Toward Post-Oriental Curriculum Discourse: Reading Transboundary Learning Culture as a Critical Exemplar for New Asian Educational Research

Abstract

This special issue presents transboundary learning culture as a significant influence on the academic achievements of East Asian students. It elucidates various empirical/qualitative studies and field research through five prominent postcolonial figures’ theoretical constructs, which undergird the premise of transboundary learning and act as key criteria for leading postcolonial curricular studies and educational research in Asia. They are the seminal works of Edward Said (1978), Michel Foucault (1977, 1980), Gayatri Spivak (1988), Jacque Derrida (1967, 1978), and Homi Bhabha (1994). In conclusion, this paper explores how transboundary learning culture can be read and utilized as a catalyst for academics ushering in a new era of postcolonial research in Asian educational studies.

Introduction

The transboundary learning culture of Korean and other East Asian students enhances the vital historical mission and spirit of educational/curriculum/comparative education scholars, which aims to explore the East Asian educational phenomena and articulate their meanings outside the Western sphere and beyond Western literature.

Anchoring itself in the neologisms of “linguisticide” and “epistemological euthanasia”, Paraskeva (2016, p. 238) recognizes the linguistic and epistemological frameworks as hegemonic barriers in academic pursuits. Similarly, Moreira (2017, p. 3) has succinctly captured this linguistic hegemony as the prevalence of linguisticides and linguicism nowadays determines the validated scientific production in education. By interrogating the underpinnings of this hegemony, this paper amplifies the voices and contributions of non-English-speaking scholars, notably from Korea and China. These scholars have mobilized new terminologies and frameworks that carve out intellectual spaces which are unexplored within the confines of Eurocentric epistemologies.

The persistent issue of Western-centric homogenization in academic discourse is another point of contention that this paper seeks to scrutinize. Following Western intellectual traditions, Moreira (2017) discusses and stifles the emergence of regionally specific and culturally contextual theories. This hegemonic intellectual landscape renders marginalized voices from the Global South peripheral and perpetuates a neocolonial paradigm within the academic realm. The consequences are far-reaching, with repercussions felt not only in representation, but also in the authoritative weight allocated to various schools of thought and their concomitant contributions to academic dialogue.

Moreover, this paper underscores the limitations and hazards of transplanting Eurocentric paradigms onto complex social fabrics. Keim et al., 2014) advocate “pluriversality” (Escobar, 2020; Mignolo, 2011)—a concept emerging from the decolonial theory that provides a counternarrative to contemporary Northern assumptions of the universal. Such an approach to academic dialogue and knowledge production, asserts the necessity of embracing a more polyvocal academic terrain, which enriches and diversifies epistemological bases.

It challenges us to consider how such an academic construct could be efficaciously mobilized as a catalyst for groundbreaking research in the postcolonial context of Asian educational studies. This type of catalytic intervention is necessary and urgent to create an academic milieu that includes diverse perspectives. It posits the necessity for future research to move away from monolithic and restrictive paradigms that perpetuate neocolonial frameworks and to foster a shift toward perspectives that are more positively attuned, multicultural, and embedded within Indigenous wisdom. This, in turn, would serve as a testament to the transformative potential of transboundary learning culture as an incisive academic construct capable of redrawing the contours of knowledge in the realm of Asian educational studies.

Five Postcolonial Criteria for Understanding Transboundary Learning Culture in Education

We undertake an analysis anchored in the seminal theories and concepts advanced by prominent postcolonial scholars. This is executed to propose a set of criteria for understanding and conducting postcolonial or poststructuralist research in curricular and educational studies. We explore the theoretical constructs that undergird the premise of transboundary learning, leveraging seminal works such as those of Edward Said (1978), Michel Foucault (1977, 1980), Gayatri Spivak (1988), Jacque Derrida (1967, 1978), and Homi Bhabha (1994). This undertaking holds promise as a framework that can guide reading, understanding, and evaluating future postcolonial texts in Asian educational research.

Edward Said's Orientalism

Edward Said's Orientalism (1978) provides powerful lenses to understand transboundary learning culture from post-oriental perspectives. Asian education, its students’ attitudes, achievement, and learning culture have been discussed as undesirable, unfavorable, and inferior (Waldow, 2017; Kim & Jung, 2021). Such negative perspective judgment of Asian education comes from, we argue, Orientalism, projecting “the very dystopic images of East Asian education” (Takayama, 2017, p. 272). The judgment is often driven by deep-seated Eurocentric biases and stereotypes, which have given rise to unfavorable portrayals that hold substantial implications for how East Asian education is globally perceived (Moosavi, 2020). Transboundary learning culture, as theorized and exemplified in the papers of this special issue, directly challenges the common interpretation of Asian education that has been biased without thorough investigation (Takayama, 2017). This paper discusses how transboundary learning culture “writes back” (Ashcroft et al., 2002) and how Asian education and its students have been perceived and undervalued.

