Innovation in Language Learning

The Learning Curve is a report published by Pearson and written by The Economist Intelligence Unit, which according to their website, “is part of a wide-ranging programme of quantitative and qualitative analysis” that “seeks to distil some of the major lessons on the links between education and skill development, retention and use” [1]. The first round of results in 2012 drew considerable international attention with Finland and South Korea occupying the two top spots respectively. By 2014 South Korea had taken the lead and Finland fell to 5^th.

This study explored the South Korean case by surveying 127 domestic and 50 international students in South Korea. Students self-reported their perceptions concerning the quality of their second language education specifically, both at the secondary and post-secondary levels. The results for both groups demonstrate that classrooms are predominately teacher-centered, lecture-oriented, highly competitive, and exam focused [2]. The results go on to indicate that these experiences often stifle motivation and increase performance anxiety.

The implication of this study in association with The Learning Curve results is that educators and policymakers must recognize the narrowness of the latter when seeking to implement changes. The Pearson findings are only a sagittal slice of certain performance indicators without regard for larger sociocultural context and possible unintended negative consequences of success within a country. South Korean children may be “number 1” in achieving exam results demonstrating literacy in reading, mathematics and science. However, they also have lowest happiness among children in the developed world and the OECD [3] [4]. They also enjoy the highest rates of suicide [5]. Surely these are not desirable outcomes and yet they are casually related to the educational system. If The Learning Curve seeks to “open up what happens inside the ‘black box’ of education” and provide “lessons for developing countries” then it is paramount that stakeholders are also clearly informed of the possible risks.

In Pearson’s 2013 Annual Report addressing “responsible business”, the report states, “Our purpose as a company is to help people all over the world make progress in their lives through learning.” Yet their key issues are “raising literacy levels; improving learning outcomes and contributing to competitiveness” [7]. Surely educational professionals must recognize that the education of children need be much more than “outcomes” and “competition”. As John Dewey famously emphasized, it is important to realize “the measure of educative growth” is in “the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers” [8]. No doubt literacy and achievement are important things, but they are not the only things. The question is whether countries and classrooms want to trade away student creativity, civic responsibility, social awareness, and happiness, for the label “best”.