Demystifying the Western Imagination of the Miracle of East Asia Education: Transboundary Learning Culture as a New Discourse on Students’ Academic Success

Abstract

This introduction aims to pinpoint the biased assumptions and contextualized limitations of the existing Western and Orientalist discourse concerning the East Asian learners’ learning experiences, and academic achievements from some postcolonial and post-Oriental perspectives. It also scrutinizes how their learning and culture are shaped through a new concept of transboundary learning culture and schooling systems (TLCS). Based on the overview of the following papers and TLCS framework, such introduction also draws implications for postcolonial and transcultural research studies.

Introduction

Students hailing from East Asian nations such as South Korea, Japan and Singapore, along with regions such as Shanghai, the Macao SAR, the Hong Kong SAR, and Taiwan, China, exhibit superior performance when compared to their peers in international assessment examinations such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Byun & Kim, 2010; Kim & Jung, 2019; OECD, 2012). These countries or regions are “on the rise once again as a source of educational inspiration” (Takayama, 2017, p. 262), as their students have once more dominated the recent PISA outcomes. Consequently, this achievement has piqued significant scholarly interest (Sellar & Lingard, 2013; Waldow et al., 2014; You & Morris, 2016). While there has been an increased inclination to comprehend the success of East Asian students, researchers have diligently endeavored to discover the “magic bullet” (Kamens, 2013, p. 137)— the clandestine key to academic triumph.

The previous studies aiming to comprehend the secret behind the academic success of East Asian students have predominantly been conducted by Western scholars. Many existing studies have relied on statistical data or based their analyses on commonly known characteristics of East Asian educational culture, such as “Confucian culture” or “intense competition,” rather than deeply investigating the learning and lives of contemporary students in the countries or regions (Seth, 2002; Sun & Braeye, 2013). Some Western cross-cultural psychologists (e.g., Watkins & Biggs, 1996) also admit that Chinese or East Asian learners have been often misinterpreted by many Western researchers who wrongly argued for ineffective Asian role learning models. In their studies, repetitive learning is conducive to deep and meaningful learning undertaken by East Asian learners. As a result, the academic achievements of East Asian students and their practical experiences have been regarded as undesirable and subjected to scorn and denigration (Kim & Jung, 2019, 2021). From an insider's perspective, who were born and have lived as students, teachers, and researchers in East Asia, such interpretations are highly Western-centric and Orientalist, as discussed in this paper. From an experiential and theoretical perspective, these interpretations can be seen as typical examples of Orientalism, which evaluates and assesses the educational phenomena and culture of East Asia, including Korea, based on Western standards and values in mass media (Said, 1978, 2008; Takayama, 2017). Paraskeva (2016) refers to these phenomena occurring in research discourse and the economy of knowledge production as “epistemicide,” meaning the epistemological genocide, whereby knowledge production that deviates from the dominant Western perspectives and theories is undermined and excluded. In this regard, we aim to critique the problems in research perspectives and approaches regarding Asian education and the achievements of East Asian students and provide an in-depth critique of these issues.

Furthermore, we not only point out the limitations of the existing discourse and research findings concerning the learning and achievements of East Asian students, but also aim to discuss how their learning and culture are shaped through an extended period of cultural–technological exploration, utilizing a new concept derived from transboundary learning culture. Transboundary learning culture represents a fluidic albeit resistant concept that goes beyond Western foundations and reproductions in understanding the success and learning culture of East Asian students, countering epistemological annihilation.

Transboundary learning culture—“students cross the boundaries between the public and shadow education spaces to achieve their educational goals”—adds a new insight as an analytic tool to the discourse of East Asian students’ academic success. Transboundary learning culture claims that East Asian students’ learning and achievement cannot be fully understood within the boundary of public education and national curriculum. Instead, the efforts for a fuller understanding of their academic success shall be pursued in how the students learn and achieve their academic success. In this respect, this paper discusses the practical and theoretical significance and value of the concept of transboundary learning culture.

