UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY STUDIES
ADMPS 3343: COMPARATIVE EDUCATION
Spring 2015
INSTRUCTOR: M. Najeeb Shafiq
Associate Professor of Education, Economics
& International Affairs
CONTACT INFO.: Phone: (412) 648-1832
Room: 5909 Posvar Hall
Email:
CLASS TIME: Wednesdays 4:30 - 7:10 PM
CLASS LOCATION: 5401 Posvar Hall
OFFICE HOURS: Thursdays 5:00 - 6:30 PM
To make an appointment please leave an email message.
GRADUATE ASST.: Jessica Mason
Email:
OVERVIEW
“The practical value of studying in a right spirit and with scholarly accuracy the working of foreign systems of education is that it will result in our being better fitted to study and understand our own.”
Michael Sadler, 1900
How Far Can We Learn Anything of Practical Value from Study of Foreign Systems of Education,” Reprinted in 1964 Comparative Education Review 7, pp. 307-314.
This introductory course on comparative education has two complementary goals. First, it should provide students with some of the information and concepts necessary for comparing different school systems, their contexts, and educational outcomes. Second, the course should help students sharpen their own research and analytic skills for independent, comparative insight about a specific education system (e.g. the American education system). If these goals are achieved, students should be able to form judgments about which aspects of a nation’s education system are unique to a particular context (e.g., to the U.S.) and which aspects represent features found generally in other schools throughout the world. This ability is important for policy analysts who want to improve education systems anywhere.
Each class, we will cover a major topic in comparative education. A class will generally consist of extensive discussions about a theoretical piece and another piece that provides a test of the theory. Students will be exposed to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods of testing theories in comparative education. Because of this seminar’s courses emphasis on testable theories, we will not cover several well-known contributions in comparative education. We will also avoid theories and approaches that have limited applicability for policy analysis.
REQUIRED READINGS AND PARTICIPANT RESPONSIBILITIES
The majority of readings will be made available through CourseWeb (Blackboard) at http://courseweb.pitt.edu. Other readings will be distributed in class. Optional readings will be made available upon request. You are strongly encouraged to log into the CourseWeb (Blackboard) web site each day prior to class to check for additional information and materials for class.
GRADING
Response Forms 25 points
Class attendance & participation 10 points
Take-home assignment 25 points
Research paper abstract & presentation 5 points
Final paper 35 points
100 points
Response forms: Each class, it is imperative that members of the class read the assigned readings in a timely (i.e., by the time class meets) and thorough fashion. Members of the class will be asked to fill out a Response Form prior to attending class. Completion of the Response Form is a student’s ticket to attend class. This course requirement is aimed at ensuring lively and insightful discussion during meetings of the class. Each Response Form should be 1 double-spaced page in length, and will be graded check plus or check minus. Readings that require a Response Form are marked [RF]. A template of the Response Form tis attached at the back of this syllabus.
Class attendance participation: Class participation is very important. Those who come to class regularly, punctually, and prepared (and willing) to discuss the readings will get maximum credit for class participation. Please contact the instructor if you are unable to attend class.
Take home assignment: For the assignments, you are free to consult your notes and articles but may not consult with your colleagues. Take-home assignments must be submitted via email to the instructor or GA. Points may be deducted for late assignments.
Final paper: The purpose of the final paper is for students to develop a research topic that can eventually evolve into a conference paper, masters thesis, or doctoral dissertation.
The section titles and double-spaced page lengths are as follows:
Section I: Introduction (1 page)
Section II: Conceptual Framework/ Theory (2 pages)
Section III: Background(s) of Region(s) and Education System(s) (2 pages)
Section IV: Critical Literature Review of Existing Research (6 pages that cite at least 8 articles)
Section V: Conclusion and Research Gap(s) (1 page)
ERIC (http://www.eric.ed.gov/) is an excellent source for finding relevant literature.
Final paper presentation: Using PowerPoint, students will present the essential points of their papers to their colleagues in a 10-minute presentation on the last day of class.
Grading: A: 92.5-100; A-: 87.5-92; B+: 82.5-87; B: 77.5-82; B-: 72.5-77. If the standard of an assignment or final paper does not meet minimum standards, you will be asked to submit a revised version. The highest grade for a revised assignment is B.
The letter grades should be interpreted as follows:
A Outstanding achievement. B- Fair achievement.
A- Excellent achievement. C+ Not wholly satisfactory achievement.
B+ Very good achievement. C Marginal achievement.
B Good achievement C- Unsatisfactory achievement.
F Fail
FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
If you have a disability for which you are or may be requesting an accommodation, you are encouraged to contact both your instructor and the Office of Disability Resources and Services, 216 William Pitt Union, (412) 648-7890; (412) 383-7355 (TTY) as early as possible in the term. DRS will verify your disability and determine reasonable accommodations for this course.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Students in this course will be expected to comply with theUniversity of Pittsburgh's Policy on Academic Integrity. Any student suspected of violating this obligation for any reason during the semester will be required to participate in the procedural process, initiated at the instructor level, as outlined in the University Guidelines on Academic Integrity. This may include, but is not limited to, the confiscation of the examination of any individual suspected of violating University Policy. Furthermore, no student may bring any unauthorized materials to an exam, including dictionaries and programmable calculators.
