Transboundary Learning Culture as Emerging Discourse for Post-Oriental Curriculum Studies

Abstract

This article envisions transboundary learning culture (TBLC) as post-Oriental curriculum studies research. Postcolonial discourse in curriculum studies has been proliferating over the past two decades. Non-Western curriculum scholars have contributed to the development of international curriculum studies based on their indigenous histories and cultures. In this context, this article proposes that TBLC, driven by Eastern educational or learning phenomena, can be an international curriculum studies concept. We identified four TBLC characteristics: “deconstructing Western tradition of school curriculum,” “unveiling the shift in students’ pursuit of academic success,” “defining East Asian students as active learners,” and “redefining effective learning outside Western theories.” Although TBLC is originated as an East Asian phenomenon, given the changing learning cultures and shadow education around the world, it can open up new research areas as a new concept for international or transnational curriculum studies.

Introduction

Over the past two decades, postcolonial curriculum studies have become a significant research area within the international discourse on curriculum studies (Asher, 2009; Coloma, 2009; Gough, 2003; Kanu, 2006; Kim & Joo, 2017; Paraskeva, 2016). Postcolonial curriculum discourse problematizes the domination of Western theories and perspectives, critiquing the exclusion of non-Western perspectives. Such intellectual domination of the West has been referred to as “epistemicide” (“epistemology” and “genocide”) (Bennett, 2007; de Sousa Santos, 2015; Hall, 2015; Paraskeva, 2016). The discourse on postcolonial curriculum studies has opened up new horizons for the theorization of curriculum studies and heightened awareness of the necessity and significance of understanding educational phenomena from non-Western perspectives.

By critically examining colonial legacies in curriculum studies, discussions on decolonizing curriculum studies have propelled curriculum theorization to a new level, highlighting previously overlooked dimensions and complexities (Asher, 2009; Llyod, 1993; McLeod, 2020). These discussions have underscored the importance of recognizing and valuing diverse knowledge systems and epistemologies marginalized in the Western curriculum framework (Garcia, 1993; Harada, 2001; Kim et al., 2013). In doing so, postcolonial curriculum studies have broadened our understanding of educational phenomena, challenged prevailing Eurocentric assumptions, and paved the way for more inclusive and equitable approaches to curriculum studies.

In Asia, the domination of Western epistemologies about the East has been a crucial focus within decolonial discourse (Chen, 2010; Kim & Joo, 2017; Said, 1978; Smith, 2012; Spivak, 1988). Said's seminal work, Orientalism (1978), sheds light on the epistemological domination of the West and its impact on the understanding and representation of the East. According to Said, Orientalism is a Western discourse that constructs and perpetuates a distorted image of the East, reinforcing power imbalances and cultural hierarchies (Foucault, 1997). This concept has profound implications for curriculum studies, exposing how Western perspectives have dominated knowledge production. Research in curriculum studies has echoed Said's insights, highlighting the need to critically examine curriculum knowledge to challenge Orientalist interpretations (e.g., Kikuchi, 2004; Kim & Joo, 2017). By acknowledging the epistemological domination of the West and deconstructing Orientalist frameworks, curriculum studies can strive toward more inclusive and accurate representations of diverse cultures and perspectives.

Similarly, the book “Asia as Method” (Chen, 2010) holds great significance in postcolonial curriculum studies, challenging Western epistemologies and advocating for a more inclusive approach incorporating both Western and non-Western sources. By calling for the integration of diverse perspectives, Chen encourages scholars to transcend Eurocentric frameworks and engage with the intellectual traditions of Asia. This perspective aligns with the views of Takayama (2017), who emphasized the importance of understanding the specific discursive context (within which our research is situated) and remaining attentive to the potential meanings and consequences that arise from it. These insights underscore the necessity of embracing diverse perspectives and contextual understanding in postcolonial curriculum studies, contributing to a more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of educational phenomena.

One potential example of post-Oriental curriculum studies is trans-boundary learning culture (TBLC), which refers to the dynamic learning practices of East Asian students’ learning culture, crossing the boundaries between formal schooling and shadow education with freedom, flexibility, and agency (Kim et al., 2023). Despite its visibility among East Asian students, TBLC is seldom discussed in the “transnational curriculum studies discourse” (Gough, 2020). “Transnational research”, as Kennedy (2010, p. 900) discusses, “forces researchers to see the other and to respond in meaningful and helpful ways to forge an alliance that can transcend the structures imposed by national mind-sets.”

