Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community 9811936919, 9789811936913

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
Part I The ASEAN Community and Citizenship Education
1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education
1.1 The ASEAN Community
1.2 The Study on Citizenship Education
1.2.1 Study Background and History
1.2.2 Contribution of Previous Studies and Regional Studies
1.2.3 Purpose of This Book
1.2.4 Structure of the Book
1.2.5 Research Methods
1.2.6 Characteristics, Significance, and Importance of This Study
1.2.7 Target Audience for This Book
1.2.8 Chapter Summaries
1.2.9 Study Limitations
References
2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community
2.1 Basic Concepts of Citizenship Education
2.1.1 Meanings of Citizen and Citizenship
2.1.2 Civic, National, and Citizenship Education
2.1.3 The Necessity of Citizenship Education
2.1.4 Global Citizenship
2.2 Key Concepts of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community: ASEAN Identity and ASEANness Education
2.2.1 ASEAN Identity
2.2.2 ASEANness Education
2.3 ASEANness Education Curriculum
2.3.1 ASEAN Studies
2.3.2 The ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook
2.4 Surviving the 21st Century: An Educational Framework for Citizenship Education
2.5 Citizenship Characteristics Required in the 21st Century
2.5.1 Framework of Citizenship Characteristics: “Knowledge and Understanding,” “Skills and Abilities,” and “Values and Attitudes”
2.5.2 Civic Characteristics
2.6 Student Survey and Delphi Survey (Tables 2.2 and 2.3)
2.6.1 Student Survey (Table 2.2)
2.6.2 Delphi Survey (Table 2.3) and Results
References
Part II Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Countries
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness
3.1 Introduction
3.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Policy, Curriculum Focusing on MIB
3.2.1 Melayu Islam Beraja (“Malay Islamic Monarchy”: MIB)
3.2.2 Citizenship Qualities in the MIB Curriculum, Basic Competencies, and Textbooks
3.2.3 The Curriculum Content of MIB
3.3 Analysis of Citizenship Education Survey to School Children
3.3.1 Methods
3.3.2 Results: Responses from Brunei Students
3.3.3 Conclusion
3.4 Analysis of Delphi Survey: Citizenship Education of Ten Years Later
3.4.1 Methods
3.4.2 Results and Discussions on Delphi Survey of Education Expert
3.4.3 Statistical Analyses
3.4.4 Gap Analysis for Top Priority of Educational Agenda for Citizenship Education in Brunei
3.5 Comparative Analysis of Delphi Survey and Citizenship Education Survey Administered School Children
3.6 Summary and Recommendation: Towards a Model of Citizenship Education Promoting Awareness of ASEANness
3.6.1 Summary
3.6.2 Reccomendation
References
4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN Citizenship Education in Post-Conflict Contexts
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Citizenship Education Discourses in Cambodia
4.2.1 Historical Background and Genesis of Citizenship Education
4.2.2 Citizenship Education Discourses in Educational Policies
4.2.3 Negotiating State-Society Relations
4.2.4 ASEAN Citizenship Education and ASEANness
4.3 Data Collection Methodology
4.4 Young Generation: Low Awareness yet Favorable Attitudes Toward ASEAN
4.5 Senior Generation: Passing on the Torch of Regional Integration
4.6 Discussion
4.6.1 Findings from SQ and DS
4.6.2 Future Prospects—How Will ASEAN Integration Impact on Cambodian Youth?
4.7 Conclusion
References
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member of the ASEAN Community
5.1 Introduction
5.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Curriculum After Socio-political Reforms
5.2.1 Citizenship Education in the Curriculum 2006 and 2013
5.2.2 Contents of the Standard Competency of Citizenship Education in the Curriculum 2006
5.3 Analysis of the Results of Questionnaire Survey to Students
5.3.1 Students in Indonesia See or Hear Much More the Words “Social Justice/Fairness,” “Human Rights,” and “Democracy” Than “International Society”
5.3.2 Most of the Students Considered that Their English Proficiency is Low, Even Though They Know English is Important for Their Lives
5.3.3 Students Consider Peace Among ASEAN Countries to Be Important
5.3.4 Indonesian Students Are not yet Interested in Other ASEAN Countries
5.3.5 Major Impacts of Media (Internet, TV, and Books) and School on Students’ Understanding of ASEAN Countries
5.4 Analysis of the Results of Delphi Survey
5.4.1 Findings from Questions in Part 1
5.4.2 Findings from Questions in Part 2–1 (Questions on Knowledge and Understanding)
5.4.3 Findings of the Questions in Part 2–2 (Questions on Skills and Abilities)
5.4.4 Findings from the Questions in Part 2–3 (Questions on Values and Attitudes)
5.4.5 Topics that Are Considered not Sufficiently Covered at Present
5.5 Comparative Analysis of Two Surveys
5.6 Conclusion
References
6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR: Developing Increased Awareness for ASEAN Toward Globalization
6.1 Introduction
6.2 New Trends of Citizenship Education After the Establishment of AEC
6.3 Characteristics of Citizenship in the Questionnaire for Young Students
6.3.1 Questions on Citizenship (Part 1)
6.3.2 Questions on ASEAN Countries (Part 2)
6.4 Analysis of the Delphi Survey
6.4.1 Method
6.4.2 Backgrounds of the Respondents
6.4.3 Results: Part 1
6.4.4 Results: Part 2
6.4.5 Summary of the Delphi Survey
6.5 A Comparison of the Student Questionnaire and the Delphi Survey
6.6 Conclusion: The Future Challenges for Citizenship Education
References
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys on the Development of Students’ Citizenship Abilities and ASEAN Awareness
7.1 Introduction
7.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Overview and New Trend
7.2.1 Concept of Citizen and Citizenship in Malaysia
7.2.2 History of Citizenship Education
7.2.3 Overview of the Civics and Citizenship Education
7.3 Analysis of the Results of Questionnaire Survey to Students
7.4 Analysis of the Results of Delphi Survey: Citizenship Education of 10 Years Later
7.5 Comparative Analysis of Two Surveys
7.6 Conclusion: Recommendation of Model of Citizenship Education and Achieve the Citizenship that Go Beyond “National”
Appendix
References
8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens
8.1 Introduction: The Present System of Citizenship Education
8.1.1 Historical Changes in Myanmar’s Education
8.1.2 School System Structure
8.1.3 Curriculum Structure and Social Studies Curriculum
8.1.4 Citizenship Education: Developing Citizens
8.2 New Trends in Educational Reform and Citizenship Education
8.3 Survey of Student Attitudes Toward Citizenship
8.3.1 Respondents’ Attributes
8.3.2 Citizenship from the Perspective of “Knowledge and Understanding”
8.3.3 Citizenship from the Perspective of “Skills and Abilities”
8.3.4 Citizenship in Terms of “Values and Attitudes”
8.3.5 “Knowledge and Understanding” of the ASEAN
8.3.6 Consciousness About ASEAN
8.4 Conclusion
8.4.1 Summary
8.4.2 Recommendations
References
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Citizenship Education and Educational Reform in the Philippines
9.2.1 The Process and Significance of the Introduction of the K to 12 Education System
9.2.2 The Influence of the AEC on Creating Citizenship in the Philippines
9.2.3 The K to 12 Program and Citizenship Education
9.3 The Citizenship Education Survey in the Philippines
9.3.1 Analysis of the Student Opinion Survey
9.3.2 Filipino Students’ Understanding of ASEAN and Challenges
9.4 Delphi Survey to the Educational Experts
9.4.1 Method
9.4.2 Findings
9.4.3 Part I: Characteristics Currently Achieved and Those Expected to Be Achieved in 10 Years
9.4.4 Part II–1: Questions on Knowledge and Understanding
9.4.5 Part II–2: Questions on Skills and Abilities
9.4.6 Part II–3: Questions on Values and Attitudes
9.4.7 Analysis of the Delphi Survey: Citizenship Education Now and 10 Years Later
9.5 Comparison of the Students’ Citizenship Survey and the Delphi Survey
9.6 Conclusion
References
10 Citizenship Education in Singapore: Implementation of Character and Citizenship Education and Revised National Education
10.1 Introduction: Overview of Educational System, Curriculum, and so on or Background of Citizenship Education
10.1.1 Historical and Social Background of Moral Education
10.1.2 Two Ministry Reports in 1979 and the Beginning of Religious Education in 1984
10.1.3 Discussion of “National Ideology” and the “Shared Values” Project
10.1.4 Introduction of “National Education” and the “Desired Outcomes of Education”
10.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Implementation of “Character and Citizenship Education” and Revived NE
10.3 Conclusion
10.3.1 Summary
10.3.2 Future Outlook
References
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence of Traditional Citizenship to the Next Step
11.1 Introduction
11.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Policies and Curriculum
11.3 Background of Surveys on Citizenship Education in Two Phases
11.4 Analysis of Survey on Citizenship Education to School Children
11.4.1 Citizenship from the Viewpoint of “Knowledge and Understanding”
11.4.2 Citizenship from the Viewpoint of “Skills and Abilities”
11.4.3 Citizenship from the Viewpoint of “Values and Attitudes”
11.4.4 “Knowledge and Understanding” of ASEAN
11.4.5 Awareness of ASEAN
11.5 Analysis of Delphi Survey: Current State of Citizenship Education and That of Ten Years Later
11.5.1 Basic Data
11.5.2 Part 1: Characteristics Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later
11.5.3 Part 2-1: Characteristics of “Knowledge and Understanding” Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later
11.5.4 Part 2-2: Characteristics “Skills and Abilities” Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later
11.5.5 Part 2-3: Characteristics of “Values and Attitudes” Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later
11.5.6 Part 3: Questions on ASEAN Literacy Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later
11.6 Comparative Analysis of the Two Surveys
11.7 Summary and Recommendations: Model of Citizenship Education
11.7.1 Summary
11.7.2 Recommendations
References
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness
12.1 Introduction
12.2 New Trends in Citizenship Education: Policy, Curriculum, and so on
12.3 Analysis of Survey on Citizenship Education to School Children
12.3.1 Overview of Student Surveys
12.3.2 Findings on Citizenship
12.3.3 Questions About Knowledge of ASEAN
12.4 Analysis of Delphi Survey: Citizenship Education of 10 Years Later
12.4.1 Overview of the Surveys
12.4.2 Findings of Citizenship
12.4.3 Discussion of the Survey Results
12.5 Comparative Consideration of the Analysis Results of the Student Survey and the Delphi Survey
12.6 Summary and Recommendation: Model of Citizenship Education
References
Part III Citizenship Education Paradigm for Surviving the 21st Century in the ASEAN Community
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community
13.1 Comparative Analysis of the Results of Questionnaire Surveys for Students
13.1.1 Outline of the Survey
13.1.2 Structure of the Questionnaire Survey
13.1.3 Survey Results
13.2 Comparative Analysis of the Delphi Survey Results
13.2.1 Outline of the Delphi Study
13.2.2 Composition of the Delphi Questionnaire
13.2.3 Survey Results
13.3 Conclusion: Summary and Recommendations
References
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community: Summary and Recommendations
14.1 The ASEAN Community: Social Conditions in Individual Countries
14.1.1 Brunei
14.1.2 Indonesia
14.1.3 Laos
14.1.4 Malaysia
14.1.5 Thailand
14.1.6 Vietnam
14.2 Laws, Regulations, Policies, Curricula, and Textbooks
14.3 The ASEAN Countries’ Key Concepts in Citizenship Education
14.3.1 Perspective (1): The ASEAN Community
14.3.2 Perspective (2): ASEANness Education
14.3.3 Perspective (3): ASEAN Studies
14.3.4 Perspective (4): ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook
14.4 Recommendations for Citizenship Over the Next Ten Years: Results of the Delphi Survey
14.5 Conclusions: Citizenship Education Paradigm for Surviving the 21st Century
14.5.1 Summary
14.5.2 Recommendations
14.6 The Study’s Challenges and Issues
References

Citation preview

Governance and Citizenship in Asia

Toshifumi Hirata   Editor

Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community

Governance and Citizenship in Asia Series Editors Kerry J. Kennedy, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Sonny Shiu Hing Lo, School of Professional and Continuing Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Aims and Scope This series explores how citizenship is shaped by social, political, cultural and historical contexts and how it may be moulded to serve the nation state in the age of globalization. In these publications we see how governance relates to all aspects of civic life, including politics, public policy, administration, civil society and the economy, as well as the core values of society. Titles cover themes including public trust and trust building, the role of civil society, citizens’ rights and obligations, citizenship identities including those related to gender, class and ethnicities. Authors explore how young people are shaped by democratic and traditional value systems and the importance of citizenship challenges in the Asia Pacific region. Research collaborations in this interdisciplinary series probe questions such as: What are the links between ‘good governance’ and new forms of citizenship? What is the role of citizenship education as a tool in state formation and the development of active citizenship cultures? How do we explain the distinctive features of governance and citizenship in Asian societies? Through these publications we see that citizenship is an integral part of ‘good governance’ and that such governance ultimately enriches citizenship. Scholarly investigation and academic dialogue in this series describe the interdependence and mutuality of governance and citizenship. Please contact Melody Zhang (e-mail: [email protected]) for submitting book proposals for this series.

Toshifumi Hirata Editor

Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community

Editor Toshifumi Hirata Faculty of Education Oita University Oita City, Japan

ISSN 2365-6255 ISSN 2365-6263 (electronic) Governance and Citizenship in Asia ISBN 978-981-19-3691-3 ISBN 978-981-19-3692-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

This publication was made possible with the support and cooperation of numerous collaborators and research partners, educators from countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the editors of this series at Springer. Despite the unexpected influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors invested extraordinary time and effort into writing this book while teaching and conducting research in an unfamiliar online environment. We express our gratitude to them. Sadly, our Thai collaborator, Associate Professor Sumontip Boonsombuti, passed away suddenly during the research period. This is her last publication. All members of the research team would like to express their sincerest condolences. We pray that the soul rests in peace. This book was edited and published based on the research results of a report funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research: KAKENHI, International Comparative Study on Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Countries and Education for ASEANness 2010–2013, Project No. 22252007. We are deeply grateful to JSPS for making this publication possible. The report was published in Japanese as ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community; Hirata, 2017, Tokyo: Toshindo). This book reconsiders a conceptual and theoretical framework for citizenship education by rearranging the essence of reports from the ten ASEAN countries in the Japanese report. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to those who helped with the English-language editing: the native English speakers at our colleagues’ institutions, Editage (editage.com), CRL Co., Ltd. (corp-crl.com), Enago (enago.jp), and DeepL (deepl.com). We thank them for their assistance in preparing this manuscript. Oita City, Japan

Toshifumi Hirata

v

Contents

Part I 1

2

The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toshifumi Hirata

3

The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toshifumi Hirata and Minoru Morishita

17

Part II 3

4

5

The ASEAN Community and Citizenship Education

Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Countries

Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akiko Kamogawa, Sallimah M. Salleh, and Rosmawijah Jawawi

43

Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN Citizenship Education in Post-Conflict Contexts . . . . . . . . . . Saori Hagai

67

Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member of the ASEAN Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yuki Nakata, Andi Suwirta, and Mina Hattori

85

6

Citizenship Education in Lao PDR: Developing Increased Awareness for ASEAN Toward Globalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Miki Inui and Souphany Heuangkeo

7

Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys on the Development of Students’ Citizenship Abilities and ASEAN Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Masahiro Teshima and Kumaraguru Ramayah

vii

viii

Contents

8

Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Toshifumi Hirata and Minoru Morishita

9

Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Hirofumi Nagahama, Arthur S. Abulencia, and Jerick C. Ferrer

10 Citizenship Education in Singapore: Implementation of Character and Citizenship Education and Revised National Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Mitsuhiro Ikeda 11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence of Traditional Citizenship to the Next Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Sunate Kampeeraparb, Koro Suzuki, Chantana Chanbanchong, Sumlee Thongthew, Sumontip Boonsombuti, and Waraiporn Sangnapaboworn 12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness . . . . . 237 Masao Ishimura Part III Citizenship Education Paradigm for Surviving the 21st Century in the ASEAN Community 13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Minoru Morishita, Toshifumi Hirata, and Masahiro Teshima 14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community: Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Toshifumi Hirata, Minoru Morishita, Masahiro Teshima, and Kumaraguru Ramayah

Part I

The ASEAN Community and Citizenship Education

Chapter 1

The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education Toshifumi Hirata

Abstract The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established in 1967. The ASEAN Community was established in 2015 and has been successful to date. This book had several goals: (1) discussing the fundamental issues of citizenship education in the ASEAN community, namely, ASEAN identity, ASEANness, and the citizenship characteristics required in the twenty-first century; (2) summarizing citizenship education in the ten ASEAN countries, including the latest reform trends, students’ citizenship consciousness, and citizenship goals to be achieved over the next ten years; and (3) conducting a comparative analysis of the ten countries and providing a summary and recommendations for citizenship education in the ASEAN countries in the twenty-first century. The book’s main theme is citizenship education in the ASEAN Community. This chapter provides an overview of the ASEAN Community, previous studies, the book’s structure, the study’s background, history, purpose, research methods, characteristics, significance, target audience, and limitations, as well as the investigation results concerning the ten ASEAN countries. Keywords ASEAN Community · ASEANness · Citizenship characteristics · Citizenship education

1.1 The ASEAN Community In 1961, Thailand, the Philippines, and the Federation of Malaya established the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA). In 1967, Indonesia, Singapore, and the three ASA countries signed the ASEAN Declaration (or Bangkok Declaration), pledging to promote economic, social, and cultural progress through mutual aid and cooperation to ensure peace and accelerate development. The ASEAN–Japan Centre noted that the Vietnam War and fears about the spread of communism encouraged further regional cooperation. While the ASA remained dormant due to political disputes between member nations, a fresh movement emerged to form the new regional T. Hirata (B) Faculty of Education, Oita University, Oita City 870-1192, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_1

3

4

T. Hirata

body (ASEAN–Japan Center, 2021). Thus, The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established on August 8, 1967, with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand as the initial five members, followed by Brunei (1984), Vietnam (1995), Laos and Myanmar (1997), and Cambodia (1999). According to the Bangkok Declaration, ASEAN embraced the following purposes: 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

To accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality and partnership in order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful community of South-East Asian Nations; To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries of the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter; To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of common interest in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific, and administrative fields; To provide assistance to each other in the form of training and research facilities in the educational, professional, technical, and administrative spheres; To collaborate more effectively for the greater utilization of their agriculture and industries, the expansion of their trade, including the study of the problems of international commodity trade, the improvement of their transportation and communication facilities and the raising of the living standards of their peoples; To promote South-East Asian studies; To maintain close and beneficial cooperation with existing international and regional organizations with similar aims and purposes, and explore all avenues for even closer cooperation among themselves. (ASEAN, 1967, pp. 2–3)

Of particular interest here is Paragraph 4 and 6 relating to citizenship education, the central theme of this book. Moreover, the other paragraphs mention other citizenship characteristics, such as peace, justice, and the rule of law. At the second informal meeting in 1997, the ASEAN heads of state and government affirmed their intent to establish a community for regional cooperation, adopting ASEAN Vision 2020 (ASEAN, 1997a, 1997b). The Vision aimed to establish a peaceful and stable Southeast Asia by 2020 with the following objectives: ASEAN shall have, by the year 2020, established a peaceful and stable Southeast Asia where each nation is at peace with itself and where the causes for conflict have been eliminated, through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law and through the strengthening of national and regional resilience. (ASEAN, 1997b)

At the 9th ASEAN Summit held in 2003, the attendees proposed and agreed to establish the ASEAN Community by 2020 (ASEAN, 2003a). They also adopted the Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II), which proposed establishing an ASEAN Community to consolidate regional peace, stability, and prosperity (ASEAN, 2003b). The 11th ASEAN Summit held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on December 12, 2005, officially confirmed that the proposed integration would proceed (ASEAN, 2005a). The ASEAN community later adopted the summit’s

1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education

5

theme: “One Vision, One Identity, One Community.” At the 12th ASEAN Summit held on January 13, 2007, the chairperson announced that the ASEAN Community would be established by 2015 (ASEAN, 2007a). The ASEAN Charter was signed at the 13th ASEAN Summit (Singapore, November 20, ASEAN, 2007b) and entered into force on December 15, 2008 (ASEAN, 2009a). It declared that the ASEAN would develop as a regional community, united under the motto “One Vision, One Identity, One Community” (ASEAN, 2007c, Article 36). This was followed by the Cha-am Hua Hin Declaration on the Roadmap for an ASEAN Community (2009–2015) in 2009 (ASEAN, 2009b). Following the Bali Declaration on the ASEAN Community in a Global Community of Nations (2011), Phnom Penh Agenda for ASEAN Community Building (2012), and Nay Pyi Taw Declaration on Realization of the ASEAN Community by 2015 (2014), the Kuala Lumpur Declaration (ASEAN, 2015a) was released on November 21, 2015, at the 27th ASEAN Summit (ASEAN, 2015b). This declaration called for the creation of a rule-based, people-oriented, and people-centered ASEAN Community under a strong common identity to maintain a peaceful and stable region. Recalling the spirit of the 1967 Bangkok Declaration that created an organization to bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to the people of Southeast Asian countries, this declaration proclaimed the establishment of the ASEAN Community. The ASEAN Community was officially established on December 31, 2015. In summary, it took 18 years to establish the ASEAN Community after the initial proposal in 1997 to do so by 2015. The 37th ASEAN Summit was held on November 12, 2020 (ASEAN, 2020a), five years after the establishment of the ASEAN Community in 2015. The ASEAN motto was reaffirmed by ASEAN member countries as follows: ASEAN has progressed in achieving regional integration. With the ASEAN Charter as its foundation, ASEAN is supported by three strong pillars of political and security, economy and socio-cultural communities. ASEAN has striven to build a community that is united; inclusive; resilient; sustainable; highly integrated and cohesive; competitive, innovative and dynamic; with enhanced connectivity and sectoral cooperation; and integrated with the global economy; engages and benefits all its peoples of ASEAN by 2025. ASEAN remains strongly committed to realizing a rules-based, people-oriented, people-centered ASEAN of “One Vision, One Identity, One Community.” (ASEAN, 2020b)

The Council of Ministers of Education was established at the 11th ASEAN Summit, held in December 2005 (ASEAN, 2005a, 2005b). Its first Council was held in March 2006 (ASEAN, 2006); this will be discussed further in Chap. 2. At the meeting, the Ministers of Education advocated fostering ASEAN awareness through identity education as a region and strengthening student and teacher awareness as ASEAN citizens through ASEAN studies. The Council of Ministers of Education played an essential role during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Joint Statement of the 11th ASEAN Education Ministers’ Meeting was held online in the Philippines on November 20, 2020, to prevent the spread of infection. The ministers pledged to strengthen the existing partnership, further promote existing educational cooperation and exchange, commit to reopening schools as soon as possible, and provide the best remote education in situations where face-to-face classes are not

6

T. Hirata

possible. Concerning post-pandemic education in the ASEAN region, they stated the following: We concur that education is key to the region’s post-pandemic recovery. To this end, we support the implementation of the ASEAN Comprehensive Recovery Framework, which was adopted by the 37th ASEAN Summit. We commit to advance the Recovery Framework’s initiatives to promote digital skills and literacy, 21st century skills and ICT-enabled teaching and learning, with a view to build resilient education systems that are able to withstand future threats and disruptions. (ASEAN, 2020c)

They determined that education in the ASEAN Community should be unified after the COVID-19 pandemic for ASEAN countries to develop “One Vision, One Identity, One Community” and promulgate the skills and information and communications technology (ICT)-based teaching and learning that would better prepare the region for future challenges and disruptions. The ASEAN Community adopted the motto “One Vision, One Identity, One Community” (ASEAN, 2005a). Its aim is to promote regional peacebuilding, economic liberalization, and regional economic cooperation in social and human development (ASEAN, 2015a, 2015c). The ASEAN Community consists of three pillars: the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC), The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), and The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) (ASEAN, 2021).

