COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

ODHIAMBO KENNEDY
LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS
SEDU-MMUST

STRAND/SECTION A: FOUNDATIONS OF COMPARATIVE EDUCATION

1. MEANING, SCOPE, PURPOSE, RATIONALE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

FIELD OF COMPARATIVE EDUCATION

Introduction

The history of comparative and international education can be traced from the earliest times of human
history. For example, prehistoric human differentiated between the two genders i.e. between man and
woman. In order for the human to improve his/her life comparison has been an important aspect in
their life. In political settings, leaders have been inspired to yield equal or more power and authority
in comparison to their neighbours. In education circles reformers and educationists have been
comparing their system with that found in other countries in order to improve their own. In line with
this thinking, then what is comparative education?
Attempts at defining comparative education have been controversial due to several reasons. It remains
a contested discipline but whose purpose is to discover and explain the factors responsible for the
development, differences or similarities between education systems and their contexts. It also deals
with the comparison of education theory and practice in different countries.
The following are some definitions of this field of study;
i. It is an interdisciplinary field of study that applies historical, philosophical and social science
theories and methods for the comparative analysis of educational issues ([Link], 1995).
ii. The step-by-step study of different and often contrasting educational systems, with a view of
understanding their differences and similarities (Nicholas Hans, 1958).
iii. The analysis of educational systems and problems in two or more environments in terms of
social, political, economic, cultural, ideological and other contents in order to understand the
factors underlying similarities and differences in education in various countries (Fraser and
Brickman, 1968).
iv. While contributing to the concept of comparative education, Mallinson (1975) defines the
concept as; a systematic examination of other cultures and other systems of education deriving
from those cultures in order to discover resemblances and differences, and why variant
solutions have been attempted (and with what result) to problems that are often common to all.
 v. To Good (1962), comparative education is a field of study dealing with the comparison of
current educational theory and practice in different countries for the purpose of broadening and
deepening understanding of educational problems beyond the boundaries of one’s own country.

vi. Getao (1996) defined Comparative Education as a discipline, the study of educational systems
in which one seeks to understand the similarities and differences among educational systems.

From these definitions, we can conclude that comparative education is a field of study that examines
educational systems, practice, policies and issues in education across multiple settings/countries with
the aim of discovering similarities and differences within these systems and issues.
 It is an analytical survey of systems of education and issues or problems in education across borders
(geopolitical, historical and cultural) with a view to establishing similarities and differences within
them.
 Comparative process involves analysis of the processes which make for the resemblance and
differences in education issues.
 The study of the structure, organization, curricular and financing of the educational systems.

The Scope of Comparative Education

The term scope can mean; the breadth, depth or reach of a subject. It can also mean domain.
The scope of comparative education would therefore mean; the area(s) covered by the discipline. It
may also mean the various disciplines from where Comparative Education draws its information either
directly or indirectly.
A keen look at the various definitions advanced by different scholars of this field of study, one
understands that comparative education is an interdisciplinary discipline that relies on other disciplines
in order to be able to accomplish its objectives.
As a multi-disciplinary field of study, the scope of comparative education can be understood in the
following perspectives.
 Content/Subject Matter Perspective
This covers the crucial components of system of education such as teacher education, structure,
administration, curriculum/content, aims/objectives, financing among others.
 Area of Study Perspectives
Also known as the geographical units of study, is a perspective that involves intra-national,
international, regional, continental and world global system analysis and studies.
 Ideological Scope/Perspective
This approach compares countries’ systems of education on the basis of different political, social and
economic ideologies. For example communism, democratic, socialist, capitalist free market, mixed
economies etc.
The national philosophy in a country influences the kind of education provided to a country’s citizens.
Additionally this philosophy can further be affected by the ruling party’s manifestoes that may
propagate a given ideology.
 The Thematic Perspective/Scope
The perspective focuses on themes, topical issues or problems and compares them within one or more
geographical units.
This can further be done by analyzing of a tropical issue in education and understanding it. For example
free primary education, universal primary education, education for all, free secondary education,
affordable secondary education, free basic education, universal higher education.
 The Historical Perspective
This is also known as the spatial perspective. It deals with the study of the development of comparative
education from the earliest (pre-historic) phase known as the period of Traveler’s Tales to the modern
phase referred to as the period of Social Sciences Perspectives.

The Aims of Comparative Education

The term aim means aspiration, design, end, intention, purpose etc.
The aim of comparative education therefore could mean the purpose that the discipline intends to
achieve in its quest to generate knowledge and help solve issues related to education.
The following are the widely accepted aims of the field of Comparative and International Education.
i. To provide a picture/profile of the education systems in various countries/ regions of the world.
ii. To enable a scholar to come up with a global description and classification of education in
various parts of the world.
iii. To determine the relations and aspects in education and society i.e. how does family size affect
education?
iv. To distinguish the fundamental elements of educational persistence and change and relate these
with philosophical laws.
v. To facilitate practical reform and planned development of the school system. In order to
achieve this aim, one requires to, establish the correlation of aims, customs, social norms and
educational system.
vi. To enable a scholar have greater understanding of the wider educational process.
vii. To promote the spirit of international understanding and co-operation among those who study
it, by promoting friendship, understanding other people’s points of view and appreciate other
people’s cultures.

The Purpose/Importance/Reason/Benefits for Studying Comparative Education

The following are the importance of studying comparative education.
 It helps develops a scholar’s cognitive skills for critical, comparative and complex thinking,
cultivate capacities for cross-cultural communication, adaptation, flexibility, tolerance,
empathy and enhance their ability to recognize differences and deepen their understanding of
themselves as well as the society.
 Contributes to the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity i.e. the desire to know more about the
education system of other nations as it meets the intellectual development.
 The study of comparative education contributes to better understanding of educational system,
practices, processes and outcomes.
 It also brings out the relationship between education and society.
 It contributes to the reform or improvement of system of education by providing a reference
point.
 Comparative education helps in the generation of knowledge, theories and practices in
education through research
  Comparative education fosters international understanding, peace and co-operation among
nations of the world. Discovering and appreciating what exists elsewhere replaces national
pride and prejudice with the objectivity of judgment that facilitates international harmony.
 The study of comparative education helps a scholar to understand differences and similarities
between their own educational system and others. This is the first step in appreciating that
countries develop educational systems to serve their own national interests, values and
aspirations, based on their unique context.
 Helps in achieving international standards in education: In today’s global village, comparative
education helps one be aware of international trends in education and guides countries on how
to give their citizens a universally relevant education.
 Assist in broadening one’s thinking when handling issues affecting the educational sector.

Rationale for the Study of the Field of Comparative Education

Rationale means an explanation of the basis or fundamental reasons for something. It also means a
justification for something.
There are a number of reasons that justify the study of comparative education. Some of these reasons
may include;
 Enhance one’s own understanding. To enable us understand our own education system in a
better way by knowing its origin and how it has evolved into what it is today.
 To generalize educational concepts. Helps us make general statements about how education
develops and also test how universally applicable existing theories in education are.
 To know other people. Through comparative education, one develops a reservoir of knowledge
which satisfies one’s intellectual curiosity besides enhancing intellectual enlightenment. Thus
it broadens our thinking when dealing with educational issues.
 To improve education at home. By studying other peoples’ systems of education, one gets to
develop a better perspective of their own education system.
 The study of comparative education helps one to discover the reforms that are desirable and
possible and how best to implement them, and also the successes to borrow as well as failures
to avoid.
 To make people practical. The study of comparative education helps one to get exposure to
knowledge in other disciplines in humanities and social sciences that also study human affair
so as to have a holistic picture of education.
 To learn true nature of a society. By studying education systems of other countries, comparative
education opens a window through which we can understand the society for often the school
reflect what the society looks like.
 Contributes to international understanding and goodwill. Comparative education fosters
international understanding, peace and co-operation among nations of the world.
 Problem solving. All nations face educational problems that require solutions. Comparative
education helps us to understand differences and similarities between our own system of
education and others.
In this regard one is able to appreciate the fact that countries develop educational system to
serve their own national objectives, interests, values and aspirations based on their unique
context hence solve problems facing them.
  International standards. In order to achieve international standards in education, comparative
education makes us aware of the international trends in education and guides countries on how
to give their citizens universally conscious and relevant education that fits in the global village.
 To expose people to innovations. Today people are using various media to conduct education
activities by use of modern technology.
 By studying other systems of education, one learns how to use such technology and their
benefits and this helps bring the necessary reforms in one’s own education system.
 Comparative education help examine the relationship between economic growth and the
quality of education in a country.

Characteristics of the Field Of Comparative Education

The following are the characteristics of comparative education;
i. As the varied definitions of comparative education suggests, the discipline is diverse, fluid and
responsive to global shifts and needs.
ii. It is a multicultural and global field that contributes to globalization and international
consciousness.
iii. It is also a multidisciplinary field that attends to the local and global incorporates scientific
theory and entails knowledge that is both broad and specialized (Sutter and Post, 2006)
iv. Sabina (2006), noted that the focal points of comparative education were theory and method.

2. PHASES/STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPARATIVE EDUCATION

Introduction
Comparative Education as presently conceptualized is distinct from other fields of education
foundations such as philosophy, sociology, and history. This field crystallized only in the twentieth
century and it derives its knowledge from different discipline such as history, sociology, anthropology,
geography, political science and philosophy hence its interdisciplinary nature.
The search for the origin of comparative education has made many scholars to search far back in time.
Friedrich Schneider and Franz Hilker in Germany, for example were active in searching for the
European precedent. In the United State of America, William Brickman led the quest for the original
comparative educator.

