in the USA. In C. Wolhuter,
N. Popov, B. Leutwyler, & K. Skubic Ermenc (Eds.), Comparative education at universi-
ties world wide (3rd expanded ed., pp. 183 192). Sofia: Bulgarian Comparative
Education Society and Ljublijana University Press, Faculty of Arts.
Noah, H. J., & Eckstein, M. A. (1966). A design for teaching comparative education.
Comparative Education Review, 10(3), 511 513.
 22 PATRICIA K. KUBOW AND ALLISON H. BLOSSER

Phillips, D., & Schweisfurth, M. (2007). Comparative and international education: An introduc-
tion to theory, method, and practice. London: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
Tikly, L., & Crossley, M. (2001, Nov.). Teaching comparative and international education: A
framework for analysis. Comparative Education Review, 45(4), 561 580.
Wolhuter, C., Popov, N., Manzon, M., & Leutwyler, B. (2008). Mosaic of comparative educa-
tion at universities: Conceptual nuances, global trends, and critical reflections. In
C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, M. Manzon, & B. Leutwyler (Eds.), Comparative education at
universities world wide (2nd expanded ed., pp. 319 342). Sofia: Bureau for Educational
Services.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:14 31 March 2016 (PT)