Netherlands
8
3
37.5%
24
4
16.7%
New Zealand
1
0
0.0%
3
1
33.3%
Norway
5
0
0.0%
Panama
4
0
0.0%
Paraguay
9
4
44.4%
Peru
1
0
0.0%
Philippines
14
0
0.0%
Portugal
8
0
0.0%
Russia
2
1
50.0%
7
0
0.0%
Spain
28
4
14.3%
Sweden
7
1
14.3%
Switzerland
10
2
20.0%
73
19
26.0%
Thailand
2
0
0.0%
Turkey
1
0
0.0%
HAC Total
692
114
16.5%
LAC Total
412
51
12.4%
TOTAL*
242
37
15.3%
1104
165
14.9%
*Excludes four student responses. Three students reported the U.S. as neither the home nor host country. One reported the U.S. as both the home and host country.
High-achieving countries that sent students to the U.S.
Lower-achieving countries that sent students to the U.S.
N= the total number of students who were invited to participate in the survey.
n= the total number of students who completed the survey.
Serbia and Canada also agreed to participate in the survey, but they sent no students to the U.S. via the relevant AFS program in the 2009–2010 academic year.
results and discussion
For clarity, we inverted the questions and answers for the different populations. For example, international students were asked: “Compared to school in your home country, how much technology (computers, laptops, digital white boards, etc.) did you see in use in your U.S. school?” U.S. students were asked the same question, phrased in the opposite way: “Compared to school in the United States, how much technology (computers, laptops, digital white boards, etc.) did you see in use in your school abroad?” In order to easily compare the results, however, we have expressed all responses in terms of students’ opinions of the U.S. education system vis-à-vis their experience abroad.
Technology
International and U.S. students agreed there was more technology in U.S. schools. In all, 70 percent of international students and 73 percent of U.S. students said so; though compared to international students, U.S. students were more likely to say there was a little more rather than much more technology (see Chart 1). Not one U.S. student said there was much less technology in U.S. schools.
To date, there is remarkably scant research comparing the relative investments in technology in schools around the world. We know precious little about how much money countries spend on technology, let alone whether those expenditures actually lead to student learning.
Chart 1. U.S. and international students saw more technology in use in U.S. schools.
Our results suggest that the United States invests more heavily in technology in classrooms than even high-performing countries. (In our survey, 61 percent of students from HACs said the United States had more technology in its classrooms.) That does not necessarily mean that technology is negatively correlated with education performance, of course; many things interact to lead to education outcomes, and our results suggest that lower-performing countries use even less technology than high-achieving countries. (Almost three-quarters of students from LACs said the United States had “much more” technology compared to a third of students from HACs.)
Still, this difference might help explain (in part) why the United States spends more money per student than almost any country in the world. Our romance with educational technology has been expensive, distracting, and one-sided for a very long time.
Difficulty
International and U.S. students agreed that school in the United States was easier than school abroad. In all, 92 percent of international students and 70 percent of U.S. students said school in the United States was easier than school abroad. U.S. students were more likely to say school in the United States was a “little easier” rather than “much easier” (see Chart 2).
Chart 2. U.S. and international students said that U.S. classes were easier.
These results corroborate the findings from the 2001 and 2002 Brookings Institute surveys of international and U.S. exchange students. In those surveys, 85 percent of international students and 56 percent of U.S. students found U.S. classes easier.
The similarity in the findings suggest that the intervening ten years of education reforms under the federal No Child Left Behind Act did not, in the estimation of our sample, render U.S. schools any harder compared to schools abroad.
Another interesting finding points to a lack of rigor in U.S. coursework. International students from both high- and lower-achieving countries agreed that U.S. school was easier. However, international students from high-achieving schools were more likely to say that U.S. school was “much easier” than school at home. Specifically, 73 percent of students from high-achieving countries said U.S. school was “much easier,” compared to just 53 percent of students from lower-achieving countries. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis of this book: In countries with strong education systems, school is actually harder. Rigor runs through those countries’ approaches to learning and parenting, shaping everything from teacher training to the make-up of standardized tests.
It is interesting to note, however, that even students from lower-achieving countries overwhelmingly reported that U.S. school was easier. There may have been a bias toward defending the rigor of one’s home education, but that wouldn’t explain why U.S. students also said that their home classes were easier.