DISABILITY SERVICES
If you have a disability that requires special testing accommodations or other classroom modifications, you need to notify both the instructor andDisability Resources and Servicesno later than the second week of the term. You may be asked to provide documentation of your disability to determine the appropriateness of accommodations. To notify Disability Resources and Services, call (412) 648-7890 (Voice or TTD) to schedule an appointment. The Disability Resources and Services office is located in 140 William Pitt Union on the Oakland campus.
STATEMENT ON CLASSROOM RECORDING
To ensure the free and open discussion of ideas, students may not record classroom lectures, discussion and/or activities without the advance written permission of the instructor, and any such recording properly approved in advance can be used solely for the student’s own private use.
PRELIMINARY COURSE OUTLINE
Topic 1: Introduction
7 January 2015
Review of syllabus
Student introductions
(Optional) Collins, Randall (1994). “Prologue: The Rise of the Social Sciences,” in Four Sociological Traditions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Topic 2: The Origins and Usefulness of Comparative Education
14 January 2015
Phillips, David and Michele Schweisfurth (2008). “Chapter 1: Making Comparisons,” in Comparative and International Education: An Introduction to Theory, Method, and Practice, pp. 8-27. New York: Continuum. [RF]
Phillips, David and Michele Schweisfurth (2008). “Chapter 2: How Comparative Education has Developed,” in Comparative and International Education: An Introduction to Theory, Method, and Practice, pp. 28-42. New York: Continuum. [RF]
Farrell, Joseph (1979). “The Necessity of Comparisons in the Study of Education: The Salience of Science and the Problem of Comparability,” Comparative Education Review 23(1), pp. 255-261. [RF]
(Optional) Noah, Harold and Max Eckstein (1969). Toward a Science of Comparative Education. New York: Macmillan.
(Optional) Bray, Mark and R. Murray Thomas (1995). “Levels of Comparison in Education: Different Insights from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel Analysis,” Harvard Educational Review 65(3), pp. 472-490.
(Optional) Rust, Val (2004). “Method and Methodology in Comparative Education,” Comparative Education Review 47(3), iii-vii.
(Optional) Humphries, Jane (2003). “Child Labor: Lessons from the Historical Experiences of Today’s Industrialized Countries,” World Bank Economic Review 17(2), pp. 175-196.
(Optional) Sadler, Michael (1900). “How Far Can We Learn Anything of Practical Value from Study of Foreign Systems of Education,” Reprinted in 1964 Comparative Education Review 7, pp. 307-314.
Topic 3: Human Capital
21 January 2015
Eide, Eric and Mark Showalter (2010) “Human Capital,” In Dominic Brewer and Patrick McEwan, eds., Economics of Education, pp. 27-32. [RF]
Schultz, Theodore (1980). “Nobel Lecture: The Economics of Being Poor,” Journal of Political Economy 88, pp. 639-651. [RF]
Levin, Henry (1984). “Assessing the Equalization Potential of Education,” Comparative Education Review 28(1), pp. 11-27. [RF]
(Optional) Colclough, Christopher, Geeta Kingdon, and Harry Patrinos (2011). “The Changing Pattern of Wage Returns to Education and Its Implications,” Development Policy Review 28(6), pp. 733-747.
(Optional) Pritchett, Lant (2001). “Where has all the Education Gone?” World Bank Economic Review 15(3), pp. 367-391.
(Optional) Oreopoulos, Philip, and Kjell Salvanes (2011). “Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(1), pp. 159-184.
Topic 3: Social Capital and Family Effects
28 January 2015
Coleman, James (1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital,” American Journal of Sociology 94, pp. S95-S120. [RF]
Hannum, Emily, Jihong Liu and Edward Frongillo (2014). “Poverty, Food Insecurity and Nutritional Deprivation in Rural China: Implications for Children’s Literacy Achievement,” International Journal of Educational Development 34, pp. 90-97. [RF]
(Optional) Booth, Margaret (1996). “Parental Availability and Academic Achievement among Swazi Rural Primary School Children,” Comparative Education Review 49(2), pp. 230-261.
(Optional) Chudgar, Amita and M. Najeeb Shafiq (2010). “The Impact of Home and Community Factors on Schooling in South Asia,” Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education 40(4), pp. 517-534.