The present study addresses the following two questions: How can TBLC be explored as a research topic in transnational curriculum studies? What are the distinctive characteristics of TBLC related to the transnational curriculum studies? By offering an alternative interpretation of East Asian students’ learning culture informed by TBLC, this study contributes to the discourse on post-Oriental curriculum studies. It highlights the potential of TBLC as a valuable conceptual tool for international curriculum studies.

Transboundary Learning Culture as a Research Topic of Transnational Curriculum Studies

TBLC refers to a relatively new concept of exploring shadow education in South Korea by Young Chun Kim and his colleagues (Kim, 2017; Kim, 2018a, 2018b; Kim & Jung, 2019b). It has recently been theorized and gained attention as a valuable research topic for curriculum studies, particularly in understanding the academic success and learning culture of East Asian students. TBLC arises from the observation that students’ learning experiences increasingly cross the boundaries between public schools and shadow education (Kim & Jung, 2019b, p. 161). In their study, Kim et al. (2023) further develop and define TBLC as the learning that occurs when students navigate between public and shadow education spaces to achieve their educational goals (p. 54). Within this framework, four analytical concepts are developed: complex learning spaces, consilience of learning materials, fusion of good learner concepts, and the coexistence of two paths for academic success (Kim et al., 2021, pp. 62–72). The significance of this concept lies in its ability to theorize and capture the characteristics of East Asian students’ learning experiences. Moreover, it takes a postcolonial perspective that avoids Orientalist biases, offering a non-denigrating interpretation of East Asian students’ learning and achievement.

As demonstrated by the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), students in East Asia have exhibited outstanding academic achievements on a global scale (Mullis et al., 2020; OECD, 2019). For instance, students from high-performing East Asian economies/regions, such as Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan region of China, ranked within the top 5 in TIMMS in 2019. The academic success of these students has garnered significant research attention from scholars worldwide (Boman, 2022; Bray, 2020; Bray & Lykins, 2012; Hattie, 2009; Jerrim, 2015; Schneider & Lee, 1990). Factors contributing to their academic success have been attributed to Confucian culture (Kim, 2016; Lam et al., 2002), parental involvement (Chen & Ho, 2012; Mau, 1997; Schneider & Lee, 1990; Stevenson et al., 1990), and the public education system and school teachers (Hattie, 2009; Kim et al., 2023). However, shadow education should also be considered. Many East Asian students learn through shadow education in addition to formal school education. More than 70% of Korean students, 82.5% of elementary school pupils, receive shadow education (Statistics Korea, 2022). In Japan, 33.7%, 51.9%, and 29.3% of elementary, lower secondary, and upper secondary students, respectively, attend shadow education (Kimura, 2018). In mainland China, 48.3% of students were reported to receive private supplementary tutoring (Liu, 2018). Over 70% of secondary six (grade 12) students receive shadow education in the Hong Kong SAR (Zhan et al., 2013). Shadow education has been considered an essential factor contributing to the academic success of East Asian students (Aurini & Davis, 2004; Davies & Guppy, 2010; Ireson, 2004; Kim, 2016; Liu, 2012; Mori & Baker, 2010; Nath, 2008; OECD, 2012; Ozaki, 2015; Pallegedara, 2011; Park et al., 2016; Stevenson & Baker, 1992; Zhang, 2020).

TBLC research not only demonstrates the extent to which East Asian students diligently strive for academic success but also underscores the need to investigate their learning strategies, learning culture, and factors contributing to academic achievement by considering their engagement in shadow education and formal schooling. However, finding in-depth studies within educational psychology and learning culture research that thoroughly examine the extent of East Asian students’ dedication to studying in the context of shadow education is challenging. Therefore, this study aims to discuss the characteristics of TBLC by presenting the extent to which East Asian students are immersed in learning while crossing the boundary between public and shadow education.