This difference may have to do with how students perceive difficulty in school. In many countries around the world, high-achieving and lower-achieving, school is a more formal and structured environment than school in the United States. The codes of conduct are more rigid, and the consequences for academic failure are more serious, particularly in high school. In some cases, students might have been reacting to those differences of school culture as opposed to the actual level of challenge in the material. Regardless, given other research showing a lack of rigor in U.S. textbooks, curricula, and teacher training, this difference in perceived rigor is important and worthy of further research.
Parental Freedom
International and U.S. students also agreed that U.S. parents gave their children less freedom than parents abroad. Of all respondents, 63 percent of international students and 68 percent of U.S. students agreed with this assertion (see Chart 3).
Interestingly, international students from high-performing countries were much more likely than students from lower-performing countries to report that the U.S. parents gave their children much less freedom. Specifically, 70 percent of international students from high-performing countries said U.S. parents gave their children less freedom compared to 45 percent of students from lower-performing countries.
These findings support existing literature suggesting that United States children lead highly structured lives. The reasons for this difference are complex
and hard to disentangle. American parents might be more protective of their children due to pervasive concerns about crime and violence, for example. In some areas of the United States, particularly low-income neighborhoods, these concerns could be based in hard facts; in other, higher-income areas, crime may be low but parental anxiety about crime may still be high.
Chart 3. U.S. and international students said that U.S. parents gave their children less freedom.
Regardless of the reasons, what does it mean for education outcomes if U.S. parents really do grant their children less autonomy? It is, again, difficult to speculate, but the existing literature on raising resilient children suggests there is great value in allowing them to be free to make decisions and mistakes (within limits) while they are still children. Otherwise, teenagers raised in highly controlled high schools and homes only discover the perils and thrills of independence when they are grown, and largely on their own.
Importance of Sports
International and U.S. students agreed on the importance of sports in the lives of U.S. teenagers. Of all students, 91 percent of international students and 62 percent of U.S. students said U.S. students placed more importance on doing well in sports than did students abroad (see Chart 4). International students were more likely to say U.S. students cared “much more” about athletic achievement.
These findings corroborate results from the Brookings Institute surveys. In those surveys, 85 percent of international students and 82 percent of U.S. students said that U.S. students placed higher importance on doing well in sports than did students abroad.
It is not at all clear that placing a high importance on athletic achievement is negatively associated with academic performance. Of international students, 88 percent of those from high-achieving countries said U.S. students place more importance on doing well in sports than students abroad; whereas nearly all students (96 percent) from lower-achieving countries said U.S. students placed more importance on success in sports. This suggests that students from high-achieving countries cared more about sports than students in lower-achieving countries—although none of them cared as much as American students, it seems.
Chart 4. U.S. and international students said U.S. students placed more importance on doing well in sports.
In any case, the unparalleled importance of athletic achievement at U.S. high schools should be the subject of serious debate. Sports, for all the value they offer, also siphon money and attention from classroom learning. It is their relative importance—not their absolute existence—that is worrisome.
Praise
International and U.S. students agreed that U.S. math teachers were more likely to praise student work than math teachers abroad. Roughly half of international and U.S. students said their U.S. math teachers were more likely to praise student work; about a third thought that their math teachers did about the same amount of praising in both countries; and less than 10 percent of both groups thought their math teachers abroad were more likely to praise student work (see Chart 5).
Chart 5. U.S. and international students said U.S. math teachers gave their students more praise than did teachers abroad.
Note that this question was asked of a slightly smaller sample. We asked students specifically to compare their experiences in their math class at home and abroad. Of the international students who filled out the survey, 82 percent took a math class in the United States, allowing them to answer this question. Of the U.S. respondents, 89 percent took math and completed this question.
The results beg the question: Are U.S. teachers warranted in praising their students to the extent reported in this survey? The United States is solidly among the lower-achieving countries in math, and yet U.S. kids are much more likely to report getting high grades in math, as discussed elsewhere in this book.
What are the effects of praising students for work that does not reach the average performance of students in other developed nations? How does pervasive praise impact the learning environment and students’ expectations for themselves? Is praise related to the tendency (also suggested by this survey) of U.S. parents to grant their children less freedom? Do U.S. teachers and parents treat their children as if they are more fragile than they are? Or do other countries handle their children with too little care?