The concept of transboundary learning culture presents characteristics and content that diverge from the Western standards and evaluations commonly projected onto most traditional Asian education and student learning cultures. In other words, it contrasts with the “inferior Asia” as depicted through Orientalism. Specifically, students approach their learning with a highly proactive and enterprising attitude under a transboundary learning culture. Many students in Korea and other East Asian countries are not passive learners who follow the content and methods provided by schools and teachers. Instead, they are learners who actively plan, implement, assess, and improve their learning.

The Orientalist interpretation of East Asian learners often centers on the ‘passive learners.’ We aim to refute this stereotype of East Asian education and learning more specifically. As mentioned earlier, students in East Asia, including those represented in PISA results, are often praised for their academic performance but criticized for being nurtured as passive learners. One must question: Can ‘passive learners’ excel in PISA, TIMSS, and Math and Science Olympiads, which assess critical thinking, analytical and evaluative abilities, and application skills? As some assessment experts would agree, these examinations contain questions that cannot be answered through memorization. Thus, it would be rational to conclude that children who perform well in these assessments are not reliant solely on rote memorization.

Our argument is supported by Wu et al. (2020). After analyzing the problem-solving strategies of students from seven East Asian countries in PISA, Wu et al. (2020, p. 643) concluded that “the cognitive processes employed by students of East Asian backgrounds are more complex and nuanced than the previous perception that they relied heavily on memorization”. Moreover, Kim, Jo and Jung (2023, pp. 150–160) revealed deep learning of Korean students, involving metacognition in study plans in study groups in public areas to engage in peer teaching and real-time sharing of study activities through smartphones and YouTube channels.

The transboundary learning culture reveals that many Korean and Asian students are decision-makers in their educational journeys (Kim & Jung, 2019, 2021; Sen, 2014). In this learning culture, students independently identify their strengths and weaknesses in their studies. Based on this self-assessment, they evaluate whether formal schooling is sufficient or if supplemental “shadow education” is necessary. If additional assistance is deemed necessary, they decide what specific support is needed and from whom—private tutors, educational institutes, or online courses. Even during their study sessions, students autonomously determine the location, pace, subject-specific time allocation, and learning strategies (Kim & Jung, 2021; Moosavi, 2020).

It becomes clear that Korean and Asian students are far removed from the stereotype of the ‘passive learner’ often depicted by Western scholars. Said's “Othering” represents the construction of Eastern cultures, including their educational systems, as exotic, irrational, and inferior to the rational, superior West. This binary distinction perpetuates a hierarchy where Western educational practices are regarded as normative and superior, while East Asian methods are misrepresented as rote, uncreative, or overly stringent. Western criticisms of East Asian education often reduce complex pedagogies to mere rote learning, overlooking the nuanced blend of memorization, critical thinking, and moral education that underpins many East Asian students’ learning. The stereotyping of East Asian learners fails to recognize the individuality, innovation, and adaptability integral to East Asian learning culture.

The above analysis employs Said's concept of Orientalism to interrogate prevailing Western biases and stereotypes that disparage East Asian education and learning cultures. Orientalism functions as an ideological apparatus, systematically “Othering” East Asian educational practices as inferior, rote, and uncreative. This ‘Othering’ reinforces a hierarchical dichotomy between the ‘rational, superior West’ and the ‘irrational, inferior East.’ The analysis advocates for an inclusive, equitable approach to transboundary learning cultures, urging epistemological diversity and recognizing the complexity of East Asian educational practices.

Through the lens of Orientalism, the paper reveals the intricate ways Western superiority serves to marginalize and devalue East Asian education. In this respect, transboundary learning culture represents not what has been defined and named by the West, but rather signifies the discovery of a new, positive image of Asian learners grounded in anti-Orientalism as articulated by some East Asian scholars, complicating the international discourse of educational and learning culture aligning with the arguments put forth by Anderson-Levitt (2003).

