Abstract
The early origins of higher education in both Eastern and Western cultures included traditions of broad and general education, education of the whole person, known as liberal arts and sciences education, in contrast to more specialized practical or professional training. In response to the 21st century requirements for excellence and relevance in undergraduate education, new directions in liberal arts and science education are being explored and have inspired a renewed global dialogue.
Leaders and scholars in the field of liberal arts and sciences education from around the world joined this global dialogue during a small-scale seminar co-sponsored by the Harvard China Fund and Amsterdam University College, hosted by the Harvard Center Shanghai on May 20-21, 2015. They discussed regional trends and models and how these can be implemented in different contexts and across academic cultures, values, structures, and traditions. This Special Issue bears the fruits of this gathering with a selection of the papers that focus in particular on China, Japan, and India.
The country-specific articles are preceded by a comprehensive overview by Kara Godwin and Philip Altbach of the important historical changes in thinking about liberal education globally. They demonstrate how the concepts of liberal education have evolved over time and have adjusted to new roles and ideas about higher education. They also highlight the key trends observed in the early part of the 21st century, a resurgence of interest in liberal education for many different reasons in a variety of countries, spreading into Asia. They argue that this interest is motivated by a recognition that the highly specialized curriculum offered in much of the world is too limiting and narrow to serve the knowledge economy and rapidly changing conditions of the 21st century, as well as a commitment to instilling critical and independent thinking and writing skills in undergraduate students.
A number of our contributors have written on evolving trends in China, which is now home to the world’s largest system of higher education and has become a center of experimentation in liberal arts and sciences education. Throughout the world of Greater China (the People’s Republic, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) universities have implemented new programs of general education to supplement, and at times to supplant, technical and vocational curricula.
Jinghuan Shi and Yi Lu offer an extensive overview of educational reform in China and the place of general education in it, with particular attention to Beihang University, the new and small Xinya College at Tsinghua University, and Fudan University, where general education is now for all undergraduates, not a select few. The officially-sanctioned Chinese concept of “quality cultural education” as a central approach to the liberal art and sciences is explicated here for a broad audience. There are, it seems clear, alternative roadmaps for the future of the liberal arts and sciences in China.
On a more general level, Jiabin Zhu and Shaoxue Liu discuss the particular difficulties of “internationalizing” disciplines in the humanities, as distinct from the STEM fields. Ching-Fai Ng offers a hands-on perspective of the blending of international and Chinese cultures in a young institution, United International College, and its efforts to create a liberal arts education “with Chinese characteristics.”
Christian Etzrodt, Ronald Hrebenar, Michael Lacktorin, and Don Nilson share in their contribution experiences from two case studies of establishment of Western-style liberal arts programs in Japan; Akita International University (
Kathleen Modrowski follows up with insights from the creation of a liberal arts program in India’s Global Jindal University. Also there the liberal arts model was confronted with local culture and values, in particular the traditional roles of teacher and student in India, which reflect broader norms within Indian society. The extent to which Indian and non-Indian faculty are able to address these roles and related students’ expectations will determine whether they can adopt a unified pedagogy. Resistance against Western approaches need to be addressed and the ability of faculty to develop culturally blended methodologies is crucial for achieving effective teaching and learning in the liberal arts in a global classroom.
In the final contribution to this Special Issue, Austin Volz puts the timing of the liberal arts and science experience in a student’s learning career into perspective. What are actually the most appropriate times to receive such an education? Based on empirical research he argues that fostering the general cognitive skills such as critical thinking and problem solving do not provide a sufficient argument for positioning liberal arts and science in higher education, as these may form an important part of the secondary education curriculum. In contrast, as he argues, the moral-social growth of the students seems to be more uniquely facilitated through the liberal arts and science experience in the higher education context.
The set of papers combined in this Special Issue underline the scope for liberal arts and science education in Asia as a solution for training the much sought-after 21st-century (although not all so new) skills, like creativity and critical thinking. At the same time it illustrates that the model may present challenges in exactly the essential moral and social dimensions. In Asia, like in many other regions, (multi)national employers expect graduates to be creative and critical thinkers, able to communicate effectively and to demonstrate international understanding and intercultural awareness, including fluency in at least one foreign language. But these skills cannot be singled out as technical and economic benefits from the political and social institutions that nurture the broader mindset required for actual progress in the global context. The aim of educating the whole person, as a responsible citizen yet intellectually free person, which is so central to the philosophy of a liberal arts and sciences education, and especially to the notion of global citizenship, with the concomitant valuing of pluralism and interculturalism, may contrast with the political and cultural persuasions of countries intolerant of certain non-national/foreign values. Consequently, the real challenge for Asia is to combine the social-moral benefits of the liberal arts model with the strong demand for its economic and utilitarian contributions.
At the more practical level, cultural traditions and values define the expectations of students as well as the roles and skills of the faculty. For the model to florish in a non-Western context, the perception, understanding, and interpretation of liberal arts and science education define its “cultural fit.” The essential pedagogies that underpin and enrich the liberal arts and sciences model, especially in a global classroom and setting, are the other most challenging element for its successful implementation in Asia.
For the future, students and faculty have to find a common ground. To understand that humanistic, moral, and ethical values need to be contextualized in national and regional traditions. Yet a liberal arts and sciences education cannot be offered in the absence of academic and personal freedom.
We hope that these contributions will provide a basis for a continued dialogue on new directions for liberal arts and science education in Asia for the years to come in support of the essential goals of liberal arts and sciences education today: educating the whole person for a global world. We would like to thank the authors for sharing their visions and experiences in shaping and discovering new directions in liberal arts and science education in Asia. We also thank Austin Volz for his excellent assistance in editing this Special Issue and Julia Cai and the staff of the Harvard Center Shanghai for their professional support during the seminar.