The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Education
Cultural Perspectives on Learning Environments
Affecting Academic Achievement
An International Comparison Between Confucian Countries and Anglo
Countries
A Thesis in
Educational Theory and Policy
by
Yu Hu
© 2013 Yu Hu
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Arts
August 2013
The thesis of Yu Hu was reviewed and approved* by the following
Katerina Bodovski
Associate Professor of Education
Thesis Adviser
Liang Zhang
Associate Professor of Education and Labor Studies
David P. Baker
Director of Graduate Studies, Education Policy Studies Department
Professor of Education; Professor of Sociology
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
ii
ABSTRACT
This study compared the effects of diverse learning environments on students’ learning
outcomes in Confucian countries and Anglo countries. Using data from the Program for
International Student Assessment 2009 (PISA 2009), varied learning environments
were studied based upon variables including their disciplinary climates, student-teacher
relations and teacher behaviors. Learning outcomes observed included students’
reading, mathematics and science scores. The results showed that all three learning
environment variables had positive and statistically significant effects on students’
reading, mathematics and science scores. In Confucian countries, student-teacher
relations had additional positive effects on students’ reading, mathematics and science
outcomes, and the effect of the disciplinary climate in Confucian countries was
significantly larger than its effect in Anglo countries.
iii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... v
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
Theoretical Background ................................................................................................... 2
Institutional Effects from Schools: School Resources and Learning Environment ..... 2
Conceptual Frameworks of the Learning Environment ............................................... 3
Disciplinary Climate .................................................................................................... 4
Student-Teacher Relations ........................................................................................... 5
Learning Environment.................................................................................................. 6
Cultural Clusters ........................................................................................................... 7
Data and Method ............................................................................................................ 11
The Input-Environment-Outcome Variables .............................................................. 11
Models ........................................................................................................................ 16
Results ............................................................................................................................ 18
Discussion and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 28
References ...................................................................................................................... 32
iv
List of Tables
TABLE 2 Description of Background Variables ........................................................... 15
TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics of Variables Included in the Models .......................... 22
TABLE 4 Correlations among Study Variables ............................................................ 23
TABLE 5 Multiple Linear Regression Estimates of Reading Achievement ................. 24
TABLE 6 Multiple Linear Regression Estimates of Mathematics Achievement .......... 25
TABLE 7 Multiple Linear Regression Estimates of Science Achievement .................. 26
TABLE 8 Main Effects and Interactions of the Characteristics of Learning
Environment Taking for Confucian Countries .............................................................. 27
v
Introduction
Educational policy-makers are concerned with improving students’ academic
achievement; in order to do so, they must make the educational system more effective.
Comparative educational research provides a way for policy-makers to compare the
quality of education among different cultures and countries. For this reason, more and
more large-scale international datasets have been collected. These datasets include
multiple variables and encompass key issues in education, such as family socioeconomic status (SES), school characteristics, curriculum, and the learning outcomes
for different academic subjects.
Since 1997, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) has used the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) to examine
students’ performance in mathematics, science and reading. Students from Confucian
countries such as South Korea and Japan have earned the top performance in all three
subjects in PISA 2009 (OECD, 2009). Confucianism, which is a unique ethical and
philosophical system, prizes traditional values in educational philosophy, such as
“respecting teachers” and “maintaining discipline.” These Confucian beliefs and
traditions deeply affect both the pedagogy of teacher and students’ behavior in school,
thus creating a specific academic climate. Comparing the effects of different cultures’
learning environments may help explain difference in students’ learning outcomes.
This study seeks to draw a comparison between Confucian countries and Anglo
countries in considering the effects of student-teacher relations, discipline and teacher
behavior on students’ reading, mathematics and science achievement; it also tries to
provide explanations for these differences.
1
Theoretical Background
Institutional Effects from Schools: School Resources and Learning Environment
The famous Coleman Report (Coleman, 1966) and Heyneman-Loxley Effect
(Heyneman & Loxley, 1983) galvanized the debate on the correlation among family
background, school effects, and students’ academic achievement. The Coleman Report
argued that in the United States, differences in family resources had a larger impact on
students’ performance than school characteristics did. Heyneman and Loxley suggested
that school effects were relatively more influential in the Third World developing
countries. Baker and LeTendre (2005) defined school effects as “the effect on academic
achievement of going to one school versus another, usually with differences in
resources.” Besides school resources, teacher quality and school funding could also be
key indicators of school effects, although compared to differences in family
background, school effects were less associated with students’ academic achievement
(Baker & LeTendre, 2005).
Since the 1990s, the establishment of the large international databases such as the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and PISA has given
educational researchers the opportunity to evaluate the effects of school characteristics
on students’ academic performances within different countries. Those large databases
have a substantial set of variables describing school resource quality, including
resource shortage, funding resources, computer supplies, and library materials. In
addition to data on school resources, the PISA dataset also has variables that help
reflect the quality of students’ learning environments. Compared to school resources,
2
the quality of students’ learning environments may influence students learning more
directly. In PISA 2009, these environmental variables include teacher-student relations,
the disciplinary climate, and teacher-related factors affecting the schooling climate.
Conceptual Frameworks of the Learning Environment
To analyze the impact of diverse schools on students’ academic performance,
many researchers have developed their own models. Pascarella (1985) has suggested a
causal model by which to assess the effects of institutional environments on students’
learning by adding five main variables: precollege characteristics such as students’
backgrounds, structural characteristics of the institutions, students’ interaction with
agents of socialization, the institutional environment, and the quality of student effort.
The first and most widely used model of institutional effects is Astin’s InputEnvironment-Outcome (I-E-O) model (1970a. 1970b. 1991). Figure 1 shows that the IE-O- defined learning outcomes are considered an amalgamation of three sets of
elements: input, including students’ demographic characteristics, family backgrounds
and prior schooling experience; environment, including the experiences that students
have in college; and outcomes, including students’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, values,
beliefs and behaviors as they exist after school.