Michel Foucault's Power / Knowledge

Michael Foucault's poststructuralist construct elucidates the intricate interplay between power and knowledge and provides an incisive framework for analyzing transboundary learning culture, particularly emphasizing contributions from Asian scholarly communities. This dyadic relationship between power and knowledge not only delineates the parameters of what is socially and culturally accepted as legitimate knowledge, but also reciprocally informs the structures and mechanisms of power (Foucault, 1977, p. 27). Although Foucault's corpus does not overtly delve into colonial or postcolonial studies, the essence of his theories nonetheless illuminates transboundary learning culture as a counter-hegemonic intellectual discourse emerging from Asian academia. This discourse encapsulates critical reflections on historical impositions of colonialist epistemology and acts of resistance against the global hegemony of knowledge production systems, thereby fostering avenues for indigenous intellectual endeavors.

Thus, the theorization of transboundary learning culture signifies a pivotal step towards “epistemic justice” (Paraskeva, 2016) within the academic domains of education studies, and learning culture, particularly among scholars originated from non-Western traditions. This interpretation is situated within a broader historical arc wherein Western ideologies pertaining to education and pedagogy have been elevated to a status of legitimacy and authority. Consequently, transboundary learning culture emerges as a disruptive counter-narrative, challenging the solipsistic perspective that renders Western epistemic frameworks the apogee of authoritative and legitimate knowledge. While the problem with “the theoretical power houses in the North/West” (Takayama, 2016, p. 71) has much been critiqued (Asher, 2009; Coloma, 2009; Paraskeva, 2016; Zhao, 2017), it is rare to find practical examples to work against the continuing forces of the power houses. In this special issue, we provide a couple of concrete examples.

The second characteristic of the value of the transboundary learning culture within postcolonial discourse is that it signifies Asia as a new space for knowledge production in education and curriculum studies, where Asian scholars act as autonomous researchers and knowledge producers. In other words, non-Western scholars also possess the capacity to create and conceptualize new research paradigms. They are not mere consumers or passive recipients who adopt and memorize Western theories and knowledge. In Western educational studies, there has been a lacuna in the conceptualization of shadow education features and transboundary learning culture mainly featured in East Asia. The fact that Asian scholars are actively theorizing and internationalizing these emergent learning cultures attests to the capacity of East Asian academics to be generative agents of new knowledge. This disrupts the commonly held notion that knowledge production is the exclusive domain of Western scholarship, thereby reconfiguring the academic landscape to recognize the epistemic contributions of East Asian scholars.

Noteworthy, the concept of “shadow curriculum” was theorized initially by Kim and Jung (2019a) and elaborated further in Kim and Jung (2019b). It was further conceptualized as a new form of curriculum with its evolution and implications for curriculum studies (Kim & Jung, 2022), which has entered the central discourse of international curriculum and educational studies. The concept itself was originated from research on shadow education for over 30 years. Before that, scholars primarily examined shadow education in educational sociology and comparative education. Previous research topics of shadow education mainly centered around quantitative methodologies mostly in the economics and financing of education, focusing on participation rates, educational costs, parental investments, and educational/learning inequalities (Bray, 1999, 2009; Dang, 2007, Entrich, 2017). In contrast, Kim and Jung (2019a, 2019b) qualitatively theorize the shadow education system and curriculum from the new perspectives of curriculum, pedagogy, student learning, and learning culture, providing new angles for shadow education research.

By using Foucault's ‘power/knowledge’ nexus, this paper provides a lens to investigate how Western power structures have historically shaped valid and authoritative knowledge, often undermining non-Western perspectives. Researchers such as Ho (2021) have applied Foucault's ideas to examine the colonization of educational systems in Asia and how Western knowledge has been privileged. The theorization of shadow curriculum and transboundary learning culture reflects the efforts to decolonize knowledge (c.f. Wang, 2017). Such effort highlights the need to break away from the Western-centric views that have permeated Asian education and strive for a more balanced, nuanced perspective. The power/knowledge nexus thus offers a critical tool for Asian scholars and those in the West to articulate, legitimize, and promote non-Western knowledge within the global intellectual landscape. It helps in understanding the complexity of transcultural learning and aids in the formation of a more inclusive, multifaceted understanding of education/learning cultures.

In short, some reflective Asian scholars are redefining and renegotiating the concepts of education, learning, and culture within a global context. This initiative is a form of resistance against the colonization of knowledge and the homogenization of educational practices. By integrating indigenous perspectives and methodologies, they challenge the hegemony of Western paradigms, fostering a more nuanced, diverse intellectual landscape. Therefore, transboundary learning culture can serve as a new discourse against the Western-centric power and writing structures concerning Western learning theories, research on learning culture, and effective learning methods.