South Korea has a high participation rate in shadow education. The shadow education market in South Korea reached an annual value of 26 trillion Korean won (approximately 24 billion USD), accounting for 1.21% of the country's GDP (Statistics Korea, 2022). A wide range of shadow education forms exists in South Korea; Currently, more than 85,000 private tutoring institutes, called hakwon in Korean, exist in Korea (Statistics Korea, 2023). In addition, various shadow education forms exist in Korea, including internet-based private tutoring, subscribed learning programs, home-visit private tutoring, and after-school programs (Kim & Jung, 2019a). Recently, internet-based private tutoring, utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) and internet technologies, has experienced rapid growth. The participation of elementary, middle, and high school students in shadow education in Korea amounts to an average of 7.2 hr per week (Statistics Korea, 2023). It is common for elementary students to attend 3–4 hakwons after school. Middle and high school students attend hakwons until late nights, and on weekends and holidays (Kim & Jung, 2019b). Scholars like Seth (2002) have derogatorily referred to this phenomenon as “education fever,” but from another perspective, it can be understood as Korean students’ passion and enthusiasm for learning. Korean students attend shadow education because it provides the learning they desire. As Kim and Jung (2019b) discussed regarding shadow curriculum, “individualized learning” is the foremost reason students require shadow education.

East Asian students actively utilize shadow education to achieve academic success. However, scholarly investigations into their learning and academic achievements have yet to notice the significance of this phenomenon. In light of this, this study contended that TBLC serves as a valuable conceptual tool for comprehending the learning culture and academic success of East Asian students. By investigating the interplay between formal and shadow education, TBLC enables a comprehensive examination of the learning practices and strategies of East Asian students. This perspective provides valuable insights into the holistic educational landscape in which these students operate, highlighting the diverse resources, motivations, and cultural influences that contribute to their academic success. Through TBLC, curriculum studies researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the unique approaches to learning utilized by East Asian students and identify potential avenues for educational enhancement.

Post-Oriental Discourse as Method

This study adopted various theories and writings of postcolonial philosophers to discuss transboundary learning culture in a post-Orientalist way. We propose to name this approach ‘Post-Oriental Discourse as Method’. The task of reading, interpreting, and writing about Asian studies beyond Orientalism requires an epistemological and ontological sensibility and reflection as Asians, which cannot be named as literature review or document analysis. Specifically, it is a task of adopting not only the claims and concepts of Orientalism and postcolonial theory, but also their methodological implications, to create new understandings, analyses, and values of research. Specifically, we drew methodological inspiration from Alecia Y. Jackson and Lisa A. Mazzei's “Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research” (2011). In their book, they show how to use various philosophical concepts in practices of inquiry, effectively opening up the process of data analysis in qualitative research. Their approach reads “a refusal of pregiven method, intensifying creativity, experimentation, and newness” (p. i.). Among the powerful concepts they suggest, we are especially informed by the concepts such as “theoretical entrapment,” “thinking with theory,” “data beyond neutrality,” and “decentering dominant paradigms.”

To delve into East Asian students’ “transboundary learning culture,” theoretical entrapment emerges as a crucial concept to be wary of. Often, East Asian learning cultures are analyzed through dominant Western educational theories, which might inadvertently pigeonhole these cultures into pre-existing frameworks, limiting the depth and breadth of understanding. For instance, the Confucian heritage of learning, which emphasizes respect for teachers and rote memorization, might be simplistically contrasted with Western pedagogies. Avoiding this entrapment requires a nuanced approach that goes beyond binary comparisons and seeks to understand the intricate interplay of historical, social, and cultural factors in shaping transboundary learning cultures.

Thinking with theory offers a dynamic approach for postcolonial researchers. Instead of merely applying established theories to the study of East Asian students’ learning cultures, researchers should engage in a dialogue where both the theory and the empirical data inform and reshape each other. This iterative process allows for a richer understanding of “transboundary learning culture” as it foregrounds the fluidity and multiplicity of East Asian students’ experiences, especially in globalized educational contexts.

Lastly, decentering dominant paradigms is pivotal in postcolonial research on East Asian learning cultures. The global dominance of Western educational models can often overshadow the unique practices, values, and strategies of East Asian learners. By consciously decentering these dominant narratives, researchers can foreground the agency, resilience, and innovation inherent in “transboundary learning cultures,” highlighting how East Asian students navigate, negotiate, and sometimes resist dominant educational paradigms while carving out spaces for their own cultural practices.