To achieve this objective, we will critically examine the shortcomings and limitations of the discourse surrounding educational, learning, and cultural studies about East Asian education from postcolonial and post-Oriental perspectives. Subsequently, we will discuss recent research endeavors aimed at exploring and comprehending East Asian education and the academic achievements of its students. Furthermore, we will provide a concise overview of the distinctive characteristics of transboundary learning culture. Lastly, we seek to elucidate the implications of this innovative concept for understanding the reality and phenomenon of East Asian students’ learning and academic achievement. In short, this introductory paper provides readers with a theoretical and practical understanding of the concept, which may help them comprehend other papers included in this special issue and their potential to contribute to the development of the discourse on East Asian students’ learning culture and academic success.

Four Key Issues Arisen After the Theorization of Transboundary Learning Culture

This section discusses how Asian education has been interpreted and represented by the West from a broad review of postcolonial power dynamics. To do so, we provide some postcolonial critiques of the Western representation of the East. Then we delve into how understanding Asian education has been biased from that point of view. In the last part of this section, we discuss some research issues that newly understand Asian education and the student's academic success.

Asia as an Object of Western Representation

Historically, the East has been depicted and understood through the lens of the West, serving as the object of discovery and explanation. However, the portrayal of the East in Western perspectives extended beyond mere discovery, as it viewed the East as a new world and an opportunity for Western economic gains by exploiting its resources and commodities. In contrast, Eastern cultures were often depicted as inferior to their Western counterparts (Bhabha, 1994; Chen, 2010; Said, 1978; Spivak, 1988). The representation of Asia in Western theories has attracted significant academic critique due to the perpetuation of Orientalist stereotypes and Eurocentric biases. This section summarizes key criticisms against the Western representation of Asia, focusing on Orientalism, essentialism, homogenization, and the marginalization of Asian agency and knowledge. Scholars can strive for a more inclusive and balanced understanding of Asia in academic discourse by examining these perspectives.

The Western representation of Asia has been subjected to criticism from the perspective of Orientalism, as articulated by Edward Said (1978). Orientalism is viewed as a political doctrine employed by Western scholars to dominate, restructure, and assert authority over the Orient. This critique highlights how Western theories perpetuate Eurocentric biases and marginalize Asian voices. Bhabha (1994) also adds that Orientalism solidifies its dominance by producing stereotypes that diminish the non-European world. Western theories often rely on Orientalist frameworks, imposing Western concepts onto Asia while dismissing indigenous perspectives and reinforcing Western hegemony.

From the perspective of essentialism and homogenization, Chakrabarty (2000) critiques Western theories for oversimplifying the diverse cultures, histories, and experiences of Asian societies. Such theories tend to reduce Asia to a monolithic entity, erasing internal variations and perpetuating stereotypes. Spivak (1988) further emphasizes the need to challenge essentialist representations, stating, “The subaltern cannot speak … she must be spoken for, in the sense of intervention.” It is crucial to recognize the dynamic nature of Asia and acknowledge the agency of Asian societies in shaping their histories.

Also, from the lack of Asian Agency and Epistemic Injustice, Connell (2007) highlights the marginalization of Asian agencies and the perpetuation of epistemic injustice by Western theories. Chatterjee (1993) asserts, “The understanding of the colonial present requires a critique of the history of the colonial past.” Asian scholars emphasize the decolonization of knowledge production and the recognition of Asian intellectual traditions. de Sousa Santos (2015) further advocates for including diverse epistemologies, stating, “Epistemologies of the South … aspire to displace the modern Western knowledge monopoly.” Engaging with Asian scholars and challenging the dominance of Western theories is essential to develop a more inclusive and equitable understanding of Asia.

The critiques of the Western representation of Asia center on the perpetuation of Orientalist stereotypes, Eurocentric biases, essentialism, homogenization, and the marginalization of Asian agency and knowledge from the East. To foster a comprehensive and balanced understanding of Asia, it is essential to incorporate diverse perspectives, engage with Asian scholars, and adopt non-Eurocentric approaches within academic discourse. To move beyond Orientalism, postcolonial agency highlighted by Dabashi (2017) draws our great attention to the Anglo-centric hegemony of research authority and Eurocentric colonial research acts of knowledge representation. New ways of conceptualizing research practices of postcolonial flexibility and fluidity can be done across rigid boundaries of formal and informal education, daytime and shadow education systems, lifelong and life-wide learning, online, offline, and blended modes of student learning and teachers’ teaching. By addressing these criticisms, scholars can contribute to a more inclusive and equitable representation of Asia using or even beyond Western theoretical frameworks.