1.2 The Study on Citizenship Education 1.2.1 Study Background and History This book builds on a comparative study of citizenship in Japan and Thailand, funded by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI, JSPS), conducted between 2002 and 2007. Two studies were conducted: “An Empirical Comparative Study on Fostering Citizenship in Japan and Thailand” (2002–2004) and “An Empirical Comparative Study on the Curriculum Development of Citizenship in Japan and Thailand” (2005–2007). These studies led to the publication of Shiminsei Kyouiku no Kenkyuu-Nihon to Thai no Hikaku (Study on Citizenship Education: Comparative Study between Japan and Thailand) (Hirata, 2007), a book comprising a series of papers on citizenship education. The major result of this research was the development of a learning model for citizenship education in Japan and Thailand. These studies have inspired research clarifying citizenship education at the regional level in ASEAN countries, including Thailand. One such study was the “International Comparative Study on Citizenship Education in ASEAN Countries and Education for ASEANness” (KAKENHI, Basic Research A, Project No. 22252007, JSPS) was conducted between 2010 and 2013. This project had three

1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education

7

goals: (1) to clarify the current status, challenges, and prospects of citizenship education in the ten ASEAN countries; (2) to examine ASEANness education; and (3) to make recommendations on citizenship and ASEANness education in the ten ASEAN countries. The study was unique in that it focused on the ASEAN region rather than on a single country. Its most distinctive feature was that it predicted the future of citizenship education by surveying citizenship awareness among ASEAN students and education experts, using the Delphi method to identify the citizenship characteristics that students should acquire over the next ten years. The study results were published with a publication grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) 2017. Although the research project started in 2010, the publication of this book required some time during various challenges, such as the publication of the Japanese edition of 2017 and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.2.2 Contribution of Previous Studies and Regional Studies Existing research on citizenship education can be divided into three categories: theoretical research, such as the methodology and concepts of citizenship education (Kennedy, 2019; Lee et al., 2004), curriculum and educational method research (Grossman et al., 2008), and educational practice research (Ikeno, 2011; Kennedy et al., 2010). There have also been international comparative studies and research on citizenship education conducted by international organizations (e.g., Schulz et al., 2010). Ninomiya (2007) and Minei (2007) focused on various countries’ systems from the perspective of comparative education. Ikeno (2011) examined citizenship education in Japan from the perspective of social studies education. However, previous research has not covered all the ASEAN countries. Therefore, this book presents the results of a regional study of all ten, focusing on citizenship education in the ASEAN Community. Although the studies on citizenship education mentioned above focused on ASEAN countries, their regional frameworks considered only East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Rim. Thus, while they examined Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, they excluded other ASEAN member countries. Other studies have focused on European integration and citizenship education in East Asia (Roland-Lévy & Ross, 2006; Nihon Shakaika Kyouiku Gakkai, 2008). Thompson and Thianthai’s (2008) comparative study of the attitudes and awareness of university students in ten ASEAN countries presented many implications for research on citizenship education. The present study was unique in that it considered the ASEAN Community as a single region; it also examined citizenship education in Brunei, where information was scarce, and Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam (CLMV countries, the least developed countries) and those with significant economic disparities compared to the other member countries. Its examination of citizenship education in countries that have not been investigated previously revealed additional information that contributed significantly to the body of literature on the ASEAN region.

8

T. Hirata

1.2.3 Purpose of This Book This book follows the objectives of the aforementioned Japanese version (Hirata, 2017), which was established by KAKENHI research. The specific objectives were as follows: (1) discuss the fundamental issues of citizenship education in the ASEAN community, namely ASEAN identity, ASEANness, and other key concepts and citizenship characteristics required in the twenty-first century; (2) summarize citizenship education in the ten ASEAN countries, including the latest reform trends in citizenship education, students’ citizenship awareness, and citizenship goals to be achieved over the next 10 years; and (3) provide a comparative study of the ten ASEAN countries and a summary and recommendations of citizenship education in ASEAN countries in the twenty-first century.

1.2.4 Structure of the Book This book is based on the aforementioned Japanese version of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community (Hirata, 2017), although it is partly a translation of the Japanese book into English and compacts the reports from the ten countries and comparative studies (Chaps. 3–13) while maintaining the essence of the Japanese version. It also provides a comparative analysis of students and the Delphi expert survey and the latest trends in citizenship education. Chapters 1, 2, and 14 were written specifically for this book. This book is organized into three parts corresponding to the objectives. Part I provides a basic understanding of the ASEAN Community and provides an overview of the basic framework of citizenship education. Part II analyzes the results of a survey on citizenship education in ASEAN countries. Part III provides a cross-sectional comparison of the findings from each country and provides an overall summary and recommendations. In Part I, Chap. 1 focuses on the ASEAN community and the study on citizenship education. Chapter 2 focuses on the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of citizenship education. In Part II, Chaps. 3–12 provide an overview of country-specific research and a survey analysis of citizenship education. The structure of each country report can be summarized as follows: (1) introduction, (2) new trends in citizenship education, (3) analysis of a survey on citizenship awareness among students, (4) analysis of a Delphi survey of experts (citizenship education professionals); (5) comparative analysis of the student survey and Delphi survey results; and (6) conclusions, including a summary and recommendations. In Part III, Chap. 13 compares and discusses the results of the analyses presented in Chaps. 3–12. Chapter 14 presents an overall conclusion from the following perspectives: (1) social conditions in ASEAN countries; (2) relevant laws, curricula, and textbooks related to citizenship education; (3) comparison of the current status of

1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education

9

citizenship education in various countries; (4) citizenship goals for the next 10 years; (5) summary and recommendations; and (6) research topics.

1.2.5 Research Methods This study used a mixed-methods approach. First, we collected and analyzed data and information regarding laws, regulations, policies, curricula, and textbooks related to citizenship education in each country. We also conducted interviews with researchers and the heads of government departments in charge of citizenship education. Second, we collected information about citizenship awareness using a questionnaire on citizenship among primary and secondary school students and analyzed the data. Third, we conducted a Delphi survey with experts, including teachers involved in citizenship education, such as social studies teachers, citizenship education researchers, primary and secondary school principals, educational supervisors in educational administrative agencies, and parent–teacher association (PTA) officers. We later used The Delphi survey method, which was repeated with the same informants to investigate citizenship goals for the next ten years. We could not obtain permission to conduct the Delphi survey in Myanmar and obtain student and Delphi surveys from Singapore. Therefore, we focused on analyzing points (1), (2), (5), and (6) of the above structure for Singapore and (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) for Myanmar. The Delphi method is a structured communication technique developed by the US War Department’s Project Rand (now RAND Corporation) as a systematic, interactive forecasting tool that relies on expert input. The Delphi method gathers input from many different experts and allows participants to comment on others’ anonymized responses. We sent questionnaires to many experts in the field, then collected the results and summarized the various respondents’ opinions, reexamining them until the opinions converged. We administered two questionnaires to various experts over two years. We distributed the second survey to the same respondents as the first survey, asking the respondents to complete the survey after looking at the results of the first survey. This process enabled us to conduct an in-depth investigation that elucidated the status, issues, and prospects of citizenship education and the current and recommended citizenship education for the ten countries.

1.2.6 Characteristics, Significance, and Importance of This Study This book presents a comparative study of all ten ASEAN member countries within the framework of the ASEAN region, unlike previous studies (e.g., Grossman et al.,

10

T. Hirata

2008) that examined citizenship education in specific ASEAN countries. This book is the first comparative study of ASEANness education for building the ASEAN Community. Furthermore, the book offers predictions about citizenship education over the next ten years based on the Delphi survey data. The study’s results provide a research perspective and framework for comparison with other regions, significantly advancing comparative education. Although national-level comparative education research is common, regional research can fill many knowledge gaps, and provides valuable information that enables more in-depth comparative education research. This study fills the knowledge gaps related to citizenship education in the ASEAN Community. Kennedy (2019), who advocated civic education along the same lines as the team’s vision of civic education, argued that the development of civic and citizenship education (CCE) in a volatile future will help young people become wise, engaged, and tolerant citizens. Knowing more about how young people learn will assist with the development of CCE programs that will have an impact in supporting young people to become knowledgeable, participative and tolerant citizens in what can only be a volatile future. (Kennedy, 2019, p. 78)

1.2.7 Target Audience for This Book This book should be of interest to three groups of readers: (1) the heads and professional staff of relevant government and curriculum-development departments who are in charge of developing their respective countries’ policies, plans, and curricula for citizenship education; (2) researchers and professors engaged in curriculum development and educational research on citizenship education at institutions of higher education; and (3) schoolteachers responsible for citizenship education and undergraduate and graduate students in the teacher training departments of institutions of higher education. In particular, we hope that students and graduate students who are receiving teacher training at teacher training institutions (undergraduate and graduate schools) and in-service teachers will actually attempt to develop a curriculum. We hope that this research will be useful in fostering the ability to develop a citizenship education. The interrelationship among these three groups could form the Plan–Do–Check– Action (PDCA) cycle (please refer to Chap. 14, for a diagram of this relationship). However, the discussion of the framework and methodology of citizenship education and curriculum development could help both those involved in ASEAN and those conducting citizenship education research in other regions. This study sets the level and phase as the coordinate axes and develops a table of characteristics (see Chap. 2). The framework and the table of citizenship characteristics herein are tentative; however, as the characteristics of citizenship continue to evolve, new characteristics will likely be added. One characteristic is one unit of the study, with each unit created by selecting learning subjects and developing a learning unit plan. The curriculum was developed as a unit of study for one characteristic. One characteristic

1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education

11

depends on the school level; in elementary school, for instance, a unit of study could be planned for about 15 h of study time. The list of characteristics proposed here is suggestive, universal, and effective not only for the ASEAN Community but also for researchers, students, graduate students, and schoolteachers interested and involved in citizenship education in general.

1.2.8 Chapter Summaries The following paragraphs provide brief overviews of the book’s content. Chapter 1—This chapter considers and discusses the ASEAN Community, provides the study’s background and history, reviews previous studies, and describes the study’s purpose, structure, research methods, significance, audience, limitations, and results. Chapter 2—This chapter discusses the key ideas of this study. The study’s key concepts have been previously discussed (Hirata, 2007, 2016a, 2016b, 2017); this chapter reaffirms the key concepts critical to the rest of the book, focusing on the fundamental issues and theoretical and methodological frameworks of citizenship education. This chapter examines key terms, such as ASEAN identity, ASEANness, ASEAN studies, the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (ASEAN, 2012), and the basic citizenship education framework required in the twenty-first century. Chapter 3 (Brunei)—In the Malay Islamic Monarchy (MIB), citizenship education is a specific subject for developing citizenship. Brunei views the purpose of citizenship education as developing “good citizens,” who are people with good moral values who respect diversity, freedom, and human rights. The MIB aims to strengthen citizens’ sense of values and responsibility toward themselves and their families, communities, religions, and nations. This has important implications for nation-building and identity formation. Chapter 4 (Cambodia)—Cambodia education has no single subject dedicated to citizenship education; instead, citizenship education through related subjects such as morality, civics, history, and geography. Cambodia’s citizenship education nurtures citizens to become empowered and actively involved in society under the influence of postmodern values in nascent civil society. However, education is a difficult task because it involves value transformation; young Cambodians are absorbed by the digital world of social media, allowing them to imagine the ASEAN without being bound by national borders. They recognize themselves as ASEAN citizens. Our study found a higher than anticipated percentage of respondents who were aware of their ASEAN identity. Chapter 5 (Indonesia)—Indonesia provides citizenship education under the 2013 curriculum as Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan (Pancasila and Citizenship Education). The curriculum’s main objective is to help students become good citizens, understand their rights and duties as citizens, obey the laws, develop democratic attitudes, support national unity and integration, and respect diversity, freedom,

12

T. Hirata

and human rights. Citizenship education expands and refines the content of ASEANness education in the curriculum. One challenge is that Indonesian teachers need to cooperate and share their ideas and experiences with teachers in other ASEAN countries. Chapter 6 (Lao PDR)—Laos trains human resources to respond to globalization while providing education in the direction of socialism. It is currently improving its citizenship education curriculum with the cooperation of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). Laos views the purpose of citizenship education as globalizing people for ASEAN integration. However, globalization appears to be insufficient. No specific subject for citizenship education has been introduced; however, much of it is covered by “World Around Us,” a fusion of science and social studies. Chapter 7 (Malaysia)—In Malaysia, a multi-ethnic and multicultural country, national unity policy has been a significant issue since its independence. Civics and citizenship education (CCE), which was introduced in primary and secondary schools in 2005, defined citizens as “nationals” and citizenship as the “duties and rights as citizens,” with the ultimate goal of becoming a member of the Malaysian nation. In 2019, the Ministry of Education introduced a new approach to citizenship education: civic education. The challenge is not only to develop citizenship knowledge but also citizenship activities—individuals performing as citizens at the family, school, community, national, and ASEAN levels. Chapter 8 (Myanmar)—The new curriculum framework for 2015 set the goal of developing good global citizens. Myanmar provides citizenship education through a social studies course called Moral and Civic Education, which teaches students to act analytically and ethically, respect human rights while observing the duties and responsibilities of citizens, and behave as productive Myanmar citizens and citizens of the world. However, the country needs to address three challenges: (1) realization of the new curriculum, (2) improvements in teachers’ abilities, and (3) maintenance of educational facilities. Chapter 9 (Philippines)—The government is working to improve the quality of education by promoting various educational reforms, such as school management, based on each school and cooperation between public and private schools through the introduction in 2012 of the K–12 Program reforming basic education. K–12 is considered a response to the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). Citizenship education aims to develop socially responsible and law-abiding citizens of the Philippines by including the study of the Constitution in the curriculum of all educational institutions. With the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community, the country’s future school education will focus on helping students acquire the identities of ASEAN citizens and good citizens in the local community and nation. Chapter 10 (Singapore)—In 2014, Singapore introduced the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) into primary and secondary schools to teach values and build student competencies, allowing them to become good individuals and useful citizens in a rapidly changing and globalizing society. CCE was initially intended to help students develop an interest in the world they live in and develop empathy and

1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education

13

tolerance in relationships with others by understanding the values that shape Singaporean society. Students learn about respect, responsibility, resilience, integration, care, and harmony—qualities considered the basis for good character and useful citizenship. The 2020 curriculum plan included three new courses: enhanced CCE, knowing Asia, and strengthening digital literacy. Chapter 11 (Thailand)—Thailand conducts education under the National Education Act of 1999 and the 2008 Curriculum. The 2008 curriculum emphasizes key competencies, such as communication, intellectual skills, problem-solving, life skills, and technology skills. The curriculum provides citizenship education through social studies, religion, and culture. This education promotes peaceful coexistence in Thai society and the world community, good citizenship, religious faith, appreciation of resources and the environment, patriotism, and Thai pride. Thailand views good citizens as those who fulfill their duties and responsibilities as citizens and coexist peacefully with the world, with Thai tradition and culture at the core. Chapter 12 (Vietnam)—In Vietnam, citizenship education falls under the Education Act of 2019. The purpose of citizenship education is to form civic qualifications and competence. Vietnam considers citizenship education in the social context of Vietnamese society. There has been a shift from teacher-centered, achievementoriented, and test-oriented education to learner-centered and process-oriented education. In other words, there is a legal requirement to think and act instead of acquiring citizenship through examinations. Textbooks were prepared for the Common Across Education Program, which started in 2018, and moral education was provided once a week in elementary schools. Chapter 13—This chapter provides an analysis of the student surveys on citizenship and the Delphi survey for experts conducted in ten ASEAN countries. The student surveys revealed that students valued history, tradition, and culture at the national level, had problems engaging in actual actions, were enthusiastic about religious beliefs and practices, and had national awareness and pride. There were some knowledge inadequacies, suggesting that ASEAN countries should address the challenges when promoting ASEANness education. Chapter 14—The final chapter summarizes the study and discusses the overall conclusions about citizenship education in the ten ASEAN countries. It summarizes each country’s social situation, state of education, laws, policies, curricula, textbooks related to citizenship education, ASEANness education and ASEAN studies, and the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (2012). It also offers the study participants’ citizenship goals for the next ten years and summarizes the recommendations, challenges, and prospects related to citizenship education. The Delphi survey revealed that citizenship education in ASEAN could be considered from the perspectives of diversity and commonality; the challenge is striking a balance between the two.

14

T. Hirata

1.2.9 Study Limitations First, although this study examined all ten ASEAN countries, data from Myanmar and Singapore were insufficient. We obtained only a minimum amount of data from the two countries, such as policy documents and materials, which we examined to the maximum possible extent. We hope to conduct a complete survey in the future. Second, the theoretical and analytical considerations of citizenship are insufficient. In future research, we will need to consider the concept from various academic fields beyond pedagogy, such as political science, philosophy, and sociology. Sadly, the comprehensive approach was beyond the scope of the present study. In addition, the theoretical and methodological considerations of ASEAN itself were insufficient. The present study was broad, rather than in-depth. Third, we did not have sufficient time to allow us to conduct various types of analyses, such as comparative and cross analyses by school stage, age, or student attributes (e.g., age, gender, experience) in our Delphi survey. The study’s Delphi survey sample size was also insufficient; in particular, we were unable to collect the statistically required number of samples for the five job categories.

References ASEAN. (1967). The ASEAN declaration (Bangkok declaration)Bangkok, 8 August 1967. Retrieved September 1, 2021, from https://agreement.asean.org/media/download/20140117154159.pdf. ASEAN. (1997a). Press statement of the 2nd ASEAN informal meeting of heads of state/government of the member states of ASEAN Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 15 December 1997. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/press-statement-of-the-2nd-asean-informal-meeting-of-heads-ofstate-government-of-the-member-states-of-asean-kuala-lumpur-malaysia-15-december-1997. ASEAN. (1997b). ASEAN vision 2020. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/asean-vis ion-2020. ASEAN. (2003a). Press statement by the chairperson of the 9th ASEAN summit and the 7th ASEAN +3 summit Bali, Indonesia. Retrieved June 11, 2021, from https://asean.org/press-statement-bythe-chairperson-of-the-9th-asean-summit-and-the-7th-asean-3-summit-bali-indonesia. ASEAN. (2003b). Declaration of ASEAN concord II (Bali concord II). Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/speechandstatement/declaration-of-asean-concord-ii-bali-concord-ii. ASEAN. (2005a). Chairman’s statement of the 11th ASEAN summit “One Vision, One Identity, One Community,” Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/chairmans-statem ent-of-the-11th-asean-summit-one-vision-one-identity-one-community-kuala-lumpur. ASEAN. (2005b). Statement of the ministers responsible for education of ASEAN countries, Retreat. August 19, 2005. Retrieved February 15, 2022, from https://asean.org/statement-of-the-ministersresponsible-for-education-of-asean-countries-retreat. ASEAN. (2006). Joint statement from the 1st ASEAN education ministers meeting and 41st SEAMEO council conference Singapore, 23 March 2006. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/joint-statement-from-the-1st-asean-education-ministers-meetingand-41st-seameo-council-conference-singapore. ASEAN. (2007a). Chairman’s statement of the 12th ASEAN summit H.E. The President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. “One Caring and Sharing Community.” Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/chairpersons-statement-of-the-12th-asean-summit-h-e-the-presid ent-gloria-macapagal-arroyo-one-caring-and-sharing-community.

1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education

15

ASEAN. (2007b). Chairman’s statement of the 13th ASEAN summit, “One ASEAN at the Heart of Dynamic Asia” Singapore, 20 November 2007. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/chairmans-statement-of-the-13th-asean-summit-one-asean-at-theheart-of-dynamic-asia-singapore-20-november-2007. ASEAN. (2007c). The ASEAN charter. Jakarta, Indonesia: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/2013/resources/publication/ 2012%20-%20The%20ASEAN%20Charter%20in%20English%20and%20ASEAN%20Lang uages%20(May).pdf. ASEAN. (2009a). Chairman’s statement of the 14th ASEAN summit “ASEAN Charter for ASEAN Peoples.” Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/chairmans-statement-of-the-14thasean-summit-asean-charter-for-asean-peoples-cha-am-28-february-1-march-2009. ASEAN. (2009b). Cha-am Hua Hin declaration on the roadmap for the ASEAN community (2009– 2015). Retrieved February 12, 2022, from https://www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/ASEAN/ declaration/Cha-amHuaHinRoadmap.pdf. ASEAN. (2012). ASEAN curriculum sourcebook. ASEAN Secretariat. ASEAN. (2015a). 2015 Kuala Lumpur declaration on the establishment of the ASEAN community. Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https://asean.org/kuala-lumpur-declaration-on-the-establ ishment-of-the-asean-community. ASEAN. (2015b). Chairman’s statement of the 27th ASEAN summit Kuala Lumpur, 21 November 2015, “Our People, Our Community, Our Vision.” Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Final-Chairmans-Statement-of-27thASEAN-Summit-25-November-2015.pdf. ASEAN. (2015c). Kuala Lumpur declaration on ASEAN 2025: Forging ahead together. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/kuala-lumpur-declaration-on-asean-2025-forging-aheadtogether/. ASEAN. (2020a). Chairman’s statement of the 37th ASEAN summit Ha Noi, 12 November 2020, cohesive and responsive. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/chairmans-statementof-the-37th-asean-summit. ASEAN. (2020b).The narrative of ASEAN identity adopted by the 37th ASEAN summit, 12 November 2020. Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/ 08/9-The-Narrative-of-ASEAN-Identity_Adopted-37th-ASEAN-Summit_12Nov2020.pdf. ASEAN. (2020c). Joint statement of the eleventh ASEAN education ministers meeting. Retrieved August 24, 2021. ASEAN. (2021). ASEAN. Retrieved August 21, 2021, from https://asean.org. ASEAN–Japan Centre. (2021). Outline of ASEAN. Retrieved February 15, 2022, from https://www. asean.or.jp/en/asean/base/outline/. Grossman, D. L., Lee, W. O., & Kennedy, K. J. (Eds.). (2008). Citizenship curriculum in Asia and the Pacific. Springer, Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2007). Shiminsei Kyouiku no Kenkyuu-Nihon to Thai no Hikaku (Study on citizenship education: Comparative study between Japan and Thailand). Toshindo. Hirata, T. (2016a). Citizenship education in member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. In K. J. Kennedy & A. Brunold (Eds.), Regional contexts, and citizenship education in Asia and Europe (pp. 81–88). Routledge. Hirata, T. (2016b). Citizenship education and education for “ASEANness” in ASEAN countries. In K. J. Kennedy & A. Brunold (Eds.), Regional contexts, and citizenship education in Asia and Europe (pp. 89–106). Routledge. Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2017). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community). Toshindo. Ikeno, N. (Ed.). (2011). Citizenship education in Japan. Continuum. Kennedy, K. J. (2019). Civic and citizenship education in volatile times: Preparing students for citizenship in the 21st century. Springer. Kennedy, K. J., & Brunold, A. (Eds.). (2016). Regional contexts and citizenship education in Asia and Europe. Routledge.