Incorporating these concepts from Jackson and Mazzei's work can lead to a more nuanced, critical, and reflexive approach in postcolonial research articles, ensuring that East Asian students’ “transboundary learning cultures” are explored in their full complexity and richness.

Post-Oriental Interpretation of Transboundary Learning Culture

This section focuses on how various aspects of TBLC among East Asian students align with post-Oriental curriculum studies; it explores how East Asian students’ TBLC can be understood differently from Orientalist interpretations regarding their learning. Four TBLC aspects are suggested: “deconstructing Western tradition of school curriculum,” “unveiling the shift in students’ pursuit of academic success,” “defining East Asian students as active learners,” and “redefining effective learning outside Western theories.”

Deconstructing Western Tradition of the School Curriculum

TBLC challenges the school curriculum in that it signifies that East Asian students do not naively follow the school curriculum. The school curriculum is designed to provide all students with the same curriculum based on age-based grades to educate and prepare them as new members of society (Apple, 1990). It is designed to ensure that all students receive a consistent education, providing teachers with a roadmap for planning their lessons and assessments to ensure the educational goals of the states. TBLC questions the possible inappropriateness of the school curriculum, only for some students, as students with TBLC cross over the curricular boundaries between school grades and levels. In this respect, TBLC erodes the authority of the school curriculum structure by deconstructing the existing status of schooling (Derrida, 1978).

The school (national) curriculum of East Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan has been imported from the West. The national curriculum of Korea started in 1945 under the leadership of the U.S. military government, based on the Colorado (Denver) curriculum. Since then, the “National Curriculum System” has functioned strongly (Kang, 2015). In Japan, the Meiji samurai, sent to the United States in the late 19th century, visited American universities, met with scholars, and shortly after returning to Japan in 1873, transformed early modern Japanese education into an American style (Kikuchi, 2004). Other East Asian regions also have relatively strong school curriculum systems, such as mainland China, the Hong Kong SAR, the Taiwan region of China, and Singapore (OECD, 2010, 2013). Whether a country has a national curriculum, the school curriculum has obtained the status of ideology to be conceived as the center, ordinary, and necessary, if not the only possibility (Apple, 1990; Pinar, 1994). The problem with the school curriculum is its one-size-fits-all approach. As critics argued (Grimmett & Halverson, 2010; Pinar, 1994), the approach may only be appropriate for some students and may fail to consider individual learners’ needs and interests. Grimmett and Halverson (2010) argued that school curriculum structure often emphasizes standardized assessments and uniform content delivery, disregarding individual learners’ diverse needs and interests. This rigid approach fails to foster students’ agency. It inhibits their ability to actively engage with the curriculum, stifling flexibility and adaptability that aligns with individual students’ evolving and different needs.

The Western curricular influence eroded certain forms of learning in South Korea. Before introducing the Western curriculum system, learning for Korean people was highly individualized. For instance, during Chosun Dynasty, learners were taught that their learning was highly personalized regarding books to read, subject knowledge, learning speed, and interpretation of the canonical texts (Lee, 2012). Learners could move toward the next learning phase only if they had mastered the targeted knowledge. Under the Western curriculum system, such learning culture quickly eroded as teachers and students followed what was scripted in the school curriculum.

Under this system, students in the same grade and class are taught almost identical subjects, content, pedagogy, and assessments. There is little space for learning choices based on students’ abilities. In recent years, efforts have been made to teach according to individual students’ abilities and to operate a curriculum that respects learners’ choices. However, their usefulness and effectiveness have yet to be verified in Korea.

