![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Against a backdrop of an international trend to shift from a teacher-centred to a learner-centred education, this article explores a Confucian conception of education. Focusing on an ancient Chinese text Xueji (Record of Learning), the essay examines its educational ideals and practices based on the principles of ‘choice’, ‘doing’ and ‘power relationship’. It is argued that the educational model in the Xueji does not fit the description of a learner-centred education as commonly understood in the Western literature. Rather, the Xueji advocates a ‘teacher-directed and learner-engaged’ approach by giving the teacher control over the curriculum and authority over the learners while encouraging the learners to participate actively in the learning process. In proposing a conception that is not exactly learner-centred, the Xueji challenges the assumption that ‘good’ education must necessarily be learner-centred.
Acknowledgements
I thank Hunter McEwan, Xu Di, Yang Liuxin and Roger Ames for sharing their translation of the Xueji with me. I also thank the reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. I have placed the word ‘Western’ in inverted commas to signify its vague and contentious nature. It is beyond the scope of this article to define, analyse and interrogate this term as well as associated terms such as ‘non-Western’ and ‘Eastern’. For our purposes, the term ‘Western’ (including ‘West’) serves as a useful starting point to explore the cultural origins of and influences on educational concepts and practices. I should also add that the claim that the extant literature on learner-centred education is premised upon or inspired by the writings of thinkers such as Jean Piaget, Friedrich Fröbel and John Dewey does not imply that these scholars share a common understanding of ‘learner-centred education’, or that there are no substantial differences between them. With particular reference to John Dewey, I am aware that he did not advocate a form of learner- or child-centred education that is antithetical to teacher- and curriculum-centred education. Rather, he encourages educators to direct the curriculum and learning environment so as to support and enrich the child’s lived experiences. For further readings on Dewey’s views on education, see Dewey (Citation1902), Simpson (Citation2001) and Tan (Citation2015b).
2. Although the literal translation of ‘xueji’ is ‘record of learning’, it should be noted that the ancient Chinese character for learning (xue) denotes both ‘learning’ (xue) and ‘teaching’ (jiao) (Yang Citation2010). Other scholars have translated the Xueji as ‘Record on the Subject of Education’ (Legge Citation1885), ‘Record of Learning’ (Wong Citation1976), ‘The Subject of Education’ (Yuan Citation2007) and ‘On Teaching and Learning’ (Yang et al. Citation2012). Despite the variations, the consensus is that the text focuses on both learning and teaching.
3. All the passages of the Xueji cited in this paper have been translated into English by me, unless otherwise stated. In my translation, I have tried to preserve the original meaning and word pattern as much as possible. Any additions to the translation for the purpose of clarification are marked by square brackets.
4. Some readers may wonder whether it is appropriate to apply modern educational terms such as ‘learner-centred learning’, ‘curriculum’ and ‘assessment’ to ancient China. On the one hand, it is correct to note that there was no modern schooling system, as we understand the term today, in the Xueji. On the other hand, however, a number of scholars have found it apt to use modern specialised educational terms to expound the Xueji as they see sufficient parallels between the modern terms and ancient thought/practices. For example, Yang et al. (Citation2012), in their introduction to the Xueji, refer to ‘the schooling system, the principles of pedagogy, and the methods of instruction’ (1). Likewise, Legge (Citation1885) refers to ‘system of teaching’ and ‘subject’ for passage VII, and Wong (Citation1976) refers to ‘method of instruction’ and ‘courses’ in the same passage.
5. While the Xueji encourages learners to learn actively by asking questions, it also teaches that they should ask questions at the right time. Passage VI states that ‘The young ones listen and do not ask questions, so that [they] would not transgress the [proper] grade [they were in] in [their] learning’. The idea here is that the novice learners should concentrate first on forming their learning aspirations and grounding themselves in the foundational knowledge. Only when they have attained the foundational knowledge are they encouraged to question what they have studied.
6. It is helpful to note that the Xueji was written before the introduction of the civil service exam during the Sui dynasty (581–618 CE) in China. One should therefore guard against reading into the Xueji principles and practices that were associated with the civil service exam, such as book-learning, rote memorisation of the Confucian texts and exam essays, and didactic teaching by Confucian masters. For a good discussion of the learning approaches to prepare candidates for the civil service exam, see Elman (Citation2013).