16

T. Hirata

Kennedy, K. J., Lee, W. O., & Grossman, D. L. (Eds.). (2010). Citizenship pedagogies in Asia and the Pacific. Springer, Comparative Education Research Centre. Lee, W. O., Grossman, D. L., Kennedy, K. J., & Fairbrother, G. P. (Eds.). (2004). Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and issues. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Minei, A. (Ed.). (2007). Sekai no Citizenship Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the world). Toshindo. Nihon Shakaika Kyouiku Gakkai. (2008). Higashi Ajia Niokeru Citizenship Kyouiku (Citizenship education in East Asia). Japanese Association for Social Studies. Meiji Library. Ninomiya, A. (Ed.). (2007). Shiminsei Keiseiron (Citizenship formation theory). Society for the Promotion of Education, Open University of Japan. Roland-Lévy, C., & Ross, A. (Eds.). (2006). Oushuu Tougou to Citizenship Kyouiku (Political learning and citizenship in Europe) (T. Nakazato & H. Takeshima, Trans.). Akashi Shoten. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 international report: Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower secondary school students in 38 countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520018.pdf. Thompson, E. C., & Thianthai, C. (2008). Attitudes and awareness towards ASEAN: Findings of a ten-nation survey. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Chapter 2

The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community Toshifumi Hirata and Minoru Morishita

Abstract This chapter examines the conceptual framework of citizenship education in the ASEAN community. This chapter contains six sections: (1) the basic concept of citizenship education, which discusses the meanings of the terms citizen and citizenship; civic, national, and citizenship education; the necessity of citizenship education; and global citizenship; (2) key concepts of citizenship education in the ASEAN Community, including ASEAN identity and ASEANness education; (3) ASEANness education curriculum, including ASEAN Studies and the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (2012); (4) a citizenship education framework for surviving in the twenty-first century; (5) the characteristics of citizenship required in the twentyfirst century, revised from the previous list and containing characteristics such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Social Networking Service (SNS), and virus infections; and (6) a review of a student survey and Delphi expert survey on attitudes toward citizenship. Keywords ASEAN awareness · ASEAN curriculum sourcebook · ASEAN identity · ASEANness education · ASEAN studies · Delphi expert survey · Global citizenship · Student survey

2.1 Basic Concepts of Citizenship Education This chapter reviews and revisits the book’s central theme of citizenship education, including its fundamentals, key concepts, basic framework, and new citizenship characteristics. As described in Chap. 1, the research project began as a comparative study of citizenship education in Japan and Thailand conducted from 2002 to 2007 and funded by a KAKENHI JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research. In a series T. Hirata (B) Faculty of Education, Oita University, Oita City 870-1192, Japan e-mail: [email protected] M. Morishita Faculty of Marine Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2-1-6, Etchujima, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8533, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_2

17

18

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

of studies, project members reviewed and shared the methodologies of citizenship education. This chapter reconfirms such fundamental topics as the concept, definition, and theoretical framework of citizenship education by referring to previous works.

2.1.1 Meanings of Citizen and Citizenship Kojien (Shinmura, 2018), Japan’s most authoritative dictionary, defines citizens as follows: (1) a resident of a city, a member of a city; (2) a citizen who is in a position to participate in national politics; a public citizen; a person who participates autonomously and voluntarily in the formation of public space. Kojien defines civil society as follows: Civil society is a society in which privileges, status-based domination, and subordination are abolished, and in which life is conducted through discussion and agreement by free and equal individuals, unregulated by state power. Fundamental human rights and freedom of conscience are guaranteed. It is said to be a concept born from the Age of Enlightenment. (Shinmura, 2018, P. 1340, Authors’ translation)

Put simply, citizens are members of the public who are legally recognized subjects or nationals of a country (native or naturalized). The concept of citizens as participants in national (or local) events and politics was developed during the Enlightenment, based on the rational and critical spirit. During the Enlightenment (seventeenth to eighteenth centuries), philosophers such as Locke and Montesquieu criticized the traditional and feudal society that had pervaded England, Germany, France, and other countries since the Middle Ages. They considered citizens to be free and equal individuals who were not regulated by state power and who could participate in national politics. Since some scholars argue that the concept of citizenship dates back to the city-states of ancient Greece, it clearly has a long history. The concept of civil society—individuals and organizations not attached to the government—shifted dramatically following the Puritan Revolution (1642) in England and the French Revolution (1789) in France to mean a society established by free and equal individuals. In the dictionary sense, in Japanese, the three terms citizen (shimin), nation (kokumin), and citizen (kohmin) could be considered synonymous. Citizens have two meanings: national and civic. This means that the term citizen can mean both (or either) a member of a nation or a member of civil society. The two terms are not contradictory, but are synonymous. For example, the objectives of social studies in the Japanese curriculum use the term kohmin in the phrase “the characteristics of a citizen,” and the ultimate goal is to acquire these characteristics. Since 1968, the term kohmin has had two meanings in Japanese courses: “citizens who are members of the state” and “citizens who are members of civil society.” The former social studies curriculum for elementary school students in Japan stated the following: The term “civic characteristics” (kouminteki shishitsu) refers to those characteristics that are necessary to act as citizens and nationals of a peaceful and democratic nation and society

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education …

19

living in an international society. Therefore, civic characteristics are considered to be attitudes and abilities such as having awareness as a shaper of a peaceful and democratic nation and society, respecting others’ personalities, trying to fulfill social obligations and responsibilities, thinking from multiple perspectives in various aspects of social life, and making fair judgments. These civic characteristics are also considered to be the basis for the characteristics and abilities to live independently in an international society with a sense of Japanese identity and to participate in the formation of a better society, such as aiming to realize a sustainable society. (MEXT, 2008a, p. 12, Authors’ translation)

Japan’s 2017 curriculum for social studies in elementary and junior high schools (MEXT, 2017a, b) and the 2018 high school curriculum for geography, history, and civics (MEXT, 2018a, b) reorganized the characteristics and abilities to be cultivated into three pillars: the expressed goal of civic characteristics changed to the civic characteristics and abilities necessary to effectively form peaceful, democratic nations and societies to live independently in the global society (MEXT, 2017a, p. 20). Scholars continue to debate the best definition of citizens. Although modern society has become globally connected and seems virtually borderless, national borders exist, and each country has its own political and economic systems. For our study, we defined citizens as persons who are members of civil society, who can live in a rapidly changing society, and who can address problems such as human rights, peace, environment, and development peacefully and democratically. In this age of rapid globalization, citizens must be able to make decisions on a global level and solve problems on a global scale. Such citizens are considered global citizens. Citizenship refers to “the characteristics that citizens possess, such as knowledge about society, skills and attitudes that enable them to actively participate in society to realize a peaceful and democratic society, and characteristics that enable them to understand other cultures, live together, and make decisions and take action on their own” (Hirata, 2007, pp. 9–10). Cogan, a leading authority on citizenship education, defined citizen as “a constituent member of society” and citizenship and citizenship education as follows: A citizen was defined as ‘a constituent member of society.’ Citizenship, on the other hand, was said to be ‘a set of characteristics of being a citizen.’ And finally, citizenship education, the underlying focal point of the study, was defined as ‘the contribution of education to the development of those characteristics of being a citizen.’ (Cogan & Derricott, 1998, p. 14)

2.1.2 Civic, National, and Citizenship Education Cogan et al. (2002) argued that civic education is an indirect and direct part of all educational school activities and subjects, particularly literature, history, music, and social studies. They defined civic education as follows: For the purpose of this book, we have chosen to define civic education, in the broadest terms possible, that is, as the formation through the process of schooling of the knowledge, skills, values, and dispositions of citizens. (Cogan et al., 2002, p. 4)

20

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

Civic education nurtures people who are members of the nation-state. An examination of the relationship between citizens, nationals, and civics indicates that the concept of national education is similar to or almost equal to the concept of civic education. National education emphasizes the nation, keeping it in the foreground. In contrast to civic education and national education, citizenship education addresses the issue of individual quality. It teaches characteristics that citizens should acquire, including how and by what process, and helps students make decisions and take action. This type of education helps form a civil society and guarantees basic human rights and freedom of conscience. Citizen education enables the realization of a civil society in which free and equal individuals engage in discussion and agreement without regulation by the state. Thus, citizenship education has a somewhat different nuance and meaning from national and civic education. Citizenship education focuses on individual rights and responsibilities rather than on the nation. In the modern world, international influences permeate politics, economics, society, and culture. People, goods, money, and information move around the world beyond national borders. The state has become only a system. “Under these circumstances, in order to create a better international society in the twenty-first century and to survive strongly in the severe global society, it is important to create a new educational framework” (Hirata, 2007, p. 15).

2.1.3 The Necessity of Citizenship Education Research on citizenship education became popular in the 1990s. According to Cogan and Derricott (1998), globalization has created many challenges, including economic imbalances that disproportionately harm the poor. Advances in electronic communications and transportation technologies have accelerated the globalization. Environmental degradation is also accelerating. With such rapid advances, ethical quandaries in diverse fields, from genetics to immigration to healthcare. These issues are the subject of citizenship education. Cogan and Derricott (1998) and Cogan et al. (2002) argued that civic education should likewise include globalization and pluralistic culturalism in its policy and practice, given that the number of people moving across borders has made nearly every country multiethnic. Giddens (2000) identified three challenges: globalization, technological advancement, and impact on daily life, such as changes in traditions and lifestyles. Kennedy (2019) argued that education was essential in “supporting young people to become knowledgeable, participative, and tolerant citizens in what can only be volatile times in the future” (p. 64).

2.1.4 Global Citizenship Kennedy (2019) examined the idea of neoliberal civic and citizenship education (CCE) and noted two possible lines of thought:

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education …

21

Yet the main interest here is the implications of this neo-liberal view of the world for CCE. There are two possible lines of development worth exploring. The first line is the attempt by neo-liberals to dismantle all vestiges of the state’s responsibility for its citizens by developing what might be called the idea of ‘the self-regulating citizen.’ The second line is almost the opposite, focused on developing the idea of ‘the global citizen’ who has links and concerns across borders for his/her fellow citizens in area such as human rights, political participation, equality and social justice. (Kennedy, 2019, pp. 19–20)

This book considers the characteristics of global citizenship—specifically, democracy, human rights, political participation, equality, and social justice—essential characteristics of these two lines and argues in favor of a curriculum for citizenship education based on a chart of these characteristics (Table 2.1). Kennedy (2019) also argued for the development of citizens who are active and equipped with appropriate knowledge, understanding, values, and attitudes—characteristics that this book also considers essential components of citizenship. Kennedy (2019) provided insights on future CCE, calling for learning environments in schools and the community. In his framework for future CCE, the debate on how future citizens can support democracy and its values in challenging times has just begun. As democratic deconsolidation proceeds, future citizens need not only understand democracy but also learn how to protect it, how to interrogate issues that seem to undermine it and how to continue building societies that are fair, tolerant and just, while recognizing that all values do not support democracy. A framework for these new demands on democratic citizens has been suggested to prepare citizens for a very different future. The framework that has been discussed here is the beginning of a necessary conversation about the way future citizens can support democracy and its values in challenging times. (Kennedy, 2019, pp. 61–62)

2.2 Key Concepts of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community: ASEAN Identity and ASEANness Education 2.2.1 ASEAN Identity This concept was introduced at the First Meeting of Education Ministers, held in March of 2006. In the conference’s statement, the education ministers expressed their vision to promote the regional identity of the ASEAN Community and unite and strengthen the ASEAN Community, as follows: 6.

Recognizing that ASEAN identity is made up of the different socio-cultural identities of the ASEAN Member Countries, the Ministers at the 1st ASED agreed that ASEAN can draw lessons and opportunities from the experiences of the Member Countries in managing cultural and racial diversity. The Ministers reaffirmed that education plays an important role in the promotion of regional identity and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. The Ministers emphasized the critical role that education has to play in fostering greater inter-cultural, inter-religious and inter-racial understanding within and between societies in the region.

• • • •

To participate in local politics To solve community problems To cooperate with one another To make decisions in the local community • To uphold social commitments • To coexist with other cultures

Skills and abilities

• • • • •

Local

Local history Local wisdom Local tradition and culture Local situation Coexistence in the local community • Sustainable development • Lifestyle in the local community

Knowledge and understanding

Phase level

Table 2.1 Characteristics of citizenship

(continued)

• To love the community • To believe in the middle path (a Buddhist concept) and the sufficiency economy • To believe the teachings of one’s religion • To believe traditions • To be proud of being a local inhabitant • To have a peaceful life in the local community • To uphold democracy in the local community • To have a local identity • To behave in accordance with local traditions and cultures • To be proud of the local community • To have concern for development • To esteem life • To engage in volunteer works • To volunteer and help one another • To commit to social activities • To esteem human rights

Values and attitudes

22 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

• To participate in national politics • To solve national problems • To cooperate with one another • To make national decisions • To uphold social commitments • To coexist with other cultures

•

• •

•

Skills and abilities

• • • • •

National history Tradition and culture Culture diversity Law Middle path and sufficiency economy System of politics and administration Social problems Coexistence and living together Sustainable development

Knowledge and understanding

Phase level

National

Table 2.1 (continued) • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

To behave in accordance with national traditions and cultures To love the nation To be proud to be a citizen To have a peaceful life To uphold democracy To be moral To have a national identity To believe in the middle path and a sufficient economy To be concerned for the environment and development To try new things To esteem human rights To engage in volunteer works To volunteer and help one another To commit to social activities

Values and attitudes

(continued)

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 23

• • •

•

• • • •

• •

• • • •

• • • • •

•

• • • • • •

To preserve democracy To preserve human rights To realize and maintain peace To understand other cultures To cooperate with one another To be proficient in multiple languages To solve environmental problems To improve quality of life To develop sustainably To develop human power To realize social welfare To preserve social justice and rights To sustain the environment To commit to social activities To coexist To make regional decisions

Skills and abilities

• • • •

Democracy Human rights Peace Understanding different cultures Mutual cooperation Foreign and ASEAN languages Environmental problems Improvement of quality of life Sustainable development Human power development concerning ICT, science, and technology Social welfare (solutions for poverty, unfavorable influences of globalization, food safety, sickness, drug abuse, disaster preparation) Social justice and rights Environmental sustainability Coexistence

Knowledge and understanding

Phase level

Regional

Table 2.1 (continued)

(continued)

• To have an ASEAN identity (norms, values, beliefs) • To have ASEAN awareness (sense of belonging and awareness of mutual understanding of culture, history, and civilization) • To exhibit democratic attitudes • To esteem human rights • To be peace-oriented • To be aware of other cultures and customs • To maintain mutual cooperation among regions • To be aware of environmental problems in the regions • To improve the quality of life • To have an attitude, awareness, and interest toward sustainable development • To have an attitude, awareness, and interest toward human power development • To have an attitude, awareness, and interest toward social welfare • To have an attitude, awareness, and interest toward social justice and rights • To exhibit attitudes toward sustainability of the environment • To have a social commitment • To coexist

Values and attitudes

24 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

• To solve global problems • To participate in global politics • To cooperate with one another • To attain peaceful resolutions • To think critically and globally • To argue effectively • To challenge injustice and inequality • To improve the quality of life • To achieve foreign language proficiency (communication) • To live peacefully in a global society • To coexist with other cultures • To embrace the information society • To understand other cultures inside and outside the country • To make global decisions • To commit to social activities • To respond to AI • To respond to IoT • To achieve SDGs • To manage SNS • To fight disease and health threats

• • • • • • • •

•

Skills and abilities

• • • • • • •

Social justice and equity Interdependence Culture diversity Sustainable development Environment World history Coexistence and living together Understand different cultures in an international society Globalization Follow protocols Science and technology AI IoT SDGs SNS Viral infections and pandemics

Knowledge and understanding

Phase level

Global

Table 2.1 (continued)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

(continued)

To live democratically To have a positive attitude toward IT, science, and technology To be concerned with the global economy To have an identity, self-esteem, and self-reliance To exhibit empathy To respect diversity and culture To commit to social justice and equity To conserve and show concern for the natural environment and sustainable development To manage resources To try new things To be aware of and address global issues To uphold international cooperation To understand other cultures To love the international society To follow protocols To be proud of being a member of the global society To maintain peace in the global society To uphold democracy in the global society To have an identity as a global citizen To have a social commitment To esteem human rights To respond to AI To respond to IoT To achieve SDGs To manage SNS To fight disease and health threats

Values and attitudes

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 25

• • • • • •

Adapted from Hirata (2007, 2013, 2016a, b, 2017)

To learn and reason To judge To express self and opinions To work with others To protect human rights To make decisions

Skills and abilities

• • • • • •

Cultural diversity Human rights Peace Environment Development Democracy

Knowledge and understanding

Phase level

Universal

Table 2.1 (continued) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

To be responsible To live happily To exhibit self-control To respect the law To uphold moral principles, ethics, and social rules To be honest and truthful To be peace-oriented To be trustworthy To be punctual To be friendly and helpful To be self-actualized To be grateful To be frugal To think democratically To search for truth To seek and provide evidence To acknowledge rights and fulfill duties To make decisions and act To respect human rights To have the spirit of volunteerism To be tolerant To make efforts to achieve goals To have self-restraint To be strong-willed

Values and attitudes

26 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 8.

27

To realize the vision of a cohesive and outward-looking ASEAN Community, the ASEAN Education Ministers agreed on the following initiatives: b.

Strengthen activities that bring ASEAN students and teachers together through more ASEAN studies to engender the ASEAN consciousness; and through more people-to-people interactions to strengthen the bonds and foster the ASEAN identity. (ASEAN, 2006)

Thus, teachers and students should develop a sense of ASEAN identity through ASEAN studies (see Sect. 3.1). Interactions between people strengthen their bonds. Furthermore, the ASEAN Charter (ASEAN, 2007) enacted in 2007, which came into effect in 2008, defined ASEAN identity as “inspired by and united under One Vision, One Identity and One Caring and Sharing Community.” One of the stated purposes was to “promote an ASEAN identity by fostering greater awareness of the diverse culture and heritage of the region” (ASEAN, 2007, Article 1, Paragraph 14). In addition, “ASEAN shall promote its common ASEAN identity and a sense of belonging among its people in order to achieve its shared destiny, goals, and values” (Article 35, ASEAN Identity). Furthermore, the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint of 2009 stipulated that building ASEAN identity requires the following: (1) promotion of ASEAN awareness and sense of community, (2) preservation and promotion of ASEAN cultural heritage, (3) promotion of cultural creativity and industry, and (4) engagement with the community (ASEAN, 2009). ASEAN identity was also discussed in a statement at the 37th ASEAN Summit in 2020: Promoting ASEAN Identity 29.

We underscored the importance of promoting and fostering ASEAN awareness and ASEAN Identity. We therefore encouraged the enhanced display of the ASEAN Flag in public buildings of ASEAN Member States, in accordance with ASEAN Member States’ domestic laws and regulations and the use of the ASEAN Anthem at ASEAN official functions. We noted the amendment of the Guidelines of the Use of the ASEAN Anthem, with a view to further encouraging the use of the Anthem in ASEAN official functions.

30.

We adopted the Narrative of ASEAN Identity which articulates a set of inherited and constructed values that would contribute to deepening a sense of regional belonging as part of our ASEAN Community building efforts. We encouraged greater crosssectoral and cross-pillar coordination to mainstream ASEAN Identity in the work of ASEAN. (ASEAN, 2020a)

The ASEAN Community was established in 2015. In 2020, they established an official ASEAN flag and anthem to promote ASEAN awareness and identity further. According to “The Narrative of ASEAN Identity” (ASEAN, 2020b), there are two types of ASEAN identity: constructed and inherited. Constructed values are universal and include respect, peace, security, democracy, freedom, and human rights. Inherited values include local traditions, customs, and beliefs handed down from the past. For ASEAN to be united as a community, these universal and diverse values must be unified. The challenge is to create a diverse society into “One Vision, One Identity, One Community.” In addition, the narrative describes the type of citizenship that should be provided:

28

T. Hirata and M. Morishita ASEAN Identity shall strengthen and seal the bond of ASEAN people by strengthening the ASEAN Community. ASEAN community is an imagined community. It is defined as the ultimate goal of ASEAN Community building process; a community that is bound by the values that drive the people of ASEAN to achieve advanced citizenship and enlightenment;a community that has a regional perspective, which manages to have a balance between national and regional interests. (ASEAN, 2020b)

The Narrative pointed out that the relationship between ASEAN identity and the ASEAN Community was bound by values that would lead ASEAN people to a high level of citizenship and a critical balance between countries and regions.

2.2.2 ASEANness Education The ASEAN education ministers were the first to use the term ASEANness (Kampeeraparb & Suzuki, 2016), notably at an informal retreat in Bangkok of ASEAN education ministers on August 19, 2005. A statement released at that time indicated that ASEAN countries faced numerous new education challenges, while ongoing joint initiatives gained momentum. To build a stronger ASEAN Community through education, the ministers agreed to plan a course of interregional cooperation in education. We agreed to focus on ongoing efforts in education development to contribute to a solid ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community and promote ASEANness among our citizens, particularly the youth. We agree that ways to achieve the aims should include developing strength in cultural diversity, while promoting multi-cultural and multi-religious understanding to enhance peace and stability. They should also focus on building a learning society for a knowledge economy, and working towards realizing “Education for all” in ASEAN, so as to narrow development gaps. (ASEAN, 2005)

Education in the ASEAN Community was intended to foster common ASEANness values. The ministers hoped that ASEAN citizens, particularly youth, would embrace the term ASEANness. They saw this as a way to achieve educational goals to develop strong cultural diversity and respect for other cultures and religions to enhance peace and stability in the ASEAN. They called for a focus on building a learning society for the knowledge economy and realizing education for all in ASEAN. The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) has positioned ASEANness as a key concept. The main objective of this research project is to clarify the meaning of ASEANness. The official starting point for understanding ASEANness was the ASEAN Charter signed in Singapore on November 20, 2007 (ASEAN, 2007). In this Charter, Article 1, Paragraph 10, stipulated the goal “To develop human resources through closer cooperation in education and life-long learning, and in science and technology, for the empowerment of the peoples of ASEAN and for the strengthening of the ASEAN Community;” Paragraph 14 stipulated the goal “To promote an ASEAN

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education …

29

identity through the fostering of greater awareness of the diverse culture and heritage of the region.” Furthermore, Article 35 stated that “ASEAN shall promote its common ASEAN identity and a sense of belonging among its peoples in order to achieve its shared destiny, goals, and values.” Therefore, we argue the following: ASEANness education should be education that develops human resources through formal education and life-long learning, leveraging science and technology to empower the people of ASEAN, strengthen the ASEAN Community, promote ASEAN identity by fostering awareness of the region’s diverse culture and heritage, and promote the region’s common ASEAN identity and people’s sense of belonging to achieve their shared destiny, goals, and values. (Authors, 2021)

2.3 ASEANness Education Curriculum 2.3.1 ASEAN Studies This education is considered common for youth in member countries to acquire ASEANness as ASEAN citizens. The content of this education was presented at the first Education Ministers’ Meeting held on March 23, 2006. The following are its educational objectives, contents, and methods: 8.