He published several articles on the subject in which he reached as far back as Herodotus (C484-425
B.C.) as a competent cultural comparativist in the ancient world. Various scholars have used different
stages/phases in classifying the development of this discipline. For example S.P. Chaube and A.
Chaube (2006) came up with three main stages while Sodhi (2006) divided the period into two major
periods. This study, however, is anchored on Wolhuter and Gathara’s (2014) seven phases in the
description of the development of comparative education.

The seven phases are not distinct as may be portrayed since some of them have been overlapping as
previous development run over two consecutive phases without a distinct boundary. Therefore, the
phases are only used for purposes of clarity of ideas and for the teacher trainee to grasp the required
content.
The Phases/Stages in the Development of Comparative Education
The development of comparative education can be studied in seven major phases or stages that are
based on the major characteristic activities. These phases are:
i. The phase of travellers’ tales from antiquity to 1817.
ii. The phase of selective education borrowing/pioneers from 1817-1900.
iii. The phase of concern for cultural contexts/philosophers from 1900 to end of world war two in 1945.
iv. The phase of social science perspective from end of world war two to present
v. Phase of heterodoxy: paradigm wars
vi. Phase of heterogeneity
vii. Contemporary trends

It is important to note that the phases used here to signify changes in the historical development of the
discipline are retrospective and imposed ones. They should not be seen as precise or sudden turning
points. The changes were gradual. Significantly, each phase is only for the purpose of organizing
information because in reality there are no such distinct phases. This is because towards the end of
each phase, for example, the next phase has already evident in the work of prospective observer. At
the same time, entry into a new phase does not mean a complete break with the earlier one.

i. The Phase of Travellers' Tale from Antiquity to 1817

This period covers the time from antiquity to around 1817 A.D. when Marc Antoinne Jullien De Paris
published his famous work "Plan and Preliminary Views for Work in Comparative Education".

Prior to this, writings on foreign education systems were mere descriptions of accounts of foreign
education systems by individuals who had opportunities for foreign travels. Visitations to other
countries – whether for purpose of commerce, conversations, curiosity or conflict – goes back to
ancient history of humankind. Everyone who had interest in the upbringing of children or in education,
tended to enquire into what went on in those communities they visited. The writings by the early writers
on comparative education drew examples from the societies other than their own. The motives for
accounts of travellers' tales were partly curiosity and the need for comparison. As they were visiting
the new lands they wrote about the education systems of the countries they visited. These travellers
included:

 Xenophon (c430-355B.C.)
He was Greek, described the training of Persian youths for citizenship and leadership. He compared
the aims and structure of Persian and Greek education systems, especially Sparta, which he admired
and wished Athens would copy.

He commented on the relationship between education and social occupation status in the two countries.
He also gave a detailed account of the education of the Persians in his bibliography of King Cyrus.
  Plato
In his two books, The Republic and The Law, he compared systems of education in Sparta and Athens.
He urged that the Athenians education system should borrow from the Spartan education system the
aspects of discipline.

 Cicero (106-43B.C)
He made comparisons between Greek and Roman education in his book De Republica (S7B.C) coming
in favour of the state controlled system as opposed to a family cantered system. He admired the training
in oratory of the Greeks and suggested that Romans should organize a better education system
controlled by the state like Sparta. In his book De Oratore he claimed that the Greeks were far better
than every other nation in the practice of eloquence.

 Tacitus (55-116A.D.)
He described education practices of Jews, customs of early Britons and characteristics of Germans. He
compared oratorical practices in several countries. He also contrasted the education in his own day
with that of the earlier period.

 Julius Caesar (102-42B.C.)

In his De Bello Gallico book IV he commented on education of Druidsa Celtic religious order of
priests, soothsayers, judges and poets in ancient Britain, Ireland and France. In his writings on the
Gallic wars, he commented on education of the Belgian Acquitanians and Celts.

 Marco Polo
He travelled to the court of Kublai Khan and reported about the Chinese system in the 13th century as
follows: "The natives of the city of Kinsey are men of peaceful character. They know nothing of
handling arms and keep none in their houses. You hear of no feuds or noisy quarrels or dissension of
any kind among them. Both their commercial dealings and in their manufactures, they are thoroughly
honest and truthful and there is such a degree of good will and neighbourly attachment among both
men and women that you would take the people who live in the same streets to be all one family- much
of this is attributed to their education in the classics."

 S. Well Williams
An American missionary writing in mid nineteenth century, he had this to say about the Chinese:
"Their conversations are full of filthy extraneous expressions and their lives of impure acts. Their
disregard of the truth has perhaps done more to lower their character than any other fault the alarming
extent of the use of opium- the universal practice of lying and dishonest dealings, the rowdiness of the
old and the young; harsh cruelty towards prisoners- all form a full unchecked torrent of human
depravity."
  Escalante
In 1544 A.D. he commented about the Japanese educational system and said:

"They read and write in the same manner as do the Chinese; their language is similar to Germans.
Instruction of the young is entrusted to learned tutors among the nobles, while the commoners send
their children to Buddhist temples."

 Matteo Ricci
In 1610 A.D. he praised the Chinese as follows: "Of the entire pagan sects known to Europe, I know
of no other people who fell fewer errors in the early ages of their antiquity than did the Chinese. The
books of rare wisdom of their ancient philosophers are still in existence and are filled with most
salutary advice on training men to be virtuous. In this particular respect, they seem to be quite the
equals of our own most distinguished philosophers."

 Alexis De Tocquevil/e (France)

He discussed educational systems of other states including the United States of America.

 Ibn Khaldum (1332-1406A.D.)

He was a Tunisian born Scholar, and made comparisons between the eastern Moslem culture and that
of the west. He emphasized the need to establish similarities and difference between the present and
past (or distantly located) conditions. He stressed the need to know the causes of the similarities in
certain cases and of the differences in others.

 Jacob Middendrop
He was sent from Germany to collect information about universities in France, Italy, Denmark, Poland
and Bohemia in the sixteenth century.

 William Petty
He was a professor of anatomy at Oxford and the founder of the Royal Society. He presented a more
scholarly approach to the observation of foreign countries in his book, "The Methods of Inquiring into
the state of any country".

 La Chatoluous
In 1763 he reported on the progress of education in Russian science education in an essay entitled,
"Essay on National Education."

 Diderot
In 1776 he presented Catherine II with a plan for raising the standard of the Russian education system,
which was based on the superior quality of the French education.

 Condorcet
After the French revolution he presented to the National Assembly on behalf of the Committee of
Public Instruction, recommendations for the development of French education based on comparison
with education found in England, Italy and Germany.
  I-tsing
An Asian, he wrote about the University OT, Nalaida in India, which was a centre of learning. He gave
details about teachers and students, buildings, its library and curriculum.

 Suleiman the merchant

He wrote about the Chinese and said that whether poor or rich, young or old, all the Chinese learnt to
trace the characters and to write and when the cost of living increased, the government issued food
from its reserves and sold it at less than the market price so effectively that the cost of living did not
rise and that in each town there was a school master for the institutions of the poor and their children.
The schoolmasters were supported at the expense of the treasury.

 Some contributions were made to the development of comparative education by learning

institutions especially, university type institutions of higher education during the period and
after the Renaissance and Reformation in Europe.

Characteristics of the Travellers’ Tale Phase

Interesting as those stories may have been to the reading public of their times, they were not scientific
accounts and had many shortcomings. Among them were;

 They were mostly descriptive. They were giving descriptive accounts of their journeys and
experiences in foreign lands.
 They were influenced by writer biases and prejudice since they gave descriptive accounts of
features in foreign systems of education as they saw them.
 They were not systematic because their attention to education was fragmented and generally
unsystematic.
 Most of them had gone to foreign lands for purposes other than education. In this regard their
statements included obvious exaggerations, understatements and at times deliberate falsehood
since the purpose of the author was usually to entertain.
 Although they were stimulating, they were superficial and piecemeal. Cultural biases were
prevalent. The observer was always gauging the one group as inferior to other. This at times
went hand in hand with racism.
 Most of this information had little comparative value since it was influenced by the curiosity
of the author.

Relevance of this Phase to Present Day Theory and Practice of Education

 Features of travellers' tales still remain with us in the work of journalism and education
trips/tours to foreign countries. Indeed their reports are informal, getting to know the
experiences of other societies. They form the first step to understanding education in other
countries. Stories given on return from visits to other countries/educational tours add flavour
to our teaching and learning in schools.
 Eyewitness accounts are still deemed as valuable in research work leading to improvements in
various systems of education.
 Reading of novels and stories about other countries are all commendable in our present day
educational practices.
  The use of guest speakers with lived experiences of other systems of education help enrich
other systems of education.

ii. The Phase of Selective Education Borrowing/Pioneers from 1817-1900.

This was the aftermath of the French revolution, industrial revolution, agrarian revolution and the
process of colonization characterized the 19th century Europe. Most education reformers of the time
were disturbed by the social and the political conditions of revolution and reactions of the early 19th
century Europe. In education, they saw the means of moral improvement and social amelioration.
Reformers were concerned that the ability of individual school systems to improve themselves seemed
limited-even where there was good intentions. What was needed was some way of sharing the best
ideas and practices available in many countries. This presented a significant change of approach
suggesting a more systematic and comprehensive collection of data and selective borrowing in
education.

This period was geared towards the development of methodology or systematic rules to be followed
in studying of comparative education. It was a drive to learn lessons from foreign education systems
for the purpose of borrowing ideas. This period is considered as the starting point of comparative
education, which is associated with Marie Antoinne Jullien De Paris' work Plan and Preliminary
Views for Work of Comparative Education. He seems to have had the foresight and concern for
systematic approach to comparative examination of educational institutions and practices.