However, TBLC deconstructs the school curriculum as it emerged owing to the need for more individualization of learning (Brian, 2004; Yang & Kim, 2010). Research on shadow education has revealed that the foremost reason students seek shadow education is for individualized learning, which the school curriculum lacks (Brian, 2004; Bray, 2017; Davies & Aurini, 2006; Kim & Jung, 2019a, 2019b; Mawer, 2015; Yang & Kim, 2010). TBLC employs various approaches to deconstruct the rigidity of the school curriculum. First, academically advanced students and those falling behind their grade level engage in shadow education to receive tailored instruction that meets their academic abilities and needs. Research indicates that shadow education is primarily used for remedial and accelerated learning (Bray, 1999; Byun & Park, 2012; Ireson & Rushforth, 2004; Jung & Jung, 2019). A study on shadow education for highly gifted Korean students revealed that most students attended shadow education institutions known as “youngjae hakwon” (Kim et al., 2020a). The contributions of shadow education for underachieving students have also been reported in studies from countries and regions such as Japan (Dierkes, 2010; Ozaki, 2015), the Hong Kong SAR, China (Bray & Kwok, 2003; Cheng, 2007; Yung, 2011), Singapore (Yang, 2015), and mainland China (Zhang, 2011, 2013). Interestingly, in Australia, where the shadow education market is not as big as those in East Asian countries, governments use a voucher system to intervene in shadow education markets for low-achieving students living in poverty (Doherty & Dooley, 2018). While schools support gifted and underachieving students, students and parents perceive these efforts as insufficient. Therefore, students significantly ahead or behind their grade level find shadow education more effective, which is challenging to expect within the school curriculum.

Second, schools adhere to a fixed schedule and prescribed sequence of school curriculum with predetermined weekly hours of subjects and class times; i.e., students are taught under the same instructional methods and evaluations. In contrast, shadow education allows students to focus more on subjects they excel in and allocate more time to areas where they struggle. Additionally, compared to school education, shadow education offers flexibility in adjusting learning time, determining repetition frequency, and selecting programs and materials (Kim & Jung, 2019a). For example, Internet-based private tutoring allows students to choose subject areas, levels of courses, materials, and instructors with different teaching styles (Kim, 2016; Park et al., 2016; Ventura & Jang, 2010). Unlike in public schools, where students are assigned teachers and learning materials, students can manage their learning by choosing instructors they like, course content, learning speed, and where and when to study. They can skip content they find easy and repeat content they find challenging.

In this way, TBLC challenges the school curriculum by allowing students to defy its constraints. TBLC demonstrates that the school curriculum, designed to provide a standardized education for all students, may only be appropriate for some learners owing to its one-size-fits-all approach. The authority of the school curriculum structure is undermined as students with TBLC cross curricular boundaries and seek individualized learning opportunities outside of schooling. This deconstruction of the curriculum highlights the need for more flexible and personalized approaches, considering students’ needs and interests, fostering their agency and engagement with the educational process. By embracing TBLC, we can reimagine and co-create a curriculum that better aligns with the evolving needs of individual learners.

Unveiling the Shift in Students’ Pursuit of Academic Success

TBLC challenges the belief that school learning is the only way to academic success. Traditionally students relied solely on schooling for academic success because there were few learning opportunities outside schooling. However, with the emergence and proliferation of shadow education, students can find numerous learning opportunities outside schooling. In this respect, TBLC helps understand and explain how students today learn to achieve academic success without simply relying on school learning and the instructions of school teachers. TBLC sounds alarming to the existing research discourse on academic success, which has mostly remained within mainstream schooling.

One notable phenomenon observed through the TLC framework is the reliance of students on shadow education to attain academic success. This reliance has been recognized as a crucial factor in academic achievement and success in OECD reports (OECD, 2016). This pattern has been observed across several countries worldwide. Under TBLC, students find their way to academic success while broadening our understanding of their academic success. Although public education, school teachers, and policymakers might be hesitant to admit it, empirical research has shown that students in many Asian countries and regions [such as South Korea (Byun, 2010; Kim, 2016), Japan (Mori, 2015), mainland China (Zhang, 2011), the Hong Kong SAR, China (Bray & Kwok, 2003), and Taiwan, China (Kuan, 2011; Liu, 2012)] achieve their academic goals through shadow education and schooling.