To realize the vision of a cohesive and outward-looking ASEAN Community, the ASEAN Education Ministers agreed on the following initiatives: a.

Strengthen educational resources available to each member country in the area of ASEAN studies. This can be done through the use of ICT in developing and updating information among the ASEAN countries. The ASEAN Secretariat will work with the Member Countries and the SEAMEO Secretariat to compile source books on ASEAN, which will serve as useful resource materials for schools in ASEAN.

b.

Strengthen activities that bring ASEAN students and teachers together through more ASEAN studies to engender the ASEAN consciousness; and through more people-to-people interactions to strengthen the bonds and foster the ASEAN identity. (ASEAN, 2006)

The main aim was to provide educational resources that would be commonly available to all ASEAN countries, facilitated by the full use of ICT. They wanted ASEAN countries to strengthen their bonds and develop ASEAN identity through the sense of fellowship and interaction, making the most of ICT and source materials prepared for each ASEAN country. As mentioned in Chap. 1, at the 27th ASEAN Summit held on November 21, 2015, 2015 Kuala Lumpur Declaration on the Establishment of the ASEAN Community was adopted, and the ASEAN Community was inaugurated on December 31. At the same time, the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on ASEAN 2025: Forging Ahead Together and ASEAN Community Vision 2025 were adopted, and three blueprints (ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) Blueprint 2025, ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint 2025, and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Blueprint 2025) (ASEAN, 2015a, b, c).

30

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

In other words, the APSC Blueprint advocates the inclusion of ASEAN studies in the curriculum in order to raise awareness of a human-centered, rule-based, peoplecentered, people-oriented community. The development of curricula in ASEAN studies that enable students to enjoy human rights, fundamental freedoms, social justice, and sharing a common identity is encouraged. The latest preparation and implementation status of ASEAN studies in the ten countries are detailed in Table 14.2 in Chap. 14.

2.3.2 The ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook In 2012, the ASEAN Secretariat commissioned United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to develop a curriculum that was published as a curriculum source book—“a teaching resource for primary and secondary schools to foster an outward-looking, stable, peaceful, and prosperous ASEAN Community” (ASEAN, 2012). This source book defines education as follows: Education is a key way for ASEAN’s citizenry to become aware of the many connections that bind them, and to endow them with the skills they need to effectively build a better future across the region. For this purpose, ASEAN calls on Member States to come together to ensure that their young citizens in the classrooms learn about the interconnectedness among cultures, peoples, economies, governments, and ecosystems, and how these are linked to their own lives. It further urges member states to build students’21st century knowledge and skills, such as problem-solving, critical thinking, innovation, cross-cultural communication, collaboration, and media as well as IT literacy. (ASEAN, 2012, pp. 1–2)

Kampeeraparb and Suzuki (2016) called this “a tool and teacher-friendly manual to be used for incorporating ASEAN themes into classes in all subject areas at the primary and secondary levels” (p. 121). The sourcebook established five themes with seven subject areas. Themes: 1.

Knowing ASEAN;

2.

Valuing identity and diversity;

3.

Connecting global and local;

4.

Promoting equity and justice;

5.

Working together for a sustainable future.

Each of these themes had the following seven subject areas: 1.

History and social studies;

2.

Science and mathematics;

3.

Civic and moral education;

4.

Languages and literature;

5.

The arts;

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 6.

Health and physical education;

7.

Technology education. (ASEAN, 2012)

31

For each subject area, the book suggested learning activities and outcomes, thematic pathways, and essential questions about people, places, materials, and ideas. In addition, USAID prepared worksheets and other teaching materials, such as a sample lesson plan and handouts (ASEAN Country Cards) for each subject area. ASEAN member countries were supposed to develop local ASEANness educational curricula based on this sourcebook and implement educational practices. For example, Chanbanchong (2013) developed a curriculum for upper elementary school students in Thailand. Chapter 14 outlines the current status of curriculum development in the ASEAN countries.

2.4 Surviving the 21st Century: An Educational Framework for Citizenship Education It is no longer possible to solve global problems, such as peace, human rights, environmental issues, and developmental issues, without an international perspective, an awareness of the urgent need for solutions, and the need for education that will be required. This requires consideration of the development of global citizens: The 20th century was an era of national education, and the 21st century was an era of global citizenship education. First, global identity will replace national identity as the central theme of education. Not only will the ideals change, but the methods of education will also change dramatically. Second, while national education was focused on imparting knowledge with the aim of fostering the leaders of modern industry, and teaching how to reach the correct answer efficiently in education with the right answer, global citizenship education is an education of attitudes, an education that cultivates an attitude to continue thinking in search of the best solution where there is no right answer. Third, it aims to cultivate a positive selfimage in each individual and a mind that enjoys heterogeneity. Fourth, global citizenship education is more likely to involve teachers learning together with children and creating new cultural practices for the global age than knowledge-transfer or teacher-oriented classes, and it involves classroom reform. (Minoura, 1997, p. 38, Authors’ translation)

This kind of global citizenship education is not about national but global citizenship: Global citizenship fosters an attitude of continuous thinking in search of the best answer where there is no right answer. This means that each person should have a positive selfimage, cultivate a mind that enjoys heterogeneity, and teachers and children should learn together to create new cultural practices for the global age. In other words, education in the 21st century is to form human beings with the ability to confront global issues, grasp and analyze difficult problems, make decisions, and take action. (Hirata, 2007, p. 19)

The dramatic changes since the late twentieth century have necessitated a reassessment of education: the ICT revolution, the climate crisis, the Internet, advancing informatization, declining birthrates, aging populations, and the diversification of

32

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

values, among others. Education in the twenty-first century should focus on nurturing people and inculcating knowledge, abilities, and attitudes to make decisions and solve problems. This study analyzed and examined the type of education required to survive in the twenty-first century, focusing on citizenship education, and established the following educational framework: An education that fosters human beings who have the “knowledge and understanding,” “skills and abilities,” and “values and attitudes” to respect other cultures, live together with them and continue to think about issues that must be considered on a global scale, such as human rights, peace, environment, and development, from a global perspective, and make decisions and act on a local, national, regional, global, and universal level. (Hirata, 2017, p. 10)

This type of education seeks to foster empathy and people’s ability to understand others and see them as equals. People need to embrace all cultures’ diversity, uniqueness, and universality and live harmoniously with other social groups. The ultimate goal of education is to teach people to think independently, make informed decisions and sound judgments, and take action at the local, national, regional, global, and universal levels. The most important part of education is fostering the ability to make decisions and act on them.

2.5 Citizenship Characteristics Required in the 21st Century 2.5.1 Framework of Citizenship Characteristics: “Knowledge and Understanding,” “Skills and Abilities,” and “Values and Attitudes” In the study between Japan and Thailand that started from 2002, we extracted, analyzed, and established the characteristics of citizenship that are dealt with in previous research and educational policies and curricula on citizenship education in Japan and Thailand (the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (ONEC, 1999), Core Curriculum of Basic Education 2008 (OBEC, 2008) in Thailand, the 1989 Guidelines for the Course of Study for Elementary and Junior High Schools and the 1989 Guidelines for the Course of Study for High Schools in Japan) (MEXT, 1989a, b, c). In addition, Hicks (2001) considered three aspects as key elements of global citizenship: knowledge and understanding, skills, values and attitudes. Referring to Hicks’ method of establishing citizenship characteristics, the research team also classified citizenship characteristics into three phases: knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes. Furthermore, we classified the characteristics of these phases into local, national, global, and universal levels. The completed table of characteristics was reported in 2007 (see Table 2.1 and Hirata, 2007). In the research on citizenship education in the ASEAN community that began in 2010 (2010–2013), we used the 2008 Course of Study for Elementary and Junior High

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education …

33

Fig. 2.1 Framework of citizenship characteristics. Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

Schools and the 2009 Course of Study for High Schools as references for previous characteristics (MEXT, 2008a, b, 2009). In particular, since this is a regional study of ASEAN, “regional” was added to the level to create the final 2017 version of the table of characteristics (Hirata, 2017). Based on the above, we developed the following framework for citizenship characteristics (Fig. 2.1): As a result, the characteristics that have not been used so far and cannot be avoided in the future were added to the list. The new table is Table 2.1. This is a tentative version, and there is still room for further development.

2.5.2 Civic Characteristics Table 2.1 shows a revised version of Hirata’s (2007, 2013, 2016a, b, 2017) table of characteristics. This study updated the previous list of characteristics with new characteristics relevant to citizenship at the global level, such as AI, IoT, SDGs, SNS, and viral infections and pandemics. The vertical axis of the table represents the local, national, regional, global, and universal levels, and the horizontal axis represents the three categories of knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes. The matrix shows the characteristics identified in previous studies with concentrations of certain characteristics. The table illustrates the countries’ characteristics by separating the information into columns. In other words, it demonstrates whether the country is local, national, or global. Citizenship education differs according to the stance, circumstances, and social and cultural background of each country, society, and region. This table provides a perspective for constructing the most appropriate and well-balanced citizenship education for each country, society, and region. The table also shows where the country/society/region is at the moment. In addition, we can see which level, which elements, and which characteristics need to be improved or emphasized, and we can suggest ideal patterns. (Hirata, 2007, pp. 21–22)

This study examined the specific goals and contents of citizenship education and discussed the required characteristics of citizenship, including goals, content, significance, importance, and benefits. Each characteristic constitutes one unit or about 15 h of study in elementary school and about five hours in secondary school in the proposed citizenship education curriculum. These characteristics are not eternal,

34

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

universal, or fixed; they change and evolve. These are provisional characteristics (Hirata, 2007, 2013, 2016a, b, 2017).

2.6 Student Survey and Delphi Survey (Tables 2.2 and 2.3) 2.6.1 Student Survey (Table 2.2) We conducted the student questionnaire in the second year of our research project (2011–2012) in nine of the ten ASEAN countries; we could not secure permission from the Ministry of Education in time to include Singapore. Most countries distributed the survey primarily in metropolitan areas; however, some countries included rural schools. Approximately 600 students from each country were sampled: approximately 200 students from the upper elementary school grades, 200 from the upper junior high school grades, and 200 from the upper high school grades (Table 2.2). The surveys were conducted either in the presence of one of the primary researchers or a local co-researcher, and we collected the data on the spot. The survey results were tabulated using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp).

2.6.2 Delphi Survey (Table 2.3) and Results We also conducted a Delphi survey with education experts, including school principals, social studies teachers (or teachers in charge of subjects and courses related to citizenship education), university educators in charge of citizenship education (e.g., social studies, civics, character, moral, and pedagogy education), people of authority involved in educational administration (e.g., supervisors and inspectors), and PTA officers (e.g., heads, presidents, and representatives). Our target number of respondents was 100 per country; however, the number of actual respondents varied by country. We surveyed eight countries. We selected the characteristics to use in the Delphi survey from the characteristics listed in Table 2.1. We based our selection process on a discussion between Japanese and Thai researchers during the 2002–2007 research on citizenship education in Japan and Thailand. We adopted the characteristics used at that time for this research on citizenship education in ASEAN: 12 characteristics for knowledge and understanding, 14 for skills and abilities, and 13 for values and attitudes. Characteristics related to “Knowledge and understanding” (12 characteristics). (1) Environment (2) Coexistence and living together (3) Different cultures (4) Social justice and equity (5) Democracy (6) Sustainable development (7) Interdependence (8) Foreign language (9) Social welfare (10) Human rights (11) ASEAN history and culture (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries.

2011

600

Year

Number of samples (respondents)

Source Authors, 2021

Brunei

Country

Table 2.2 Student questionnaire

566

2012

Cambodia 637

2111

Indonesia 628

2011

Laos 699

2011

Malaysia 195

2011–2012

Myanmar 473

2011

Philippines

–

–

Singapore

592

2011

Thailand

602

2011–2012

Vietnam

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 35

160

2013

Cambodia

177

2012

Indonesia

299

2012

Laos

99

2012

Malaysia

–

–

Myanmar

55.6

26.5

Response rate (%)

Source Authors, 2021

2013 89

2013

99

Year of survey

Number of respondents (respondents) 97.7

173

2013 100

299

2013 66.7

66

2013 –

–

–

Second survey (respondents from the first survey ;answered while looking at the results of the first survey)

2012

374

Year of survey

Brunei

Number of samples (respondents)

First survey

Country

Table 2.3 Delphi survey

34.9

51

2013

146

2012

Philippines

–

–

–

–

–

Singapore

100

268

2013

268

2013

Thailand

90

90

2013

100

2013

Vietnam

36 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education …

37

Characteristics related to “Skills and abilities” (14 characteristics). (1) To express opinions on social problems (2) To have self-discipline and selfcontrol (3) To solve problems (4) To make decisions (5) To respond to ICT (6) To make a peaceful resolution (7) To think critically (8) To improve quality of life (9) To cooperate with each other (10) To develop sustainably (11) To contribute to society (12) To use foreign language (13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries (14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people. Characteristics related to “Values and attitudes” (13 characteristics). (1) To face wrong things and injustice (2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development (3) To have self-dependence (4) To respect cultural diversity (5) To place importance on the law (6) To promote international cooperation (7) To pay attention to global issues (8) To respect tradition and culture (9) To have morality and pride as a nation (10) To respect democracy (11) To respect human rights (12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology (13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN. The Delphi survey technique follows a particular calculation method. Therefore, we entrusted the Institute for Future Engineering (IFENG) using the tabulation method; the results of each chapter were analyzed using weighted average (WA) values. The Delphi method involves multiple surveys conducted with the same subjects; the respondents answered all the surveys (except the first) after reviewing other respondents’ anonymized answers to the previous survey(s). Thus, in our second survey, the same respondents answered the same survey questions while reviewing others’ answers to our first survey. This is referred to as the future prediction survey. Our survey, conducted between 2012 and 2013, concerned citizenship over the next ten years. Delphi survey results were considered reliable if there were at least 50 respondents. Therefore, although only 51 respondents participated in the second survey in the Philippines, these results could be considered reliable. In this survey, we used the weighted average (WA) value calculated based on a formula. Of the five questions, Q2 indicates the significance of the characteristics. Q2 WA (C). The higher the WA value, the more important it is. Q3 represents the degree of achievement of the characteristics. Q3 WA (A). The higher the WA value, the higher the current achievement level. Q4 refers to the characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later. Q4, WA (B). The higher the WA value, the higher the expectation 10 years from now. Q4 (B)–Q3(A) = (D) indicates the gap between the current level of achievement and the level of achievement 10 years from now. If the (D) WA value was a positive number, the characteristic indicated that the expectation 10 years from now was higher than the current level of achievement, while a negative number indicated that the characteristic was not expected to be attained in 10 years beyond the current level of achievement. The larger the value, the greater the gap between the current level of achievement and the expected level 10 years from now, indicating that this was a characteristic that required some kind of action, such as curriculum development or development of teaching materials. We focus on the value of (D).

38

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

Even if the value in (B) was large and the expectation level in 10 years was considered very high, if the level of achievement was high at present (A), the need to take measures was considered to be low. The purpose of (C) was to check the importance of quality as a reference. If the importance was low, there was no need to develop teaching materials. We also set Q5, which indicates the grade level at which the characteristics that should be acquired in 10 years should be taught, and the results of this question could be used to determine the annual distribution.

References ASEAN. (2005). Statement of the ministers responsible for education of ASEAN countries, Retreat. August 19, 2005. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/statement-of-the-ministers-res ponsible-for-education-of-asean-countries-retreat. ASEAN. (2006). Joint statement from the 1st ASEAN education ministers meeting and 41st SEAMEO council conference Singapore, 23 March 2006. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/joint-statement-from-the-1st-asean-education-ministers-meetingand-41st-seameo-council-conference-singapore. ASEAN. (2007). The ASEAN charter. Jakarta, Indonesia: ASEAN secretariat. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/2013/resources/publication/ 2012%20-%20The%20ASEAN%20Charter%20in%20English%20and%20ASEAN%20Lang uages%20(May).pdf. ASEAN. (2009). ASEAN socio-cultural community (ASCC) blueprint. Retrieved August 25, 2021, from https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ASEAN-Socio-Cultural-CommunityBlueprint.pdf. ASEAN. (2012). ASEAN curriculum sourcebook. ASEAN Secretariat. ASEAN. (2015a). 2015 Kuala Lumpur declaration on the establishment of the ASEAN community. Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/KL-Declar ation-on-Establishment-of-ASEAN-Community-2015.pdf. ASEAN. (2015b). Chairman’s statement of the 27th ASEAN summit Kuala Lumpur, 21 November 2015, "Our People, Our Community, Our Vision." Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Final-Chairmans-Statement-of-27thASEAN-Summit-25-November-2015.pdf. ASEAN. (2015c). Kuala Lumpur declaration on ASEAN 2025: Forging ahead together. Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/KL-Declaration-onASEAN-2025-Forging-Ahead-Together.pdf. ASEAN. (2020a). Chairman’s statement of the 37th ASEAN summit Ha Noi, 12 November 2020, cohesive and responsive. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/ 43-Chairmans-Statement-of-37th-ASEAN-Summit-FINAL.pdf. ASEAN. (2020b). The narrative of ASEAN identity adopted by the 37th ASEAN summit, 12 November 2020. Retrieved August 25, 2021, from https://asean.org/the-narrative-of-asean-ide ntity. Chanbanchong, C. (2013). Neewtaang Kaanchat Kaanrian Kaansoon Aasiansuksaa Nai Radap Pratomsuksaa toon Plaai Taam Laksut Keenklang Aasiansukusaa (A guide to ASEAN studies for upper elementary level from ASEAN curriculum sourcebook). Journal of Naresuan University, 2, 108–123. Cogan, J. J., & Derricott, R. (1998). Citizenship for the 21st century: An international perspective on education. Kogan Page.

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education …

39

Cogan, J. J., Morris, P., & Print, M. (2002). Civic education in the Asia-Pacific region: Case studies across six societies. Routledge. Giddens, A. (2000). Citizenship in the global era. In N. Pearce & J. Hallgarten (Eds.), Tomorrow’s citizens: Critical debates in citizenship and education (pp. 19–25). Institute for Public Policy Research. Hicks, D. (2001). Citizenship for the future: A practical classroom guide. WWF-UK. Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2007). Shiminsei Kyouiku no Kenkyuu-Nihon to Thai no Hikaku (Study on citizenship education: Comparative study between Japan and Thailand). Toshindo. Hirata, T. (2013). Chiiki Tougou wo Mezasu ASEAN Shokoku niokeru Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in ASEAN countries aiming for regional integration). In Hikaku Kyouikugaku Kenkyuu (Comparative Education) (Vol. 46, pp. 104–117), Japan Comparative Education Society, Toshindo. Hirata, T. (2016a). Citizenship education in member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. In K. J. Kennedy & A. Brunold (Eds.), Regional contexts and citizenship education in Asia and Europe (pp. 81–88). Routledge. Hirata, T. (2016b). Citizenship education and education for “ASEANness” in ASEAN countries. In K. J. Kennedy & A. Brunold (Eds.), Regional contexts and citizenship education in Asia and Europe (pp. 89–106). Routledge. Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2017). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community). Toshindo. Kampeeraparb, S., & Suzuki, K. (2016). Education for ASEANness: A tool to build an ASEAN community. In K. J. Kennedy & A. Brunold (Eds.), Regional contexts and citizenship education in Asia and Europe (pp. 115–122). Routledge. Kennedy, K. J. (2019). Civic and citizenship education in volatile times: Preparing students for citizenship in the 21st century. Springer. MEXT (1989a) Shougakkou Shidousho Shakai Hen (Elementary school curriculum guidebook, social studies edition). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. MEXT. (1989b). Chuugakkou Shidousho Shakai Hen (Junior high school curriculum guidebook, social studies edition). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. MEXT. (1989c). Koutougakkou Gakushu Shidou Youryou Kaisetu Koumin Hen (High school curriculum guidebook, civics edition) (Civics). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. MEXT. (2008a). Shougakkou Gakushu Shidou Youryou Kaisetu Shakai Hen (Elementary school curriculum guidebook, social studies edition). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. MEXT. (2008b). Chuugakkou Gakushu Shidou Youryou Kaisetu Shakai Hen (Junior high school curriculum guidebook, social studies edition). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. MEXT. (2009). Koutougakkou Gakushu Shidou Youryou Kaisetu Koumin Hen (High school curriculum guidebook (Civics). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. MEXT. (2017a). Shougakkou Gakushu Shidou Youryou Kaisetu Shakai Hen (Elementary school curriculum guidebook, social studies edition). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. MEXT. (2017b). Chuugakkou Gakushu Shidou Youryou Kaisetu Shakai Hen (Junior high school curriculum guidebook, social studies edition). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. MEXT. (2018a). Koutougakkou Gakushu Shidou Youryou Kaisetu Chiri Rekishi Hen (High school curriculum guidebook, geography and history edition). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. MEXT. (2018b). Koutougakkou Gakushu Shidou Youryou Kaisetu Koumin Hen (High school curriculum guidebook, civics edition). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Minoura, Y. (1997). Chikyu Shimin wo Sodateru Kyouiku. Iwanami Shoten.

40

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC). (1999). The national education act 1999. Office of the Prime Minister. Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC). (2008). Core curriculum of basic education 2008. Ministry of Education. Shinmura, I. (Ed.). (2018). Kojien (7th ed.). Iwanami Shoten.