Selective education borrowing was motivated by the desire to develop a methodology or system of
rules, to be followed in studying foreign systems of education. There was a drive to learn lessons from
foreign systems for purpose of borrowing ideas. Consequently the 19th century period saw journeys to
foreign countries by travellers with specialized interest in educational matters, there were serious
attempts at observation and study of other systems of education. The travellers no longer travelled for
general curiosity and enlightenment. They wanted to discover what was going on in education in other
countries in order to borrow aspects for improvement of their own systems of education.

Apart from the increase in the incidence of trips to other countries in search of improvement for home
systems of education, the 19th century was noteworthy for the establishment of national agencies for
the collection and dissemination of information about systems of education. For example the United
States Office of Education (1867), The Musee Pedagogigue in Paris (1879) and The Office of Special
Inquiries and Report in London (1895).

There were various contributors who are accredited to this phase. They involved Marc Antoinne Jullien
De Paris, Victor Cousin, Horace Mann, Henry Bernard, Matthew Arnold, K.D. Ushinsky and Peter the
Great.

 Victor Cousin
He lived in France at a time when Europe was in chaos after the Napoleonic wars. There was need to
bring reforms in France. He was a professor of philosophy and head of France’s national schools.
He investigated the education of Prussia with the aim of finding out how the French government could
set about instituting a national system of primary education through borrowing. His work was to
stimulate the French education system using foreign examples. Therefore it heralded the beginning of
borrowing as a motivation for conducting comparative education. In his reports in 1813, Cousin
recommended selective education borrowing from the Prussian experience. According to him, rivalries
and antipathies would be out of place. People of stature should not be afraid to borrow from whatever
and whenever it is appropriate.

Peter the Great

When Peter the Great embarked on his programme of modernizing Russia in the 1th century, he set a
precedent that has been assiduously followed by later reformers. He sought abroad for models of what
his country could become. His answers to the questions, "What has made Britain and Holland great?",
was the existence of systems of training that gave them superiority in industry, commerce, travel and
communication. As a result, Peter inspired by the English example of the naval academy and the Dutch
example of schools of Navigation, imported British teachers to staff similar schools in Russia. This
precedent was continued in the efforts of those 19th century travellers who sought to draw useful
examples from foreign lessons. For example, all through the century, American educators were visiting
the major European countries; English commissioners were inspecting European and American
schools; Russian educators went to France, Switzerland and Germany. Towards the close of the
century, Japanese emissaries were sent to Germany, France and England to bring back useful
information for developing the Japanese schools system.

Officials from the United States visited the Soviet Union in order to examine the contribution of the
soviet education to Russian development.

In the 19th century, as reformers manoeuvred to establish state responsibility for the provision of
schooling, the precursors of modern comparative education were drawn to study particularly Prussia
and then France, as models of well-developed national systems. In Prussia laws requiring each locality
to establish and maintain a school had been operating for nearly a century. In France the revolution
and the Napoleonic regime had produced a system of secondary education to serve state purpose.

 Marc Antoinne Jullien De Paris (1775-1848)

The prime example of work in comparative education motivated by the desire to gain useful lessons
from abroad is seen in the work of Jullien De Paris, "Plan and preliminary Views for the work of
comparative Education." This marked the beginning of modern comparative education. Jullien was
not only a cosmopolitan at the time of intense nationalism, but also an exponent of French
Enlightenment views. A rationalist, and heir to the philosophy of Condorcet and the encyclopedic, he
subscribed to the view that one should look at facts in a structured way and that on this basis alone,
proposals might be made to improve the conditions of the society. Jullien lived during the Napoleonic
Wars and was disturbed by the social and political conditions of revolution in the early 19th century
Europe. He saw education as a positive science, which could be utilized to improve the French society
through a systematic and rigorous approach of comparative analysis. Frustrated by politics in France,
he turned part of his energies to educational improvement. He was essentially a practical man,
preferring to base all programmes to improve education and society on systematic knowledge of what
actually existed.
He saw that the first task was to develop an instrument of collecting information on schools in some
of the France’s neighbouring countries. Jullien drafted an elaborate questionnaire for this purpose and
he hoped that the resulting comparison would spur backward countries to develop their educational
systems. Thus he sought to do more than merely collect objective data. He was ultimately concerned
with the problem of diffusing knowledge of educational innovation, influenced as he was by the ideas
of Rousseau and Pestalozzi. He wished to encourage a practical, child-centred educational
methodology that emphasized among other things, education of senses and preparation for life in
society, all with a strong humanitarian emphasis.

 John Griscom (1774-1852)

In America, educators too, were aware of the potential value of the schools for what is now termed
nation building, and for improving social conditions. They also hoped to find better teaching
techniques and looked to Prussia, Switzerland and Holland for model systems of teacher training and
supervision. John Griscom from New Jersey was one of the first to report on "a year in Europe". In
his preface he cited three reasons for studying European education and society. First, the United States
was expanding her cultural and trade contacts with European countries and consequently ought to
know more about Europe. Second, after a period of bitter hostility between the United States and
England, greater intimacy might lead to mutual understanding and a desirable pacification of
relationships. Finally, he submitted, there were lessons for American to learn from enterprising
developments in European education.

 Horace Mann (1796-1856)

He reported on his grand tour of selected European countries in the "Seventh Annual Report” to the
Board of Education of the State of Massachusetts. He argued that, "If we are wise enough to learn
from the experience of others, rather than wait the infliction consequent upon our own errors, we may
yet escape the magnitude and formidableness of those calamities under which some other communities
are now suffering. On the other hand, I do not hesitate to say, that there are many things abroad which
we, at home, should do well to imitate; things, some of which are here, as yet, mere matters of
speculation and theory, but which, they have long been in operation, and are now producing harvest
of rich and abundant blessings." Thus Mann sees the value of borrowing as a way of mitigating the
problems that are being faced with by a particular system of education. He visited Prussia, Scotland,
France, Germany, Holland and England. Experiences in these countries led him to conclude that
history provided an explanation for the conditions that he saw. He saw the role of history in
comparative education studies as that of illuminating present problems. He argued that many features
of Prussian education could be useful in America despite the gulf he saw between political and social
ideas of the two societies.

Joseph Kay (1821-1878)

Though the British during this period were much less prone to look abroad for models to emulate, there
were some noteworthy exceptions. Joseph Kay travelled extensively in Europe to examine the social
conditions and education of the people. Kay's motive was to collect foreign examples of improvement
in the conditions of the poor. He observed that Europe had much to teach England.
He noted that the remarkable improvement which had been witnessed in the conditions of a great part
of Germany and Swiss since 1800 A.D., having been the results of admirable and long continued
education given to all the children and the division of land among the poor/peasants.

 Matthew Arnold
He was a school administrator, poet, literary critic and political and social observer. He was active in
establishing a national system of education, particularly secondary schools. His practical studies of the
French and German systems, which included detailed historical and statistical materials, were designed
to make a particular case for reforms of education in England. He advocated for the expansion of state
activities in education because of what he had seen himself, on tours that took him several times to the
continent of Europe. He called on the people of England to look at what the French and the other
countries in the continent were doing. If this were done in England, or something on the same principle,
then the English system of education would be better. He stressed borrowing of positive points of
continental systems of education. He cautioned on the dangers of making comparisons based on
analysis of inadequate statistical data.

 Leo N. Tolstoy (1828-1910)

He was one of those observers who travelled abroad to inspect educational institutions but simply
rejected the foreign models out rightly. He was a writer, educator and a social critic. He was among
those in the 19th century who was interested in comparative education but was disenchanted with what
they saw. He returned from Western Europe convinced that what he had observed in foreign education
was completely unsuited to the further development of schools in Russia. Tolstoy was looking for an
education that would set humans free; he asserted on his return to Russia in 1862 that he had found
abroad only what would make people slaves. Consequently, he rejected out rightly the desirability of
Russia's borrowing from the West. Especially noteworthy is Tolstoy's vehement rejection of Prussian
system as a model for his own country at a time when admiration for Prussian schools was widespread
among comparative observers, whether from representative or autocratic political systems.

 Francis Wayland (1795-1865)

He was one of the few Americans observers prepared to out rightly dismiss the possibility of improving
education in the United states by imitating foreign examples. He was the president of Brown
University, who undertook a tour of England at the mid-century.

He condemned slavish imitation of the Oxford-Cambridge university tradition without considering

how utterly unsuited to American conditions must be institutions found for the education of the
medieval clergy and modified by the pressure of an all-powerful aristocracy.

 Henry Barnard
Though he was impressed by the superiority of the European teacher training system and schooling,
he voiced similar doubts like those of Wayland and Tolstoy. He asserted that Europe still did not
manage to turn out such practical and efficient men as the American common schools acting in concert
with their religious, social and political institutions.
If the aim in bringing up the young people is not merely instruction, he argued, but the building of
national character, the school combination of influences derived from school, home and society. Thus
though foreign institutions may be admired; they are not to be borrowed without careful thought.

 K.D. Ushinsky
In Russia, he read the works of European educational reformers and attempted to introduce many views
into schools with which he was associated. He visited foreign countries in order to observe educational
institutions and to conduct educational studies. He acknowledged national differences in systems of
education. Consequently, he emphasized the non-transferability of national traditions as they affect
education. However, he suggested the possible transfer of general schemes across national borders.

Characteristics of the Selective Borrowing Phase

 This phase comprised of cataloguing of descriptive educational data and then the comparison
of data with the hope of yielding the best educational practices as lessons for borrowing.
 The main motive of comparative education was utilitarian. The studies were descriptive in
nature but hardly analytical.
 Moreover, most writers in this stage of comparative education ignored not only the rather
obvious pitfalls of cultural biases, but also the technological problems arising from
international differences in terminology and statistical procedures.