Western Hegemony of Asian Education and Learning Cultures

Asian education, situated within historically unequal power relations (Foucault, 1975), discussed in the preceding section, has been portrayed in a specific manner of inferiority. Waldow (2017) has highlighted the tendency to label certain countries’ educational systems as good or bad. For instance, Finland and South Korea have garnered considerable attention for their educational systems and students’ achievements. Finnish education has been widely regarded as exemplary, often characterized by shorter school days, minimal homework, and the esteemed status of teachers (Sahlberg, 2011; Waldow, 2017). Conversely, South Korean education has been stigmatized as deficient, with some even labeling it as a “dysfunctional system” (Cho, 1996, p. 141). This Orientalist approach to education in the East has consistently rendered it inferior and undesirable when juxtaposed with Western education, thereby cementing these ideologies as perceived “truths” (Takayama, 2017; Takayama et al., 2017; Waldow, 2017). The denigration of Eastern education by the West, or Orientalism, becomes even more evident in the interpretation of exceptionally high academic achievements of East Asian students. As is well-known, students from countries such as Korea and Singapore, or major Chinese cities like Shanghai and the Hong Kong SAR, consistently achieve top results in international academic performance assessments like PISA and TIMSS. However, instead of acknowledging and praising the success of Eastern education, studies on academic achievement portray Eastern education systems using terms such as examination hell, torturing students, educational frenzy, and excessive competition (Halliday, 2016; Oh, 2010; Watanabe, 2013).

Providing a pejorative analysis of Asian (Korean) education and provided, Seth (2002) examines the educational fever in South Korea and analyzes it from an Orientalist perspective. Seth describes the phenomenon of high school entrance exams as a “fever.” He focuses on the values and achievement-oriented desires of the students without delving into the unique characteristics and concepts of Eastern and Korean cultures. Seth characterizes the educational enthusiasm as a kind of disease, presenting a critical view that portrays Eastern education as backward and in an incomplete stage of development. This approach fails to escape the criticism of understanding and evaluating the educational phenomena in Northeast Asian countries as mere replication or imitation.

Zhao (2014) analyzes and critiques the Chinese education system by understanding and assessing Chinese education through the lens of Western standards and value systems. Zhao compares China's education system with Western ones and identifies its problems. However, China's education system is deeply intertwined with its cultural, economic, and political contexts, making a simple comparison based on Western standards inappropriate. Also, Zhao (2020b) seeks to criticize and condemn aspects of the outstanding achievements of Chinese students. He argues in his research that students with a fixed mindset outperform those with a growth mindset, highlighting issues within the Chinese education system and further pointing out the limitations of the PISA reading assessment.

Oh (2010), a scholar in a Japanese university with Korean background, discusses the pulling and pushing factors of learning among Koreans. He states, “Korean educational frenzy is a result of traditional subculture that emphasizes social success through education and individual educational choices, made by parents on behalf of their children based on psychological mechanisms of fear and han (or emotional enmity)” (2010, p. 308). The words he uses, such as “Frenzy,” “parents’ obsession,” and “mechanisms of fear and han (or emotional enmity),” are highly pejorative and judgmental. He refers the “educational frenzy”—the continuing enthusiasm of Korean students and parents (in public and shadow education)—to “the failure of public education in general and tertiary education in particular.” On evaluation, his pejorative and self-denigrating statement did not take other aspects of Korean education culture into account, such as well-structured national curriculum system, highly qualified teachers and their devotion, and the highest rates of population with college degrees.