Although the I-E-O model was
developed in a college context, it could also be used in K-12 schools, as in PISA 2009,
which had a well-designed framework of input (students’ demographic characteristics),
environment (learning environment and school characteristics) and outcomes (reading,
mathematics and science achievements).
3
Environment
Input
Outcome
Figure 1. Astin’s Input-Environment-Outcome Model (1970a. 1970b. 1991)
In Astin’s assumption, the inputs have direct impacts on the outcomes, but also
indirectly influence the outcomes, creating interplay among the students’ characteristics
and demographics and the institutional environment. Jennings and Greenberg (2009)
have found that effective schools have orderly and co-operative learning environments.
In this study, I treat the disciplinary climate in the classroom as the primary indicator of
an orderly environment, and teacher-student relations as the foremost reflection of cooperative relations.
Disciplinary Climate
Shouse (1996a, 1997) has defined disciplinary climate as school attendance,
rules for student behavior, and public decorum policies; he further considers
disciplinary climate one of the three components of academic press. Shouse (1996a,
1996b, 1997) also measured a school’s disciplinary climate as the school’s policy on
absenteeism, its responses to truancy, and its overall classroom and hallway decorum.
4
Previous research has suggested that, by influencing students’ study habits and
classroom conduct in school, a good school disciplinary climate can prompt students’
better academic and behavioral performance (OECD, 2004; Purkey & Smith, 1983;
Shin et al., 2009).
Previous researchers have tried to study the effects of disciplinary climates on
students’ mathematics and science achievement using the TIMSS data. Gerber (2010),
for example, has found that disciplinary climate has no significant relationship to
students’ achievement in Russia, and Miwa (2010) has suggested that there is no
significant effect in Japan, either. Shavit and Blank (2010), however, have found a
modest positive effect in Israel.
Student-Teacher Relations
Student-teacher relations have been measured as different variables including
affinity-seeking (Frymier,
1994),
self-disclosure (Sorensen,
1989),
solidarity
(Nussbaum & Scott, 1980), humor (Wanzer & Frymier, 1999), caring (Teven &
McCroskey, 1997), communicator style (Norton, 1977), and immediacy (Andersen,
1979; Christophel, 1990). Frymier and Houser (2000) have found that based on
Burleson and Samter’s (1990) communication skills model, students reporting
referential skills, ego support, and conflict management were significantly associated
with effective teaching, while referential skills, ego support and immediacy have a
strong relationship to students’ learning outcomes and motivation. Researchers have
also shown that positive student-teacher relationships can enhance children’s peer
relationships (Howes, Hamilton, & Matheson, 1994), and it might also improve
students’ learning performance.
5
In a comparative perspective, Williams (2006) has used the Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) to show that a strong disciplinary climate and positive
student-teacher relations have a positive impact on students’ reading achievement. Shin
et al. (2009) has found that a school’s disciplinary climate is significantly associated
with better mathematics achievement in America, Korea and Japan, but student-teacher
relations are only significant in Japan.
Learning Environment
There are very few studies emphasizing the effects of diverse cultural learning
environments on students’ academic achievement. Previous studies studied the effect of
disciplinary climate and student-teacher relations on students’ academic performance
within particular countries such as Russia or Israel (Gerber, 2010; Miwa, 2010; Shavit
& Blank, 2010), or simply compared the effects of learning environments among a few
countries (Shin et al., 2009). Moreover, only a few studies have focused on how
cultural values shape the disciplinary climate or student-teacher relations. Chiu and
Chow (2011) have suggested that students growing up in less gender egalitarian
cultures have better classroom discipline, while further arguing that other cultural
tendencies such as hierarchical obedience, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance do
not have significant effects on discipline.
Moreover, very few studies have analyzed the learning environments cultivated
by the Confucian cultural perspective. The word “Confucian” originates from the word
“Confucius,” who was the most famous and influential teacher, politician and
philosopher in Chinese history. His philosophy was founded on a belief in personal and
6
social morality, as well as a commitment to correctness of social relations. The impact
of human relations is more significant in Confucian societies than it is in Western
countries (Cheng, 1998). Students, teachers or parents also implement the collective
and competitive value from the external society then influence the environment within
classroom.
Relations, also called “Guanxi” in Chinese, refers to an interpersonal social
network (Cheng, 1998), also known as a “distinct version of human order” or
predefined set of “clear and well-understood rules” (Redding, 1990, p.58). Cheng
(1998) has argued that social relations in Confucian countries also mean “unequal
access or favoritism in resource allocation.” Kennedy (2002) has explained this
tradition as “proper respect … to be given to teachers whose wisdom and knowledge is
taken for granted and not to be questioned.” Bond (1992) has also suggested that
Confucianism encourages compromise, moderation and the maintenance of harmonious
relationships, while discouraging individualism and self-assertion in the classroom. The
concept of “Guan,” which means the level of interaction about “control” or “govern,” is
a key issue in Confucian education, which seeks to maintain discipline but in turn
increases the number of conflicts among students and teachers.
Cultural Clusters
Before comparing different cultures’ learning environments, it is key to identify
various cultural clusters. Researchers previously sought to understand various cultures
by analyzing their values or characteristics, such as whether the cultures have
hierarchical or collectivist tendencies (Chiu & Chow, 2011). Taking only cultural
characteristics into account, however, has not proven to be enough to identify distinct
7
clusters of societies. For this reason, for the past half century, researchers have tried to
identify the cultural clusters using different grouping strategies including religion and
language (Cattell, 1950), geographic proximity (Furnham, Kirkcaldy, & Lynn, 1994),
and ethnic social capital (Portes & Zhou, 1994).