The Relevance of the Selective Borrowing Phase to Present Day Education Theory and Practice
Despite the above shortcomings this phase is relevant to present day theory and practice of education.

 First, they were mainly descriptive and utilitarian in purpose. Descriptive studies are features
that are still relevant in education today. We also endevour to make education more utilitarian.
 Second, we still have visits to other countries or institutions, for the purpose of observing what
may be of value to be brought back and used at home.
 Lastly, there is the importance of learning from experience of others in order to improve
institutions in our own systems of education.
iii. The Phase of Concern for Cultural Context from 1900 to the End of Second World War-
1945
The publication in 1900 of short essays by Michael Sandler (1861-1943) ushered in new phase of
comparative studies in education. Although intimations of this approach may be discerned in the work
of some earlier writer notably Matthew Arnold in England, Wilhelm Dilthey in Germany, William T.
Harris in USA and P. E. Levasseur in France, from this point on, new prospects for comparative
education were revealed that were more comprehensive, more analytical and that had greater
explanatory potential.

The approach was more comprehensive because specific educational systems were regarded as the
contemporary outcomes of an identifiable set of historical and social forces and factors. The schools
of a particular country, it was argued, could be studied only as integral part of the society in which
they had developed. Parts of the school system could not be wretched out of their educational contexts,
nor could entire school system be examined in isolation from their total cultural environment.
The first works done within this phase characteristically gave as much attention to historical and
political developments outside the school as to the narration of events within the school system itself.
Later this heavy historical emphasis was gradually replaced by the growing data drawn from
economics and sociology. Many writers in comparative education had been content to offer descriptive
materials on foreign education school systems, implying that such facts in themselves had something
valuable to say. The rapidly growing social science and new works in historical methods tended to
deny that the facts outside a context of explanation could convey much. This critique was reflected
increasingly in the twentieth century work in comparative education, which now began to emphasize
dynamic analysis and explanations instead of static institutional descriptions. The concept of causation
that began to grow and eventually to dominate the field was combined with optimism about the
predictive value of causal analysis.

By the close of the 19th century, most governments were encouraging and even sponsoring studies of
foreign systems of education. Those involved in the studies became more concerned with problems of
comparison. It was not enough to accumulate masses of information about educational practices in
other countries or simply to borrow practices indiscriminately.

Questions of interpreting observed practices in context, and of judging or predicting whether a

particular arrangement of practice could be transplanted successfully in the home environment had to
be faced.

This phase was motivated by the need to move from the encyclopaedic, descriptive and sometimes
uncritical approach of the earlier phases to a more analytical approach. The trend towards analytical
studies of the interrelationship between education and society became more generally recognized.
There grew a concern to understand factors, which helped to shape systems of education. The problem
for comparativists was no longer one of selective borrowing, but of predicting the likely success of
educational transplant through knowledge of cultural context in both the donor and recipient countries.
Most comparativists have to account for the features existing in systems of education in terms of the
forces and factors that shaped them.
The individuals who made substantive contributions to the development of comparative education
during this phase were mainly philosophers, historians and sociologists. Some of the individuals to be
considered are:

 William T. Harris (1859-1909)

He recognized the necessity of discussing and examining the educational system of a country as an
entity, and accepted the thesis that education and society are intimately associated. To him comparative
education can reveal the general or the universal principles about the relationship of society and
education. To him, education breaks down caste systems and brings about a state of democracy.

However, he was more cautious on the use of statistics in education, particularly statistics of foreign
systems of education. He argued that each individual nation puts its own stamp on its system of
education. Therefore, it is not possible to borrow from another system as freely as one might like to,
because what is suitable for one social situation may not be suitable for another. This is because each
nation's education system is strongly affected by its culture and embodies ideas reflecting that culture.
  Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911)
He was a professor of philosophy and pedagogy at the University of Berlin. He stressed the total and
dynamic interactions of education and society. He believed that education should serve the larger
interests of the society, by putting into consideration that the lessons derived from comparative study
might serve as possible guides to bringing education and contemporary society closely together.

 Isaac Kandel (1881-1965)

He contributed a lot to the understanding of the relationship between education and the political and
social problem confronting a nation. In all his works, both as editor of the Educational Yearbook and
as the author of an impressing series of studies in comparative education, he advocated for the use of
historical, social and political data to explain the variety of educational outcomes.

He was a political liberal thinker who saw the progress of humanity as measured by the movement
towards more enlightened, individualistic and democratic school practices. In his classic textbook,
Comparative Education; published in 1933 at a time when economic depression, rising nationalism,
emergence of modern authoritarian ideologies and problems of democracy pre-empted the attention of
educators all over the world, Kandel viewed comparative education as a comparison of variant
philosophies of education based not on theories but on the actual practices that prevailed.

Broad social movements, political development and intellectual currents swept across national
boundaries and each country reacted differently to these disturbances. Kandel contributed to the theory
of school and society and to the theory of causation. The forces and factors that he identified are
nationalism, political ideology and historical antecedents. He emphasized the need to collect accurate
data and his emphasis was on cultural-historical context in which an education system develops. He
argued that the importance of studying the national character is that it would help one to understand
the character of the school by first understanding the country's national character, which is as a result
of the philosophy and history of that society.

 Nicholas Hans
He brought to comparative study the theory of causation and a search for explanation. Hans did more
than merely synthesize the separate themes found in the works of Levasseur, Sandler and Kandel. By
concentrating on relatively few factors and by addressing them historically he clarified the impact of
environmental forces on educational outcomes. He distinguished between natural factors such as race,
language, geographical location, climate and natural resources and ideological factors such as major
European religious traditions and the secular forces of humanism, socialism, nationalism and
democracy.

 Michael Sadler (1886-1943)

The work of Michael Sadler brought together the major separate strands of comparative education
exemplified in the individual efforts of Arnold, Harris, Dilthey and Levasseur.
From 1894-1895 Sadler was a member of the Bryce Commission on secondary education. For the next
eight years he was the director of the Office of Special Enquiries and Report at the Board of Education.
The special reports issued under his guidance were strongly historical, empirical and comparative.
Sadler's major theoretical contribution to comparative education is the axiom that the schools of the
society must be studied in the context of that society. He argued that all the good and true education is
an expression of national life and character. It is rooted in the history of the nation and fitted to its
need.

In his view, the critical value of studying foreign systems of education is that it would in turn be fitted
to study and understand our own. He called for attention to an awareness of the importance of the
schools' cultural context and the dangers of piecemeal education borrowing. He used sociological and
historical data to explain trends in education. His famous essay of 1900, "How far can we learn
anything of practical value from the study of foreign systems of education?" summarized his views on
the dynamic relationship of school and society and on the value of comparative education.

 Contributions by Institutions of Learning

In the 1930s and 1940s courses in comparative education became part of teacher training programmes
in many colleges and universities of the world. Where they become established they tended to use
books written by Kandel and Hans. The endevour of these individuals led to the founding of national
and international agencies, like the International Bureau of Education in Geneva in 1925. Among the
main functions of these agencies was to study educational problems of international nature and to
disseminate educational data worldwide.

The Relevance of this Phase to the Modern Pay theory and practice in Education
The phase has helped in the understanding of the forces and factors that shape the systems of education
globally.

The following are the main motivation for comparative education during this phase:
 Studying of educational problems of international nature.
 Promotion of humanitarian and international sentiments.
 Contribution to the solutions of the world's gravest social and political problems especially
those arising from nationalism and using education for social advancement.
 Outpouring of educational data by identifying worldwide movement in education such as basic
education and lifelong education.

This was accompanied by exchange of scholars and students as a way of helping developing countries
to improve their education system.

 Moreover the promotion of understanding and elimination of racial, ethnic and gender biasness
from books also motivated this stage.

iv. The Phase of Social Science Perspective from the End of World War Two in 1945 to
Present
Since the end of world war two in 1945 interest and activity in comparative education have developed
dramatically and especially in two main respects;
  The work of new and influential national and international agencies involved in educational
inquiry, planning and programme implementation. In these associations there were those
comparativists who saw the field's most productive future in terms of more active involvement
in international projects of an inquiring or potentially reformative kind.
 Increased activity in the study and teaching of comparative education as discipline in colleges,
universities and comparative education centres for research. This also points to a further shift
in emphasis on social science.

There was great emphasis to develop comparative education as a discipline. Efforts to sharpen
methodologies used were made. Most scholars, administrators and politicians saw comparative
education as a means for bringing international understanding and co-operation.
Getao (1996) noted that this era was characterized by the following forces;

 Explosion of knowledge especially in science and technology.

 Drive for more knowledge and globalization.
 Drive for liberty with the proclamation of human rights by UNESCO in 1948.
 Urbanization as a result of industrialization.
 Population explosion due to development of medical science where fifty percent of the
population is under twenty years.
 Drive for the reconstruction of peace to facilitate material, moral and spiritual reconstruction.
This is to help in removing suspicion and distrust among nations and promote good will and
cooperation among them.
The outcome of the above forces can be noticed in:

 Greater efforts to democratize education to make it available to all as a way of ensuring a

reasonable good life.
 Diversification of education to serve and suit diversified societies and communities.
 Greater concern and effort to provide quality education for the purpose of progress.
 Creation of international organizations like UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, UNEP in order to
promote human welfare, reconstruction of peace, democratization, diversification and
improvement of education and management of knowledge.