For instance, in South Korea, Yang and Kim (2010) discussed the phenomenon of inverted roles between public and shadow education, wherein students perceive private tutoring institutes as the primary venues for studying. In contrast, schools are seen as places for leisure and socializing with friends. Je's (2002) survey with 500 hakwon students in Seoul found that hakwon teachers scored higher than school teachers in teaching ability, enthusiasm, student care, and individual guidance. Similarly, Kim's (2003) survey with 379 Seoul students preparing for college entrance exams showed that hakwon teachers were rated higher in classroom management, motivation, and feedback than school teachers. The Korean Educational Development Institute also found that high school students considered hakwons to provide higher-quality education than public schools in subject expertise, understanding student needs, and class satisfaction (Choi, 2009). Japanese students also often turn to shadow education, known as “juku,” as they perceive mainstream schooling to be insufficient in preparing them for academic and future success (Sato, 2005). A survey conducted by the Cabinet Office of Japan in 2005 revealed that two-thirds of parents attributed the increasing reliance on juku to the shortcomings of public education and considered juku instructors superior to school teachers (MEXT, 2008). This reliance on shadow education is often driven by the belief that financial investment in these supplementary programs will enhance their child's prospects (Becker & Lauterbach, 2010; Boudon, 1974; Breen & Goldthorpe, 1997; Konakayama & Matsui, 2008; Mori, 2015). Similarly, in India, Paramita (2015) found that some students exclusively depended on private tutors rather than their regular teachers.

Notably, a fandom phenomenon has emerged in Asian regions and countries such as Hong Kong SAR, South Korea, and Japan, where highly esteemed tutors are elevated to the status of “God Tutors” or “Star Instructors” (Cheng, 2007; Kim, 2016; Ozaki, 2015). These influential figures become idols for students, captivated by their teaching methods and charismatic personalities. South Korean students often travel to major cities like Seoul during vacations and weekends to attend classes taught by these revered figures; the rise of internet-based private institutes has further facilitated access to their instruction. This fandom phenomenon shows how enthusiastically the students favor the tutors.

This can be understood in two ways. One is the intense competition for academic success. In many societies, the competition for academic success is becoming increasingly fierce. Students are under increasing pressure to develop a more decisive competitive edge. As the competition for academic success intensifies, students and parents believe that schoolwork alone is insufficient to keep them ahead of their competitors. This phenomenon is even more vital in Asian countries. To have a competitive edge over other students, students struggle to learn first, learn more, repeat more, and put in more preparation and effort for tests and schoolwork. For this reason, TBLC is a learning cultural phenomenon as students feel that studying in school is insufficient because they have different learning abilities and ultimate goals. They receive the guidance and support they need to achieve these goals in shadow education.

The other way to understand this is the failure of schooling to meet individual students’ needs. Until now, the focus has been on cases of learning in shadow education while attending school. However, looking at high school graduates, one can better understand why students are unsatisfied with the learning opportunities provided by schools alone. Generally, when students graduate from high school, they move further away from the educational interests of public schools. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for high school graduates in countries such as Korea and Japan to invest one year or more to prepare for better universities and pursue their desired studies (Sugimoto, 2012). Therefore, many students and parents concentrate on shadow education after high school to prepare for university entrance exams (Kim & Jung, 2019). From the perspective of high school graduates, shadow education may be their only option, and TBLC can explain why and how so many East Asian students do not rely solely on school learning.

Defining East Asian Students as Active Learners

TBLC defines East Asian students as active learners who find learning opportunities in school and shadow education. Historically, students from East Asia have been viewed as passive “others” who are molded by their educational culture, national curriculum, and teachers (Kim, 2002a). This interpretation stems from a typical Orientalist perspective: Eastern learners have been othered and stereotyped (Kim & Seo, 2018; Campbell, J. & Lin, M., 2008; Said, 1978). However, in a changing learning culture, Eastern learners are now taking charge and creating their own learning culture, no longer viewed as passive “others” but as active agents in their learning journeys (Park & Lee, 2020a; Spivak, 1988). In the context of post-Orientalist curriculum research, Eastern learners can be understood as individuals who take responsibility for their learning and play a central role as key decision-makers in their learning (Lee & Phan, 2021), constantly searching for and changing their identities (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987).