In this study, I use cultural clusters as defined by GLOBE (Global Leadership
and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness), with the understanding that the GLOBE
classification pays particular attention to leadership and organizational processes
(House et al, 2002). GLOBE labeled its nine dimensions of culture as follows:
uncertainty avoidance, power distance, societal collectivism, in-group collectivism,
gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation, and
humane orientation. After collecting and analyzing data based on these nine cultural
dimensions, GLOBE grouped 61 nations into 10 distinct cultural clusters. Table 1
shows the societal cluster classifications of 61 nations according to GLOBE (Gupta et
al., 2002).
To estimate whether the effects of the learning environment are greater in
Confucian cultures, a comparison between Confucian countries and other cultural
groups is needed. In this study, Anglo countries have been chosen because major
Western countries such as United States and the United Kingdom are in this cultural
cluster, and the comparison between Western and Eastern values has proven a
persistent debate among researchers from different cultural backgrounds.
An overwhelming majority of the literature is a general discussion of the
different school characteristics, with some conversation regarding cross-cultural
variance in learning environments, the importance of educational outcomes, and the
8
methods of enforcement. Few studies, however, have focused on the academic climates
in different cultures, or the effect of these climates on students’ academic achievement.
There are some brief introductions to and discussions about and Confucian education,
but few studies have used quantitative analysis in order to demonstrate how the
different learning environments cultivated by Confucianism compare with those
created in other cultural clusters.
This study is designed to answer two questions:
1. Does the quality of the learning environment have a significant impact on students’
learning outcomes?
2. Could the difference in the learning environment between the Confucian culture and
other cultures partly explain cultural variations in learning outcomes in the subjects of
reading, mathematics or science?
9
TABLE 1
GLOBE: Societal cluster classification
Anglo Cultures
Eastern Europe
England
Hungary
Australia
Russia
South Africa(White Sample)
Kazakhstan
Canada
Albania
New Zealand
Poland
Ireland
Greece
USA
Slovenia
Confucian Asia
Georgia
Taiwan
Latin America
Singapore
Costa Rica
Hong Kong
Venezuela
South Korea
Ecuador
China
Mexico
Japan
El Salvador
Nordic Europe
Colombia
Finland
Guatemala
Sweden
Bolivia
Denmark
Brazil
Arab Cultures
Argentina
Qatar
Germanic Europe
Morocco
Austria
Turkey
Switzerland
Egypt
The Netherlands
Kuwait
Germany
Southern Asia
India
Indonesia
Philippines
Malaysia
Thailand
Iran
Sub-Sahara Africa
Namibia
Zambia
Zimbabwe
South Africa(Black Sample)
Nigeria
Latin Europe
Israel
Italy
Portugal
Spain
France
Switzerland(French Speaking)
Source: Gupta, Vipin, Paul J. Hanges, and Peter Dorfman. (2002). Cultural clusters: methodology and
findings. Journal of World Business 37 (1), 11–15.
10
Data and Method
The data for this research comes from PISA 2009, a dataset which includes 65
countries. PISA is an international study aiming to evaluate educational systems
worldwide every three years by assessing 15-year-olds’ competencies in the three key
subjects: reading, math and science. Following Astin’s I-E-O model, variables are
chosen to reflect three categories: input, environment and outcome.
This research compares the effect of learning environment between two cultural
clusters: the Confucian countries and the Anglo countries. According to the cultural
clusters identified by GLOBE in PISA 2009, Shanghai-China, Chinese Taipei, Hong
Kong, Japan, South Korea and Singapore are representative of Confucian culture. The
United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland and the United States are
selected for the Anglo cultural group. Countries such as Chinese-Macao, which misses
certain variables, are not included in this data. Thus, 95,593 students in 978 schools are
analyzed in this data. Student-level sample weights and school clusters are applied to
regression analysis. Multiple linear regression is used to assess the coefficient of the
learning environment and students’ demographic characteristics. Multiple imputation is
used to assign values to missing data.
The Input-Environment-Outcome Variables
In the official report of school results in PISA 2009 (cp4, 2010), teacher-student
relations and disciplinary climate are the main variables for evaluating the quality of
the learning environment. PISA 2009 also has a set of variables labeled teacher
behaviors by which to evaluate teacher-related factors affecting the school climate. To
11
evaluate teachers’ active involvement in classroom management, teacher behavior is
also added into the model.
PISA also captures other aspects of the learning environment, including
parental involvement and a school principal’s leadership. Since this study prioritizes
the learning environment within the classroom, parents’ effects and school
Input
Family SES
Gender
Outcome
Reading Achievement
Mathematics Achievement
Science Achievement
Learning Environment
Disciplinary Climate
Student-Teacher Relations
Teacher-Related Factors
Affecting School Climate
(Teacher Behavior)
Figure 2 Conceptual Model of How Learning Environment and Students’ Characteristics Affect
Learning Achievement.
management is not included in the model. Figure 2 shows the study’s conceptual model
of how a school’s learning environment and students’ demographic characteristics
might influence students’ academic achievement. Table 2 shows the item parameters
for each variable in detail.
The disciplinary climate variable has been generated by the following item
parameters:
“Students don’t listen to what the teacher says,” “There is noise and
disorder,” “The teacher has to wait a long time for students to <quiet down>,”
“Students cannot work well,” and “Students don’t start working for a long time after
the lesson begins.” For all of the items, four responses from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree” were given by students. The data have been reversely coded, which
12
means that a positive score indicates positive teacher behavior affecting the school
climate.