Motivation and characteristic activities of this Phase

 Since the end of Second World War in 1945, there has been less concern for analysis of
antecedent and more for analysis of contemporary relationships.
 The mode for analysis have been less historical and more quantitative and empirical drawing
on the techniques and conceptual frameworks 'of sociology, economics and political science in
particular. It has become important to collect facts. It has become necessary to organize and
interprets the collected facts.
 The comparativists have to change the collected facts into systems, and must offer explanation
and theories regarding the collected data. Consequently, the comparativist have been pre-
occupied with debate in an effort to identify the best method of conducting comparative
education studies so as to yield the most valid data, information and advice.
Some of the individuals who have contributed to the development of comparative education during
this phase include; Vernon Mallinson, Joseph A. Lauwerys, George Z.E. Bereday, Brian Holmes and
Edmund J. King.

Institutions of learning, various agencies and comparative education societies have also contributed to
the development of this phase. After World War Two University centres developed comparative
education studies.

Today they have developed comparative education as a discipline in various countries of the world in
Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and North America.

The scope of work in comparative education has broadened through the development of international,
regional and national agencies. For example the International Bureau of education, UNESCO,
UNICEF and many others. Their functions include: collecting, analysing and disseminating
educational documentation and information. They are involved in undertaking surveys and projects
studies in the field of comparative education.

Lastly, individuals interested in the field of comparative education have formed a number of societies
to promote comparative studies in education.

Their aims are: to initiate and co-ordinate research; and to cooperate with other persons and
organization in international and comparative studies.

In 1956 the comparative education society was established in New York. British and German sections
of the society were also established.

Similar comparative education societies have been organized in Canada, Korea, Japan, and in Africa.
Most of these societies are affiliated to the world council of comparative education societies.

v. The phase of Heterodoxy

A paradigm refers to the way in which a scientific community views their field of study, identifies
appropriate problems for study, and specifies legitimate concepts and methods.

Whereas, until the end of the 1960s, there existed among comparativists broad consensus as to these
issues, the 1970s saw the appearance of rival paradigms – in opposition to the ideas of the social
science phase - as Comparative Education entered an era of paradigm clashes or paradigm wars.

The reasons for the emergence of rival paradigms are not hard to find. By the early 1970s, educationists
were disillusioned with the societal effects of education, and the massive educational expansion
project, which had taken place worldwide since the early 1960s. For example, rather than promoting
economic growth, the 1970s saw the spectre of stagflation. Instead of eradicating unemployment, the
educational expansion brought the new phenomenon of schooled unemployment (cf. Blaug, 1973).
Jencks demonstrated on the basis of extensive empirical analysis in his book, Inequality: A
Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America, that education was no major
determinant of social mobility.
The first line of opposition to the ideas of the 1960s, was the conflict paradigm. Conflict theories saw
societies as consisting of a number of groups of unequal status and power, existing in a conflicting
relationship with each other. Education was seen as an instrument in the hands of the dominant group
whereby they (the dominant group) enshrined their position and kept the powerless subdued.

The following were the conflict paradigms: the theories of socio-economic reproduction and cultural
reproduction and dependency theory.

Sam Bowles and Harry Gintis' Schooling in Capitalist America: Education and reform contradictions
in economic life (1976) is widely viewed as the pace-setter for theories of economic reproduction.
Bowles and Gintis (1976) contend that schools which are attended by elite and middle class children,
respectively prepare them for or predetermine their roles as subordinates and rulers in a capitalist
economy. Cultural reproduction theories on the other hand shifted the focus from correspondence
between labour processes and education systems to the mediating role of culture in the production of
a stratified social system. In Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1977), Bourdieu and
Passeron (1977) deny the view that schools as independent institutions transmit neutral, independent
knowledge. The accepted body of knowledge at a particular time in history is determined by the ruling
class, and reflects their culture and interests.

Dependency theory however, projects economic and cultural correspondence theories on a world scale.
Dependency theorists such as Carnoy (1974), Arnove (1982) and Altbach (1982) contend that Western
industrialised nations dominate the economic and educational systems of the developing countries.
Such controls seek to maintain existing inequalities, and keep the third world independent.
The second line of attack against orthodoxy, which represents an attack against the conflict paradigm
too, was that of the proponents of the micro-analysis theories of ethnomethodology and
phenomenology. Heyman's "Comparative Education from an ethno methodological perspective"
(Comparative Education 15(3), 1979) held that comparative education has not provided any useful
knowledge to educational planners, policy makers and reformers, because of its decontextualized
commitment to social "facts" and its narrow interest in functional and structural relationships as well
as its focus on social science indicators rather than on interaction among participation in actual social
and educational environments. Ethno methodologists call for the observation, description and
interpretation of the reality of everyday existence in schools and classrooms (Paulston, 1994: 926).

vi. The Phase of Heterogeneity

During the late 1980s comparative education entered a new phase, which Paulston (1994) called a
phase of heterogeneity. The "paradigm wars" of the preceding two decades, when comparativists had
directed their heavy ordnance against each other, were replaced by a tolerance of diversity, even an
appreciation of the value thereof (Rust, 1996: 32; Wilson, 1994: 450, 451; Arnove, 2001: 497;
Psacharopoulos, 1990': 34; Masemann, 1990: 465).

The Zeitgeist of postmodernism entered the field of comparative education too. Postmodernism
rejected the idea of metanarratives (that is the idea that one perspective or paradigm contained the
entire truth and exclusively so) and plead for the acknowledgement of different perspectives or views.
While the conflict and the frameworks of the social science phase and of the phase before the social
science phase all remained very visible (cf. Wolhuter, 2008: 335-336), a plethora of new paradigms
appeared, some of which will be described in subsequent paragraphs.

 Cultural revitalisation offers an extension of conflict theories and focus on deliberate, organised
attempts to create more satisfactory cultures at both the national and local levels (Paulston,
1977: 388). Examples are Joseph Elder's (1971) article: 'The Decolonization of Educational
Culture: The Case of India" and Rolland Paulston's (1972)' article "Cultural Revitalisation and
Educational Change in Cuba".
 Pragmatic interactionist, such as Brian Holmes (1982) viewed educational change as neither
the outcome of deterministic frameworks (as both conflict theorists and those in the social
science tradition contend) nor as the outcome of pure chance. Human beings are free to take
decisions. Subscribing to Karl Popper's philosophy of piecemeal reform, as explained in his
book The Open Society and its Enemies (1945) Holmes emphasises the acceptance of specific
policy decisions for their instrumental value to attain a particular goal, rather than policy
formulation from a rigid, deterministic, ideological frame of reference.
 Critical ethnography is defined by Maeseman (1986) as studies which use a qualitative,
participant-observation method for data collection, but which, for the interpretation of the data,
use a corpus of theory in the conflict paradigm. This method entails participant-observation at
a small scale during the first phase of research, after which the data are placed in a larger
theoretical framework to make statements which the research subjects would never make about
themselves. An example of critical ethnography is Judith Marshall's (1993) publication on the
relation between literacy, power and democracy in Mozambique.
 At least two refinements or hybridizations of the theory of modernization theory (the theory
which places an unqualified belief in the power of education to act as agent of modernization
in a society). Paulston (1999) defines reflexive modernity as a position which, while still
clinging to the notion of a unitary space (metanarrative), is prepared to open space for other
perspectives/paradigms, in order to understand "what is going on". An example is Male's
(1980) study of multicultural education in Britain. Critical modernization, in turn, is reflexive
modernization theory's counterpart in the conflict paradigms stable.
 Critical modernists abide by the basic meaning of liberalization, but wants to blow new life
and credibility into the project by selectively involving ideas from other perspectives, in order
to shore up their positions. An example is Anne Hickling-Hudson's (1999) study of mistakes
made in the adult literacy campaigns during the socialist revolution in Granada (1979 - 1983).

vii. The Phase of Contemporary Trends

A recently published survey of the history and the present state of the field of comparative education,
Wolhuter (2008), came to the conclusion that the field is characterised by two equally strong trends,
namely a remarkable resilience/constancy amidst a broadening. The nation-state remains the most
common unit of analysis, amidst calls and moves to broaden the field to larger (global, regional) and
smaller (state, district, individual, class, individual) levels of analysis. Similarly, amidst a proliferation
of paradigms, the interwar "factors and factors" paradigm (outlined in phase three above), remains the
dominant.
That publication suggests that there is much scope for the expansion of comparative education, not
only in terms of more levels (levels other than the nation-state) of analysis, but also in terms of methods
and topics/themes of study. The problem with the current fixation on paradigms is that, while a
proliferation of paradigms makes for an interesting and dynamic field, there is the danger that sight
could easily be lost of its actual subject of study, namely education; and that amidst the diversity of
paradigms, comparative education tends to become irrelevant to addressing educational issues of the
day.

This concern has been expressed by several eminent comparativists (e.g. Welch, 2000;
Psacharopoulos, 1990; Biraimah, 2003 and Weeks et al., 2006). Many of the noble ideals of Jullien,
which had inspired the field, may fade away.

Two emerging focal points emerge. The first was prompted by the events of 9/11, which gave rise to
talk of a "post-9/11" comparative education. Perhaps the publication demonstrating this best, what
looks like it was probably a very ephemeral rallying point for scholars in the field, is Wayne Nelles'
(ed.) Comparative Education, Terrorism and Human Security: From Critical Pedagogy to Peace
Building (New York: Palgrave). However, this collection of essays does not go beyond giving a
number of "perspectives of others" and though very interesting and good quality scholarship, do not
live up to the promise of its title.