Praise is not all bad, to state the obvious. Indeed, the results show a complex relationship between praise and results: Students from lower-achieving countries were much more likely than students from high-achieving countries to say that U.S. teachers gave more praise. Of international students, 38 percent of those from high-achieving countries said their U.S. teachers praised students more often; by comparison, 62 percent of students from lower-achieving countries said so. Praise might not lead to learning, but the absence of praise does not necessarily do much good either.
In fact, some of the students in this survey explicitly celebrated the positive classroom culture of their American classrooms in their responses to the open-ended questions. As one Italian exchange student to the U.S. put it: “[U.S.] teachers believe in you, in your potential, and never put you down.”
One French student contrasted the two experiences this way: “In France, the teachers put way more pressure on the students—for homework, grades. In the United States, the teachers usually congratulate students [on] their work.”
That said, praise is a risky currency. To work, praise must be specific, sincere, accurate—and used in moderation. These results suggest that the praise commonly deployed in U.S. classrooms may not meet those requirements. Excessive, vague, or empty praise has corrosive effects, as multiple studies have shown, incentivizing kids to take fewer risks and give up more easily. Self-esteem is important, but it comes from hard work and authentic accomplishment, not flattery.
Mixed or Inconclusive Results
The results of U.S. and international student responses to four questions were mixed or inconclusive. These focused on:
Importance of doing well in school. Most international students said that students in the United States and abroad placed a similar importance on doing well in school, while most U.S. students said their peers placed less importance on doing well in school. The only point of clear agreement was that U.S. students did not care “much more” about doing well in school. Just 4 percent of international students and 3 percent of U.S. students chose this response. It is not immediately clear why U.S. and international students did not agree on this question, though it is possible that students had difficulty assessing how much other students cared about school in a cross-cultural context.
Challenge of classwork in math class. U.S. student responses were mixed on this question, but international students showed a clearer preference for one answer over the others. Specifically, 58 percent of international students said that their math classes abroad were more challenging than in the United States.
Tendency of math class to “stay busy and not waste time.” Both U.S. and international students were mixed on this question. For both groups, about one-third said they stayed busy in math class in the U.S., one-third chose “abroad,” and one-third reported that their experience of busy classrooms was about equal in the U.S. and abroad.
Tendency of math teachers to “accept nothing less than our full effort.” As in the case immediately above, U.S. and international students showed no strong preference for any of the answer choices. It seems likely that the question was unclear since a significant number of respondents in both groups chose “Not sure.” In all, 18 percent of international students and 12 percent of U.S. students chose “Not sure.”
Survey
At the start of the survey, participants were tracked into two separate groups—U.S. students and international students—following the question: “What was your host country?” That way, the questions could be phrased more clearly for each group, a critical concern for non-native English speakers.
Questions asked of international students appear below in Roman typeface; questions asked of U.S
. students appear below in italic. Where no italic text appears, the question’s wording was not changed.
Additionally, students were asked whether they took a math course during their exchange. Students who answered “yes” were directed to the next page of questions to compare their math classes at home and abroad; students who answered “no” were automatically directed to the final page of questions regarding their overall educational experience.
WELCOME
Thank you for your help with this survey!
The following 12 questions should take about 5 minutes to complete. Please answer as many questions as you can. If you don’t know an answer, choose “Not Sure.” Choose “Previous Page” to go back.
The purpose of this survey is to learn from your educational experiences in your home and host countries. The results will appear in a book on international education by Amanda Ripley, a Time magazine contributing writer and a fellow at the New America Foundation, a non-partisan policy research organization in the U.S.
Clicking on the “Next” button confirms that you agree to participate in this survey, and you authorize AFS and Amanda Ripley to collect and process the answers. The results of this survey will be completely anonymous, and AFS will not disclose your e-mail or name to any third party in connection with this survey. If you wish to stop participating at any time, just click “Exit this survey” in the top right corner of your browser window.
After the study is completed, AFS will contact you to share the findings. You may also read about the results in Ms. Ripley’s book when it is published in early 2013.
Questions or technical problems? Please e-mail [email protected].
This survey will close on Friday, May 4, 2012 at 11:59 pm EDT.
The Smartest Kids in the World Page 23