Zhao, a Chinese scholar, critiques the Chinese new educational movement with the notion of talent, an official translation of the Chinese term “rencai” (literally, human talent). She analyzes the new move in Chinese education from Western perspectives. She judges it as “making (up) new kinds of people and normalizing a certain population as the objective/object of China's state governance.” She further argues that it is “more of a rhetorical strategy than an authentic cultural renaissance gesture” (Zhao, 2020a, p. 300). However, her use of Foucault is, by our judgment, problematic. Using biopower (Foucault, 2007) as a conceptual tool, why would she not use subjectivity that entangles the dynamic matrices of power relations in all modern societies? Power relations are never fixed but rather contextual and relational with multilayered characteristics in Foucault's theoretical constructs. If power relations are unstable, how Chinese people and institutions respond to governmentality shall also be studied for fairer judgment. Given education system does not work under the logic of the input–output mechanism. Instead, one can never know what kind of person a student will be when formal schooling ends, philosophically speaking, from poststructuralist and existentialist perspectives.

Despite evaluating “problem-solving skills,” “real-life application abilities,” “application skills,” and “higher-order thinking skills” in assessments such as PISA and TIMSS, Asian students who excel in these exams are often attributed to “memorization-focused learning” (Powell, 2015). Does this mean high scores in such exams simply result from rote memorization? There has been a lack of comprehensive efforts to interpret Asian education from various perspectives. Many Asian educational studies have relied on quantitative research data or secondary sources, lacking in-depth anthropological investigations or direct immersion in the cultural context. Consequently, the judgments (or biases) of scholars have often been based on interpretations and images derived from data or reproduced narratives. The insufficient efforts in data interpretation fail to adequately explain the academic achievements and successes of Asian students, which are often attributed to the Confucian cultural emphasis on study (Carless, 2011; Hong & Park, 2019). While this explanation is not entirely unfounded, it is undoubtedly an oversimplified interpretation that fails to capture the nuances of how students in each country or region engage in learning. Considering these points, it becomes difficult to perceive the evaluation of East Asian students’ learning and their achievements, solely based on Orientalist perspectives.

Vickers (2018, p. 340), an Asian studies scholar based on Japanese cultures, argues that mere application of Western critical theories to the interpretation of Asian education is a continuing preoccupation of Western hegemony. This dominates “in shaping political or educational discourse in East Asia today is hopelessly anachronistic.” But more than ever, the operations of “hegemony” in East Asia are complex and its sources are diverse, displacing the West from the center of scholarly debate.

Emerging Research of Asian Practices of World-Class Academic Success

Education, educational culture, and practices in Asia have faced new interrogations and interpretations in recent years. Departing from traditional colonial interpretations, efforts have been made to explore and reinterpret Asian education based on alternative methodologies and new epistemologies. Scholars leading this new research discourse aim to move beyond Western perspectives, criteria, theories, and methodologies, and instead develop explanations and interpretations of Asian educational phenomena rooted in an Asian perspective, philosophy, and subjectivity. Moreover, they are creating new academic research terms. Here, the notion of new interpretations goes beyond vague and ambiguous understandings, such as Confucian culture or competition-centered education. Instead, it involves ongoing efforts to deeply illuminate more specific phenomena and factors related to how East Asian students learn, such as schooling in Asian countries, delicate aspects of Confucian cultures, the superiority of school teachers, shadow education, parental involvement and parenting, and students’ learning culture. These new endeavors aim to identify a broader range of factors contributing to the remarkable academic success of East Asian students, while also revealing the extent to which Western interpretations of their academic achievements have been colonial and narrow-minded. These endeavors aim to decolonize the research culture and contribute to the diversification of international educational discourse. Therefore, this introductory paper aims to initiate and discuss representative studies in this field.

There are trailblazing researchers on the development of the new discourse. A couple of representative research studies from South Korea include Young Sook Lee’s (1990) ethnographical works in examining instructional methods and Young Chun Kim's (1997) ethnographic studies in four schools by investigating their classroom discourses and learning instructions in Korean elementary schooling. Their works were to provoke an awareness to understand the Korean and Asian learning cultures from different gazes, without entirely resorting to Western perspectives and theories. Some scholars, still highly small in number, joined the efforts to describe Korean education and schooling from insiders’ perspective (Cho, 1999; Kim, 1986, 2001; Lee & Choi, 2007; Park, 2002). For the past two decades, there have been some emerging research bodies on Asian education and educational culture that provide different interpretations incorporating new elements and factors with regard to the education system and educational/learning culture.