The student-teacher relations variable has been created from five items: “I get
along well with most of my teachers”; ”Most of my teachers are interested in my wellbeing”; “Most of my teachers really listen to what I have to say”; ”If I need extra help,
I will receive it from my teachers”; ”Most of my teachers treat me fairly.” The students’
response has been generated from a 4-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree.” Higher scores on this variable indicates better relations among
students and teachers.
The teacher behavior variable has been generated from school principals’
responses regarding teacher-related factors affecting school climate. This variable is a
summary of the responses to the following statements: Teachers' low expectations of
students/ Poor student-teacher relations/ Teachers being too strict with students/Teacher
absenteeism/ Staff resisting change/ Students not being encouraged to achieve their full
potential. The response is 4-point scale from “not at all” to “a lot.” The mean of this
item among all the OCED countries was zero and the standard deviation of it was one.
All the items have been reversely coded, so that the higher values indicate positive
teacher behavior affecting school climate.
For the input variables, family SES (socio-economic status) and students’
gender have been chosen because they are generally seen as demographic indicators
with significant impact on learning outcome. Family SES is represented by the ESCS
(economic, social and cultural status), which is derived from highest parental education,
number of home possessions and highest parental occupation. Gender in this research
13
has been recoded to the dummy variable Female, so that female students are marked as
“1” and male students are “0.” To analyze cultural differences between two sets of
countries, the dummy variable “Confucian” has been created to reflect two cultural
groups, with “1” indicating the Confucian countries and “0” indicating Anglo countries.
For the outcomes, three types of students’ learning achievement, including
mathematics, reading and science, have been chosen as the dependent variables, in
order to document the impact from both the inputs and learning environment. Each
outcome will be analyzed separately.
14
TABLE 2
Description of Background Variables
Inputs
Variables
Information
Coding Type
Confucian
Countries
Confucian=1; Anglo=0
Dummy
Variables
SES
Wealth/Cultural Possessions/Home educational
resources
Gender
female=1; Male=0
StudentTeacher
Relations
Environment
Discipline
Teacher
Behavior
I get along well with most of my teachers/Most of
my teachers are interested in my well-being/Most
of my teachers really listen to what I have to
say/If I need extra help, I will receive it from my
teachers/Most of my teachers treat me fairly
Students don’t listen to what the teacher
says/There is noise and disorder/ The teacher has
to wait a long time for students to <quiet down>/
Students cannot work well/ Students don’t start
working for a long time after the lesson begins
Teachers' low expectations of students/ Poor
student-teacher relations/ Teachers being too strict
with students/Teacher absenteeism/ Staff resisting
change/ Students not being encouraged to achieve
their full potential
Source: OECD (2012), PISA 2009 Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing.
15
Dummy
Variables
Students’ SelfReport
School Mean,
4-scale Likert
Students’ SelfReport
Reversed
Coding
School Mean
4-scale Likert
Reverse Coding
4-scale Likert
Models
To compare the effects of the learning environment on students’ academic
achievement between Confucian countries and Anglo countries, this study analyzed the
effect of both students’ demographic characteristics and learning environments, and
also added interaction terms to the model to see if the learning environment had any
additional effects in Confucian countries. Following the I-E-O model, the analyses
drew upon three types of variables, including input variables (Confucian countries,
gender, SES) and environmental variables (teacher behavior, student-teacher relations,
disciplinary climate) as independent variables, and outcome variables (students’
reading, mathematics and science performance) as dependent variables. These three
types of variables will be added into the regression model one by one in the order of IE-O.
First, I estimate the effects of input variables on outcomes by adding the
dummy Confucian variable, family SES, and students’ gender into the multiple linear
regression models.
Each of the three subjects---reading, math and science---are
modeled separately. Each input variable is put into the model one by one:
Input-Outcome
Yi=β0+β1Confucian+β2SES+β3Gender+ε
(1)
Where i=1, 2, 3, and Yi is student achievement in each subject.
Next, the environmental variables (disciplinary climate, student-teacher
relations, teacher behavior) are added into the model one by one, while maintaining all
the input variables in the model. Adding environmental variables to equation (1) shows
16
how much variation in the learning outcome can be explained by the learning
environment when holding student demographic characteristics constant in the model.
Input-Environment-Outcome
Yi=β0+β1Confucian+β2SES+β3Gender+β4Discipline+
β5Teacher-studentRelations+β6TeacherBehavior+ε
(2)
In the Input-Environment-Outcome model, I estimate effects from both input
variables and environment variables in both Confucian and Anglo countries. Since my
research goal is to estimate whether discipline, teacher-student relations and/or teacher
behavior have any additional effects in Confucian culture, I create the interaction terms
and add them into the model: Confucian*Discipline, Confucian*Teacher-Student
Relations, Confucian*Teacher Behavior. Then the full model is:
Models with Interactions
Yi=β0+β1Confucian+β2SES+β3Gender+β4Discipline+β5Teacher-studentRelations
+β6TeacherBehaviror+ β7Confucian*Discipline+β8Confucian*TeacherstudentRelations+β9Confucian*TeacherBehaviors+ε
(3)
For each learning outcome (reading, mathematics and science), I add interaction
terms with Confucian and environmental variables (disciplinary climate, studentteacher relations and teacher behaviors) into the I-E-O model. The interaction term
between culture clusters and environment variables helps to estimate whether the
effects of the quality of learning environment are greater within Confucian countries or
in Anglo countries.
17
Results
Table 3 illustrates the results of all the variables in the models. In regards to
learning outcomes, students from Confucian countries performed much better than
students from Anglo countries. Academic performances in reading, mathematics and
science were also higher in Confucian countries than in Anglo countries, with the
mathematics performance among students in Confucian countries being about 50 points
higher than the performance of students in Anglo countries. Regarding input variables,
the two cultural clusters have a similar gender distribution among their participating
populations because the two groups have been intentionally selected. Compared with
students from Anglo countries, students from Confucian countries come from families
with lower (on average) SES, meaning Anglo students have relatively better financial
situations and more possessions than most Confucian students.