Topic 4: School Quality
4 February 2015
Levin, Henry (1992).“Effective Schools in Comparative Focus.” In Phillip Altbach, Robert Arnove, and Gail Kelly (Eds.), Emergent Issues in Education: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 229-248. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. [RF]
Heyneman, Stephen and William Loxley (1983). “The Effect of Primary-School Quality on Academic Achievement Across Twenty-Nine High- and Low-Income Countries,” American Journal of Sociology 88(6), pp. 1162-1194. [RF]
(Optional) Schiefelbein, Ernesto and Joseph Farrell (1978). “Selectivity and Survival in the Schools of Chile,” Comparative Education Review 22(2), pp. 326-341.
(Optional) Wagner, Daniel (2010). “Quality of Education, Comparability, and Assessment Choices in Developing Countries,” Compare 40(6), pp. 741-760.
Topic 5: Comparing The Roles of the Capitals and School Quality
11 February 2015
Carnoy, Martin and Jeffrey Marshall (2005). “Comparing Cuban Academic Performance with the Rest of Latin America,” Comparative Education Review 49(2), pp. 230-261. [RF]
Sorensen, Clark (1994). “Success and Education in South Korea,” Comparative Education Review 38(1), pp. 10-35. [RF]
(Optional) Reimers, Fernando (2001). Unequal Schools, Unequal Chances: The Challenges to Equal Opportunity in the Americas. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
(Optional) Chattopadhay, Tamo (2014). “School as a Site of Student Social Capital: An Exploratory Study from Brazil,” International Journal of Educational Development 34, pp. 67-76.
(Optional) Schiefelbein, Ernesto and Joseph Farrell (1984). “Education and Occupational Attainment in Chile: The Effect of Educational Quality, Attainment, and Achievement,” American Journal of Education 92(2), pp. 125-162.
(Optional) Coleman, James (1975). “Equal Educational Opportunity,” Oxford Review of Education 1(1), pp. 25-29.
Topic 6: Alternative Student Outcomes
18 February 2015
Emler, Nicholas and Elizabeth Frazer (1999). “Politics: The Education Effect,” Oxford Review of Education 25(1/2), pp. 251-273. [RF]
Torney-Purta, Judith and Jo-Ann Amadeo (2003). “A Cross-National Analysis of Political and Civic Involvement among Adolescents,” Political Science and Politics 2, pp. 269-274. [RF]
(Optional) Shafiq, M. Najeeb and Karen Ross (2010). “Educational Attainment and Attitudes towards War in Muslim Countries Contemplating War: The Cases of Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Turkey,” Journal of Development Studies 46(8), pp. 1424-1441.
(Optional) Evans, Peter and Pauline Rose (2011). “Education and Support for Democracy in Africa: Testing Mechanisms of Influence,” Journal of Development Studies 48(4), pp. 498-515.
(Optional) Bajaj, Monisha (2011). Schooling for Social Change: The Rise and Impact of Human Rights Education in India. New York & London: Continuum Publishers.
(Optional) Finkel, Steven (2002). “Civic Education and the Mobilization of Political Participation in Developing Democracies,” Journal of Politics 64, pp. 994-1020.
(Optional) McGinn, Noel and Susan Street (1984). “Has Mexican Education Generated Human or Political Capital?” Comparative Education 20(3), pp. 323-338.
(Optional) Shafiq, M. Najeeb and Abdulkader Sinno (2010). “Education, Income, and Attitudes on Suicide Bombing: Evidence from Six Muslim Countries,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 54(1), pp. 146-178.
Topic 7: World Systems, Dependency, and Neocolonial Theories
25 February 2015
Ginsburg, Mark, Susan Cooper, Rajeshwari Raghu, and Hugo Zegarra (1990). “National and World System Explanations of Educational Reform,” Comparative Education Review 34(4), pp. 474-499. [RF]
Altbach, Phillip (1977). “Servitude of the Mind? Education, Dependency, and Neo-Colonialism,” Teachers College Record 79(2), pp. 187-203.
Samoff, Joel (1999). “Education Sector Analysis in Africa: Limited National Control and Even Less National Ownership,” International Journal of Educational Development 19, pp. 249-272. [RF]
(Optional) Arnove, Robert (1980). “Comparative Education and World Systems Analysis,” Comparative Education Review 24(1), pp. 48-62.
(Optional) Carnoy, Martin (1974). “Education for Development or Domination?” In Education and Cultural Imperialism, pp. 31-77. New York: Longmans.
(Optional) Mundy, Karen (1998). “Educational Multilateralism and World (dis)Order,” Comparative Education Review 42(4), pp. 448-478.
Topic 9: Neo-Institutional Approaches
4 March 2015
Wiseman, Alexander, M. Fernanda Astiz and David Baker (2014). “Comparative Education Research Framed by Neo-Institutional Theory: A Review of Diverse Approaches and Conflicting Assumptions,” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 44(5), pp. 688-709.
Meyer, John, Joane Nagel, and Conrad Snyder (1993). “The Expansion of Mass Education in Botswana: Local and World Society Perspectives,” Comparative Education Review 37(4), pp. 454-475. [RF]
(Optional) Baker, David and Gerald LeTendre (2005). National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and the Future of Schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.