Previous research has often portrayed Eastern learners as passive and submissive (Dörnyei, 2005; Hofstede, 1991; Savickas, 2019). This perception stems from cultural differences in communication and learning styles. In Confucian heritage cultures, students are socialized to respect teachers and elders, which may be viewed as passivity in Western contexts. Group harmony is often prioritized over individual achievement in these cultures, contributing to the perceived passivity. Hofstede (1991) notes that rote learning in Eastern classrooms reinforces the stereotype of learners as passive recipients of knowledge. Memorization and standardized testing emphasized in many Eastern education systems can create pressure and limit learners’ autonomy, leading to the perception of passivity. These negative interpretations are rooted in Orientalist perspectives that portray Eastern learners as passive and inferior (Park & Lee, 2020b). For example, Kim (2002a) found that Korean students are often seen as lacking creativity and critical thinking skills, reinforcing the “passive learner” Stereotype. This study indicates that cultural and educational factors inaccurately influence the perceived passivity of Eastern learners, but they may not accurately represent their true nature. Eastern learners may have different communication and learning styles, valuing group harmony and respect for authority over individual assertiveness.

However, recent research suggests that these stereotypes are being challenged as Eastern learners take a more active role in their learning (Kim & Seo, 2018; Kim & Jung, 2021). In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the active role that Asian students play in decision-making for their learning and academic success. For example, a study by Lee and Kim (2019) in South Korea found that students actively participated in setting goals for their academic achievement and placed great importance on self-directed learning. The researchers found that students engaged in various self-directed learning activities, such as seeking feedback from peers and teachers, setting personal goals, and monitoring their progress toward those goals.

Similarly, Lin and Liu (2020) in the Taiwan region of China found that high-achieving students proactively sought resources and opportunities to support their learning in shadow education. The researchers found that these students actively sought extra-curricular activities, such as academic competitions and study groups, and were willing to take on leadership roles. The researchers also found that high-achieving students in the Taiwan region of China placed great importance on developing social skills, such as communication and collaboration, which are essential for success in both academic and professional contexts. This suggests that students from Asia are actively engaged in their learning process and highly motivated to develop a wide range of skills essential for success. Additionally, a study by Hua and Liao (2019) in mainland China found that students were actively involved in decision-making for their academic success. The researchers found that students in mainland China engaged in various proactive behaviors, such as seeking feedback from teachers and peers, reflecting on their learning process, and setting personal goals for improvement. The researchers also found that students in mainland China were highly motivated to succeed academically and placed great importance on developing skills relevant to their future careers. This suggests that students from Asia are not only active agents in their learning process but are also highly motivated to succeed and develop skills relevant to their future goals.

These studies suggest that rather than being passive recipients of knowledge, Asian students proactively seek resources, set personal goals, and develop a wide range of skills essential for academic success. Additionally, they highlight the critical role that cultural and educational factors play in shaping students’ learning approaches. They also suggest a more nuanced understanding of East Asian learners, challenging the stereotype of Asian students as passive and submissive. Under TBLC, Eastern learners are considered active agents in their learning journey rather than passive “others.”

Redefining Effective Learning Outside Western Theories

TBLC expands the current understanding of effective learning by revealing new approaches to effective learning. Theories for effective learning—e.g., constructivism (Piaget, 1950), social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), information processing theory (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968), experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984), technological pedagogical content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), and universal design for learning (CAST, 2018)—have contributed to promoting optimal learning by suggesting how to understand the cognitive, psychological, and neurological processes of learning. They have also helped with designing adequate instructions, evaluations, and curricula. However, other elements must be considered for effective learning, given that students’ learning is changing under TBLC.

This section provides a few effective learning methods under TBLC. First, repetitive learning through integrating school and shadow education is a common strategy for effective learning. Within TBLC, students can repeatedly learn the targeted content for “mastery learning” (Bloom, 1968). Repetition is the first principle of all learning (Bruner, 2001; Williams & Harkness, 2018). Korean students receiving shadow education typically engage in four or more learning repetitions (Kim et al., 2020b). Before the start of each semester, students learn the basic concepts of the upcoming curriculum at hakwon. During the semester, they learn the same content in school and through shadow education. As exams approach, students review the learned material at hakwon; after exams, students analyze their test results in shadow education and supplement any areas of weakness. Considering the importance of repetition for mastery learning (Jung et al., 2021-chapter), repetitive learning through school and shadow education can be as an essential strategy for effective learning.