There is a notable difference between Anglo and Confucian countries in terms
of the learning environment. First, classrooms in Confucian countries tend to have a
stronger disciplinary climate than classrooms in Anglo countries. That means that
classrooms in Confucian countries may be quieter, and students are more likely to
follow teachers’ instruction, making the index of the disciplinary climate positive.
Compared to classrooms in Confucian countries, classrooms in Anglo countries may
have more disorder and noise, thus giving them a negative value on the index of
disciplinary climate. That being said, students from Anglo countries typically have
better relations with their teachers than their peers in Confucian countries. The index of
student-teacher relations shows that student-teacher relationship in Confucian countries
is lower than in Anglo countries; indeed, students from Anglo countries, unlike
18
students in Confucian countries, have an overall positive relationship with their
teachers. Traditional Confucian values encourage students to show respect to their
teachers and to stay quiet and follow teachers’ instructions in the classroom, thus
making the classroom very strictly organized. However, students’ respecting teachers
does not mean they actually like them. Students may experience conflicts or have
complaints about their teachers that they are not able to express, because that will be
seen as not being respectful to teachers. Both Confucian and Anglo countries have
negative scores in teacher behaviors; this means that in both cultural groups school
principals believe that teacher behaviors hinder students’ learning performance. Anglo
countries have worse scores on this variable, which means in Confucian countries the
positive teacher related factors affecting school climate are more likely to be present.
Table 4 presents the correlations among all the input-environment-outcome
variables. From the correlations, we can see that all three subjects (reading,
mathematics and science) are highly related (.83, .90 and .88). That means a student
who has a high score in one subject is likely to have high scores in other subjects.
Dummy variable Confucian countries are related to a negative family SES (-.33), which
means that students from Confucian countries are more likely to be raised in poorer
family environments, which is consistent with the results from descriptive statistics.
Table 5 shows the effects of input-environment variables on students’ reading
achievement. Among the input variables, family SES has a positive significant effect
on students’ reading achievement. In considering the gender difference, girls scored
higher than boys in reading. In model 1 we can see that the effect of Confucian
19
countries is positive and significant, which is consistent with the results from
descriptive statistics.
Among the environment variables, all three variables have positive significant
effects on students’ reading achievement, which shows that students learn better in
more orderly and well-organized learning environments. Among the three variables, the
effect of disciplinary climate is the largest. The increase of 1 unit in the index of
disciplinary climate results in an increase of 16.083 points in students’ reading scores,
while the effects are 12.795 in student-teacher relations and 8.120 in teacher behaviors.
The adjusted R-square increases from 0.012 to 0.172 after adding input variables into
the model while holding the dummy Confucian variable constant. When environment
variables are added into the model one by one, the adjusted R-square increases from
0.172 to 0.220, which means environment variables help explain part of the variation in
students’ reading achievement.
Tables 6 and 7 show the effects of input and environment indicators on
mathematics and science achievement, and the results are very similar to the analysis of
reading achievement. The effect of dummy Confucian variables on mathematics is the
largest among all three subjects, which means students’ performance in mathematics
registers the largest cultural difference. Considering the gender difference, boys
perform better in mathematics and science than girls, but have lower scores than girls
in reading achievement. All three environmental variables (disciplinary climate,
student-teacher relations and teacher behaviors) have positive significant impacts on
both mathematics and science achievement. The adjusted R-square increases when
adding students’ demographic variables and environment variables, which shows that
20
both input and environment factors could explain part of the variation in the students’
outcomes.
Tables 5, 6 and 7 estimate the effects of students’ demographic characteristics
and environmental variables on students’ reading, mathematics and science outcomes.
Disciplinary climate, student-teacher relations and teacher behaviors all have positive
significant impacts on students’ learning outcomes. As such, research question 1 has
been answered, with students performing better in a learning environment that features
more discipline, better student-teacher relations and positive teacher behaviors. The
second research question asked whether there are cultural differences in the effects of
the learning environment between Confucian and Anglo countries.
Table 8 displays the main effects and interaction terms of the Confucian
variables with the learning environment variables. For all three subjects, the main
effects of dummy Confucian variable, as well as of disciplinary climate, studentteacher relations and teacher behaviors, are all positive and statistically significant. The
interaction terms between Confucian and student-teacher relations are positive and
statistically significant in all three subjects, which means that in Confucian countries
the effect of student-teacher relations on students’ learning performance within all three
subjects is even stronger than in Anglo countries. For science performance, the
interaction term between Confucian and discipline is significant at the .05 level, which
means that in Confucian countries, the disciplinary climate has an additional effect on
students’ science performance compared to in Anglo countries. None of the interaction
terms related to teacher behaviors approaches statistical significance.