Gayatri C. Spivak's Subaltern Speech

The third characteristic of transboundary learning culture for post-oriental discourse is bravely speaking about what the West does not talk about and does not know. The theorization by Asian scholars of new educational/curriculum theories, such as transboundary learning culture, represents a critical counter-narrative to Western epistemologies within the historically complex landscape of East Asian colonial education and the purview of postcolonial and Indigenous research. Specifically, amidst the milieu of East Asian educational studies and practices that are heavily influenced by Western pedagogical theories and curriculum studies, a cadre of intrepid scholars employ qualitative methodologies and anthropological approaches to articulate new ontologies and epistemologies that either remain unexplored or unarticulated by Western academia or diverge substantially from prevailing Western perspectives. This phenomenon substantiates the argument posed by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in her seminal work (1988) demonstrating that Asian academics are indeed capable of giving voice to subaltern perspectives.

By emphasizing the capability of non-Western scholars to speak, theorize, and offer unique insights, Spivak's perspective on the subaltern underscores the validity and necessity of Asian scholarly engagement in traditionally Western-dominated fields. Speaking and being heard is an assertion of presence, identity, and intellectual agency. In their efforts to theorize transboundary learning culture, Asian scholars contribute to the academic landscape and reclaim space and voice within global dialogues. This conceptual engagement becomes an act of resistance, a statement of existence, and a bold challenge to the hegemony of Western academic discourse. The significance of this engagement lies in its profound implications for global education and the redefinition of power structures within international scholarly communities. By asserting their right to speak and be heard, Asian scholars pave the way for a more inclusive and diverse educational landscape where different voices, cultures, and perspectives are acknowledged and celebrated. The concept of transboundary learning culture symbolizes this inclusivity, a manifestation of a global educational perspective that transcends traditional boundaries and empowers marginalized voices.

Many researchers in the West have attempted to unveil the secret to the educational success of East Asian students (Sorensen, 1994; Waldow et al., 2014). Researchers have investigated South Korea's public education from policy viewpoints (Choi, 2009; Wollam, 1992) and cultural perspectives (Lee & Shouse, 2011; Seth, 2002). Success has been attributed to East Asian cultural heritage, such as Confucianism (which respects learning diligence) alongside efforts (Salili, 2005; Sun & Braeye, 2013) that are embedded in nurturing “ethnic identities” (Zhou, 2008), family beliefs, culture (Schneider & Lee, 1990), and excellence in public schooling (Dillon, 2010).

In recent years, PISA was inaugurated to evaluate OECD countries’ education-related factors, and numerous Western scholars have endeavored to decipher the factors underlying the academic achievements of East Asian learners (Sorensen, 1994; Waldow et al., 2014). Investigations into the public educational system of countries like South Korea have been conducted from policy-oriented frameworks (Choi, 2009; Wollam, 1992) and cultural factors (Lee & Shouse, 2011; Seth, 2002). Explanations for such success have often been ascribed to the influence of East Asian cultural legacies like Confucianism, which venerates academic industriousness (Salili, 2005; Sun & Braeye, 2013), as well as factors ingrained in the cultivation of “ethnic identities” (Zhou, 2008), familial ideologies, cultural ethos (Schneider & Lee, 1990), and the efficacy of public educational institutions (Dillon, 2010).

On evaluation, all these studies embody several interconnected issues in explaining the academic success of East Asian students. They often fail to provide a comprehensive view of student learning, relying instead on narrow and biased outsider perspectives without complete explanations. This is mainly because most Western researchers investigating East Asian education, learning, and academic success depend on statistical or secondary data for their analyses. As a result, their findings are inherently limited, lacking insight into what transpires within East Asian schools and classrooms and failing to observe where, with whom, and how students learn. As an example, one can cite Takayama's discussion of the explanations for the academic success of Shanghai students in ‘Learning from Shanghai’ (Tan, 2013). Takayama (2017, p. 270) argued that previous work “loosely attributes Shanghai's PISA success to various factors such as ‘teachers’ new ability to balance new and old, West and East, and student-centered and teacher-dominated approaches,’ parents’ strong sociocultural desire that is similar to Koreans’ ‘education fever’ (Seth, 2002), and new formats and types of exam questions that include higher-order thinking and real-world application.”

