This study discussed how Shanghai students’ performance in the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment was related to its social context. We used a critical discourse analysis approach to identify discourses underlying the students’ performance. Our analysis of texts from different sources both in the United States and China revealed that nationalism, knowledge economy, and neoliberalism were major underlying discourses. The study also showed that media reports tended to focus on the comparison of Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores of different countries and oversimplified the ranking, which might impede discussions of problems in the educational systems of these countries.
AndrewsP. (2013). What does PISA performance tell us about mathematics teaching quality? Case studies from Finland and Flanders. In MeyerH., & BenavotA. (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 99–116). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
2.
BenvenisteL. (2002). The political structuration of assessment: Negotiating state power and legitimacy.Comparative Education Review,46(1), 89–118.
3.
CoxK. R. (Ed.) (1997). Globalization and its politics in question.Spaces of globalization: Reasserting the power of local (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
4.
Davidson-HardenA., & MajhanovichS. (2004). Privatisation of education in Canada: A survey of trends.International Review of Education,50(3-4), 263–287.
DruckerP. (1993). Post-capitalist society.New York, NY: Harper.
7.
FaircloughN. (2010). Language and globalization.Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (pp. 454–477). Edinburgh Gate, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
8.
FalcousM., & MaguireJ. (2006). Imagining America: The NBA and local-global mediascapes.International Review for the Sociology of Sports,41(1), 59–78.
9.
FrankelJ. A. (2000). Globalization of the economy. Retrieved from the National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7858.
GrekS. (2009). Governing by numbers: the PISA’ effect’ in Europe.Journal of Education Policy,24(1), 23–37.
12.
HarveyD. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
HellerM. (2003). Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity.Journal of Sociolinguistics,7(4), 473–492.
14.
HirschJ. (1997). Globalization of capital, nation-states and democracy.Studies in Political Economy,54, 39–58.
15.
HugonnierB. (2007). Globalization and education: Can the world meet the challenge. In Suarez-OrozcoM. M. (Ed.), Learning in the new global era: International perspectives on globalization and education (pp. 137–156). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16.
HurshD. (2008, May/June). Neoliberalism and the control of teachers, students, and learning: The rise of standards, standardization, and accountability. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.rougeforum.org/CSSE2008/
17.
HurshD. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies.American Educational Research Journal,44(3), 493–518.
18.
ItkonenT., & JahnukainenM. (2007). An analysis of accountability policies in Finland and the United States.International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,54(1), 5–23.
19.
KamensD. H. (2013). Globalization, and the emergence of an audit culture: PISA and the search for ‘best practices’ and magic bullets. In MeyerH., & BenavotA. (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 117–140). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
20.
KamensD. H., & McNeelyC. L. (2010). Globalization and the growth of international educational testing and national assessment.Comparative Education Review,54(1), 5–25.
21.
KellaghanT. (2001). The globalization of assessment in the 20th century education.Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,8(1), 87–102.
22.
KimM., LavonenJ., & OgawaM. (2009). Experts’ opinions on the high achievement of scientific literacy in PISA 2003: A comparative study in Finland and Korea.Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,5(4), 379–393.
23.
LavonenJ., & LaaksonenS. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,46(8), 922–944.
24.
LockheedM. (2013). Causes and consequences of international assessment in developing countries. In MeyerH., & BenavotA. (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 163–184). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
25.
LynchK. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketization: The implications for higher education,European Educational Research Journal,5(1), 1–17. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.1
26.
MahonR., & McBrideS. (2009). Standardizing and disseminating knowledge: the role of the OECD in global governance.European Political Science Review,1(1), 83–101.
27.
MarshallR., & TuckerM. (1992). Thinking for a living: Education and the wealth of nations.New York, NY: BasicBooks.
28.
MeyerH., & BenavotA. (2013). PISA and the globalization of education governance: Some puzzles and problems. In MeyerH., & BenavotA. (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 7–26). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
29.
OlssenM., & PetersM. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism.Journal of Education Policy,20(3), 313–345.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2012). OECD program for international student assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/
32.
RautalinM., & AlasuutariP. (2009). The uses of the national PISA results by Finnish officials in central government,Journal of Education Policy,24(5), 539–556.
33.
RutkowskiD. J. (2007). Converging us softly: How intergovernmental organizations promote neoliberal educational policy.Critical Studies in Education,48(2), 229–247.
34.
RutkowskiL., GonzalezE., JoncasM., & von DavierM. (2010). International large-scale assessment data: Issues in secondary analysis and reporting.Educational Researcher,39(2), 142–151.
35.
PorterM. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations.New York, NY: Free Press.
36.
SahlbergP. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational Change in Finland.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
37.
SchmidtW., BlömekeS., TattoM. T., HsiehF. -J., CoganL.S., HouangR. T. (2011). Teacher education matters: A study of middle school mathematics teacher preparation in six countries. Retrieved from http://www.TeacherEducationMatters.com.
38.
SellarS., & LingardB. (2013). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education.British Educational Research Journal. Doi: 10.1002/berj.3120.
39.
SimolaH. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education.Comparative Education,41(4), 455–470.
40.
ShingK., & LeungF. (2006). Mathematics education in East Asia and the West: Does culture matter? In LeungF. K. S., GrafK., & Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West (pp. 21–46). Springer.
41.
SpringJ. (2008). Research on globalization and education.Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 330–363.
42.
StackM. (2006). Tests, tests, tests, read all about it: Canadian's press coverage of the PISA results.Canadian Journal of Education,29(1), 49–69.
StevensonD. (2002). Women, sport, and globalization: Competing discourses of sexuality and nation.Journal of Sport & Social Issues,26(2), 209–225.
45.
StronachI. (1999). Shouting theatre in a crowded fire: ‘Educational effectiveness’ as cultural performance,Evaluation,5(2), 173–193.
46.
TakayamaK. (2008). The politics of international league tables: PISA in Japan's achievement crisis debate.Comparative Education,44(4), 387–407. Tabb, W. (2002). Unequal partners: A primer on globalization. New York: The New Press.
47.
TomlinsonJ. (1999). Globalization and culture.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
TröhlerD. (2013). The OECD and the cold war culture: Thinking historically about PISA. In MeyerH., & BenavotA. (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 141–162). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
49.
TuckerM. (2011). Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world's leading systems.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
50.
UljensM. (2007). The hidden curriculum of PISA: the promotion of neo-liberal policy by educational assessment. In HopmanS. T., BrinekG., & RetzlM. (Eds.), PISA zufolge PISA - PISA according to PISA. Does PISA keep what it promises? (pp. 295–303). Wienna: LIT Verlag.
51.
WisemanA. W. (2013). Policy responses to PISA in comparative perspectives. In MeyerH., & BenavotA. (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 303–322). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
52.
WößmannL. (2005). Educational production in East Asia: The impact of family background and schooling policies on student performance.German Economic Review,6(3), 331–353.
53.
WuM. (2006). A comparison of mathematics performance between East and West: What PISA and TIMSS can tell us. In LeungF. K. S., GrafK., & Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West (pp. 239–259). Springer.
54.
ZhaoY., & MeyerH. (2013). High on PISA, low on entrepreneurship? What PISA does not measure? In MeyerH., & BenavotA. (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 267–278). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