21
TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics of Variables Included in the Models
Cultures
Variables
Confucian
Mean
Anglo
SD
Mean
SD
Outcome
Reading
527.994
(89.763)
505.984
(96.825)
Mathematics
555.680
(100.460)
505.782
(90.785)
Science
543.647
(91.779)
516.354
(97.406)
Family SES
-.346
(.910)
.287
(.826)
Female
.492
(.500)
.502
(.500)
Discipline
.370
(.899)
-.039
(1.002)
Student-teacher Relations
-.044
(.941)
.192
(1.012)
Teacher Behaviors
-.345
(1.085)
-.075
(.848)
N
32,143
Input Variables
Environment Variables
63,450
22
TABLE 4
Correlations among Study Variables
Variable
1 Reading achievement
2 Mathematic achievement
3 Science achievement
4 Confucian
5 Family SES
6 Female
7 Disciplinary climate
8 Student-teacher relation
9 Teacher behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
…
.83
.90
.11
.27
.18
.22
.18
.10
.88
.24
.23
-.05
.20
.15
.07
.13
.26
-.01
.20
.17
.09
-.33
-.01
.20
-.11
-.14
.00
.02
.12
.15
.08
.04
.02
.15
.04
.04
23
TABLE 5
Multiple Linear Regression Estimates of Reading Achievement
Input
(1)
Confucian
Environment
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
22.370***
36.409***
36.732***
28.486***
34.135***
35.009***
(4.284)
(3.266)
(3.203)
(2.989)
(2.852)
(2.821)
40.117***
40.233***
37.905***
37.011***
36.016***
(1.250)
(1.287)
(1.176)
(1.145)
(1.222)
30.527***
28.164***
27.623***
27.770***
(1.725)
(1.636)
(1.611)
(1.601)
18.396***
16.616***
16.083***
(0.844)
(0.862)
(0.878)
9.837***
9.688***
(0.883)
(0.871)
Input
Family SES
Female
Environment
Disciplinary climate
Student-teacher relations
Teacher behavior
8.120***
(1.799)
501.751***
493.701***
478.656***
478.149***
476.141***
477.428***
(3.174)
(2.084)
(2.486)
(2.334)
(2.282)
(2.295)
N
95593
95593
95593
95593
95593
95593
adj. R-sq
0.012
0.146
0.172
0.205
0.215
0.220
Constant
Standard errors in parentheses
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
*** p<0.001
24
TABLE 6
Multiple Linear Regression Estimates of Mathematics Achievement
Input
(1)
Confucian
Environment
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
47.525***
61.351***
61.196***
54.527***
59.397***
60.299***
(4.296)
(3.356)
(3.369)
(3.186)
(3.057)
(3.039)
39.507***
39.451***
37.568***
36.798***
35.770***
(1.138)
(1.127)
(1.074)
(1.077)
(1.082)
-14.660***
-16.572***
-17.039***
-16.887***
(1.631)
(1.571)
(1.560)
(1.551)
14.880***
13.345***
12.795***
(0.824)
(0.854)
(0.898)
8.482***
8.328***
(0.880)
(0.871)
Input
Family SES
Female
Environment
Disciplinary climate
Student-teacher relations
Teacher behavior
8.381***
(1.963)
Constant
N
adj. R-sq
492.791***
484.864***
492.089***
491.679***
489.949***
491.276***
(3.094)
(2.139)
(2.382)
(2.306)
(2.265)
(2.300)
95593
95593
95593
95593
95593
95593
0.055
0.187
0.193
0.215
0.222
0.228
Standard errors in parentheses
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
*** p<0.001
25
TABLE 7
Multiple Linear Regression Estimates of Science Achievement
Input
(1)
Confucian
Environment
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
30.998***
45.352***
45.300***
37.590***
43.753***
44.705***
(4.442)
(3.453)
(3.458)
(3.227)
(3.117)
(3.109)
41.014***
40.996***
38.819***
37.844***
36.759***
(1.283)
(1.276)
(1.208)
(1.186)
(1.242)
-4.936**
-7.146***
-7.737***
-7.576***
(1.735)
(1.654)
(1.639)
(1.631)
17.200***
15.258***
14.677***
(0.877)
(0.903)
(0.917)
10.732***
10.569***
(0.893)
(0.881)
Input
Family SES
Female
Environment
Disciplinary climate
Student-teacher relations
Teacher behavior
8.853***
(2.040)
Constant
507.240***
N
adj. R-sq
499.010***
501.443***
500.969***
498.779***
500.182***
(3.368)
(2.354)
(2.650)
(2.540)
(2.502)
(2.503)
95593
95593
95593
95593
95593
95593
0.022
0.158
0.159
0.187
0.198
0.204
Standard errors in parentheses
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
*** p<0.001
26
TABLE 8
Main Effects and Interactions of the Characteristics of Learning Environment Taking for Confucian
Countries
Variables
Reading
Mathematics
Science
36.212***
61.673***
44.065***
(2.965)
(3.161)
(3.153)
16.238***
13.001***
13.750***
(1.137)
(1.132)
(1.187)
8.251***
5.715***
9.042***
(1.132)
(1.130)
(1.151)
7.204**
8.025**
8.631**
(2.656)
(2.816)
(3.110)
-0.242
-0.201
3.570*
(1.716)
(1.794)
(1.803)
5.167**
9.238***
5.645**
(1.746)
(1.731)
(1.756)
2.343
1.111
0.639
(3.195)
(3.511)
(3.604)
Main effects
Confucian
Disciplinary climate
Student-teacher relations
Teacher behavior
Interactions
Confucian*Disciplinary climate
Confucian*Student-teacher
relations
Confucian*Teacher behavior
27
Discussion and Conclusions
Compared to students from Anglo countries, students from Confucian countries
perform better in reading, mathematics and science. This study aimed to provide a
potential explanation for the cultural differences between students’ learning outcomes
in Confucian and Anglo countries by analyzing the effects of diverse learning
environments. The research design follows the Input-Environment-Outcome model,
and the results show that in both Confucian and Anglo countries disciplinary climate,
student-teacher relations and teacher behaviors all have positive and statistically
significant effects on students’ academic achievements, including in the subjects of
reading, mathematics and science.
The analysis of interaction terms reveals that the difference in students’ learning
outcomes within Confucian and Anglo countries may be partly explained by the
stronger effect of learning environment. Disciplinary climate has a positive significant
effect on students’ learning outcomes, and classrooms in Confucian countries typically
have better discipline than classrooms in Anglo countries. That means good discipline
in Confucian countries promotes effective instruction and improves students’ learning
outcomes. Although students from Confucian countries report poorer relationships with
their teachers, the effect of student-teacher relations on students’ learning outcomes in
all three academic subjects within Confucian countries is stronger than it is in Anglo
countries. In total, the Confucian learning environment promotes students’ effective
learning, thereby strengthening their academic performance.