In this vein, Hyunjoon Park (2013) delineates four specific limitations and biases in interpreting Japanese and Korean education based on statistical data from exams such as PISA and TIMSS. These include (1) the inadequacy of standardized educational structures in Japan and Korea to nurture exceptionally talented students; (2) the inefficacy of these systems in promoting creative and independent cognitive capacities owing to their educational focus on memorization and rote learning; (3) the elevated academic performance in these countries being ascribed to the success of private supplementary educational programs, colloquially referred to as “shadow education”; and (4) the considerable degree of standardization and uniformity across these educational systems suggesting that they can essentially be treated as a single, unified entity. Park allocates individual chapters to critically examine these assumptions, subjecting them to thorough empirical scrutiny.

Therefore, much of the existing interpretation of East Asian students’ achievement is a “myth-busting investigation,” as Takayama (2017, p. 270) argues, “not through a detailed description of ethnographic studies situated in a handful of schools in Japan or Korea but through a set of quantitative cross-national studies drawing on TIMSS and PISA data set”. Shifting from an ethnographic lens centered on quotidian instructional practices at classroom level, Paraskeva (2016) critiques the text and reevaluates Japanese and Korean educational systems from a macro-institutional level.

The line of critical argument is helpful to find what the problem with the discourse is. However, it does not go further, which means that we, Asian scholars, need to speak of different narratives and interpretations about Asian education. The Western-led shadow education studies and theories have all been carried out in the hegemony and the first world. In this respect, Asian scholars have been silently listening to their theorization and explanation of the academic achievement of East Asian students. However, they no longer think that their claims or interpretations are correct and have started to speak boldly in English papers. Kim, McVey and Jung (2020) for instance, provide what has not been spoken about within the discourse of shadow education, revealing the practical linkage between shadow education and students’ achievement. A few research have recently emerged to bravely speak from Asian insiders’ perspective that challenges the interpretation from First World (Kim et al., 2020, 2023)

In short, Spivak's (1988) concepts of subaltern voices provide a robust and complex understanding of Asian scholars’ efforts in postcolonial educational discourse, including theorizing transboundary learning culture. Her work highlights the agency and legitimacy of non-Western voices, fosters critical analysis of existing power dynamics, and underscores scholarly work's ethical, epistemological dimensions. Collectively, these ideas illuminate the importance of Asian scholars’ contributions as an integral part of a more diverse and inclusive global educational dialogue. Recognizing and legitimizing these efforts through Spivak's theoretical lens advocates for a more equitable and dynamic educational environment that reflects the myriad voices and perspectives that define our interconnected world.

Jacques Derrida's Différance

As a form of postcolonial discourse, transboundary learning culture provides differential/nomadic knowledge in opposition to Western learning and learning culture theories. In other words, postcolonial educational theory and curriculum research challenge established Western conceptualizations—such as effective learning, self-directed learning, and motivation theories—by offering new interpretations, meanings, and values. This demonstrates that existing concepts and theories are not fixed but must be continually explored, understood, redefined, and deconstructed. In this context, transboundary learning culture reveals that Western interpretations and learning theories are not inherently superior or advanced. Instead, they can be reinterpreted and redefined from Eastern perspectives or those of the ‘Other,’ thereby offering alternative, differential/nomadic understandings. Transboundary learning culture contributes to forming and developing post-Western, postcolonial discourses by reinterpreting existing educational and curricular discourse, sub-concepts, and theories, thereby generating new meanings.

In postcolonial research, Derrida's notion of différance functions as an essential hermeneutic apparatus for interrogating settled significations and countering the potential for homogenization. Derrida's delineation of différance as “the systematic play of differences, of the traces of differences” (Derrida, 1978, p. 141) beckons rigorous scrutiny of the dynamics involved in deferring meanings, negotiating differences and the consequent implications for the epistemological landscape of postcolonial settings.

The deployment of différance in the critique of transboundary learning culture serves as a countermeasure against the encroachment of Western paradigms and presuppositions. Utilizing différance necessitates recognizing the perpetually mutable and intersubjective nature of the significations emergent in learning cultures. This epistemic orientation amplifies the primacy of context, cultural milieu, historical lineage, and linguistic artifacts in the dissection of educational phenomena, specifically in the crucible of postcolonial contexts. Through a critical engagement with the manifold differences and inherent deferrals in such settings, scholars are better equipped to traverse the intricate tapestry of postcolonial educational discourse. This allows for an embrace of semantic polyvalence, circumventing the limitations of reductive categorizations or stereotyping. As a case in point, Canagarajah (2002, p.235) employed différance in unpacking the multifaceted dynamics of language interactions within postcolonial educational frameworks, positing that “understanding the play of differences within a text helps to appreciate the heterogeneous voices and conflicting ideologies”. This insight affords a deeper understanding of the nuanced interplays characterizing transboundary learning culture.