The second focal point is that of globalization; however, the way this theme gets treated in comparative
education too raises a number of concerns. Standaert (2008) distinguished between three stances viz-
aviz globalization: anti-globalisation; pro-globalization and other-globalization (the last category
means an acceptance of the principle of globalization, but a desire to have a different kind of
globalization than the one currently manifesting itself). In comparative education literature the anti-
globalization stance dominates (cf. Wolhuter, 2008: 334-335). The question could be asked as to
whether such an almost reality denying comparative education can be of any value? If it could be
accepted that globalization contains threats as well as unprecedented opportunities, then a promising
way to take the field forward would be to restore the philanthropic ideal of the father of the field,
Jullien, and to approach globalization with that ideal.

ACTIVITIES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

1) Name the seven phases constituting the historical development of comparative education and
outline the characteristics of each phase.
2) How can the activities of each phase assist with addressing some of the educational problems
your country is facing?
3) Page through the newspapers of the past week. Make of a list of the problems facing the world
and your country. Then, on the basis of what you have studied so far, decide:
(a) What role education can play to address those problems?
(b) What role comparative education can play in helping education addressing those problems?
 (c) Is comparative education in its present state well geared to play the role outline in b; if yes
why; if not, what developments/ improvements need to take place first in the field of
comparative education?

3. METHODOLOGIES IN COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

Introduction
Methodology in comparative education has been a subject of discussion by many comparative
educationists from the time the discipline was established. Like other social sciences, comparative
education has been studied at different stages of its development with different methodologies.
With many scholars from different fields showing interest in the discipline, the development of
methodologies of studies in social sciences, the expansion of knowledge and interdisciplinary
approaches, the interest of the countries of the world in each other and the coming up of bodies like
United Nations (UN) and its affiliate bodies like United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), United Nations International Children Fund(UNICEF) and International
Labour Organization (ILO) different methods have been applied in the study of this discipline.

Beginning with the simple narratives of education abroad during the traveler’s tales’ phase, the
discipline's methodological approaches have progressively evolved into the current application of
sophisticated methods of the social sciences, which are empirically based. Due to its diverse clientele
arising from its multidisciplinary nature, comparative education has failed to develop a single
universally accepted methodology of study (Kaime, G. K. J., 2006). As a result, it is currently
characterized by a multiplicity of debates and opinion of what method is best suitable for use. The
father of comparative education, March Antoinne Jullien de Paris, suggested a method of studying
comparative education and since then several comparative educationists have suggested alternative
methods of studying comparative education.

The debate about methodology of comparative education has been stimulated from time to time by the
need to produce valid answers and better understanding of the education systems, theory, practices and
problems. In the opinion of Getao, F. (1996), it became even more important after the Second World
War when comparative education became involved more in finding solutions to education problems
of the contemporary era. In their efforts to advise nations, countries' educational systems and
institutions, comparativists have sought even more vigorous for the best method to use.
Comparative education has been characterized by methodological controversy as a result of various
factors namely:

 It is a multi-disciplinary subject and so, the contributors are diverse: psychologists,

anthropologists, sociologists, educationists, philosophers, historians etc. and each of these
make a unique contribution.
 Diversity of the content/subject matter of comparative education as a discipline.
 Scope of comparative education is large – approach is triangulation.
  Lack of standardization of technical terms e.g. elementary education, basic education,
methodology typeset.

The methodologies in comparative education are largely categorized into;

 Traditional methodologies
 Modern methodologies.

The Traditional Methodologies

 Descriptive/Statistical Method/Approach
From the early times of the development of Comparative Education as a discipline, the most noticeable
aspect was that of description only. This method had neither any elaborately developed methodology
nor system nor details to the roots of the discipline. The method involved simple random descriptions.
However, overtime, this methodology has become prominent in the field of Comparative Education.
According to Kaime, G. K. J. (2006), descriptive method involves the systematic analysis and
documentation of educational systems, policies, and practices in different countries or regions to
facilitate borrowing of useful lessons from foreign countries. Researchers employing the descriptive
method may use a variety of tools, such as surveys, interviews, observations, and document analysis,
to gather information about schooling systems. They focus on providing accurate and detailed
descriptions of educational phenomena without necessarily aiming to establish causal relationships or
make value judgments (Steyn, H.J. and Wolhuter, C.C. (eds), 2008). For example, a comparative study
using the descriptive method might explore how different countries organize their primary education
systems. It could examine factors like the duration of primary schooling, the curriculum content,
teacher-student ratios, and the role of standardized testing. By gathering this information, researchers
can identify patterns, trends, and variations in schooling practices, contributing to a better
understanding of the diverse approaches to education globally. This approach is based on assumptions
such as;

 Education is composed of facts that can be observed, collected and analysed to facilitate
comparison and establishment of principles.

 Such data analysis and interpretation can lead to valid conclusions about the theory and practice
of education across different educational contexts.
The steps followed in this methodology include;
 Description of the facts/data and parts of each.
 Interpretation of the details described.
 Verification by an accurate and detailed inspection of the sources of information.
 Comparison of the features of education between countries.
  Generalizations and conclusions about similarities and differences in a national system of
education.
The limitations of the Descriptive Approach may include;

 Verification of the sources of information is not always possible due to costs and travel
constraints.
 Validity of data is questionable.
 Ambiguity of technical terms when applied to two different contexts.
 Inaccuracy of records/validity of data is questionable.
 The imprecision of certain non-standardized terms when applied in different national contexts.

 Selective Cultural Borrowing Method/Approach

It is based on the assumption that it is possible to study foreign system of education with the intention
of borrowing useful lessons from them to improve a country’s education system i.e. reform in one
society can be based upon the study of another. Method was first used by Plato in Sparta to make
suggestions on how it could be used to improve education in Athens.

Ways of Selective Borrowing

 Foreign experts can be invited to advice on education reforms e.g. Mackay on the 8-4-4 system.
 Asking local experts to make suggestions for the reform of the national system of education
based on the study of other systems e.g. Ominde 1964 commission, Kamunge 1988
commission and Koech 1998 commission.
 Sending experts abroad to study particular institutions with the intention of setting up a similar
one at home e.g. establishment of NYS in Kenya, University of Nairobi based on the
universities of Cambridge and Oxford University models.

Steps followed in this Methodology

 Collection of materials in different countries/cases.
 Description of materials collected.
 Comparison of the materials collected and described.
 Selective interpretation of material compared e.g. the context in different countries.
 Generalizations and selective borrowing.

 Historical Method/Approach
Method involved the search for cause and effect. It pursues antecedent causes of education policy.
Pursuit of the approach is motivated by the desire to discover universal causes of education practices
and to establish laws of education and therefore a science of education. The approach analyses the
causes, similarities and divergences and, it is expected to expose the necessity of understanding the
forces that influence any educational system.
Sholars like Isaac Kandel, Nicholas Hans, and Michael Sadler popularized this method. While they
basically agreed that selective cultural borrowing was possible, they emphasized that educational
policies and practices have both cause and effect to be found in each society’s unique historical
experience, or what Horace Mann called National Character. They advocated for the development of
science of comparative education to discover the universal historical causes or determinants of
educational practices and establish laws of education. This method involves examining the
development of educational systems and practices over time to understand their origins, evolution, and
impact on societies.

This method helps in understanding how social, cultural, economic, and political forces have
influenced the design and structure of schools. As a result, policymakers may benefit from historical
analysis to inform decisions and reforms based on lessons learned from the past. Historical method
relies on approaches such as archival research (archival materials such as documents, letters, and
official records to reconstruct the historical trajectory of schooling systems. These primary sources
provide valuable insights into the intentions behind educational policies and their implementation),
comparative chronology (the construction of comparative chronologies allows researchers to juxtapose
the development of education in different regions.

The Assumptions of the Historical Approach

 The practice, device, methods, organization – all details which go to make up an educational
system cannot be transferred intact from one environment to another.
 Education practices are to be adopted and not to be assimilated. Adopting requires that there is
an understanding of the cause of its existence.
 Education problems are generally universal but their nature is usually particular to a situation.
 In an effort to make comparison between countries, stress must be on certain factors like
political, social and cultural that shape the character of educational systems.

The Steps followed in Historical Approach

 Study each national system separately in its historical setting and its close connection with the
development of national character and culture.
 Collect data of various systems across national borders bearing in mind the importance of being
aware of the difference in methodology, classification and methods of gathering the data
between countries.
 Analyse the factors or forces historically responsible for creating differences between the
educational systems. Classification needs to be done in the manner of: natural factors (race,
language, environment etc); religious factors (Catholicism, Anglicanism, etc); and social
factors (humanitarianism, socialism and nationalism).

Limitations of the Historical Method

 The data on which the study is based may not be reliable because during data collection, due
care is not observed, therefore, the conclusions derived cannot be very useful.
 The historical materials about educational systems of various countries are generally not
reliable. This limits the utility of the historical data.
  Another difficulty with the historical method is that historians generally are not impartial in
their accounts. They want to conceal undesirable elements about the history of their own
country and look on facts relating to other countries with prejudice.
 In the historical method, the past is unduly emphasized thus, the study of comparative
education becomes imbalanced.

 Cross-national Comparative Methodology

Cross-national comparative methodology involves the systematic analysis of educational systems
across multiple countries. It encompasses the examination of various aspects of schooling, such as
curriculum, pedagogy, governance, management and outcomes. The methodology facilitates the
identification of similarities, differences, and factors influencing educational practices on a global
scale (Altbach, P., & Kelly, G., 1986). Rigorous research design is crucial, involving the selection of
countries, sampling methods, and data collection strategies. Comparative studies may adopt a single-
case or multiple-case design, depending on the research objectives. Primary and secondary data
sources are utilized to gather information on schooling practices while quantitative methods, such as
surveys and standardized tests, and qualitative methods, like interviews and case studies, contribute to
a holistic understanding. Identifying relevant variables and indicators is essential to measure and
compare educational phenomena.