Part II

Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Countries

Chapter 3

Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness Akiko Kamogawa, Sallimah M. Salleh, and Rosmawijah Jawawi

Abstract The purpose of the research was to elucidate the current situation, issues, and prospects of citizenship education in Brunei as part of the ten ASEAN countries’ research. Government policies, curriculum and books on citizenship education were analysed, focusing on Melayu Islam Beraja (“Malay Islamic Monarchy”: MIB). A survey for primary school pupils and secondary school students to elucidate their knowledge and understanding about citizenship education and ASEAN was conducted. This paper reports on the findings of a survey of Brunei children and youth on citizenship education, focusing mainly on their awareness about ASEAN. This paper also reports on a forecasting survey, the Delphi Survey for Brunei Darussalam. The Delphi Survey was mounted to foresee the future situation. In Brunei Darussalam, the Delphi Survey was distributed twice, the first round in 2012 and the second round in 2013. The Delphi Survey was participated by primary and secondary school teachers, headmasters and principals, university lecturers and parents. During the second round of the Delphi Survey, the participants responded to the Delphi survey’s same items in the first round based on the assessment results obtained from the first round survey. This study concludes with a recommendation towards a model of citizenship education, promoting awareness of ASEANness in Brunei Darussalam. Keywords Awareness of ASEANness · Bruneian students · Brunei Delphi survey · Citizenship education · Melayu Islam Beraja (“Malay Islamic Monarchy”)

A. Kamogawa (B) Graduate Faculty of Interdisciplinary Research Faculty of Education, University of Yamanashi, 4-4-37 Takeda, Kofu 400-8510, Japan e-mail: [email protected] S. M. Salleh · R. Jawawi Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Jalan Tungku-Link, Gadong, BE 1410, Brunei e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] R. Jawawi e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_3

43

44

A. Kamogawa et al.

3.1 Introduction Around 100 years after the commencement of public education in Brunei’s Sultanate (Brunei Darussalam, hereafter, Brunei), in 1912, the nation is amid education reform. The National Education System for the 21st Century (Sistem Pendidikan Negara Abad Ke-21 or SPN 21) was launched in January 2009 as a new educational system that aligns education with the national vision Wawasan Brunei 2035. The key learning areas specified in the SPN21 curriculum are Islamic Religious Education, Nationhood Education, Languages, Mathematics, Science, Physical and Health Education, Social Sciences and Humanities, Technology, and Arts and Culture. The learning area specified for citizenship education is the Malay Islamic Monarchy (Melayu Islam Beraja or MIB) which has the following learning outcomes: inculcate a sense of self-worth in line with the MIB concept as the national philosophy; love for their religion, race, monarch and nation; uphold and practice the values of Islam, culture and tradition; and develop positive-thinking, caring and responsible society. Before introducing the SPN21 curriculum, citizenship was taught in civic education, history, and geography. After its introduction, the curricula on history and geography integrated into social science and the national philosophy teaching, and MIB became more structured. Currently, MIB and social science are the core subjects in the domain of citizenship education in Brunei. This study focuses on MIB as a core subject which focuses on citizenship qualities, tracing its development and describing its characteristics. This research obtained a profile on citizenship education in Brunei. The study mainly focused on and analysed the national philosophy, MIB, in the new SPN21 curriculum. This research investigated Bruneian students’ knowledge and understanding of the concept of citizenship and ASEAN. The other purpose of the study was to elucidate Bruneian education experts’ perceptions about the citizenship characteristics they achieved at present and those they expected to be a decade later. Finally, based on the present situation surrounding Brunei’s citizenship education, the report presents the issues and prospects concerning citizenship education intended to raise awareness of ASEANness. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, Brunei Darussalam joined ASEAN on 7 January 1984, soon after the resumption of her full independence in January 1984, after the five original Member Countries, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam together with other ASEAN leaders signed the ASEAN Charter on 20 November 2007 in Singapore. Brunei Darussalam was the second Member State after Singapore to ratify the Charter on 31 January 2008. Brunei Darussalam will hold the ASEAN summit as the chair in 2021.

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

45

3.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Policy, Curriculum Focusing on MIB 3.2.1 Melayu Islam Beraja (“Malay Islamic Monarchy”: MIB) MIB education was first introduced as civic education in 1986 in primary schools. However, in 1991, civic education was renamed MIB education. In 1992, MIB became a compulsory subject in both primary and secondary schools in Brunei. MIB is the national concept of Brunei Darussalam, which has been implemented nationwide through different modalities including education, media, dress code, a system of ruling, and the Syariah law. The values of MIB have shaped the morality of the people in Brunei Darussalam, which contributed to the stability and the harmony of this country. (UNESCO, 2012, p. 7)

The Education system of Brunei Darussalam is based on the Malay Islamic Monarchy concept (MOE, 1985). When first introduced in 1986, the civic education system aimed to instil knowledge to students about their roles and responsibilities towards themselves, family, community, and nation with the identity of Brunei. Since the 2003 Education Act, the Brunei Ministry of Education has aimed, through MIB lessons, to harmonize the teaching of societal values at the local level with the teaching of universal values that allow response to globalization issues such as the developments in science & technology and ICT (MOE, 2013, p. 6; Sugimoto, 2000). Under the SPN21 curriculum, MIB became a compulsory subject from the first year of primary school to secondary school, introduced in the fourth year of primary school in 2009, the fifth in 2010, and the sixth in 2011. Currently, MIB is offered from the first year until the eleventh year (MOE, 2013). One period a week is allocated to MIB in Year 1 to Year 3 of primary school and two periods in Year 4 to Year 6, and the medium of instruction is the Malay language (MOE, 2010a, pp. 23–24). Education regarding Islam and nationhood (Pendidikan kenegaraan) is conducted in MIB classes. MIB as nationhood education is intended to improve students’ humanity, values, and ethics and to impart a love for their religion, fellow-citizens, monarch, nation and a sense of responsibility. Other aims include contributing positively to the community’s advancement and preservation of nature (MOE, 2010a, pp. 13–14). Furthermore, MIB education fosters students’ basic knowledge, attitudes, values, and skills to make them fully functioning members of society essential to economic and intellectual development (MOE, 2010b). The anticipated learning outcomes of the MIB curriculum include students having a sense of self-worth and a love for religion, race, monarch, and nation, and students upholding and practicing Islamic values, culture, and traditions and contributing to the development of a positivethinking, caring, and responsible society (MOE, 2009).

46

A. Kamogawa et al.

3.2.2 Citizenship Qualities in the MIB Curriculum, Basic Competencies, and Textbooks The content of the syllabus in Civic education in primary schools is divided into two sections, which are Lower Primary level (Year 1–Year 3) and Upper Primary level (Year 4–Year 6). The Lower Primary level consisted of four main themes: Family life, Good values and practices that should be possessed, Our school and Negara Brunei Darussalam. Simultaneously, the Upper Primary level consisted of 3 main themes: Society, Negara Brunei Darussalam and Customs. However, the themes had evolved and developed into broader themes since introduction of the national education system in 1991. There are five themes comprised in MIB education: Self-Responsibility, Responsibility Towards Family, Responsibility Towards Neighbours and Community, Responsibility Towards School and Responsibility Towards Country. The five themes mentioned are integrated into both Primary and Secondary schools. However, for lower primary schools (Year 1–Year 3), the themes are subdivided into three categories: Self-Responsibility and Responsibility towards Family, Responsibility towards Peers, Neighbours and Community, and Responsibility towards Nation and the Environment. The following are the aims of MIB education (MOE, 2010b) in terms of: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

knowledge and understanding, students will be able to (a) Understand and be aware of their roles and responsibilities in the family, neighbours, community, nation and the environment; (b) Understand and appreciate the importance of preserving cultural heritage and language in addition to widening it through practical activities; (c) Realize, recognize, appreciate and practice the noble values following the philosophy of MIB, (d) Describe the values that need each other in the MIB concept either through economic, social and political activities; and (e) List down and explain the positive and negative effects in each of their commission and their impact on themselves, family, community and country. Application of skill, students will be able to (a) Combine and apply their prior knowledge of the MIB in a real situation for achieving the noble identity; (b) Appreciate and practice noble spirit, be grateful and loving own country to perpetuate social blend, safety and welfare state; (c) Connect and contribute positively towards culture, community, citizenship and religious aspects that leads to national philosophy; (d) Practice the moral values in the life of students to achieve harmony of neighbouring life, society and the country; and (e) Collect, collate, analyse and submit data in the form of MIB in the form of quantitative and qualitative. Application of thinking, students will be able to (a) Use a variety of skills and thinking strategies to address social issues as appropriate to the philosophy of the MIB; (b) Distinguish the good and bad of each commission

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

(iv)

47

committed by them towards themself, community and country; (c) Evaluate each commission done by using critical thinking about its appropriateness, challenges and obstacles; (d) Able to demonstrate an understanding of the syllabus through communication and their behaviour; and (e) Solve the problem quickly, accurately and regularly to the support of the relevant facts. Application of moral values, students will be able to (a) Cultivate the moral values and admirable in themselves in upholding the philosophy of Malay Islamic Monarchy and achieve unity and harmony of community life; (b) Cultivate moral values such as respect, honesty, compassion etc. and selfimproving through MIB education; (c) Demonstrate the competence in the application, appreciation and application of the values of MIB; (d) Nourish and enhance mutual understanding and cooperation by being responsible and caring in whatever job entrusted to them, and (e) Strengthen the faith, believe in themself, be moderate, dynamic, versatile, durable and strong to face all challenges.

3.2.3 The Curriculum Content of MIB In conclusion, MIB education as citizenship education is aimed to develop the basic knowledge, attitudes, values and skills that they must have to become fully functional members of societies which are pre-requisites for economic and intellectual development (MOE, 2010b). This approach to citizenship education in Brunei Darussalam is in line with global citizenship/civics education. Citizenship education aims to teach human beings to understand and cultivate esteem for different cultures; gain knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes to coexist; continues to think about the global issues such as peace, human rights, environment, and development; as well as make decisions and behave at the local, national, regional, global, and universal levels (Hirata, 2007). In line with this definition, the standards and basic competencies of the MIB curriculum in primary and lower secondary school syllabuses are grouped into citizenship qualities that are universal, global, regional, national, or local, and then analysed. This analysis clarified that 45% of the primary school curriculum has a universal focus, 35% a local focus, 23% a national focus, 3% a regional focus, and about 1% a local focus. Meanwhile, 42.5% of the lower secondary school curriculum has a national focus, 30% universal, 25% local, and 2.5% global. The regional content appears to be missing in the lower secondary curriculum. In other words, it is proper to state that, in Brunei, a very slight global and regional approach within the standards and basic competencies of the citizenship education curriculum is delivered through MIB (Kamogawa, 2013; Kamogawa et al., 2017; Salleh & Jawawi, 2012).

48

A. Kamogawa et al.

3.3 Analysis of Citizenship Education Survey to School Children 3.3.1 Methods One of the research purposes was to elucidate the current situation, issues and prospects of citizenship education in the ten ASEAN countries. Government policies, curriculum and books on citizenship education were analysed; and a survey of primary school pupils and secondary school students was conducted to elucidate their perceptions and knowledge about citizenship education. A questionnaire survey on Brunei’s citizenship education was conducted with 600 students in Brunei, who were selected for convenience sampling. The respondents consisted of 47.5% male and 50.6% female aged from 12 years old (33.3%) who are upper primary students, 15 years old who are secondary students (34.3%) and 18 years old who are upper secondary students (32.5%). There were two sections in the questionnaire on citizenship: questions on citizenship and knowledge questions on ASEAN countries. The section presents the percentages of Bruneian student’s responses to the Questionnaire Survey of students. Three hundred primary school students and three hundred secondary school students responded to the survey.

3.3.2 Results: Responses from Brunei Students The first two items of the questionnaire sought students’ responses regarding the importance of studying each region’s history and tradition/culture. The Bruneian students considered it is either important or very important to study of the history of (i) their village/town (48.4% important, 22.7% very important), (ii) their country (24.5% important; 71.6% very important), ASEAN countries (51.1% important; 31.4% very important), (iii) the world (33.7%important, 51.4% very important). Whilst they also responded that it is either important or very important to study of tradition/culture of (i) their village/town (53.7% important, 30.9% very important), (ii) country (27.6 important, 68.0% very important), (iii) ASEAN countries (47.8% important, 16.6% very important) and the world (41.4% important, 20.5% very important). The third item of the questionnaire sought student responses to the question, “Have you seen or heard about the following words?” The results show that a majority of Brunei students have very often seen or heard the following words: International society (61.7% yes, 18.6% very often), social justice/fairness (52.4 yes, 15.1% very often), peace (32.3% yes, 63.1% very often), interdependent relationship (42.4% yes, 38.1% very often), sustainable development, (42.2% yes, 18.9% very often), environment (22.2% yes, 75.5% very often), human rights (37.4% yes, 23.3% very often), development (38.9% yes, 47.9% very often), intercultural understanding (44.5% yes, 18.2% very often), and democracy (38.4% yes). However, most Brunei students have not at all (47.6%), not much (21.2%) seen or heard the word coexistence.

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

49

The fourth item of the questionnaire consists of four sub-questions, which sought students’ responses to questions concerning social problems (e.g. politics, environment, human rights, and conflicts). For the first sub-question, “Have you ever researched or learned about social problems yourself?”, a majority of Brunei students have not at all (35.1%)/not much (29.3%) researched or learned about social problems themselves. Only 32.2% responded “yes”. In response to the second sub-question, “Have you had your own opinions on social problems?”, a majority of Brunei students said “yes” (46.3%) or “very often” (14.4%) had their opinions on social problems. For the third sub-question, “Have you ever expressed your opinions on social problems to the public?”, a majority of Brunei students have not at all (51.2%) or not much (25.8%) ever expressed their opinions on social problems to the public. In response to the fourth sub-question, “Have you ever taken any action in an attempt to social problems?”, a majority of Brunei students have not at all (62.9%) or not much (25.9%) ever taken any action in an attempt to social problems. The fifth item elicits answers to the question, “Can you speak frankly whether something is right or wrong to the following people?” A majority of Brunei students can speak frankly whether something is right or wrong to friends (67.6%), parents (84.2%), school teachers (61.2%), adults or older people (48.9%), and religious leaders (63.2%). However, about half of Brunei students (50.7%). do not know that they can speak frankly whether something is right or wrong to the politicians. The next item of the questionnaire asked students about the importance of learning English and English proficiency. The results show that most Brunei students (75.5%) say that learning English is not important at all. However, most Brunei students (47.5% yes, 32% very well) say that they can speak English with foreigners very well. They also (48.6% yes, 34.5% very well) said that they can write a letter or email in English. Most Brunei students said that they could very well read newspapers, magazines or websites in English (39.7% yes, 51.15% very well) and listen to or watch news or programs on the radio or TV in English (39.7% yes, 49.4% very well). The next two items of the questionnaire asked about students’ perceptions of their future and commitment. To these questions, a majority of Brunei students indicated that in the future, they can very well decide on their own when they need to do something (53.2% yes, 22.2% very well) and they very well reach for a mentally and physically healthier life much more than now, (62.2% yes, 27.1% very well), they can understand their own and foreign cultures (64.7% yes, 19.9% very well), they can live with people with different cultures or ethnic backgrounds, (46.3% yes, 20.5% very well) and they can very well stand up against injustice, inequality or discrimination (53.0% yes, 30.7% very well). They can work very well with other people to solve problems in their village/town or country/ASEAN countries and the world (42.7% yes, 11.8% very well), they can very well catch up with the information communication technology society (53.2% yes, 23.6 very well), and they can very well contribute to the world peace (48.1% yes, 14.6% very well). The ninth item of the questionnaire sought students’ responses to the question, “How much do you observe and practice the teaching of your religion/beliefs in your daily life?”. A majority of Brunei students have regularly (25.3%) or have observed

50

A. Kamogawa et al.

(54.8%) and practiced teaching their religion/beliefs in their daily lives. In the next item of the questionnaire, the tenth question, “Do you have morality and pride as a nation?”. Most Brunei students (85.1%) responded with very high morality and pride as a nation, and another 13.5% of Brunei students have much morality and pride as a nation. For the eleventh item of the questionnaire, students were asked to indicate the importance of various aspects. Their response was as follows: About 36% of Bruneian students indicate that the most important is peace in their village/town, and about 18% indicated that the most important is that they love their country and preserve its tradition/culture. Bruneian students considered that the most important is that there is peace in ASEAN countries (25.0%), and also, peace in the world (50.9%). For the twelfth item of the questionnaire, student’s responses to the question “What is necessary for today’s society?” was that more than half of Bruneian students (57.6%) indicated that care for others’ feelings and to live in peace and happiness with them is most necessary in today’s society. In Part 2 of the questionnaire, pupils and students were asked about their knowledge of ASEAN. The proceeding paragraphs showed the percentages of Bruneian students’ responses to the respective items. A majority of Bruneian students can identify and locate on the map the names of the ASEAN countries: Brunei (95.2%), Indonesia (87.7%), Malaysia (89.5%), Philippines (72.7%), Singapore (85.2%). While only a small percentage of Bruneian students can locate on the map Cambodia (30.4%), Laos (30%), Myanmar (29.6) and Vietnam (29.4%). Only 55% of Brunei students correctly chose that the ASEAN flag represents a stable, peaceful, united and dynamic ASEAN. When asked about the year ASEAN was founded, only 16.4% of Bruneian students could correctly choose the year 1967 when ASEAN was founded. When asked about the establishment of an ASEAN Community, most Brunei students (68.1%) did not know when the ASEAN Community was expected to be established. Only about six percent of Bruneian students indicated the correct year, 2015 when ASEAN Community would be established. However, a majority of Brunei students (95.9%) indicate that among all ASEAN countries, the highest percentage that they know of a country is their own country, i.e. Brunei. For the other ASEAN countries, Brunei students indicate that they know Cambodia (8.3%), Indonesia (63.7%), Laos (9.7%), Malaysia (75.7%), Myanmar (10.6%), Philippines (34.8%), Singapore (65.9%), Thailand (33.3%) and Vietnam (13.3%). A majority of Brunei students learned about ASEAN from Television (62.6%), Newspapers (50.7%) and the Internet (57.3%). Only 36.3% of Brunei students indicate that they learned about ASEAN in schools. Most Brunei students (84.9%) agree that they want to know about other ASEAN countries. Most Brunei students (95.4%) agree that Brunei’s membership in ASEAN is beneficial to their country. More than half of them (64.2%) agree that their country’s membership in ASEAN is beneficial to them personally. Slightly more than half of Brunei students agree (54%) that they are citizens of ASEAN, feel attached to ASEAN and are proud to be a citizen of ASEAN. A majority of Brunei students (61%) indicate that they have a common identity (i.e. a sense of belonging to ASEAN, a way of thinking) with the people of other ASEAN countries.

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

51

3.3.3 Conclusion Citizenship education in Brunei is introduced in the curriculum as MIB or Malay Islamic Monarchy. The main objective of Brunei’s citizenship education is to help students become good citizens with Bruneian identity, have good moral values, and respect for diversity, freedom, and human rights. The citizenship curriculum in Brunei aims to strengthen values and responsibilities towards self, family, community, religion and nation. However, findings have shown that Brunei’s citizenship education has become essential for nation and identity building but not yet included for ASEANness identity. Therefore, to develop ASEANness education in the Brunei education context, there is a need for MIB education to incorporate the content about ASEAN countries. The new inclusion means that MIB education content extends beyond responsibility towards community and nation and expands towards ASEAN (region) countries.

3.4 Analysis of Delphi Survey: Citizenship Education of Ten Years Later 3.4.1 Methods The Delphi Survey, a forecasting survey method, was mounted to foresee the future situation. In Brunei Darussalam, the Delphi Survey was conducted twice, the first round in 2012 and the second round in 2013. The Delphi Survey was participated by primary and secondary school teachers, headmasters and principals, university lecturers and parents. During the second round of the Delphi Survey, the participants responded to the same items of the Delphi survey in the first round based on an assessment of the results obtained from the first round survey.

3.4.2 Results and Discussions on Delphi Survey of Education Expert Table 3.1 shows the expert participants’ demography who responded to the Delphi Survey Round 1 and Round 2. The Table shows that almost the same percentage of male and female respondents were in Round 1 (male = 27.7%, female = 69.2%) and in Round 2 (male = 27.7%, female = 70.3%). The total number of respondents has decreased from Round 1 (N = 386) to Round 2 (N = 101). The same proportion of age categories is also shown for the Round 1 and Round 2 data. For example, most of the expert participants are in their thirties (Round 1, n = 36.5%, Round 2, n =

52

A. Kamogawa et al.

Table 3.1 Demography of respondents during round 1 and round 2 of Delphi survey Round 1 (N = 386)

Round 2 (N = 101)

Variable

Selection

n

%

n

%

Sex

Male

107

27.7

28

27.7

Female

267

69.2

71

70.3

20s

38

9.8

8

7.9

30s

141

36.5

45

44.6

40s

129

33.4

31

30.7

50s

64

16.6

15

14.9

60s

2

0.5

1

1.0

70 s and more

1

0.3

0

0

36.5

36

35.6

Age

Occupation

Characteristics of occupation

Primary school teacher 141 Lower secondary school teacher

22

5.7

13

12.9

Upper secondary school teacher

50

13.0

14

13.9

Higher Education Institution

28

7.3

17

16.8

Civil servent

70

18.1

11

10.9

Other

59

15.3

7

6.9

Mainly education activities

300

77.7

81

80.2

Mainly research activities

7

1.8

4

4.0

Other

56

14.5

5

5.0

44.6%), followed by the expert participants who are in their forties (Round 1, n = 33.4%, Round 2, n = 30.7%). 3–2 also shows that about the same percentage of the expert participants are primary school teachers during the first round Delphi Survey (36.5%) and second round Delphi Survey (35.6%). Secondary school teachers represented almost the same percentage during the first round Delphi Survey (13%) and the second round Delphi Survey (13.9%). The percentage of expert participants from lower secondary schools increased from 5.7% in the first round Delphi Survey to 12.9% during the second round Delphi Survey. The increasing pattern is also seen in the higher education expert participants from 7.3% in the first round Delphi Survey to 16.8% in the second round of the Delphi Survey. Table 3.1 shows most of the expert participants are involved mainly in education activities, as observed in 77.7% in Round one and 80.2% in Round two of the Delphi Survey.

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

53

3.4.3 Statistical Analyses The data obtained from the expert participants’ responses to the Round 1 and Round 2 Delphi surveys were subjected to statistical analyses using SPSS. Descriptive data using percentages described the responses of expert participants to each of the five questions for the respective characteristics under the three sections (knowledge and understanding; skills and abilities; and values and attitudes). Table 3.2 shows the responses provided by expert participants about which characteristics they thought that they had achieved at present and which characteristics they thought should be achieved ten years later. R1 represents the percentage of responses in the First Round Survey, and R2 represents the percentage of responses in the Second Round Survey.

3.4.4 Gap Analysis for Top Priority of Educational Agenda for Citizenship Education in Brunei Table 3.3 shows the weighted average of education experts’ evaluation of the degree of present achievement and their perceptions of future achievement (in ten years’ time) focusing on twelve issues pertaining to Knowledge and understanding. From column A in Table 3.3, it can be seen that at present, most of the topics have been achieved, for example, environment (3.33), coexistence and living together (3.33), social welfare (3.17), different cultures (3.09), social justice and equity (3.03), interdependence (3.02) and sustainable development (2.98). Topics that have low achievements are democracy (2.79), ASEAN history and culture (2.88), Common social problems of ASEAN countries (2.67) and foreign language (2.67). However, referring to Column B, all the topics’ perceived achievements in ten years’ time are larger. Referring to Column D, for all the twelve issues, the gap between the present and future achievements are all positive, indicating that in the education experts’ opinions that the twelve issues can be achieved in ten years’ time. The large gap difference infers that the following topics require more attention in curriculum development and education material. The topics are foreign language (0.75); common social problems of ASEAN countries (0.66); sustainable development (0.64); interdependence (0.62); democracy (0.61); human rights (0.54); ASEAN history and culture (0.50); social justice and equity; and social welfare (0.49); different cultures (0.48); environment (0.47); and coexistence and living together (0.36). Nevertheless, referring to Column C, with respect to the significance of the twelve topics, the large weighted average infers greater significance and indicates more education resources. The topics are Environment (3.54); coexistence and living together (3.47); social justice and equity; and sustainable development (3.12); different cultures; and human rights (3.11); social welfare (3.10); interdependence (3.05); ASEAN history and culture (3.02); Common social problems of ASEAN countries (2.88); Democracy (2.86); and foreign language (2.78).