As previously discussed, the concept of the “shadow curriculum” serves as an exemplary manifestation of the play of différance within the discourse of curriculum studies. Prior to the emergence of the notion of the shadow curriculum, conceptual discussions surrounding the curriculum were predominantly circumscribed by formally structured educational agendas imposed by educational authorities or instantiated within academic institutions. Notions such as the “null curriculum” and the “hidden curriculum” were similarly predicated upon what was either systematically excluded from or tacitly conveyed within this formal educational structure, situating the school and the classroom as the epicenter of curricular concerns. However, the shadow curriculum—conceptualized based on the learning phenomena and cultural practices of East Asian students—disrupts this conventional focus on institutionally prescribed curricular frameworks or classroom-based pedagogical interactions as normative. In contradistinction, the shadow curriculum underscores a flexible and agentic learning approach, traversing the boundaries between formalized schooling and extracurricular educational spaces, enabling learners to adaptively and creatively exploit diverse pedagogical resources in alignment with their learning styles and objectives. From a conventional perspective, or in contrast to the critiques posited by scholars who perceive the shadow curriculum negatively, it is crucial to acknowledge that it is neither a hypothetical construct nor a marginal occurrence but rather a proliferating phenomenon (with rapid dissemination across multiple global contexts). The contribution of Asian scholars in conceptualizing this phenomenon not only represents a divergent ontological and epistemological departure from the curricular concepts theorized by Western scholars but also significantly enriches postcolonial discourses within the field of curriculum studies. This enrichment entails identifying nuanced, differential meanings that have been reconceptualized and theorized, thus significantly contributing to the polyphonic and decolonial articulations within curricular discourse.

Indeed, the concept of self-directed learning becomes remarkably lucid within the ambit of a transboundary learning culture. No one in educational research would dispute the foundational and imperative nature of self-directed learning for academic achievement—a contention buttressed by seminal works (Knowles, 1975; Candy, 1991; Gibbons, 2002; Brookfield, 2009; Grow, 1991). Most extant discourse has circumscribed self-directed learning within formal educational settings, notably classrooms and curricular designs in formal education. Recently, emergent digital technologies have expanded the discourse to encompass learning scenarios beyond institutional walls (Lai et al., 2022; Morris & Rohs, 2023).

East Asian students navigate through transboundary learning culture, manifesting creative and unbounded forms of self-directed learning. It is propitious, then, to delimit some quintessential elements and variables of self-directed learning—such as learner autonomy, self-diagnosis of learning needs, goal-setting, resource identification and utilization, implementation of learning strategies, and self-evaluation, among others—within this specific socio-cultural and pedagogical matrix. Learner autonomy operates as a linchpin in the architecture of transboundary learning culture. Under the aegis of this framework, students metamorphose into primary agents of their learning trajectory, autonomously determining their learning content, pedagogical modalities, environments, resources, and instructors (reference refer to an extended review for further elaboration). East Asian learners are adept at articulating precise learning objectives (goal-setting) and orchestrating subsequent pedagogical actions to fulfill these. Moreover, they engage in a scrupulous curation and utilization of educational resources, canvassing through schools, academies, online platforms, and social media (resource identification and utilization). Furthermore, the learners in this transboundary cultural milieu exercise unprecedented contextual flexibility, blurring traditional demarcations between public and private education, formal and informal learning settings, and a multiplicity of physical locales such as schools, homes, coffee shops, and study cafes. Given these nuances in the transboundary learning culture, existing paradigms that discuss learner autonomy within the confines of classroom-centered pedagogies require re-conceptualization and subsequent elucidation in a differentially nuanced manner.