Second, ongoing evaluations provided in shadow education are another strategy for effective learning. Through continuous evaluations, students receive individual guidance and corrective measures to monitor their learning progress (Kim & Jung, 2019; Mawer, 2015). Home-visit private tutoring and private and internet-based tutoring institutes regularly assess students’ learning outcomes, correct learning errors, and provide supplementary learning. In particular, the increasingly prevalent internet-based private tutoring employs AI-based assessment systems to diagnose individual students’ proficiency levels, evaluate learning outcomes after each session, suggest acceleration or remediation based on the results, and provide suitable learning content to help students achieve complete mastery (Kim et al., 2023). Private tutoring institutes provide tests to identify individual learners’ weaknesses that must be overcome to achieve their goals. Based on the results of the test, they identify the most suitable customized curriculum (Kim, 2016; Mawer, 2015). Each private tutoring institute has its evaluation materials and methods, including paper tests, presentations, discussions, and portfolios. Whether evaluations occur once a week/month, biweekly/bimonthly, or after finishing a chapter in a particular course, these institutes use more frequent testing than public schools.

Third, within TBLC, students enhance effective learning by utilizing diverse learning materials. This characteristic, identified as “consilience of learning materials” (Kim et al., 2021) in TBLC theory, is particularly valuable when national curriculum materials fail to address individual needs and understanding levels. Typically, learning materials provided by schools are designed to meet the needs of all students in a classroom. However, some students may require more differentiated and phased learning materials, while others may need materials that provide more examples and repetitive learning. Therefore, students use learning materials tailored to their needs, provided or sold by shadow education providers. Kim and Jung (2019, p.) illustrated how a Korean student used multiple learning materials. For example, Kim and Jung explain, “Yu Jeong has more than six learning materials in book format for math learning and more than 10 for English. For English, she has a textbook, three listening workbooks, four reading workbooks, three question-focused workbooks, two grammar books, two word-idiom focused books, and two English Korean Scholastic Ability Test (KSAT) mock test books.”

In addition to those materials, students today use online materials such as YouTube videos, Wikipedia, and internet search engines. In this respect, the concept of learning materials is changing under TBLC with internet technologies and our understanding of effective learning.

Lastly, students under TBLC gather online for effective “shared learning.” Nowadays, many East Asian students broadcast their learning experiences through social media, gathering with peers and studying the same content. They teach and learn from one another on the Internet. During the learning process, if they encounter unknown content or problems, they ask each other questions and engage in discussions to find problem-solving approaches or the most comprehensible ways of understanding. This recent phenomenon actively utilizes Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development theory (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978). Western theories cannot adequately explain the four strategies this study provides. Students under TBLC actively develop strategies for effective learning in highly flexible and individualized ways.

Conclusion

TBLC deconstructs the Western tradition of school curriculum by questioning its one-size-fits-all approach and advocating for more flexible and personalized learning opportunities. It unveils a shift in students’ pursuit of academic success, highlighting the significant reliance on shadow education to achieve their goals. This challenges the belief that school learning is the sole pathway to success and expands our understanding of academic achievement. TBLC also defines East Asian students as active learners who actively seek learning opportunities both within and outside of school, debunking the Orientalist perception of passive learners.

This research proposes a post-Oriental perspective to decolonize Western-centric curriculum studies. Researchers need to interpret non-Western and local phenomena from a non-Western perspective to decolonize and theorize curriculum studies. Generating curriculum knowledge that can challenge the historically and epistemologically authoritative Western theories and perspectives in curriculum studies is crucial. Therefore, the article postulates that TBLC is a concept that counters Western epistemicide (Paraskeva, 2016) and discusses how the features and characteristics of TBLC make it a topic of post-Oriental curriculum studies.

Drawing on the post-Oriental curriculum perspective, the researchers hope to conduct new studies on the regional and national curricula, education, learning strategies, learning cultures, and learning materials of Asia. Specifically, the researchers can explore the learning strategies of Asian students to achieve mastery learning, the characteristics of self-directed learning exhibited by Asian students, the composition of personalized curricula created by Asian students, and the strategies of self-assessment, checking, and feedback that they use.

While this study focuses on TBLC, scholars from East Asia and beyond should explore and theorize their own history, culture, and educational phenomena. Non-Western countries and cultural spheres have their own cultural, educational, and epistemological characteristics and advantages. Efforts to elevate these indigenous aspects through curriculum research will serve as a foundation for diversifying transnational curriculum studies into a discourse with greater diversity and epistemological justice.