54

A. Kamogawa et al.

Table 3.2 Percentage of expert participants’ responses to level and area of knowledge and understanding; skills and abilities; and values and attitudes at present and ten years later during round 1 (R1) and round 2 (R2) Level/area

Local level

National level

Topics

At present R1 R2 (%) ↓↓

10 years later R1 R2 (%) ↓↓

Knowledge and understanding

(1) About the local history, local wisdom, local tradition, culture and so on, at the local level

92

91

8

9

Skills and abilities

(2) About the political 65 participation in the local community, mutual cooperation in the local community, problem solving and so on, at the local level

61

35

39

Values and attitudes

(3) To love the local community, behave in accordance with the middle path and act according to the tradition and culture, at the local level

95

89

5

11

Knowledge and understanding

(4) About the national 79 history, tradition, culture, law, social problems, sustainable development, and so on, at the national level

79

21

21

Skills and abilities

(5) About the political participation, mutual cooperation, problem solving, and so on, at the national level

49

46

51

54

Values and attitudes

(6) To behave according 86 to the national tradition and culture, have a national identity as a nation, love for the nation, and so on, at the national level

87

14

13

(continued)

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

55

Table 3.2 (continued) Level/area

Regional level

Global level

Topics

At present R1 R2 (%) ↓↓

10 years later R1 R2 (%) ↓↓

Knowledge and understanding

(7) About the history, 63 tradition and culture, social problems, development, human rights, peace, and democracy, and so on, in the ASEAN region

56

37

44

Skills and abilities

(8) Ability to esteem democracy and human rights, to solve problem of environment, do sustainable development, maintain the peace, use foreign language, understand the different cultures, to commit the social issues, and coexist, and so on, in the ASEAN region

45

43

55

57

Values and attitudes

(9) ASEAN identity, ASEAN awareness, respect for human rights, democratic attitude, and so on, in the ASEAN region

64

58

36

42

Knowledge and understanding

(10) About the world 43 history, social justice, environment, sustainable development, understanding of different cultures, mutual interdependence, and so on, at the global level

41

57

59

Skills and abilities

(11) About the political 33 participation, peaceful solution, understanding of the different cultures at the international level, and so on, at the global level

38

67

63

(continued)

56

A. Kamogawa et al.

Table 3.2 (continued) Level/area

Universal level

Topics

At present R1 R2 (%) ↓↓

10 years later R1 R2 (%) ↓↓

Values and attitudes

(12) Awareness on the 48 international cooperation, identity as global citizen, and global issues, and so on, at the global level

43

52

57

Knowledge and understanding

(13) About the cultural diversity, human rights, peace, development, environment, democracy, and so on

52

64

48

36

Skills and abilities

(14) About theoretical 40 thinking and judging, respecting the human rights, decision making, and so on

43

60

58

Values and attitudes

(15) Respect for responsibility, happy life, pursuit of truth, legal solution, and contribution to human beings, and so on

71

40

29

60

In conclusion, the topics for knowledge and understanding that are of high priority for the educational agenda on Citizenship education in Brunei are foreign language, common social problems of ASEAN countries, sustainable development and democracy. Table 3.4 shows the weighted average of education experts’ evaluation of the degree of present achievement and their perceptions of future achievement (in ten years’ time) focusing on thirteen issues about skills and abilities. From column A in Table 3.4, it can be seen that at present, most of the topics on skills and abilities have been achieved except for “to make decisions” (2.41), “to solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (2.58), “to use foreign language” (2.76), and “to behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (2.76) which are indicated by the low weighted average. Topics that have high achievements at present are “To cooperate with each other” (3.52), “to have self-discipline and self-control” (3.46), “to solve problems” (3.44), “to respond to ICT” (3.39), “to improve quality of life” (3.33), “to think critically” (3.15), “to express opinions on social problems” (3.12), “to make a peaceful resolution” (2.99), and “to develop sustainably” (2.92). However, referring to Column B,

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

57

Table 3.3 Comparison of weighted average of questions on knowledge and understanding Questions Topics

Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A)

(1) Environment 3.33 Knowledge and (2) Coexistence 3.33 understanding and living together

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

The gap between present and future “(B)–(A)” (D)

3.79

3.54 (1)

0.47 (10)

3.69

3.47 (2)

0.36 (11)

3.09

3.57

3.11 (4)

0.48 (9)

(4) Social justice 3.03 and equity

3.52

3.12 (3)

0.49 (8)

(5) Democracy

2.79

3.41

2.86 (9)

0.61(5)

(6) Sustainable development

2.98

3.62

3.12 (3)

0.64 (3)

(7) 3.02 Interdependence

3.64

3.05 (6)

0.62 (4)

(8) Foreign language

2.67

3.42

2.78 (10)

0.75(1)

(9) Social welfare

3.17

3.65

3.10 (5)

0.49 (8)

(10) Human rights

3.02

3.56

3.11 (4)

0.54 (6)

(11) ASEAN history and culture

2.88

3.38

3.02 (7)

0.50 (7)

(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries

2.67

3.33

2.88 (8)

0.66 (2)

(3) Different cultures

the perceived achievements in ten years’ time for all the topics on skills and abilities are large. Referring to Column D, for all the fourteen issues, the gap between the present and future achievements are all positive indicating that in the education experts’ opinions that the fourteen issues can be achieved in ten years’ time. The large gap difference infers that the following topics require more attention in curriculum development and education material. The topics are “to make decisions” (0.68), “to solve common social problems of ASEAN countries” (0.67), “to use foreign language” (0.65), and “to make a peaceful resolution” (0.60). The gap is relatively smaller for “to respond to ICT” (0.59), “to improve quality of life” (0.58), “to develop sustainably” (0.58),

58

A. Kamogawa et al.

Table 3.4 Comparison of weighted average of questions on skills and abilities Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A)

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

The gap between present and future “(B)–(A)” (D)

(1) To express opinions on social problems

3.12

3.80

3.31 (8)

0.68 (2)

(2) To have self-discipline and selfcontrol

3.46

3.88

3.55 (3)

0.43 (11)

(3) To solve problems

3.44

3.82

3.44 (5)

0.39 (12)

(4) To make decisions

2.41

3.88

3.47 (4)

1.47 (1)

(5) To respond to ICT

3.39

3.98

3.39 (6)

0.59 (7)

(6) To make a peaceful resolution

2.99

3.59

3.13 (10)

0.60 (6)

(7) To think critically

3.15

3.64

3.32 (7)

0.50 (10)

(8) To improve 3.33 quality of life

3.91

3.59 (2)

0.58 (8)

(9) To cooperate with each other

3.52

4.17

3.68 (1)

0.64 (5)

(10) To develop 2.92 sustainably

3.50

3.01 (11)

0.58 (8)

(11) To contribute to society

2.99

3.57

3.17 (9)

0.58 (8)

(12) To use foreign language

2.76

3.41

2.75 (14)

0.65 (4)

(13) To behave 2.76 in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

3.31

2.83 (12)

0.56 (6)

Question Topics

Skills and abilities

(continued)

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

59

Table 3.4 (continued) Question Topics

Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A) (14) To solve 2.58 common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

The gap between present and future “(B)–(A)” (D)

3.25

2.79 (13)

0.67 (3)

“to contribute to society” (0.58), “to behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (0.56), and “to think critically” (0.50). Nevertheless, referring to Column C, concerning the significance of the fourteen topics on skills and abilities, the large weighted average infers greater significance, indicating more education resources. The topics are: “to cooperate with each other” (3.68), “to improve quality of life” (3.59), “to have self-discipline and self-control” (3.55), “to make decisions” (3.47), “to solve problems” (3.44), “to respond to ICT” (3.39), “to think critically” (3.32), “to express opinions on social problems” (3.31), “to contribute to society” (3.17), “to make a peaceful resolution” (3.13), “to develop sustainably” (3.01), “to behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (2.83), “to solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (2.79), and “to use foreign language” (2.75). In conclusion, the topics for skills and abilities that are of high priority for the educational agenda on Citizenship education in Brunei are curriculum that develops decision making, expressing opinions on social problems, solving common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people, about foreign language usage, and to cooperate with each other. Table 3.5 shows the weighted average of education experts’ evaluation of the degree of present achievement and their perceptions of future achievement (in ten years’ time), focusing on thirteen issues pertaining to values and attitudes. From column A in Table 3.5, it can be seen that at present, most of the topics on values and attitudes have been achieved: “to have morality and pride as a nation” (3.30), “to respect tradition and culture” (3.24), “to have self-dependence” (3.15), “to respect human rights” (3.12), “to place importance on the law” (3.09), “to respect cultural diversity” (3.08), “to preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development” (3.07), “to think in a scientific way and catch up with the new sciences and technology” (3.04), and “to pay attention to global issues” (3.00). Topics that have low achievements at present are “to face wrong matters, injustice” (2.92), “to respect democracy” (2.90), “to have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (2.88), and “to promote international cooperation” (2.68).

60

A. Kamogawa et al.

Table 3.5 Comparison of weighted average of questions on values and attitudes Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A)

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

The gap between present and future “(B)–(A)” (D)

(1) To face 2.92 wrong things and injustice

3.58

3.09 (8)

0.66 (2)

(2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development

3.07

3.71

3.34 (4)

0.64 (3)

(3) To have self-dependence

3.15

3.74

3.41 (2)

0.59 (6)

(4) To respect 3.08 cultural diversity

3.72

3.24 (6)

0.64 (3)

(5) To place importance on the law

3.09

3.72

3.36 (3)

0.63 (4)

(6) To promote international cooperation

2.68

3.52

3.00 (11)

0.84 (1)

(7) To pay attention to global issues

3.00

3.56

3.19 (6)

0.56 (7)

(8) To respect tradition and culture

3.24

3.71

3.33 (5)

0.47 (10)

(9) To have morality and pride as a nation

3.30

3.86

3.48 (1)

0.56 (7)

(10) To respect democracy

2.90

3.45

3.02 (10)

0.54 (8)

(11) To respect human rights

3.12

3.59

3.33 (5)

0.48 (9)

(12) To think in a 3.04 scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology

3.58

3.14 (7)

0.54 (8)

Questions Topics

Values and attitudes

(continued)

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

61

Table 3.5 (continued) Questions Topics

(13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A)

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

The gap between present and future “(B)–(A)” (D)

2.88

3.49

3.04 (9)

0.60 (5)

However, referring to Column B, the perceived achievements in ten years’ time for all the topics on values and attitudes are large. Referring to Column D, the gap between the present and future achievements is all positive for all the thirteen issues, indicating that in the education experts’ opinions, the fourteen issues can be achieved in ten years’ time. The large gap difference infers that the following topics require more attention in curriculum development and education material. The topics are: “to promote international cooperation” (0.84), “to face wrong things and injustice” (0.66), “to preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development” (0.64), “to respect cultural diversity” (0.64), “to place importance on the law” (0.63), “to have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (0.60), “to pay attention to global issues” (0.56), “to have morality and pride as a nation” (0.56), “to respect democracy” (0.54), “to respect human rights” (0.48), and “to respect tradition and culture” (0.47). Nevertheless, referring to Column C, with respect to the significance of the thirteen topics on values and attitudes, the large weighted average infers greater significance, indicating more education resources. The topics are: “to have morality and pride as a nation” (3.48), “to have self-dependence” (3.14), “to place importance on the law” (3.36), “to preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development” (3.34), “to respect tradition and culture” (3.33), “to respect human rights” (3.33), “to pay attention to global issues” (3.19), “to think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology” (3.14), “to have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (3.04), “to respect democracy” (3.02), and “to promote international cooperation” (3.00). In conclusion, the topics for values and attitudes that are of high priority for the educational agenda on Citizenship education in Brunei are developing a curriculum that promotes international cooperation, has morality and pride as a member of ASEAN, and supports international cooperation.

62

A. Kamogawa et al.

3.5 Comparative Analysis of Delphi Survey and Citizenship Education Survey Administered School Children Brunei students’ responses to the Citizenship Education Survey showed the current situation regarding their knowledge and understanding of ASEAN. Some students showed that they were knowledgeable about ASEAN (such as countries’ names on the map, what the ASEAN flag represents, ASEAN’s founding year, knowledge about establishing the ASEAN communities, and knowledge about the ASEAN countries). Only some students understand the importance of learning about ASEAN’s history, tradition, customs, and world. Some students knew terms such as international society, social justice/fairness, peace, interdependence, and human right, although only a few students understood the terms democracy and coexistence. However, the current issues not addressed in the curriculum reflected students’ lack of understanding about taking action against social problems and expressing their opinions in public. Although students indicated learning English and English proficiency are unnecessary, most of them could speak, write letters and email, read newspapers and watch television in English. The Brunei experts community (comprising primary and secondary school teachers, headmasters, principals, university lecturers, and parents) reflected on their current achievements in the knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes regarding various aspects of ASEAN citizenship. They could express specific achievements in knowledge and understanding of the environment, coexistence, social welfare, different cultures, social justice and equity, interdependence, and sustainable development. However, similar to the students, only some experts knew about democracy, ASEAN history and culture, common social problems in ASEAN countries, and foreign languages. They also learned skills and abilities in cooperating, self-discipline and self-control, problem solving, responding to ICT, improving quality of life, critical thinking, expressing opinions on social problems, peaceful resolution and sustainable development. However, similar to the students, only some experts acquired the skills and abilities needed to solve ASEAN countries’ common social problems with other people, use a foreign language, and comply with ASEAN countries’ common values. The experts’ community has learned values and attitudes relating to the following aspects: morality and pride as a nation, respecting the culture and trading, self-dependence, respecting human rights, prioritizing the law, respecting cultural diversity, preserving natural resources, protecting the environment and development, thinking scientifically to catch up with new science and technology, and paying attention to global issues. However, only some experts have achieved values and attitudes relating to facing the wrong matters, injustice, respecting democracy, morality and pride as a member of ASEAN, and promoting international cooperation. From these results, it can be seen that Brunei’s citizenship education needs to address the common issues identified from students’ inadequate knowledge and experts opinions on the low achievement of specific knowledge and understanding

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

63

(such as ASEAN history and culture, common social problems in ASEAN countries, and foreign language). Another issue is students’ not learning about democracy, coexistence, and contribution as members of ASEAN. The experts have similar issues that require attention—not attaining the skills and abilities to address ASEAN countries’ common social problems and not learning a foreign language. Lastly, achieving morality and pride as an ASEAN member and contributing to international cooperation also requires consideration. Both Brunei students and experts expressed a positive prospect for the future. Most of the students responded positively with regard to their potential and commitment to decision making, having mentally and physically healthier lives, understanding their own culture and foreign cultures, and living and working with people of different ethnic backgrounds. The experts optimistically indicated future achievements in improving the knowledge and understanding of foreign languages, common social problems of ASEAN countries, sustainable development, and democracy. They are confident in prioritizing learning the skills and abilities in decision making, expressing opinions on social problems, solving common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people, and cooperating. They are optimistic about the future achievement in values and attitudes that promote international cooperation, morality and pride as an ASEAN member, and support international cooperation.

3.6 Summary and Recommendation: Towards a Model of Citizenship Education Promoting Awareness of ASEANness 3.6.1 Summary In summary, the students’ survey revealed that Brunei’s citizenship education focuses more on knowledge and understanding of nation and identity building; however, not yet enough on the knowledge and understanding of ASEANness identity. The textbook content analyses show there are much local and national content and little regional and global content. The Delphi Survey of Brunei Education experts showed the following top priority education agenda for Citizenship Education in Brunei: (1) knowledge and understanding of foreign language, common social problems in ASEAN countries, sustainable development and democracy. (2) skills and abilities in decision making, expressing opinions on social problems, solving social problems of ASEAN countries with other people, foreign language usage, and cooperating. (3) values and attitudes on promoting international cooperation, morality, and pride as an ASEAN member and support international cooperation. Although Bruneian students do have knowledge and understanding of social problems, they have no experience dealing with social problems. This finding is also typical of students in various other ASEAN countries. However, in Brunei, where

64

A. Kamogawa et al.

teaching the ability to respond to real problems is an educational target, development can be expected from the students merely having relevant knowledge and understanding instead of being taught values and attitudes. One of the Bruneian students’ characteristics in terms of values and attitudes is that they consider world peace, in particular, more important. Furthermore, they appear more concerned with the environment and development problems at the village, town, ASEAN region, and global level than their own country’s environment and development issues. However, this contrasts with the inclusion of a strong message regarding Brunei’s background in new textbooks based on the SPN21 curriculum. Moving ahead, we would look for content that encourages students to consider the nature of the environment and development in Brunei in a global context. Nevertheless, some students showed low interest, knowledge and understanding of ASEAN. In particular, they knew a little about the countries that are geographically distant from Brunei. There remains some hope towards achieving a common identity to underpin the construction of an ASEAN Community. Given the less content on ASEAN in MIB and social science subjects that teach citizenship qualities, students’ low interest, knowledge and understanding regarding ASEAN countries’ awareness appears inevitable.

3.6.2 Reccomendation Therefore, based on these findings, the study recommends developing ASEANness education in Brunei Citizenship education content, including knowledge and understanding about ASEAN countries and the international context. MIB education content extends beyond responsibility towards community and nation and is more comprehensive towards ASEAN (region) countries. The proposed new curriculum’s standards and basic competencies should significantly impact students’ knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and positive values and attitudes of ASEANness. However, there is also a great deal of national content in MIB textbooks, making it possible to surmise that the content covered impacts students’ knowledge and understanding of Brunei Citizenship education. In summary, the above result of the Delphi survey shows that generally, the experts in Brunei should be able to design and implement a curriculum on citizenship that include aspects of knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes at local, national, regional, global and universal levels. Similarly, the inclusion of a greater volume of regional and international content in textbooks and making it compulsory is likely to boost the teaching of balanced citizenship qualities. One of Brunei’s citizenship education lessons’ new challenges is that teachers require students to discuss and critically understand the events in a global society. We recommend incorporating the 21st Century Learning Design (21CLD) into the teaching and learning of citizenship education through a professional development model (Jawawi et al., 2019).

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of ASEANness

65

Acknowledgements This paper received support in the form of a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (22252007; 25780510; 19K02525). We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

References Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2007). Shiminsei Kyouiku no Kenkyuu-Nihon to Thai no Hikaku (Study on citizenship education: Comparative study between Japan and Thailand). Toshindo. Kamogawa, A. (2013). Brunei Shotougakkou no Shakaika to MIB nimiru Shiminsei Kyouiku-SPN Karikyuramu to Kyoukasho no Bunseki (Citizenship education in Brunei primary school social studies and MIB: An analysis of SPN21curriculum and textbooks), Hikaku kyouikugaku kenkyuu (Comparative Education), Nihon Hikaku Kyouiku Gakkai (Japan Comparative Education Society (JCES)), 46, 149–163. Kamogawa, A., Salleh, S., & Jawawi, R. (2017). Brunei no Shiminsei Kyouiku : ASEANness wo Ishikisita Shiminsei Kyouiku ni Mukete (Citizenship education in Brunei Darussalam to raise ASEAN consciousness). In Toshifumi Hirata. (ed.). ASEAN kyoudoutai no shiminsei kyouiku (Citizenship education in ASEAN community) (pp. 28–50). Toshindo. Ministry of Education. (1985). Sukatan pelajaran sivik sekolah-sekolah rendah darjah1–6. MOE: Bandar Seri Begawan. Ministry of Education. (2009). The national education system for the 21st century (SPN21). Bandar Seri Begawan: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2010a). Karangka dan panduan bagi kurikulum and penilaian sistem pendidikan negara abad Ke-21. Bandar Seri Begawan: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2010b). Pendidikan kenegaraan melayu islam beraja peringkat rendah dan menengah. MOE: Bandar Seri Begawan. Ministry of Education. (2013). The national education system for the 21st century (SPN21). Bandar Seri Begawan: Ministry of Education. Jawawi, R., Jaidin, J. H., & Matzin, R. (2019). Transforming citizenship education into 21st century lessons. Proceedings of the 2019 7th international conference on information and education technology, March 2019, 174–178. Salleh S., & Jawawi, R. (2012). The implementation of social studies in primary and secondary schools in Brunei Darussalam. Presented in CESA conference. Bangkok, June 2012. Sugimoto, H. (2000). Language and values education policy in Brunei Darussalam: From a comparative perspective with Singapore and Malaysia. Kyoto university research studies in education, 46, 42–59. UNESCO. (2012). A situation-response analysis of the education sector response to HIV, drugs and sexual health in Brunei Darussalam. Jakarta, UNESCO.

Websites ASEAN https://asean.org/asean/asean-chair/. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brunei Darussalam, http://www.mfa.gov.bn/site/home.aspx.

Chapter 4

Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN Citizenship Education in Post-Conflict Contexts Saori Hagai Abstract When considering the emergence of citizenship education in the context of a post-conflict country, the peculiar consequences of the conflict era must be taken account of. The lasting consequences of genocide and the horrific atrocities committed by Pol Pot’s Communist Party of Kampuchea are thus an important piece of the pedagogical puzzle. The inhumane treatment by Pol Pot, for example, preceded an era beginning in 1993 ratified when the constitution paid keener attention to counteractive principles of democracy and human rights. Therefore, democracy and human rights education have become more strongly anchored in the curriculum. This article aims to evaluate the contours of historical experiences, current government educational policies, as well as the prospects for “citizenship education”, particularly within the regional ASEAN notion of citizenship education, by drawing on the case of Cambodia, where such emergent educational norms have been uniquely interpreted. By analyzing recent education policies and strategies, and the results of two separate surveys (a Student Questionnaire and Delphi Survey), this article addresses the following research questions: (1) In which historical context has citizenship education emerged in Cambodia, and (2) How has ASEAN integration impacted the inception of ASEAN citizenship education in Cambodia, and to what extent has it been entrenched in the Cambodian educational framework. Keywords ASEAN citizenship education · ASEAN common regional identity · Citizenship education in Cambodia · Democracy · Genocide · Human rights

4.1 Introduction One of the distinctive features of Cambodia is the consistent cycle of peace and turbulence which has marked the last 700 years. From the kingdom of Angkor to the French protectorate, and onto the Khmer Rouge, Paris Peace Agreements and S. Hagai (B) Ritsumeikan International, Ritsumeikan University, 56-1 Tojiin Kitamachi, Kita-ku, Kyoto 603-8577, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_4

67

68

S. Hagai

ASEAN integration, the country has constantly experienced political unrest and turmoil. It has started only recently to devote dedicated effort to educational, social, and economic rehabilitation and development. Particularly the genocide and serious human rights violations committed by Pol Pot’s Communist Party of Kampuchea (hereafter CPK) during 1975–1979 had a tremendous impact on every sphere of the society, and still leave social confusion even today. Reflecting the horrific atrocities during that time, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (hereafter MoEYS) in recent years has played a leading role in disseminating the value of citizenship education, in which the teaching of the concept of democracy and human rights is deliberately underlined. This article aims to explore the contours of the current situation, and prospects for citizenship education, particularly a regional form of ASEAN citizenship education, by drawing on the case of Cambodia, where these emergent educational norms have been uniquely interpreted. By analyzing recent education policies and strategies, and the results of two separate surveys (a Student Questionnaire and Delphi Survey), this article addresses the following research questions: (1) (2)

In which historical context has citizenship education has emerged in Cambodia? How did ASEAN integration impact the inception of ASEAN citizenship education in Cambodia? To what extent has it become entrenched in the Cambodian educational framework?