The variables may include curriculum content, teacher-student ratios, funding mechanisms, and
assessment practices. Recognizing the socio-cultural, economic, and political context of each country
is vital for interpreting findings accurately. Comparative studies inform education policymakers by
highlighting successful practices that can be adopted or adapted.

It also assists in shaping evidence-based policies on a global scale offers a holistic view of schooling
practices, fostering a global understanding of education. It also enables the identification of best
practices and areas requiring improvement on an international scale.

Limitations of the Cross-national Comparative Approach

 The challenge of interpreting data without imposing cultural biases.
 What works in one cultural context may not be universally applicable.
 Ensuring uniformity in data collection across diverse educational systems is challenging.
 Standardized measures may not capture the essence of certain educational practices in different
cultural settings.

Scientific Approaches/Methods
The Characteristics of the Scientific Approaches/Methods
 They aim at objectivity in collection and interpretation of data.

 Aim to place the discipline of comparative education firmly in the social sciences and
distinguish it from others.

 The methods seek to establish, define, categorize comparisons to answer the question; what are
the units of comparison?
  Methods seek to establish systematic methods of data collection and analysis.

 Seeks to replicate results: to have same findings and conclusions arrived at elsewhere by
different researchers under the same conditions and procedures.

 Seek to define the discipline by method rather than by content. Distinguish comparative
education from other disciplines by employing unique methods not content.

 Problem Solving Approach/Method

Brian Holmes (1965) envisioned the field of comparative education as eminently practical in nature,
providing the basis for the solutions to educational problems. He spelt out a means of identifying a
problem and its possible solutions and further suggested ways of predicting the greater likelihood of a
particular reform bringing about a desired result.
For the success of this approach Holmes upheld the following assumptions.
 It is possible to use stages of reflective thinking as put forward by John Dewy.
 That the function of reflective thinking is to clear up a confused situation i.e., to solve
a problem.
 That testing is possible, that is, making logical deduction from the hypotheses within
the context of relevant factors and then comparing the predicted events with the actual
events, which are observed to flow from a selected course of action.
 That agreement between the predicted and observed events provides verification of the
hypothesis that is an explanation of events constitutes a successful solution of the
confused situation.
 That disagreement between the two types of events (predicted and observed) constitutes
a refutation of the hypothesis.
Holmes further suggested the steps that should be followed when using the problem-solving approach:

 Problem identification; this involves selection of vaguely perceived problem that

catches one’s interest e.g., general dissatisfaction with an aspect of education for
example poor examinations performance, students’ unrest, gender issues etc.
 Problem analysis; Intellectualize the vaguely perceived problem in general terms. A
description of the conditions under which the problem is found should be given.
Describe the trends that are related to the vaguely perceived problem.
 Proposed problem solutions; describe the reform proposals and policies put forward as
solutions to the problems. This will help by providing the suggested solutions to the
problem.
 Specification of the context; the fourth step will involve the identification and
description of factors, determinants and conditions likely to influence outcomes of the
proposed policy solutions (in no. 3 above). There are factors, conditions; determinants,
which, in our opinion, may have been over-looked by those who proposed solutions to
the vaguely perceived problem.
  Comparison; Compare the predicted or anticipated functional activities (based on
proposed policy solutions) with the actual observable practices. This is a verification
stage. Have things worked out as anticipated by those who proposed the solutions?
Compare with what you find out in relation to step 3 and step 4.
 Conclusion; On the basis of the findings from the study, conclusions and predictions
are made. Suggestions are then made for new lines of actions.
A variation on Holmes' method was proposed by Harold Noah and Max Eckstein (1969). They
proposed the following seven steps for comparative educational research:

 Problem identification
 Hypothesis formulation
 Empirical research in the light of the hypothesis,
 Selecting areas or aspects for comparison
 Collecting information
 Processing data
 Implications of results; constructing of theory.

 Systematic Area Study Approach/Method

George E. Bereday (1964) propounded this method and it had the following assumptions:

 We can use this approach to make analytical surveys of systems of education in various
countries or communities.

 The study of other education systems acts as a mirror for evaluation of one’s education
system.

 This study approach is multi-disciplinary in character. It is assumed that we can rely on

many fields of study for example sociology, history, economics, philosophy, geography,
and politics. Some of the issues we deal with are so complex that they present
methodological problems. Solutions to these problems are not possible without
multidisciplinary co-operation-we need skills other than educational knowledge, to make
sense out of the similarities and differences among education system.

Constituents of systematic areas study approach

The following are the steps that could be followed when using systematic area study approach:

 Description; description starts with, extensive reading. The resources may be primary,
secondary or auxiliary. These sources will help to describe how things are

 Interpretation; in this step we explain why things are as they are i.e.,
explaining/interpreting the collected information. We give reasons/justification for the
presence/absence of certain features in educational systems studied. The reasons may
be historical, geographical, social-cultural, economic, and political.
  Juxtaposition; in this step the information is put into groups or categories according to
those features, which can be, comparable and non-comparable features. In this way
similarities and differences can be clearly seen. The use of charts, bar graphs, and
sketches can be used to illustrate the information required.

 Comparison; we compare features in one system with those of other countries/

institutions under study. We take not of the similarities and differences and reason why
these are as they are.

 Suggestions, generalization and conclusion; on the basis of the findings in the foregoing
steps we draw conclusions and put forward suggestions for new lines of action. These
are based on factors behind the similarities and differences, which have been observed.

Edmund King (1968) proposed another method for comparative education research, a variation of the
method of Bereday. King sees the role of comparative education as assisting in educational policy
decision. The role of comparativists is to provide evidence for review and for new policy decision, and
to put forward, from comparative studies, the pros and cons of alternative policies. His proposed
method consists of the following steps:
 Problem; an educational problem is identified (by policy makers or by comparativists)

 Acquisition of data; policies pursued in education systems abroad in an effort to address

similar problems. These data are then arranged into patterns

 A comparative analysis is done, the pros and cons of different policy options in different
contexts are spelled out
 On the basis of the analysis done in (iii), policy making suggestions are made to the policy
makers
 The policy makers take a policy decision
 Policy implementation; the policy implementation is studied, revealing a new problem and
the cycle can re-commence at (i) above.

 Noah and Eckstein’s Scientific Method

Noah and Eckstein (1969) provided a brief evolution of the comparative methods in education.
According to them, comparative education began with observations about foreign peoples and their
education and developed into descriptions of foreign school systems. Inherent in this work was the
practical aims of borrowing from abroad useful education strategies or innovations for use at home.
The descriptive phase gradually expanded to include examination of social, political and historical
context in which school systems developed. A further dimension was the description of relationships
between education and social setting. A later development was the use of cross-national data to test
propositions about the relationship of education to society. In this view, comparative education is thus
part of the attempt to explain phenomena, first within educational systems and institutions and second,
surrounding education and linking it with its social environment.
Attempts to do the first lead to a concern with instruction, organization, supervision, administration
and finance.
Where attention is paid to teaching-learning process, in a number of countries, educational psychology
and particularly psychometrics are especially relevant. In so far as comparative education is concerned
with pedagogy, the work has largely been done by teachers, administrators, and educational
psychologists seeking to comprehend and possibly to improve the instructional work of schools and it
is useful to term this branch of subject comparative pedagogy. But to the extent that comparative
education has looked outside the confines of the classroom and the school system, its concerns and its
data have overlapped with interest of social sciences, some of whom have recently undertaken
systematic comparative study of education as a social phenomenon.

Noah and Eckstein (1969) conclude that comparative education has one foot firmly planted in
pedagogy and the other in the wider area of the social sciences. Two things unite these two fields in
comparative education. The first is the concern for the form and function of the school and the second
is the use of empirical and quantitative methods.

With regard to method, Noah and Eckstein argue that not all propositions in education and society
require cross-national treatment. But with respect to two types of validation, cross-national work is
mandatory. They point out that some generalizations simply cannot be tested using data from one
country alone, since there is not sufficient variation in the single case. For example a test of the
hypothesis that there is a relationship between centralization of the national educational administration
and students’ achievement levels inevitably requires cross-national inquiry.

In the second place, a single case permits no more than a particular statement to be made, and it is only
on the basis of cross-national re- search that propositions established by the study of a single case can
be generalized and further refined. If the results from another country confirm the results in one country
then the results are validated. If the results from one country conflict with the results in another country,
the investigator is forced to revisit or reconsider the research problem and probably take additional
factors and cases in order to develop a more comprehensive theory.

Noah and Eckstein (1969) proposed the use of empirical, quantitative methods of the social sciences.
They recommended the use of hypothesis for testing of cross-national data so as to build a scientific
base for comparative education.

Stages in Noah and Eckstein’s Scientific Method

 Identification of the problem: This involves the selection of a particular topic or issue that
can be studied comparatively. The selected problem should have a relationship between
education and social development.
 Development of a Hypothesis: Development of a hypothesis is based on a review of literature.
The hypothesis should be clear and focus on collection of specific data.
  Definition of Concepts and indicators: This involves the explanation and clarification of
concepts, indicators, and variables. The concepts and indicators must be measurable and
quantifiable. For example a concept such as self-reliance must be redefined to actual indicators
of self-reliance in the study. Remember that your definition of self-reliance will vary from
another person’s definition of self-reliance. In one context a person can identify the following
factors as indicators of self-reliance in an adult: ability to pay for medical bills, ability to own
a house or rent a house, ability to purchase food or grow food crops, and ability to purchase
clothes.
 Selection of cases for study: This involves of careful selection of countries or regions that
have basis for comparability and are relevant to the formula-ted hypothesis. The selected
countries or regions should be researchable and the number of cases small so that you can
manage the study.
 Collection of Data: This involves collection of data and should take into consideration
accessibility of data, relevance and reliability of data, challenges in terms of cooperation with
sources of data, and the issue of communication both in terms of travel and language.
 Manipulation of the Data: This involves actual comparison between systematically arranged
and quantifiable data from different countries.
 Interpretation of Results: This involves assessment of the findings of the study in relation to
the hypotheses and the findings’ relevance and then drawing conclusions.