First, there are researchers who discuss the academic success of East Asian students in terms of the emphasis on learning and effort in Confucian culture, the quality of school curricula, and the excellence of school teachers. The academic success has been attributed to East Asian cultural heritage, such as Confucianism (which respects learning diligence) alongside efforts that are embedded in nurturing “ethnic identities” (Zhou, 2008). Sun and Braeye (2013) conducted an ethnographic study of the learning culture among Chinese immigrant students in Quebec and Flanders. They concluded, “The findings demonstrate that the influence of ethnic social structures on the progression of minority/immigrant students through schooling is related to the particular profile of their ethnic community” (p. 105). They specifically discussed traditional Confucian principles such as work ethic, a desire to learn, respect for teachers, and diligence. They found that transmitting such cultural values happens through the home environment and Chinese language (Chinese supplementary schools in Quebec and Flanders) and culture among foreign-born and foreign-raised Chinese youth.

Additionally, the quality of schooling and school teachers has also been scrutinized. Kang and Hong (2008) identified the shortage of qualified teachers and the differential access to learning opportunities based on students’ socioeconomic status (SES) as important reasons for the low math performance of American students. They compared the conditions in the United States and South Korea, where South Korean students ranked second globally in performance, while American students ranked 15th. According to their findings, only about 4% of teachers in South Korea who teach math have not majored in the subject, while in the United States, approximately 30% of students learn from teachers who did not major in math. As a result, they reported that the achievement gap based on SES is not significant among South Korean students, whereas the United States exhibits a significant disparity.

The relatively structured national school curricula of Asian countries such as Japan and Korea have been reexamined. Park (2013) problematized the long-standing lack of knowledge and falsely led assumption about Asian education. The book revisited the common critique that the standardized curriculum and teaching methods in Japanese and Korean schools “makes talented students mediocre by offering few learning opportunities to enhance their abilities” (Park, 2013, p. 7). However, an analysis of TIMSS and PISA data contradicts this argument. When comparing performance in mathematics and science, it is evident that top students in Japan and Korea significantly outperform their counterparts in Finland, Germany, and the United States, which challenges the notion that a highly standardized educational system would suppress the performance of the most gifted students. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that East Asian students surpass German and American students to a greater extent at the lower end of the performance distribution than at the higher end. The Korean education system has recently received praise, as Dillon (2010) highlighted. This recognition even caught the attention of former U.S. President Obama, who likened it to a “Sputnik moment” for our generation. Additionally, former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan acknowledged it as a “wakeup call” that forces us to confront the harsh reality that we are being outperformed in education (Dillon, 2010). Obama expressed admiration for South Korea's education system, citing the nation's impressive PISA results, and referred to it as a model nation with qualified teachers and a strong public education system (as quoted in Kim, 2016).

Second, the academic success of Asian students has garnered significant attention, with researchers focusing on the critical role played by the home environment and parental involvement (Chao, 1996). Schneider and Lee (1990) underscore the profound significance of a supportive home environment and active parental participation in shaping the academic achievements of East Asian students. Within these households, Asian families place a strong emphasis on education, setting high expectations and creating an atmosphere that fosters a love for learning. Parents actively engage in their children's education, providing guidance, resources, and creating conducive learning spaces within the home. Chua (2011) ignited intense discussions surrounding strict parenting and the cultural expectations of achievement prevalent among Chinese and Asian American families. The book sparked debates on the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach, with some praising the emphasis on discipline and academic excellence, while others expressed concerns about its potential impact on children's emotional well-being and autonomy. The “tiger mom” phenomenon became a symbol of the cultural parenting differences and the delicate balance between nurturing a child's individuality while striving for high academic achievement. In South Korea, Park et al. (2015) delved into the concept of “Gangmam Mom,” a term used to describe mothers who prioritize their children's education and go to great lengths to support their academic success. These dedicated mothers invest significant resources, time, and effort in their children's educational pursuits, demonstrating a strong commitment to their children's future prospects. Their sacrifices and unwavering dedication reflect the deep-rooted cultural value placed on education within South Korean society. Studies conducted in Singapore (e.g., Tan, 2017) have underscored the substantial influence of parental involvement on educational outcomes. Meantime, Stevenson and Baker (1992) revealed the sacrifices made by Chinese families to pursue educational opportunities, including long working hours and financial strains, further underscoring the dedication and commitment to their children's education.