4.2 Citizenship Education Discourses in Cambodia 4.2.1 Historical Background and Genesis of Citizenship Education When considering the emergence of citizenship education in the context of a postconflict country like in Cambodia, the peculiar consequences of the conflict era must be taken account of. The lasting consequences of genocide and the horrific atrocities committed by Pol Pot’s Communist Party of Kampuchea are thus an important piece of the pedagogical puzzle. Between April 1975 and January 1979 approximately 1,700,000 people perished under the extreme communist regime. The type of victimization was diverse, including imprisonment, interrogation, torture, rape, and execution. Multiple forms of severe human rights violations occurred, including forced labor, starvation, and illness ultimately death due to medical neglect. However, the inhumane treatment by Pol Pot preceded an era beginning in 1993 when the constitution paid keener attention to counteractive principles of democracy and human rights. A liberal multi-party democratic system, the implementation of fair elections and protection of human rights, which adheres to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are assured in the constitution.

4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ...

69

Not so long after the establishment of this more liberal, reconstructionist constitution, citizenship education slowly but surely emerged as a norm in civil society for cultivating respect for democracy and human rights. Based on a self-driven desire to promote citizenship education, MoEYS in the early 2010s ultimately set citizenship education as one of the top educational priorities, raising it up from its formerly peripheral role in its national curriculum. This priority has led to its more comprehensive coverage in school textbooks for civics, history, geography, and the local life skill program (Hagai & Ogisu, 2019, 23).

4.2.2 Citizenship Education Discourses in Educational Policies Despite the intrinsic motivation to inculcate the value of citizenship education, some recent 5 year plans—Education Strategic Plan 2009–2013 (hereafter ESP) and ESP 2014–2018—did not fully reflect the continuing public interest in instilling citizenship in national education. The term citizenship did not appear in either of the ESPs; instead, citizens were merely deemed as human capital in national economic development as they were described as “people who can think critically and make evidence-based decisions which will impact Cambodia’s short and long-term future” (MoEYS, 2009, 11). In ESP 2019–2023, however, citizenship education, re-emerges in line with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (hereafter SDG). MoEYS approved the 2030 Roadmap of Cambodia’s SDG 4 in early 2019 with the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all. To this end, MoEYS sets out major strategies in which citizenship education is purposefully woven into the Cambodian educational discourse. They (Cambodian students) will be supported by professionally competent and qualified teachers, as well as their family and community. When they graduate, they will be equipped with both hard and soft skills, sound moral judgement, emotional intelligence and a strong sense of national and global citizenship that enables them to contribute to and actively participate in society. (MoEYS, 2019, 15–16)*parenthesis and emphasis added by author

In ESP 2019–2023, academic management reform remains one of the educational development procedures, in which “good” citizenship is integrated into not only policy papers but also school curricula and textbooks. (MoEYS) increases support for government policies, economics, and technology to develop an education management reform sub-strategy to integrate good citizenship into school curricula and textbooks to promote quality national and global citizenship. (MoEYS, 2019, 91) 1.1 (MoEYS) implements the National Curriculum Framework and develops a detailed curriculum. 1.2 (MoEYS) develops a detailed curriculum and standards of good citizenship. 1.3 (MoEYS) integrates good citizenship education, consisting of good Cambodian and good global citizenship, into school curricula and textbooks (MoEYS, 2019, 91).

70

S. Hagai

Through explicit incorporation in ESPs, citizenship education has gained renewed legitimacy as an educational norm, but this inclusion appears not directly to have arisen from intrinsic motivation but is rather a consequence of external pressure from international development agencies. As previous studies have suggested, as an aid recipient, Cambodia has been inevitably influenced by global educational trends of development aid organizations and donor countries, while also strategically adopting their terminology. In order to impress them, Cambodian educational policies have variously taken up or appropriated global buzz words, such as citizenship education into the education discourse.

4.2.3 Negotiating State-Society Relations In terms that are increasingly anchored in global trends, particularly UNESCO’s advocacy of Education for Sustainable Development (hereafter ESD), a fifth pillar encouraging “learning to transform oneself and society” was added to the pre-existing four pillars of learning conceptualized in the 1996 Delors Report (Learning: the treasure within). In sum, ESD requires 1. acknowledging challenges for sustainable development (learning to know), 2. acting with determination (learning to do), 3. communal responsibility (learning to live together), 4. personal development (learning to be) and 5. community activism for social change (learning to transform oneself and society). The last pillar resonates with the current political and social tendencies in Cambodia, with the energized youth movement associated with the 2013 election often being considered symbolic of this. A great number of youths gathered for street campaigning and expressed themselves on social media, particularly in support of the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (hereafter CNRP). Participants even included high school students who still lacked the right to vote. To the world, and to the incumbent party, this indicated the salience of the rise in youth activism and more generally, the reshaping of the political landscape as a consequence of active, politically engaged citizenship. The government’s reaction to this political energy was, unsurprisingly, ambivalent. Together with CNRP, the youth political movement was deemed a political risk by prime minister Hun Sen, who was marking 35 years in power, and whose primary concern was to maintain the stability of his rule. To undercut this inertia, Hun Sen dissolved CNRP before the 2018 election, cracked down on the opposition and youth campaigners, and reinforced the hegemonic rule of his Cambodian People’s Party (hereafter CPP). The strategy targeted not only direct political opposition, but also took aim at the entire framework supporting political engagement, including civil society groups, independent media organizations, and individual political opponents, a tactic which allowed the CPP to nearly double its previous total of seats in the Assembly (Morgenbesser, 2019, 159). Although, as mentioned above, democracy and human rights had consistently been identified as major educational goals in public education, this subsequent downplaying of democracy when it had

4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ...

71

real-life repercussions only wrought contradiction and social disorder. As one longterm commentator of Cambodia predicted this shift, civil society does not sit easily in Cambodia due to “the presence of an autonomous elite, steep hierarchies, and a massive gap between the ruler and the ruled” (Öjendal, 2014, 21). The drive toward hegemonic authoritarianism, however, can be both counteracted by and driven by citizenship education, if the latter is appropriated for promoting banal nationalism. Another crucial element of the reconstruction agenda in Cambodia has been to (re)cultivate patriotism that can serve to restore social capital through shared civic pride and nationalistic belonging. This narrative of nation-rebuilding in post holocaust Cambodia is still dominant but is now increasingly being channeled to shore up the leader as a symbol of the nation (Norén-Nilsson, 2018). Responding to this, MoEYS recognized that national education serves the function to engender “a sense of national and civic pride, high moral and ethical standards and a strong belief in young people’s responsibility for the country and its citizens” (MoEYS, 2014, 12). These broader goals, while idealistic and pleasing to donors, must nevertheless be depoliticized, as an increase in ethical and moral standards might prompt recriminations about the role many in the ruling elite (including the prime minister) played in the rise of Pol Pot. Achieving this balance in the educational system, the Khmer Rouge tribunal, and political discourse in general, has been a constant preoccupation of the CPP. Undoubtedly, the social, cultural, and political devastation faced by the first postKhmer Rouge government in 1979 prompted efforts at rebuilding community, trust, and solidarity. It was urgent for the government, the People’s Republic of Kampuchea (hereafter PRK), to begin the process of nation-rebuilding, which they did with the minimal resources available at the time by drawing on the notion of collective suffering and fostering a post-survivorship willingness to move forward. The goal was to do so without implicating the political elite, a goal which is still largely maintained to this day. At the time, PRK achieved this balance by, for instance, visualizing memorials of victims, including photos and skulls of those who lost their lives at killing fields anonymously, with no names and personal stories behind them. The dead were meant to serve as proof of the Khmer Rouge massacres, but no evidence for rooting out perpetrators. In this, the explicit goal was unifying around nation-building rather than revenge, an approach that Hun Sen has openly and subtly pursued most notably in the Khmer Rouge Tribunal (Emde, 2013, 30).

4.2.4 ASEAN Citizenship Education and ASEANness “One Vision, One Identity, One Community” has been an adopted slogan, under which ‘Education for ASEANness’ has played a role in cultivating shared values, norms, beliefs, and aspirations in the maintenance of a regional community (Hagai & Ogisu, 2019). In fact, there has been a regional project to instill awareness of ASEAN identity into primary education curricula in 2003 (Jones, 2004, 142). Although greater cultural awareness and pursuing some common values in the spirit of “unity in

72

S. Hagai

diversity” have been keenly sought through such discourses, it suggests that it is not only feasible to construct such a common regional identity, but also possible to nurture consistent values among ASEAN citizens (Acharya, 2000, 2014, 2017, 2021; Jones, 2004; Jönsson, 2010). Metro and Brehm (2022) argues the paradoxical nature of ASEAN regional identity by asking “is regional identity an umbrella that includes all national identities in Southeast Asia, or does it include only what all ASEAN nations share? Who has the power to define regional identity, and what are the incentives for doing so?” (p.37). (WE, the Heads of State or Government of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations recalls) The ASEAN Vision 2020, which charts a future direction for ASEAN as a concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward-looking, living in peace, stability, and prosperity, bonded together in partnership in a just, democratic, and harmonious environment, dynamic development and ever-closer economic integration and in a community of caring societies, conscious of its ties of history, aware of its shared cultural heritage and bound by a common regional identity. (ASEAN Secretariat, 2009, 1) *parenthesis and emphasis added by author

This minimalist approach apparently can make allowances for divergences that inevitably arise from distinction by social class, education, religion, socio-economic status, gender, and ethnicity. And while seeking commonality is likely to remain an important dynamic of the regional political project, it is also useful to explore the diversity with which ASEAN is encountered as a consequence of divergent political views, norms, values, and social expectations. The relationship between collective identity and community formation first drew attention in the Cold War context, where the formation of identity was shaped by the compatibility of major values, basic political ideology, mutual sympathy and “we-feeling” trust among security-communities (Deutsch et al., 1957:36). Given the curve trajectory of identity and community formation, Acharya (2021) questions whether ASEAN’s 48 years of intensive interaction, cooperation and mutual respect have cultivated a strong sense of common regional identity, let alone brought about a community. ASEAN integration, rather, is more commonly viewed as a conflicting arena, in which the boundaries are continuously renegotiated between national sovereignty and regional integration, on the one hand, and domestic evolution of nationalism, on the other hand. Given the potential for conflict, one of the expectations for education was to diffuse a shared sense of ASEAN regional education and identity. In order to achieve such an identity, the concept of ASEAN citizenship has slowly but surely emerged, particularly since 2009 when the Fourteenth ASEAN Summit was concluded. Some researchers remain skeptical about any so-called the collective ASEAN identity, arguing that the common identity illusion might exist only among certain segments of the population in ASEAN but there is also an acknowledgment that optimism remains high that ASEAN collective identity will become entrenched across all parts of the populations (Narine, 2009; Nesadurai, 2009). In line with this initiative, the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (ASEAN (Ed.), 2012) was prepared as part of a USAID Regional Development Mission Asia in 2012, to be used as a teaching resource for primary and secondary schools to foster

4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ...

73

an outward-looking, stable and peaceful and prosperous community. Teachers in 10 member states in ASEAN are encouraged to refer to it in their teaching about ASEAN; this is however not legally binding therefore, the usage and impact of the book vary from country to country.

4.3 Data Collection Methodology The data and insights in this article were collected through mixed qualitative and quantitative approaches. The original fieldwork was conducted by the author, together with KHLOK Vichet Ratha (Deputy Director, General Secretariat of National Council for Sustainable Development, Ministry of Environment) in 2012. The first questionnaire for primary and secondary school students (hereafter the Student Questionnaire, or SQ) was implemented in early 2012 for 3 days at the National Institute of Education (NIE) in Phnom Penh, yielding 566 responses from informants aged between 12–18 years-old. More precisely, the SQ gathered 185 responses from elementary school, 155 responses from the lower secondary level and 226 responses from the upper secondary level. The SQ consisted of two sections. The first section dealt with questions regarding ASEAN from three perspectives: “Knowledge and understanding”, “Skills and abilities” and “Values and attitudes”. The second part consisted of questions involving basic knowledge of other ASEAN countries, knowledge of ASEAN, and perceptions of students on how they related themselves to the concept of the ASEAN community. In order to understand how Cambodian education experts (aged 20–70) viewed the concept of the ASEAN community, a Delphi Survey (hereafter DS) was implemented in several rounds (see Tables 4.1 and 4.2). The first round was implemented in February 2013 in Banteay Meanchey Province by the author and SENG Sary (then a lecturer at Meanchey University). The second round of the DS took place in the same province in the summer of 2013. The DS required the same respondents to answer over several rounds, which caused some informant attribution. Although 160 people participated in the first round, the second round could include only 89 of the original informants. The collected data has been analyzed using SPSS. Table 4.1 Outline of the Delphi Survey (DS) translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

Round 1

Round 2

Date

Feb 10–19, 2013

August 30-September 5, 2013

Place

Banteay Meanchey, Cambodia

Banteay Meanchey, Cambodia

Respondents

160 people

89 people

Source Author

74

S. Hagai

Table 4.2 Respondent’s information translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company Round 1 (N = 160)

Round 2 (N = 89)

Elementary, middle or high school principals

32

13

Elementary, middle or high school social studies teachers

31

20

University or college faculty members

30

13

Department of education officials

34

12

PTA heads, presidents, representatives

33

31

Female

57 (35.6%)

35 (39.3%)

Male

103 (64.4%)

53 (59.6%)

Unknown

0

1

20s

22

19

30s

57

23

40s

56

25

50s

19

16

60s

3

3

70+

2

2

Unknown

1

1

Occupation

Sex

Age

Source Author

4.4 Young Generation: Low Awareness yet Favorable Attitudes Toward ASEAN The SQ revealed how young students perceived the concept of Cambodia. Although previous studies have argued that Cambodia was, as a consequence of its low economic development, expected to have limited encounters with ASEAN, the result of SQ provided a different narrative. Their positive self-image of being a Cambodian, and a part of the ASEAN region, were consistent responses, regardless of position and background. The results shown below indicate national pride, the recognition of traditional culture and history education, and regional membership at rates above 95%. Have virtue and pride as a Cambodian 98.4% (Section 2, Q10). History education in Cambodia is important 97.7% (Section 1, Q1). Learning the traditional culture of Cambodia is important 96.6% (Section 1, Q2). It is beneficial for Cambodia to be an ASEAN member 96.1% (Section 2, Q8). Despite the decline in social capital and distrust emerging out of the Khmer Rouge period, the high solidarity and international openness of Cambodian people

4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ...

75

have long been observed, and to some extent cultivated by French colonial authorities who shared in the appreciation of Cambodia’s magnificent cultural base rooted in the Angkor era (Sam, 2003; Sasagawa, 2005; Cravath, 2007). This view, for example, has been made tangible by the explicit inclusion of Khmer classical dance education in the national educational discourse, particularly in the context of nation (re)building. Education is thus understood to play an important role in awakening national consciousness among the young Cambodians and to encourage psychological attachment to their country. To an extent, however, this inward-focused nationalism has left only room for ASEAN as an abstract part of Cambodian identity. This was evidenced in the SQ topographical results, in which 95.4% of the students chose the geographical location of Cambodia on a blank map of ASEAN, whereas only 0.2–7.6% of the respondents correctly guessed where other ASEAN countries were located. Neighboring countries such as Thailand (1.8%), Laos (1.4%) and Vietnam (1.1%) were not an exception. (Blank map question asking locations of each ASEAN country Section 2, Q1). • • • • • • • • • •

The correct answer rate of Cambodia’s location 95.4% The correct answer rate of Malaysia 7.6% The correct answer rate of Brunei 4.2% The correct answer rate of Singapore 1.9% The correct answer rate of Thai 1.8% The correct answer rate of Indonesia 1.4% The correct answer rate of Laos 1.4% The correct answer rate of Myanmar 1.4% The correct answer rate of Vietnam 1.1% The correct answer rate of Philippines 0.2%

Here, one can suggest that unbalanced geographical recognition and vague recall about tangible facts of ASEAN countries demonstrate not only inadequate geography education, but also limited direct interest. Although ASEAN geography knowledge was limited among respondents of the SQ, they were more familiar with broader regional issues and concepts. For example, 35–45% recognized the symbolic meaning of the ASEAN integration and knew the year of ASEAN inception. While relatively better than geography, this also demonstrates a superficial knowledge of ASEAN as an institution. Philosophy that the ASEAN flag represents 44.1% (Section 2, Q2) When ASEAN was first established 34.9% (Section 2, Q3) When the ASEAN community was established 37.9% (Section 2, Q4). On the other hand, the SQ revealed that Cambodian young people clearly recognized the increasing demand of English proficiency in communicating beyond their borders. They widely acknowledged that “learning English is important” (96.6%) for communication. This, in turn, translated to average results in actual abilities; “able to have a conversation with foreigners in English” (44.4%), “able to communicate by letters and emails in English” (60.4%), “able to read English magazines, newspapers, and websites” (45.6%), and “able to watch and listen to English news and programs on TV and radios” (45.6%).

76

S. Hagai

Despite weaknesses in visualizing and interacting with ASEAN currently, Cambodians young people’s prospects for ASEAN were very positive. Their desire to know about ASEAN was surprisingly high, at 96.3%. Other distinctive features derived from the SQ revealed positive view toward regional identity formation: 91% identified themselves as ASEAN citizens and 86.7% claimed they had a sense of belongingness to the ASEAN community. Further results in this trend can be found just below. In sum, young Cambodians have a strong imagination of ASEAN, even if it is not concretely tied to knowledge about and skills to interact with ASEAN. History education of ASEAN is important 80.5% (Section 1, Q1) Traditional culture studies of ASEAN are important 72.3% (Section 1, Q2) Want to know about ASEAN 96.3% (Section 2, Q7) It is beneficial for oneself to be a member of ASEAN 84.2% (Section 2, Q9) Recognize oneself as an ASEAN citizen 91% (Section 2, Q10) Have an identity in common with ASEAN community 86.7% (Section 2, Q11).

4.5 Senior Generation: Passing on the Torch of Regional Integration As a research method for forecasting and visualizing the future, the DS targeted informants who are positioned to comment on the citizenship competencies they would expect young Cambodians to achieve in the future. This cohort, therefore, included education experts, such as school principals, social studies teachers, university faculty members, Department of Education officials and members of parent-teacher associations (PTA). Principally, the DS collected data on key citizenship competencies (see Table 4.3) at the current time, as well as competencies that would be essential in 10 years (see Table 4.4). In addition to listing the relative score of these competencies, Table 4.3 also clusters the competencies into “Knowledge and understanding”, “Skills and abilities” and “Values and attitudes”. Table 4.4 additionally visualizes the difference in utility of each competence between the present and future. The results in Table 4.3 highlighted the top 5 competencies: environmental consciousness, human rights, respect for human rights, morality and pride as a nation, and self-dependence. These skills were re-examined based on the gap (relative increase in the importance of a competency), which Table 4.4 ranks as the weighted average of attainment levels of competencies in the present and those expected in 10 years’ time. The larger the number in column D, the larger the gap, meaning there is a growing demand for that competency to be obtained. As seen in Table 4.4, many of the competencies to be strongly improved are related to ASEAN interactions and integration: “ASEAN history and culture” (0.79), “Common social problems of ASEAN countries” (0.79), “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (0.71), “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (0.67), and “To respond to ICT” (0.67). These competencies were, however, less prominent in Table 4.3,

4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ...

77

Table 4.3 Competencies ranked according to importance Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company Competency

Importance

1 Environment

3.8

2 Human rights

3.75

3 To respect human rights

3.74

4 To have morality and pride as a nation

3.74

5 To have self-dependence

3.74

6 To respect tradition and culture

3.73

7 Social welfare

3.72

8 Democracy

3.71

9 To have self-discipline and self- control

3.71

10 To contribute to society

3.69

11 To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development

3.69

12 To improve quality of life

3.67

13 To use a foreign language

3.66

14 Social justice and equity

3.65

15 Foreign language

3.64

16 To make decisions

3.64

17 To cooperate with each other

3.64

18 To make a peaceful resolution

3.64

19 To place importance on the law

3.63

20 To respect democracy

3.63

21 To express opinions on social problems

3.58

22 To think critically

3.57

23 To solve problems

3.57

24 Sustainable development

3.56

25 Interdependence

3.56

26 Coexistence and living together

3.55

27 To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

3.5

28 To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology

3.49

29 To develop sustainably

3.46

30 To promote international cooperation

3.42

31 To respect cultural diversity

3.41

32 To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

3.4

33 ASEAN history and culture

3.39

34 To pay attention to global issues

3.36 (continued)

78

S. Hagai

Table 4.3 (continued) Competency

Importance

35 To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

3.33

36 Common social problems of ASEAN countries

3.28

37 Different cultures

3.27

38 To respond to ICT

3.26

39 To face wrong things and injustice

3.21

Source Author Key Roman Knowledge and understanding of ASEAN Italic Skills and abilities regarding ASEAN Bold Values and attitudes towards ASEAN

which suggests that their current relevance has not yet become urgent in Cambodia. For example, from Table 4.3, elements relating to ASEAN ranked among the lowest: “Common social problems of ASEAN countries” (36th place in Table 4.3), “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (35th), “ASEAN history and culture” (33rd), “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (32nd), “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (27th). This evolving future outlook suggests how the importance of ASEAN is expected to transcend the experience of the current generation, which has not yet been deeply impacted by ASEAN in their everyday lives. However, it is clear that educational leaders believe young Cambodians need to be well-prepared for an ASEAN future. While advancing economic development, as experienced objectively by expanding trade, investment, and flows of products, money, and services, is an obvious driver of the importance of ASEAN, it is also driven by future competition in the region (Feuer & Hornidge, 2015; Feuer, 2016). Business opportunities such as starting up a cross-border business for trade and investment are already a common part of this imaginary. The senior generation regards young people as the main actors to harness integration to lead economic development and hopes they will acquire knowledge and cultural capacities to do so in the ASEAN context. Due to the growing demand for an adaptable workforce with professional skills, the government has also taken steps to reform and strengthen the education and training system in the field of technical and vocational education and training, TVET.1 In this way, Cambodia has cultivated human resources for transferring labor among ASEAN countries. As suggested in Table 4.4, this reflects the growing importance of acquiring tangible skills: “To respond to ICT” (0.67), “Foreign language” (0.57), and “To use foreign language” (0.53). The National Strategic Development Plan 2014–2018, which publicized the national economical target to become a middle to high income country by 2030, and a developed country by 2050, (Royal Government of Cambodia, 2014, 4), includes many of the same priorities, which largely amount to the overlaying of expectations for ASEAN integration onto the youth.

4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ...