4. THEORETICAL APPROACHES IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATION AND THEIR

APPLICATION TO ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Introduction
Definition
 A theory is an abstract and complex framework that try to explain and analyse social patterns
and structures.
 It is also a systematic explanation of the relationship between social phenomena.
 A set of assumptions about the relationship between social phenomena.
 A reasoned set of propositions, which are derived from and supported by sociological data
or evidence and contains interrelated and interconnected concepts which are meant to explain
social phenomena

Sociological theories are developed by sociologists to guide in sociological research as well as in

interpretation of sociological information/data. Social theories therefore provide sociologists with the
basis or foundation upon which social inquiry and research are based. Social theories view society
from different perspectives.
The following are the theoretical approaches in comparative education;

 Evolutionary and Neo-Evolutionary Theories

Developed by August Comte, Emile Durkheim, and Karl Marx. These theories borrow from the ideas
of Charles Darwin (1859):- “Origin of Species.”
Societies develop through stages from simple/ primitive to complex systems; that with this
development; social structures become more specialised and differentiated – playing special functions.

They believed that social development follows a common universal pattern whose characteristics can
be observed and described; social change is one-dimensional i.e. it follows a common pattern towards
a known direction. All societies have to follow the same continuum/ pattern – so all societies are at
different stages of development.

Simple/primitive Civilized/complex

Neo-evolutionary theorists acknowledge that societies do evolve through stages but argue that societies
do not necessarily have to follow similar pattern. Some societies skip certain stages due to borrowing
and diffusion.

Relevance to Education
 Education as a social structure has to adjust and adapt to social progress and change; and to
guide society through this change.
 Education has to maintain social stability.

 Structural - Functionalism
Structure is the skeleton, framework, the anatomy, the physical outlook while function is the
operational aspect of the object;its role.

These theories were developed by Herbert Spencer, Talcott Parsons, Emile Durkheim, and Robert
Merton.

Assumptions of Structural -Functionalism:

 That society is a set of interrelated parts that work together to produce a stable social system.
 Society is made up of structures
 Each social institution is structured differently from others
 Each social institution has a role that it is mandated to play
 All social institutions are interrelated and work in tandem for the common social good.

As a theoretical perspective, structural functionalism is an analogy between social systems and organic
systems. It claims that society like an organism is composed of a set of interrelated parts which work
in harmony to produce a stable social system. The nature of social institutions is understood in terms
of the functions of each of them plays in enhancing smooth running of society.

The existence of a social institution is justified by the role it plays in maintaining social stability. The
wellbeing of society depends on the working efficiency of its institutions and each social structure has
to play a vital or necessary function.
The different parts are however interdependent and work together to maintain social order (work in
tandem). Generally, each society is like an organism, with different parts.

According to structural – functionalism, any change in the function of a structure is in response to a

need arising in the wider society. This structure will be called upon to re-adjust and perform anew
function. This theory is however a bit simplistic because certain social structures play more than one
function and at times some are dysfunctional/ disruptive to social order.

Implied explanations of the theory

 In any human society, education is an integral and recognized social institution which is structured
especially to carry out a specialized function: educating the members of the society.

 The role/contributions and use of education towards the maintenance and development of a society
can be understood and explained through this theory. The theory provides a suitable way of finding
out whether certain structures e.g. school organization, teaching-learning facilities are fulfilling the
work satisfactorily and enabling the education institutions to do its work adequately.
 Using this theory, it is possible to explain and understand why an education process is valued in
society in terms of producing and providing highly skilled manpower. The theory provides an
understanding regarding why society selects and trains high performers as experts who would be
able to serve it adequately and thus help maintain the whole society.

 Theory implies how/why society is akin to giving out rewards like jobs and higher social status
using academic qualifications only. Qualifications like personal and social attributes are not so
much considered.
 Since the theory is a conservative strategy, if it is used by itself to explain education, it is liable to
make education to be accused of being similarly a conservative social institution.

The Theory’s Relevance to Education

 Education should be geared towards ensuring social continuity and stability by perpetuating
common social norms and values.
 Education has to serve the needs of society; Human Resource and development through skill
development, transmission of culture, socialization etc.
So any change in education should be as a result of interaction between educational system and society
and may follow the following pattern;
(i) When need arises in society.
(ii) Education is called upon to address the need.
(iii) Changes are made in the education system in order to make it perform/ meet the new challenge.

(iv) Education effectively addresses the need. Society maintains its state of equilibrium as education
assumes anew function.
This theory has been used as a framework for guiding educational policy and research e.g. Ominde
Commission (1964 December 19th) on the Aims of Education.
1968 Education Act, Revised 1970, 1980; Educational development should be consistent with national
plan for economic and social development of Kenya/education has to serve certain purpose.

1988:- Kamunge Report: - “Education and Manpower Training for the next Decade and Beyond.”
(Human Resource); Education has to perform function of manpower training.

 Symbolic Interactionism Theory

Theory developed by George Herbert Mead (1934) and Charles Horton Cooley (1909). The theory
argues that human interaction takes place through the use of symbols e.g. language, gestures: etc. These
symbols have meaning attached to them and they are culturally accepted. As human beings interact in
society, they tend to attach meanings to other people’s actions. By attaching meaning to actions, it
means we tend to interpret the meaning and symbol of communication. So human behaviour is not just
a response to stimulus rather the response is a considered opinion. Different people may react
differently to the same situation or stimulus depending on the interpretation they attach to it and even
the same individual may respond differently to the same stimulus. Symbolic interaction therefore refers
to a process where two or more people relate, taking each other into account by use of symbols.

The basic tenets of this theory include;

 The social life thrives largely not on human beings acting individually but on acting and
reacting towards each other, then connecting their acts, responses, behaviours and activities.

 The reality of social phenomena and systems is not fixed or stable and people need others to
help interpret, understand and even perceive this reality. In everyday life, each one is involved
in negotiating with others so as to know, for example, how to behave in society. The behaviour
keeps changing depending on social situations and circumstances. This means the reality of
social phenomena is not fixed: a feature that is important in influencing the interact in
perspective and the self which can be changed based on the kind of reflections one gets from
others in society.

 In order to engage in joint actions or interactions, individuals need to communicate with others
through the use of symbol. Symbols are most valuable means interaction. They include the
following:
o Language; both written and spoken
o Gestures; body, facial and hand
o Art; especially drawings, painting and carving
o Signs; caution, warnings, instructional, directional etc
o Music and drama
 For human beings to interact and communicate mutually, two aspects must occur:
o Ability to recognize, know and interpret a symbol(s)
o Ability to place the right meaning on a symbol(s) in this theory
  Every society must have and maintain a learning process that will enable its members to acquire
and recognize the popular symbols of interaction in it. It must enhance the abilities of the
members to learn, internalize, interpret and place the right meanings on the symbols. This
process is important to bring out the desired social interaction.

 Social events and activities are only able to acquire their distinguishing and desired character
and value in society because of the types of symbols and interactions they are given e.g.
wedding is an important social event associated with procreation, children family etc.

Summary of the Symbolic Interactionism Theory

The theory explains everyday behaviour focusing on patterns of daily life. Concentrates in explaining
nature of social relationships and how they develop among individuals in society.
The theory examines:

 How the process of social interaction occurs especially through use of mutually recognizable
symbols.

 How the social actors – the individuals in society – ascribe meanings on situations, their joint
actions and activities and finally interpret social phenomena.

 How individuals in social system/society are able to relate and communicate with each other.

 What symbols individuals in society value and use in order to understand each other and play
their roles in society e.g. language, gestures, expressions, greetings etc.

 Overall, theory functions in helping sociologists to conceptualise and map how the social actors
– individuals in society - behave relate and communicate in their everyday lives.

Relevance of Symbolic Interaction to Education

 Education is a social institution in which there are various phenomena, organization etc. all of
which are made up of instructors and learners. They interact using different symbols which
they give different meanings e.g. languages, gestures, signs, tools, rules and regulations used
in various ways and forms in the interest of delivering the learning materials.

 Language used; Education/school process should always be based on properly thought out
symbols which convey the correct meanings of the social life in a particular society. This would
guard against the learners being handicapped to understand the teacher. Familiarity of customs
and language makes it easy for contextual meaning.
 Medium of instruction; A school instructor should be conversant with/be able to interpret and
use/interpret, convey or transmit the symbols and their correct meanings to the learners in the
classroom. Teacher must know how to use recognizable symbols – words, tools etc.
recognizable during learning activities for effective social interaction.
 Teacher must use constant evaluations in class. This will help determine whether learners have
internalized, interpreted and applied the symbols correctly.
 Evaluations tell teacher the effectiveness of his interactions. Modifications will then be done if
teacher finds learners missing in symbolic interpretations of meanings and use of learning
activities.

 All indicators of negative symbolic meanings like teacher indifference, cruel punishment,
authoritarianism and others should not be used as part of the teaching/learning activities. This
conveys/instils negative meanings that are picked up and interpreted wrongly by the learners.
Learners should be exposed to positive symbols to assist them obey rules of the society.

 Development of attitudes; the school and any other teaching-learning situations get their
distinguishing characteristics and value different from other structures because of the social
events and activities that take place in them. Members of the society and other concerned
parties are thus enabled to perceive the distinguishing characteristics and value that accompany
the education phenomenon.