Lee and Zhou (2015) argue that the reason Asian American students demonstrate higher academic achievement than students of other races can be attributed to “shadow education” and the role of parents. According to Lee (2007), Asian American parents have higher expectations for their children's academic performance and hold strict educational values. They actively participate in and support their children's education. Furthermore, these parents provide continuous motivation and emphasis on their children's learning, establish cooperative relationships with schools, and strive to create the best home environment for their children's education. Lee contends that Asian American students gain confidence and motivation in academics through additional learning opportunities outside of school and the active involvement of their parents, which leads to higher academic performance. The combination of a supportive home environment, active parental involvement, high expectations, and sacrifices made by Asian families exemplifies the holistic approach to education prevalent within Asian societies, wherein education is highly valued and considered a vital pathway to future success.

Third, private supplementary tutoring, commonly known as shadow education, has been studied as a crucial aspect of understanding Asian education and education culture (Aspinall & Roesgaard, 2008; Bray et al., 2016; Dawson, 2010; Kim, 2016; Kim et al., 2018; Kim & Jung, 2019; Ozaki, 2015). It is argued that shadow education plays an important role in student learning in many Asian countries and regions (Kim, 2016; Nath, 2007; OECD, 2012; Ozaki, 2015; Park et al., 2016; Watanabe, 2013). In Japan, Ozaki found that students valued attending juku, or after-school tutoring, to improve their academic performance and argued that “if education is all about academic achievement and results, juku can be a sole contributor” (2015, p. 245). In South Korea, shadow education is considered as a necessary component for students' academic achievement (Byun & Kim, 2010; Kim & Jung, 2019; Lee, 2007). In the same vein, the PISA report acknowledged the role of shadow education as a contributing factor for student achievement in some countries (OECD, 2012, p. 70). Baker, one of the early researchers who initiated shadow education discourse, states how “sociologically naïve” he was when he thought shadow education was a cultural oddity of East Asian countries. He recently argues that it is “inevitable, universal, and will likely continue to intensify into the foreseeable future” (2020, p. 311, emphasis in original). Recently, culturally informed qualitative studies of shadow education have been conducted by East Asian scholars (Chang, 2019; Kim, 2016; Kwok & Wang, 2023, Shin et al., 2019; Yung, 2015, 2019; Yung & Zeng, 2022). For example, Chang (2019) discussed sociocultural values and beliefs represented in students’ learning in buxiban. From South Korea, Kim (2016) discussed historical and cultural specificities in South Korea regarding shadow education. From longitudinal ethnographic study, he provides how Korean elementary and secondary students learn in shadow education space. In China, Kwok and Wang (2023) qualitatively articulated the under-explored leadership model and resilience framework of mass tutors under some new educational policy. Yung (2015, 2019) scrutinized secondary Chinese students’ learning English experiences in the shadows, while Yung and Zeng (2022) depicted parents’ consuming power to determine their schooling children's preferable tutoring types and intensity in the meritocratic society of Hong Kong.

Importantly, many researchers revealed the positive relationship between shadow education and students’ academic success (Carr & Wang, 2018; Kim, 2016; Lee, 2007; Ozaki, 2015; Park et al., 2016). PISA reports acknowledge the use of shadow education in students’ achievement in these countries and regions, stating that it “plays an important role” (OECD, 2012, p. 70). Likewise, Hu and Yu (2021) analyzed the 2012 PISA results using a hierarchical linear model, and the effect of shadow education on math has been significantly positive on the grades of students from East Asia. In Japan, Ozaki argued that, “if education is all about academic achievement and results, juku [shadow education] can be a sole contributor” (2015, p. 245). Kim (2020) also found a strong relationship between participation in shadow education and mathematics achievement among middle school students in South Korea. Watanabe (2013) provided a comprehensive historical analysis of juku, arguing that it made a significant contribution to the formation of an intelligent middle class in postwar Japan. He argued that juku provided various new teaching methods and materials, questioned the efficacy of conventional forms of schools, and proposed ways to improve the quality of schools.