In his work “Of grammatology,” Derrida (1967, p. 278) states that Western thought has been dominated by “the opposition of nature and convention, of nature and art, of nature and culture”. He contends that these oppositions are not natural but constructed and always imbued with power relations that favor one term over the other. In the context of postcolonial studies, this notion allows us to interrogate the often-unquestioned dichotomies underlying educational discourse, such as East/West, traditional/modern, or local/global. By deconstructing these binaries, we can uncover the underlying assumptions and power dynamics that shape our understanding of education across cultural boundaries. Engaging with différance in postcolonial curriculum research demands a continual questioning and deconstruction of existing frameworks and assumptions. It urges researchers to be attentive to the “endlessly postponed presence of differing” (Derrida, 1978, p. 143), acknowledging the multiplicity and fluidity inherent in transboundary learning and cultural interactions. In this respect, Derrida's différance offers an invaluable perspective for critically examining postcolonial research like transboundary learning culture. By engaging with différance inherent in meaning-making, scholars can approach their research with an awareness that fosters a more nuanced, complex, and responsive understanding of the postcolonial context.

Homi Bhabha's Dislocation

The dominant Western educational concepts are manifested differently in East Asia due to distinct cultural, historical, and ecological conditions, and therefore possess divergent values. In other words, concepts discussed in the West, such as teachers, curriculum, textbooks, learning materials, theories of learning, learning spaces, and the status of public education, are redefined within the context of a transboundary learning culture. This aspect of transboundary learning culture serves as a critical angle against the universal applicability of Western educational theories and concepts, thereby suggesting the necessity of considering localized and non-Western perspectives to achieve a more nuanced understanding. Bhabha's concepts of dislocation and relocation are invaluable in analyzing the complexities of postcolonial research. They can be specifically applied to examine the different aspects of East Asian educational phenomena like transboundary learning culture. In formulating transboundary learning cultures, students and parents from East Asia, including Korea, have rearticulated and utilized the notions of curriculum, pedagogy, and schooling in distinctive ways.

Transboundary learning culture dislocates the status of schooling, eroding its sacred status as the center of education. Traditionally considered as the focal point and principal actor of education and learning, schools in a transboundary learning culture have a status equal to, or sometimes inferior to, or less preferred than non-school educational/learning actors (see Kim & Jung, 2021 for extended review). Studies supporting this claim have emerged globally. In the case of South Korea, research indicates that students primarily focus on private education and use school classes as supplementary (Kim, 2003). Statistical surveys comparing schools and private educational institutes also show that schools are not superior in all aspects (Je, 2002). In India, many students reportedly trust private educational instructors more than school teachers (Sen, 2014). Based on these studies and a postmodern perspective, Kim and Jung (2021) theorized the concept of “post-schooling.” This term signifies the altered status of public education due to shadow education and transboundary learning culture, which affects learners’ and parents’ evaluations and perspectives on it.

In Western discourses, discussions concerning students’ learning, growth, and development are frequently—if not exclusively—centered around formal schooling and its concomitant educational curricula. However, parents in East Asia have demonstrated a keen awareness of the limitations intrinsic to what has been critically disparaged as the ‘factory model of education’ (Freire, 1972), characterized by its unidimensional and homogenizing methodologies. Moving beyond cursory pedagogical critiques or mere calls for reform, these stakeholders have proactively sought alternative educational pathways. The educational industry outside formal schooling has responded by engendering conditions conducive to these exigencies. It has materialized novel pedagogical spaces and formats that, while resembling traditional schools, offer highly individualized programs, instructional methods, assessments, and educational consulting services for each student. From this vantage point, the emergence of transboundary learning cultures represents a transformative adaptation and an exodus from the state-centric educational curricula and institutional frameworks formulated within Western paradigms. Such cultural formations foreground new alignments and possibilities, contesting and expanding upon established hegemonies in the educational landscape.

Noteworthy, Bhabha's (1994, p.38) concept of the “third space” offers an insightful perspective to analyze postcolonial phenomena. The third space refers to a liminal and hybrid zone that emerges when two or more different cultures intersect, becoming a site of tension and innovation. Such space allows new symbols, meanings, and identities to form through interacting and negotiating different cultural elements. The concept of the third space is particularly relevant to transboundary learning culture as it emphasizes the fluidity and multiplicity of learning experiences that cross cultural, geographical, and institutional boundaries. As educational practices and ideas traverse these boundaries, they enter a space of constant negotiation, adaptation, and reinterpretation.

Final Remarks: Waiting for the New Travels on the East

In this paper, we proffer an extensive exploration and deliberation upon five salient facets that aim at engendering optimism for a forthcoming postcolonial curriculum and educational research epoch. We accomplish this through the analytic lens of ‘transboundary learning culture,’ a conceptual framework innovatively postulated by some East Asian scholars, examining how this construct can be construed, comprehended, and interpreted within postcolonial discourses. Our hermeneutic exercise incorporates the critical perspectives of Edward Said's ‘Orientalism’, Michel Foucault's nexus of ‘power and knowledge,’ Gayatri Spivak's notion of ‘subaltern speech,’ Jacques Derrida's ‘différance,’ and Homi Bhabha's theory of ‘dislocation.’ We intend to conclude by making our suggestions for developing postcolonial studies in education and beyond.