In order to analyze the additional effects of student-teacher relations in the
Confucian culture, two aspects of teachers’ role in the Confucian culture should be
28
clarified. First, teachers in the Confucian culture have a unique dignity and authority in
the educational process. Second, the traditional role of the teacher in the Confucian
culture empowers teachers with multiple responsibilities and duties that extend beyond
the classroom; that means teachers are able to affect many aspects of students’
development, rather than merely the students’ academic learning.
One key value in Confucian culture is “ZunShiChongDao,” which means
“honoring the teachers and respecting the teaching.” The cultural tradition of
Confucianism conferred onto teachers’ absolute authority within the classroom.
Research about Confucian culture in Hong Kong conducted by Murphy (1987, p. 43)
suggests that the reason ”Hong Kong students display an almost unquestioning
acceptance of the knowledge of the teacher… may be a transfer of the Confucian ethic
of filial piety, coupled with an emphasis on strictness of discipline and proper behavior.”
Students’ respect for their teachers is determined by their “Confucian heritage”;
however, as students lack consistent communication and interaction with teachers, the
“respect” will not turn out to be a consistently productive relationship. However, by
maintaining good discipline and behavior in the classroom, students from traditional
“teacher-centered classes” in Confucian countries will benefit more from teachers’
instruction, thus recording better learning achievements.
In addition, class instruction is not the only work a Confucian teacher should do;
teachers from China or Japan need to devote time to class management and students’
personal development. Cheng (1996) described that a Chinese traditional class teacher
(in other words, “homeroom” teacher) should be like “an organizer, a leader, a social
worker, a counselor, a remedial teacher and a private tutor to the academically weak”.
29
By contrast, teachers in the United States just need to do the classroom instruction
work based on the school regulations or teacher union standard. The American teachers
can also do extra class management or activities to help each student achieve their best,
but it is not required. So compared with American teachers, Confucian teachers have
more opportunities and power to guide their students, and this also means that teachers
could choose to encourage or suppress those students with personal preference.
Students who get on well with teachers are more likely to get special care
during class instruction or after class. Conversely, students who have poor relationship
with teachers would get more criticism. Compared with those “good” and “obedient”
students, students who have bad relationship with teachers will be marked as “naughty”
or “bad-behaved”, and will be more likely to get severely blamed or ignored by
teachers. Despite these negative effects, there could be even worse condition to those
students who are not getting on well with teachers. Sometimes teachers even ask other
students to isolate the students they don’t like, or report the bad behavior to their
parents so that they will be punished at home.
With the unchallenged authority and comprehensive supervising in the
classroom, teachers from Confucian countries could set up their own schedules to
educate their students. Then the students who get along well with teachers will get
more support, encouragement and patience, but the students whom teachers do not like
will be more easily get punished, ignored or criticized. Both students and teachers
emphasized the importance of relationship in the social world. That is why the results
showed that student-teacher relations have additional effect on students’ outcome in
Confucian countries.
30
In conclusion, this research provided the evidence that students who are
educated in Confucian culture benefited more from its unique learning environment.
The case of school climate and classroom management in Confucian countries could be
an interesting case for comparative scholars to study the multiple dimensions and
characteristics of effective learning and instruction.
The limitation of this research is that it only showed the cultural differences
based on quantitative data. Qualitative researches such as classroom observations,
targeted questionnaires or interviews are needed to explain the beliefs, values, and
traditions about learning environment in Confucian culture. More comparisons among
different cultures about learning environment are needed, beyond the one presented in
this study, between the Confucian countries and the Anglo countries.
31
References
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teacher effectiveness. In D.
Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3, (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books.
Astin, A. W. (1970a). The methodology of research oncollege impact (Part I).
Sociology of Education, 43,223-254.
Astin, A. W. (1970b). The methodology of research on college impact (Part II).
Sociology of Education, 43,437-450
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press
Bond, M. (1992) Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology. Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press.
Baker, David, and Gerald LeTendre. (2005). National Differences, Global Similarities:
World Culture and the Future of Schooling, Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Bodovski, K., Nahum-Shani, I., & Walsh, R. (2013). School Climate and Students’
Early Mathematics Learning: Another Search for Contextual Effects. American
Journal of Education, 119(2), 209-234.
Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1990). Effects of cognitive complexity on the perceived
importance of communication skills in friends. Communication Research, 17(2),
165-182.
Chiu, M. M., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2011). Classroom Discipline Across Forty-One
Countries: School, Economic, and Cultural Differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 42(3), 516-533.
Cattell, R. (1950). The Principal Culture Patterns Discoverable in the Syntax
Dimensions of Existing Nations. Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 215-253.
Cheng, K. M. (1996). Quality of basic education in China: A case study of the province
of Zhejiang. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Coleman, James S. (1966). Summary Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
32
Cook, Thomas D., Robert F. Murphy, and H. David Hunt. (2000). Comer’s School
Development Program in Chicago: A Theory-Based Evaluation. American
Educational Research Journal 37 (2), 535–97.
Cheng, Kai-ming. (1998). Can Education Values Be Borrowed? Looking into Cultural
Differences. Peabody Journal of Education 73(2), 11–30.
Christophel, Diane M. (1990). “The Relationships Among Teacher Immediacy
Behaviors, Student Motivation, and Learning.” Communication Education 39(4),
323–340.
Frymier, Ann Bainbridge. (1994). The Use of Affinity‐seeking in Producing Liking
and Learning in the Classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research 22(2),
87–105.