Lastly, interpretative studies, rather than critical, about shadow education have emerged in recent years. Such studies approach shadow education not simply as a subject of criticism or negation, but rather as a significant phenomenon in education and learning, exploring it from a more neutral perspective. For example, Entrich (2017) empirically provided a rich understanding of the role of shadow education in Japan to highlight the strong dependence of Japanese students and parents on shadow education and the implications for social inequality. It provided a counter-narrative to earlier studies by pinpointing that “shadow education does not inevitably result in increasing or persisting inequalities but also inherits the potential to let students overcome their status-specific disadvantages and contributes to more opportunities in education” (p. 167). Jung and Jung (2019) conducted a qualitative study of Korean students’ preview learning in shadow education space. The practice of preview learning, which involves learning school material in private education before it is taught in regular classes, has been criticized for potentially harming the quality of students’ learning in school. They discussed that in Korea, there are various forms and methods of preview learning, which effectively prepare students for learning in school and help them achieve good grades. Jung (2022) also conducted a study to examine how school teachers in Korea respond to different levels of preview learning among elementary students, as this has been a concern for policymakers, administrators, and educators regarding its impact on classroom instruction. The study aimed to identify the challenges faced by elementary school teachers when teaching students with preview learning and to explore the strategies they employ in their classrooms. The findings revealed that teachers encounter various challenges and dilemmas, such as balancing education for all with education for excellence, dealing with damaged self-esteem, and reevaluating their own teacher identity. Teachers employ different teaching strategies depending on whether students have engaged in preview learning. These can be classified into two approaches: strategies aimed at suppressing preview learning and strategies aimed at accommodating preview learning. In short, these findings contribute to a better understanding of the evolving educational and learning landscape and can serve as a basis for further research in this field.

These studies have reflected that the academic achievement of East Asian students is a phenomenon with clear substance that cannot be simply explained by abstract and ambiguous concepts or factors such as “Confucian culture” or “competitive system.” These studies demonstrate the diffusion of research on understanding the academic success of East Asian students, extending from studies conducted within East Asia to studies focused on East Asian immigrant students in Western countries.

Transboundary Learning Culture as a Postcolonial Explanation for the Academic Success of East Asian Students

The theorization of transboundary learning culture is the newest academic effort driven from the realities of East Asian students’ learning. Moving away from the traditional research traditions dominated by the Western, studies under this category provide indigenous explanations provided by Asian scholars regarding the academic achievement of Asian students. Based on the emerging research on East Asian education and learning discussed above, and from sociocultural, cultural ecological, and postcolonial perspectives, this concept considers East Asian students’ learning as a transboundary learning culture, crossing over the boundaries between public and shadow education. While not using the term, the transboundary aspects of learning have been identified (Ventura & Jang, 2010). From their study about private tutoring via Internet, Ventura and Jang state “all types of education and tutoring can now be provided across borders, most obviously via the Internet” (2010, p. 61).

This new research realm utilizes postmodern boundary-crossing discourse (Coyne, 2011; Deleuze, 1968; Snow, 1959, 1993; Wilson, 1999). Education research that is informed by boundary-crossing has challenged the existing literature, which mostly focuses on learning within the boundaries of a particular group of people's practices (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). In recent years, boundary-crossing has been employed to understand the nature of educational phenomena (Engeström et al., 1995). The foci of boundary-crossing studies of students’ learning vary through academic literacy and the hybrid language practice of students (Gutiérrez, 2008), to cultural differences between institutionalized and context-bound math (Hoyles et al., 2004), to different perspectives on shared scientific subject matter that teachers and students deal with (Christiansen & Rump, 2008).

Alongside, transboundary learning culture characterizes the learning culture of East Asian students who learn simultaneously from both public and shadow education for various purposes of their learning in ways that they make the best use of them. The concept explores the practices and efforts that East Asian students, as producers and actors of culture, make for their learning and its empirical value and meaning. The research of transboundary learning culture can be considered a postcolonial resistance and practice, as it departs from the traditional Western-centric research tradition and is based on the study and understanding of Asian educational phenomena by Asian scholars. As Paraskeva (2016) argued and discussed in the introduction of this article, we live within the hegemony of an unequal knowledge production system dominated by the West. Destabilizing the power relation and theories provided by the West, the theorization of transboundary learning culture in education/cultural studies becomes an example of postcolonial research aiming to generate indigenous concepts previously deemed unworthy within the hegemony of knowledge production. These efforts to theorize new concepts and terminologies are resistance and praxis against “linguistic genocide” (Paraskeva, 2016, p. 201).