First, we anticipate that this special issue will furnish both Western and Eastern scholars, particularly those in the latter category who are predominantly entrenched in Western theoretical frameworks, with an opportunity for self-critical reflection. We look forward to our proposed quintuple criteria for non-Western/Asian scholars to employ in their prospective endeavors in the praxis, composition, and theorization of postcolonial research. Moreover, we expect Western academics to apprehend the limitations inherent in their imperialistic anthropological viewpoints and comparative educational frameworks that often misrepresent and stereotype Asian educational systems. We posit that an intrinsic opportunity for epistemological, ontological, and cosmological reflection arises when we embark on self-deconstruction. Through such a process, we can eventually access a “new compass for intellectual exploration”.

Furthermore, we ardently hope for an increased volume of scholarship concerning educational phenomena in East Asia and the non-Western world. Within the domain of postcolonial educational curriculum theorization, the genesis of indigenous, multicultural, and postcolonial narratives needs to involve comparative education discourses. Throughout the historical development of Euro-centric or Western comparative education discourses from the traveling tales to looking for similarities and differences in some key features of educational and social phenomena (Bereday, 1964; Hans, 1949; Holmes, 1958; Sadler, 1964), their Western proponents seem to look for some taken-for-granted theoretical apparatuses or ecological frameworks accounting for those similarities and differences. There are still some unjustified assumptions for the emergence of such apparatuses and frameworks. In some extreme forms like PISA and TIMSS cross-national and cross-regional studies, cross-national significant statistical figures ignore hidden contextual factors, policy enactment and their interrelationships. Policy recommendations might not legitimately be drawn solely from those statistically significant differences.

Some critical comparativists look for country- or region-based case studies, transitional or transformational processes, diasporic, trans-national and inter-cultural dimensions of educational (especially the researcher's own positional) identities. They do not fully support fixed comparable cross-national parameters, facing possible diverse intra-country and intra-regional variations (e.g., Carnoy, 2006; Cowen, 2000, 2009; Cowen & Kim, 2023; Kim, 2009, 2020; King, 1965; King & Archer, 1980). Educational borrowing from or leading to one country/region might be infeasible, due to distinctive and varying ecological, ethnocentric, socio-economic, and ideo-political characteristics in the comparative education discourses (Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2014). According to the transboundary learning and postcolonial discourses, the fixed units and parameters of comparative analysis are no longer tenable, facing the fluidic boundaries or dichotomies between formal and informal education, daytime and shadow education, lifelong and life-wide learning, online, offline and hybrid learning, and so forth. More exploratory postcolonial case studies concerning the fluidic boundaries and dynamic relationships should be carried out to articulate new conceptual frameworks or grounded theories without over-generalization.

Using Lyotard's postmodern conditions (1984), the two modernist metanarratives are totalizing stories about comparative education and legitimization of its knowledge and related cultural practices. One metanarrative is that cross-national quantitative studies can provide meaningful comparisons in drawing policy recommendations; and the other is that there are still rigid boundaries and dualism in investigating education and social phenomena through educational research. From the above, they have already been bankrupt, under the post-colonial criticism. As Lyotard (1984) calls for postmodernity in the age of fragmentation and pluralism, there is an urgent call for pluralistic (regionally specific, culturally contextual) postcolonial studies in comparative education discourses.

Finally, consonant with Thomas Popkewitz's (2013) proposition that “science is a community”, enduring and substantive change cannot be solely orchestrated through individual contributions. The inception, dissemination, and maturation of new discursive regimes are only achievable through collective and collaborative efforts of a diversified consortium of scholars. This underscores the imperative for an academic culture that recruits, nurtures, and collectively sustains researchers who are committed to investigating national learning cultures through a postcolonial lens, as exemplified in this special issue. Concurrently, the broader academic community should sustain an active participatory disposition toward these postcolonial intellectual initiatives. By foregrounding the narratives and endeavors of those frequently marginalized in Western or Anglo-centric paradigms, this special issue underscores a commitment to the democratization of epistemic constructs and amplifying intellectual vistas.