Frymier, Ann Bainbridge, and Marian L. Houser. (2000).The Teacher ‐ student
Relationship as an Interpersonal Relationship. Communication Education 49 (3),
207–219.
Furnham, A., Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Lynn, R. (1994). National attitudes to
competitiveness, money, and work among young people: First, second, and third
world differences. Human Relations, 47(1), 119-132.
Gerber, Theodore. (2010). School Discipline, Math/Science Achievement, and College
Aspirations in Contemporary Russia. The Seventeenth World Congress of the
International Sociological Association (ISA), Gothenburg, Sweden, July.
Gupta, Vipin, Paul J. Hanges, and Peter Dorfman. (2002). Cultural clusters:
methodology and findings. Journal of World Business 37 (1), 11–15.
Heyneman, S. P., & Loxley, W. A. (1983). The Effect of Primary-School Quality on
Academic Achievement Across Twenty-nine High- and Low-Income Countries.
American Journal of Sociology, 88(6), 1162–1194.
Ho, I., Salili, F., Biggs, J. and Hau, K. T. (1999) The relationship among causal
attributions, learning strategies and level of achievement: a Hong Kong case study.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 19(1), 44–58.
Hughes, Jan N, Timothy A Cavell, and Victor Willson. (2001). Further Support for the
Developmental Significance of the Quality of the Teacher–Student Relationship.
Journal of School Psychology 39 (4), 289–301.
House, Robert, Mansour Javidan, Paul Hanges, and Peter Dorfman. (2002).
Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an
introduction to project GLOBE”. Journal of World Business. 37 (1): 3–10.
33
Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Matheson, C. C. (1994). Children's Relationships with
Peers: Differential Associations with Aspects of the Teacher‐Child Relationship.
Child development, 65(1), 253-263.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social
and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review
of Educational Research, 79(1), 491-525.
Kaplan, David, and Pamela R. Elliott. (1997). “A Model-Based Approach to Validating
Education Indicators using Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics 22 (3): 323–47.
Kennedy, Peter. (2002). Learning Cultures and Learning Styles: Myth-understandings
About Adult (Hong Kong) Chinese Learners. International Journal of Lifelong
Education 21(5), 430–445.
Le, Wing On. (1996) The Cultural Context for Chinese Learners: Conceptions of
Learning in the Confucian Tradition. In D. Watkins and J. Biggs (eds) The Chinese
Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences (Hong Kong: The
Comparative Education Research Centre, Faculty of Education,
University of Hong Kong), pp. 25–41.
Middleton, Michael J., and Carol Midgley. (2002). Beyond Motivation: Middle School
Students’ Perceptions of Press for Understanding in Math. Contemporary
Educational Psychology 27 (3): 373–91.
Miwa, Satoshi. (2010). School Discipline and Achievement in Japan. The Seventeenth
World Congress of the International Sociological Association (ISA), Gothenburg,
Sweden. July
Murphy, D. (1987) Offshore education: a Hong Kong perspective. Australian
University Review, 30(2), 43–44.
Norton, R. W. (1977). Teacher effectiveness as a function of communicator style. In
B.Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 525-542). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books
Nussbaum, J. F., & Scott, M. D. (1980). Student learning as a relational outcome of
teacher-student interaction. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp.
553-664). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Boo
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2004) Learning for
Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publications.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2010), PISA 2009 Results:
Learning Trends: Changes in Student Performance Since 2000 (Volume V)
34
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2010) PISA 2009 Results:
What Makes a School Successful? – Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV)
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2012), PISA 2009
Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing.
Phillips, Meredith. (1997). What Makes Schools Effective? A Comparison of the
Relationships of Communitarian Climate and Academic Climate to Mathematics
Achievement and Attendance during Middle School. American Educational
Research Journal 34 (4): 633–62.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive
development: A critical review and synthesis. Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research, 1(1), 1-61.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1994). Should Immigrants Assimilate?. Public Interest, 116,
18-33
Purkey, C. S. and Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective Schools: A Review, Elementary
School Journal 83: 427–52.
Redding, G. (1990). The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism. New York:deGruyter
Shavit, Yossi, and Carmel Blank. (2010). School Discipline and Achievement in Israel.
TheSeventeenth World Congress of the International Sociological Association
(ISA), Gothenburg, Sweden. July.
Shin, Jongho, Hyunjoo Lee, and Yongnam Kim. (2009). Student and School Factors
Affecting Mathematics Achievement International Comparisons Between Korea,
Japan and the USA. School Psychology International 30(5), 520–537.
Shouse, Roger C. (1996a). Academic Press and Sense of Community: Conflict and
Congruence in American High Schools. Research in Sociology of Education and
Socialization, 11, 173–202.
Shouse, Roger C. (1996b). Academic Press and Sense of Community: Conflict,
Congruence, and Implications for Student Achievement. Social Psychology of
Education 1 (1): 47–68.
Shouse, Roger. (1997). Academic Press, Sense of Community, and Student
Achievement. In Redesigning American Education, ed. James Coleman, Barbara
Schneider, Stephen Plank, Roger Shouse, and Huayin Wang. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
35
Sorensen, G. (1989). The relationships among teachers' self-disclosive statements,
students' perceptions, and affective learning. Communication Education, 38, 259276
Teven, J . J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring
with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1-9
Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions
of instructor humor and students' reports of learning. Communication Education,
48, 48-62
Willms, J. Douglas, and Xin Ma. (2004). School Disciplinary Climate: Characteristics
and Effects on Eighth Grade Achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational
Research 50,(2), 169–188.
Willms, J. D. (2006). Learning{Citation} Divides: Ten Policy Questions about the
Performance and Equity of Schools and School Systems. Montreal: UNESCO
Institute for Statistics.
36