Conclusion: Beyond the Western Approaches

We look for new regional studies of academic success linking up with shadow education and transboundary learning culture and schooling systems (TLCS) in (East) Asia, and other scholars’ regional and continental studies.

In this line of discourse, the objective of this special issue is to examine various aspects of TLCS in Asia and establish it as an academic discourse. We aim to discuss the significance of the articles included in this special issue. Kim and Jo's article, “Global shadow education phenomena and transboundary learning culture: definition, practices, and new ideas for school success,” provides a detailed introduction to transboundary learning culture and its sub-concepts. Two papers, Choi and Lee's “Unraveling the boundary-blurring learning practices of South Korean elementary students” and Yum's “Korean practices of transboundary learning culture among academically excellent middle school students,” respectively, discuss the transboundary learning culture among Korean elementary and middle school students at different stages of learning, exploring its practical and academic significance. Cutri and Kwok's article “Post-qualitative autoethnography for leading transboundary and transcultural educational research in Asian-Pacific contexts: a conceptual model and implications for further research” attempts to synergize the concepts of transboundary learning culture and post-qualitative autoethnography. Additionally, Jung and Su's article “Transboundary learning culture for post-Oriental curriculum studies” discusses transboundary learning culture as a concept for postcolonial curriculum studies, especially in East Asia. The researchers examine the educational and curricular characteristics of transboundary learning culture and discuss how it becomes a concept/theme within the field of curriculum studies. Lastly, Kwok and Mahmud's article “Reshaping the landscape of daytime and shadow education: decentering power dynamics in transboundary learning culture and schooling in China” strengthens the theoretical discussions within the discourse of transboundary learning culture using Foucault’s (1975) power relations. As a whole, the papers included in this special issue serve as examples of decolonized and localized research grounded in transboundary learning culture. The efforts to theorize and expand upon this concept will serve as a new research direction for leading decolonial research practices in East Asia (c.f. Said, 1978).

To conclude, we discuss the implications of transboundary learning culture in terms of postcolonial education research. First, this concept has been theorized through extensive field research conducted by researchers who have lived the experiences of East Asian students. As previously mentioned, the discourse on East Asian education and academic success has predominantly been led by Western scholars, many of whom have presented their research findings without sufficient qualitative research conducted by insiders. Given the limitations of such existing research, the significance of this concept lies in the fact that it emerges from in-depth research conducted by insiders. Second, this concept is not based on any Western theories or perspectives. Rather, it is an inductively developed concept deeply rooted in the field, reality, and phenomena through qualitative research approaches. Such efforts can be seen as practical endeavors to resist Orientalist studies and challenge the Western-centric assumptions and colonized research cultures. Third, while existing studies explaining the academic success of East Asian students have been characterized by philosophical, quantitative, and theoretical approaches, this concept is grounded in the analysis of specific learning experiences and phenomena that East Asian students have encountered and practiced. As a result of these efforts, researchers have identified the cultural characteristics of effective learning strategies and methods experienced and practiced by East Asian students. Fourth, this concept has contributed to forming a decolonized research culture. Asian scholars can contribute as active agents in the reception and production of Western and Eastern knowledge. Last but not least, transboundary and transcultural post-Orientalist studies through international research collaborations are important for future TLCS research directions as Orientalism perspectives are dominating local and international policy thinking toward spheres Middle East (Khan, 2020) and Eastern countries or regions.

As noted by Park (2017), we acknowledge the limited recognition of Eastern research by the Western academia. Yet, it is our expectation that the research and academic concepts presented in this special issue will be approached with seriousness, reflecting the spirit of “Empire Writes Back” (Ashcroft et al., 2003) by Western scholars. Through this engagement, we anticipate that such research will pave the way for new explorations in the realm of transnational cultural studies within educational research (Hooks, 1984).