79

Table 4.4 Predictions for the future: present–future gap Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company Gap years in the future (present–future gap)

Present

D=B−A

A

B

0.79

3.06

3.84

36 Common social problems of ASEAN 0.79 countries

3.12

3.91

35 To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

0.71

3.01

3.72

32 To behave in accordance with 0.67 common rules and values among ASEAN countries

3.19

3.87

Competency

33* ASEAN history and culture

Future

38 To respond to ICT

0.67

3.19

3.86

14 Social justice and equity

0.65

3.49

4.14

39 To face wrong things and injustice

0.65

3.09

3.74

30 To promote international cooperation

0.61

3.28

3.9

15 Foreign language

0.57

3.27

3.84

13 To use foreign language

0.53

3.08

3.61

16 To make decisions

0.53

3.7

4.24

8 Democracy

0.51

3.78

4.28

27 To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

0.51

3.58

4.09

11 To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development

0.5

3.6

4.1

7 Social welfare

0.49

3.74

4.23

22 To think critically

0.48

3.59

4.07

24 Sustainable development

0.48

3.58

4.07

34 To pay attention to global issues

0.48

3.36

3.84

28 To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology

0.47

3.53

4

9 To have self-discipline and self-control 0.46

3.71

4.17

26 Coexistence and living together

0.46

3.67

4.13

12 To improve quality of life

0.44

3.69

4.13

19 To place importance on the law

0.44

3.74

4.18

37 Different cultures

0.44

3.44

3.88

1 Environment

0.43

3.66

4.09

2 Human rights

0.43

3.8

4.23 (continued)

80

S. Hagai

Table 4.4 (continued) Competency

Gap years in the future (present–future gap)

Present

Future

D=B−A

A

B

31 To respect cultural diversity

0.43

3.64

4.07

21 To express opinions on social problems

0.4

3.56

3.97

25 Interdependence

0.38

3.73

4.11

10 To contribute to society

0.36

3.78

4.13

23 To solve problems

0.36

3.65

4.01

5 To have self-dependence

0.35

3.91

4.26

20 To respect democracy

0.31

3.94

4.25

17 To cooperate with each other

0.3

3.87

4.17

29 To develop sustainably

0.3

3.69

3.99

18 To make a peaceful resolution

0.26

3.82

4.08

4 To have morality and pride as a nation

0.23

4.07

4.3

6 To respect tradition and culture

0.23

4.06

4.29

3 To respect human rights

0.17

4.06

4.23

Source Author Note A higher number in column D indicates a larger gap in attainment levels of competencies between the present and 10 years in the future *the numbers in the competency column indicate the importance of each item, which was previously exhibited in Table 4.3 Key Roman Knowledge and understanding of ASEAN italic Skills and abilities regarding ASEAN Bold Values and attitudes towards ASEAN

4.6 Discussion 4.6.1 Findings from SQ and DS In this section, I would like to summarize two major findings of this study. The first important finding is that even though young Cambodians have a strong imagination of ASEAN, their knowledge and skills to interact with ASEAN are not well equipped. These concerns have been particularly expressed through the result of the DS in which the senior generation in Cambodia found competencies below to be strongly improved for the near future: “ASEAN history and culture” (as Knowledge and understanding), “Common social problems of ASEAN countries” (as Knowledge and understanding), “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (as Skills and abilities), “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (as Skills and abilities), and “To respond

4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ...

81

to ICT” (as Skills and abilities). In sum, Cambodian educational leaders believe that Cambodian youth should be responsible to achieve this knowledge and skills to realize regional security, cross-cultural encounters, and economic expansion in ASEAN. The second crucial finding is that “Human rights” (as Knowledge and understanding) and “Respect for human rights” (as Values and attitudes) were registered among one of the top competencies ratings listed in the DS. When considering the social implication of citizenship education in the context of the post-conflict country, the finding is not surprising at all. Reflecting upon the genocide during the Pol Pot regime in the late 1970s, human rights are recognized as one of the critical driving factors for civil society activism in Cambodia. Optimism however remains low that democracy and social change will be entrenched across the county since the current hegemonic regime has only wrought disappointments and contradictions. With this in mind, one should pay special attention to “To have morality and pride as a nation” (as Values and attitudes) listed in the DS as it could unintentionally or intentionally promote the narrative of nation-building which is directed to reinforce the banal patriotism.

4.6.2 Future Prospects—How Will ASEAN Integration Impact on Cambodian Youth? Aside from economic growth, young people can benefit from ASEAN integration through enhanced educational opportunities and prospects for career self-fulfillment across borders. With the education system being still very much a work-in-progress in Cambodia (Feuer, 2016), study-abroad programs among ASEAN higher education institutions, internships, seminars, and workshops are among the formalized ways in which young Cambodians can aim for personal growth and make a first step towards becoming global citizens in general. While ASEAN integration has been primarily initiated in a top-down way by ASEAN governments, in various forms it has also spread by the young generation, through social media and other post-modern ways of cultivating global imaginaries. Perhaps with the current COVID-19 contingency, young Cambodians have been more equipped than ever to “imagine” (Anderson 1991) and unite with other ASEAN youth, not to mention, global youth virtually regardless of borders. Indeed, some studies have shown in 2015, the number of internet users in Cambodia was 3 million (Phong & Solá, 2015: 22), 6 years later, however, it noticeably increased to 8.86 million in 2021. Moreover, 12 million social media users were found as of January 2021, which was equivalent to 71.3% of the total population of the country.2 In this way, the young generation in Cambodia will facilitate ASEAN integration by virtually sharing the “we-feeling” (Deutsch et al., 1957) which is thought to be a necessary ingredient for imagining and creating a community.

82

S. Hagai

4.7 Conclusion This article evaluated the contours of historical experiences, current government educational policies as well as prospects for citizenship education and ASEAN citizenship education in Cambodia. Given the lasting consequences of genocide and the horrific atrocities committed by Pol Pot’s CPK during 1975–1979, together with contemporary global trends of education imposed by development aid agencies, citizenship education has been emerged as a norm in civil society for cultivating respect for democracy and human rights in Cambodia. Based on the originally self-driven and later globally pressured desire to promote citizenship education, in recent years, MoEYS purposefully incorporated it into the national education discourse. This article has however revealed that in his CCP regime, the prime minister Hun Sen interpreted and appropriated citizenship education for promoting banal nationalism or patriotism in order to strengthen his hegemonic rule. In pursuing his hegemonic authoritarianism, citizenship education might found to be a risk, or adverse to, the government. It may act to prioritize the form of ASEAN citizenship education more than citizenship education in general due to the controversial ASEAN principle of non-interference in member countries’ internal affairs. This article found a partial success of ASEAN citizenship education entrenched into the current social-economic context in Cambodia. The surveys adopted in this research discovered that a strong imagination of ASEAN was cultivated among Cambodian youth perhaps through social media and virtual communication, even if it was not concretely tied to knowledge about and skills to interact with ASEAN. The result of the survey provided a narrative so far that the Cambodian young generation translated ASEAN citizenship to be a substantial tool for facilitating economic development, cross-cultural understanding, language learning or self-fulfillment through expanded educational opportunities. Notes 1.

2.

One of the goals of national TVET policy 2017–2025 is to promote public– private partnerships and mobilize resources from stakeholders to support TVET. More information available at https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub lication/401746/adb-brief-090-skills-development-fund-cambodia.pdf (5 June 2021). https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-cambodia(5 June 2021)

References Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. London, New York: Verso. Acharya, A. (2000). The quest for identity. International relations of Southeast Asia. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ...

83

Acharya, A. (2014). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problems of regional order (third edition). Routledge. Acharya, A. (2017). The evolution and limitations of ASEAN identity. In A. Baviera & L. Marami (Eds.), Building ASEAN Community : Political–Security and Socio-cultural Reflections (ASEAN@50). Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA). 4, 25–38. Acharya, A. (2021). ASEAN and regional order: Revisiting security community in Southeast Asia. Routledge. ASEAN Secretariat. (2009). Roadmap for ASEAN Community 2009–2015. Retrieved June 25, 2021, from https://www.asean.org/storage/images/ASEAN_RTK_2014/2_Roadmap_for_ ASEAN_Community_20092015.pdf. ASEAN (Ed.). (2012). ASEAN curriculum sourcebook: A teaching resource for primary and secondary schools to foster an outward-looking, stable, peaceful, and prosperous ASEAN community. ASEAN. Cravath, P. (2007). Earth in flower: The divine mystery of the Cambodian dance drama. Holmes Beach, FL: DatASIA Incorporated. Delors, J., Mufti, I. A., Amagi, I., Carneiro, R., Chung, F., Geremek, B., Gorham, W., Kornhauser, A., Manley, M., & Padr, M. (1996). Learning: The treasure within (Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century). Deutsch, K. W., Burrell, S. A., Kann, R. A., Lee, M. Jr., Lichterman, M., Lindgren, R. E., Loewenheim, F. L., Van Wagenen, R. W. (1957). Political community and the North Atlantic Area: International organization in the light of historical experience. Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press. Emde, S. (2013). National memorial sites and personal remembrance: remembering the dead of Tuol Sleng and Choeung Ek at the ECCC in Cambodia. In V. Pholsena & O. Tappe (Eds.), Interactions with a violent past: Reading post-conflict landscapes in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. NUS Press, 19–45. Vietnam, Singapore. Feuer, H. N., & Hornidge, A. (2015). Higher education cooperation in ASEAN: Building towards integration or manufacturing consent? Comparative Education, 51(3), 327–352. Feuer, H. N. (2016). Recovering from runaway privatization in Cambodian higher education: The regulatory pressure of ASEAN integration. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 31(2), 648–684. Hagai, S., & Ogisu, T. (2019). Cultivating ASEAN citizenship in the Cambodian educational experience: ASEAN integration, challenges and contradictions. Ritsumeikan Journal of International Relations and Area Studies, 50, 21–40. Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2017). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community). Toshindo. Jones, M. E. (2004). Forging an ASEAN identity: The challenge to construct a shared destiny. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 26, 140–154. Jönsson, K. (2010). Unity-in-diversity? Regional Identity-building in Southeast Asia. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 29, 41–72. Metro, R. & Brehm, W. (2022). The UNESCO shared histories curriculum: Paradoxes and possibilities. In W. Brehm & Y. Kitamura (Eds.), Memory in the Mekong: Regional identity, schools, and politics in Southeast Asia. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York and London. 23–46. MoEYS. (2009). Education strategic plan 2009–13. MoEYS. (2014). Education strategic plan 2014–19. MoEYS. (2019). Education strategic plan 2019–23. Morgenbesser, L. (2019). Cambodia’s transition to hegemonic authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 30(1), 158–171. Narine, S. (2009). ASEAN in the twenty-first century: A sceptical review. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(3), 369–386. Nesadurai, H. E. S. (2009). ASEAN and regional governance after the Cold War: From regional order to regional community?. The Pacific Review, 22(1), 91–118.

84

S. Hagai

Norén-Nilsson, A. (2018). Cambodia’s second kingdom: Nation, imagination, and democracy. Cornell University Press. Öjendal, J. (2014). In Search of a Civil Society, Renegotiating State Society Relationships in Cambodia. In W. Gabi, E. Judith, & N. F. Hart (Eds.), Southeast Asia and the civil society gaze: Scoping a contested concept in cambodia and vietnam (pp. 21–38). Routledge. Phong, K., & Solá, J. (2015). Mobile phones and internet in Cambodia. The Asia Foundation. Royal Government of Cambodia. (2014). National strategic development plan 2014–2018. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Sam, S. (2003). Cultural policies of Cambodia. Journal of Chinese Ritual, Theatre and Folklore (Special issue on cultural policy and traditional performing arts in Asia). Shin Ho-cheng Folk Cultural Foundation, Taipei. 141, 213–235. Sasagawa, H. (2005). Post/colonial discourses on the Cambodian court dance. Japanese Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 42(4), 418–441.

Chapter 5

Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member of the ASEAN Community Yuki Nakata, Andi Suwirta, and Mina Hattori

Abstract The main goal of citizenship education as taught in Indonesian schools is that students become good citizens of Indonesia, understand their rights and obligations as citizens, develop a law-abiding and democratic attitude, uphold the unity and integrity of the country, and have respect for diversity, freedom, and human rights. In this paper, the focus will be on three areas: (1) Analysis of the contents of Citizenship Education in National Curriculum 2006 in Indonesia; (2) Analysis of the findings of a questionnaire survey for students related to citizenship education in Indonesia; and (3) Analysis of the findings of the second round Delphi survey as it relates to citizenship education in Indonesia. This paper suggests that the contents of ASEANness should be expanded and elaborated in the Indonesian school curriculum. Another suggestion is that Citizenship Education teachers and other character education teachers in Indonesia—as real executors of the curriculum in schools—need to cooperate and share insights and experiences with other teachers from Southeast Asian countries so that they, in educating students as the younger generation and the hope for the future of the nation, will be proud of their changes. Keywords Awareness of ASEANness · Citizenship education · Elementary and secondary schools · Nation and character building

Y. Nakata (B) Asian Cultures Research Institute, Toyo University, 5-28-20 Haksan Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8606, Japan e-mail: [email protected] A. Suwirta Faculty of Social Studies Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Kota Bandung 40154, West Java, Indonesia e-mail: [email protected] M. Hattori Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_5

85

86

Y. Nakata et al.

5.1 Introduction Citizenship Education was formally and systematically introduced at primary and secondary school level in Indonesia in the early 1970s. Although earlier, there had been a subject called Citizenship Education,1 its form, content, direction, and purpose remained unclear. The main purpose of citizenship education universally is to develop good citizens. In the context of the Indonesian nation state, the concept of good citizenship was implemented in Curriculum 1968 and Curriculum 1975. This subject matter began to develop a clearer structure in its content and objectives. In line with government policy, especially the Ministry of Education and Culture, with the revision of the curriculum at the level of schooling, the name of Citizenship Education also changed. In Curriculum 1975, for example, this subject matter was named as PMP (Pendidikan Moral Pancasila or Moral Education of Pancasila); in Curriculum 1984 and Curriculum 1994, the name was PPKn (Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan or Pancasila and Citizenship Education); in Curriculum 2004 and Curriculum 2006, it was named as PKn (Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan or Citizenship Education); and lastly in Curriculum 2013, it was renamed as PPKn, Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan or Pancasila and Citizenship Education (See, for example, Winataputra, 2012, pp. 1–32; and Samsuri, 2013). However, the main objective of the implementation of Citizenship Education at the level of schooling in Indonesia, from its beginnings until now, can be summarized as follows, “so that students become good citizens of Indonesia, to understand their rights and obligations as citizens, law-abiding, democratic attitude, uphold the unity and integrity, and respect for diversity, freedom, and human rights.”2 The question now is how the profile of Citizenship Education in Indonesia today relates to the issue of the integration of the ASEAN Community by 2015? How do the contents of Curriculum 2006 and Curriculum 2013 characterize Citizenship Education currently in primary, junior, and senior high school in Indonesia? Finally, what are the challenges and opportunities for the development of Citizenship Education in Indonesia in the future? Based on the issues raised above, the research to be conducted on Citizenship Education in Indonesia relate also to students’ (in primary, junior high, and senior high school) and education stakeholders’ (lecturers, teachers, principals, school supervisors, and school committees) knowledge, insight, and awareness of the nation states in other ASEAN countries. To learn about students’ historical consciousness, their perceptions, and opinions about being good citizens, and their insights into the ASEAN countries, we used “A Questionnaire Survey on Citizenship Education in Indonesia.”3 This included two 1

Citizenship education as used in this paper includes civic education as a subject. This is summarized from Dika Meirista, 2013. 3 Special thanks to Ms. Sri Redjeki ROSDIANTI (Teacher of Social Studies Education and Citizenship Education at the SMP (Sekolah Menengah Pertama or Junior High School) Labschool UPI in Bandung and the SMKN (Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Negeri or State Vocational High School), 9 Bandung) for cooperating surveys at scholls in Bandung and attending the International Seminar at Nagoya Universities on Febrary 2014. 2

5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member …

87

main categories of questions, namely, (1) Questions on Citizenship; and (2) Questions on ASEAN countries. A total of 637 students were asked to fill out the questionnaire. These consisted of 225 students from primary, 211 students from junior high, and 201 students from senior high school in Jakarta and Bandung. The questionnaire was conducted in September 2011. Meanwhile, to gain opinions on Citizenship Education in Indonesia and Southeast Asia from the stakeholders deemed as “experts,” a Delphi survey questionnaire was used. This questionnaire aims to clarify issues such as what is required of citizenship in the ASEAN region. The questionnaire was conducted twice (a first stage and a second stage) with the same people. The respondents in this study are the ones who are experts in the field of education (character and citizenship). They consist of: (1) principals, (2) civics, social studies, history, and religion teachers, (3) school supervisors, (4) citizenships, social studies, history, and religion lecturers, and (5) managers of school committees or associations of teachers and parents. A total of 177 respondents were asked to complete the first round Delphi survey questionnaire. They are from Central Java (Semarang) and West Java (Bandung, Subang, and Karawang). The questionnaires were completed in October and December 2012. Of the 177 respondents to the first round survey, 173 also responded to the second round survey. The discussion of this study covers three themes, namely: (1) Analysis of Citizenship Education in Curriculum 2006 and Curriculum 2013, (2) Analysis of the findings of a questionnaire survey of students, and (3) Analysis of the findings of a two-round forecasting survey (Delphi survey).

5.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Curriculum After Socio-political Reforms 5.2.1 Citizenship Education in the Curriculum 2006 and 2013 The education curriculum in a nation state is always being changed for its improvement and refinement. Thus, Curriculum 2006 is an improvement and refinement of the previous curricula applicable, such as Curriculum 1968, Curriculum 1975, Curriculum 1984, Curriculum 1994, and Curriculum 2004 (Hasan, 2004: 1–27). After the collapse of the Suharto regime in 1998, Indonesia became more prone to decentralization and democratization from a centralized system. Both the Curriculum 2006 and Curriculum 2013 reflect these major changes in Indonesian society. Curriculum 2006 is often also referred to as KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan or School Based-Curriculum). Curriculum 2004, 2006, and 2013 were created in an atmosphere of reform, where the parameters of freedom, democracy, and regional autonomy had colored the lives of the people of Indonesia. The new Curriculum 2013 itself is entering a stage of socialization. It has not been formally

88

Y. Nakata et al.

valid in all regions of Indonesia, and, in substance, the contents of Curriculum 2013 are not much different from Curriculum 2006. Curriculum 2013, as it relates to Citizenship Education, is described as follows (See, for example, Apandi, I. (2013)): 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

Mengubah nama mata pelajaran Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan (PKn) menjadi Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan (PPKn). Menempatkan mata pelajaran PPKn sebagai bagian utuh dari kelompok mata pelajaran yang memiliki misi pengokohan kebangsaan. Mengorganisasikan SK-KD (Standar Kompetensi—Kompetensi Dasar) dan indikator PPKn secara nasional dengan memperkuat nilai dan moral Pancasila; nilai dan norma UUD (Undang-Undang Dasar) 1945; nilai dan semangat Bhinneka Tunggal Ika; serta wawasan dan komitmen NKRI (Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia). Memantapkan pengembangan peserta didik dalam dimensi: pengetahuan kewarganegaraan; sikap kewarganegaraan; keterampilan kewarganegaraan; keteguhan kewarganegaraan; komitmen kewarganegaraan; dan kompetensi kewarganegaraan. Mengembangkan dan menerapkan berbagai model pembelajaran yang sesuai dengan karakteristik PPKn yang berorientasi pada pengembangan karakter peserta didik sebagai warganegara yang cerdas dan baik secara utuh. Mengembangkan dan menerapkan berbagai model penilaian proses pembelajaran dan hasil belajar PPKn. Translation:

1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

Change the name of citizenship education subjects to Pancasila and Citizenship Education. Make Pancasila and Citizenship Education an integral part of a group of subjects whose mission is to strengthen national awareness. Organize the Standard Competency and Basic Competency and the indicators Pancasila and Citizenship Education nationally by strengthening the moral values and principles of Pancasila; the values and norms of the 1945 Constitution; the values and spirit of Unity in Diversity; as well as the insights and commitments of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. Confirm the development of learners in different dimensions: knowledge of citizenship; the attitude of citizenship; citizenship skills; the persistence of citizenship; commitment to citizenship; and citizenship competencies. Develop and implement a variety of learning models that match the characteristics of Pancasila and Citizenship Education, which is oriented toward the character development of students as good citizens as a whole. Develop and implement a variety of models for the learning assessment and learning outcomes of Pancasila and Citizenship Education.

5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member …

89

5.2.2 Contents of the Standard Competency of Citizenship Education in the Curriculum 2006 After the decision to implement the curriculum 2013, it was not officially utilized on a nationwide scale, and many schools returned to use the 2006 curriculum. Since the 2006 curriculum was utilized at many schools where the questionnaire survey and Delphi survey were conducted in this study, this section discusses the contents of standard competency of Citizenship Education (Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan) in National Curriculum 2006. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 outlined the Standard Competency of Citizenship Education for primary, junior high, and senior high school levels. Besides, these tables show what each content of elementary, junior high, and high school are classified “Universal”, “Regional,” “National” or “Local” level (Hirata, 2013, 114–115).

5.2.2.1

Primary School Level

According to Table 5.1 (Tardianto, 2006, 131–143, 366–374), Standard Competency for the first to third grade of primary school level have mainly “Universal” level of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes. On the other hand, Standard Competency for the fourth to sixth grade of elementary school level have mainly “National” and “Local” level of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes.

5.2.2.2

Junior High School Level and High School Level

According to Table 5.2, the contents of the Standard Competency for the 1st to 3rd grade at Junior High School level are mainly “National” level of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes. However, “Global” and “Universal” level are also expected to be learned. Keywords, such as Human Rights, Democracy, Openness, Transparency, and Justice, and the role of the press and the mass media, have been considered as significant in the socio-political context of Indonesia since 1999. They have been repeated in the contents of Citizenship Education, Curriculum 2006. For example, in the first grade of junior high school, students learn about “Human Rights” as a standard and basic competence. In second grade, students learn about the implementation of democracy in their lives. Furthermore, at high school level, first grade students learn about “Human Rights” and the “Equality of the people of the Nation,” and second grade students learn about “Democracy,” “Openness,” and “Justice.” Meanwhile, third grade students learn about “the role of the press in democratic societies.”

90

Y. Nakata et al.

Table 5.1 Standard competency of citizenship education for primary school level4 Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company Grade

Standard competency

Category

1st

1. Applying the principles according to differences

Universal

2. Learning to be orderly at home and school

Universal

3. Applying children’s rights at home and school

Universal

4. Applying children’s obligations at home and school

Universal

1. Getting accustomed to doing gotong-royong (helping each other)

Universal

2. Showing an attitude of environmental respect

Region

3. Showing a democratic attitude

Region

4. Showing the values of Pancasila (the Five Basic Principles of the Republic of Indonesia)

Universal, national

1. Practicing the meaning of the Sumpah Pemuda (Youth Pledge)

National

2. Practicing the norms applied in society

Universal

3. Having self-esteem as an individual

Universal

4. Having pride as a people in Indonesia

National

1. Understanding the local government system of the Village (Desa) and the Sub District (Kecamatan)

Local

2. Understanding the government system of Prefecture, City, and Province

Local

3. Understanding the system of central government

National

4. Showing an awareness toward globalization in a local context

Global

1. Understanding the importance of the unity of the Republic of Indonesia

National

2. Understanding central and local laws and legislation

National

3. Understanding the freedom to organize

Local, national

4. Appreciating joint decision-making

Global

1. Appreciating the values of the formulation process of Pancasila as a principle of the nation

National

2. Understanding the system of Indonesian government

National, local

3. Understanding the role of Indonesia among the Southeast Asian countries

Region

4. Understanding the role of Indonesian foreign policy in the era of globalization

National, global

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Regarding the Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, there is not sufficient content on the subject of ASEAN countries. According to the Standard Competency, primary school sixth graders have to learn “understanding the 4

Tardianto (2006), 137–143.

5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member …

91

Table 5.2 Standard competency of citizenship education for junior high school (SMP/MTs) and high school (SMA/MA) Level5 Standard competency of citizenship education for junior high school First

Second

Third

1. Showing a positive attitude toward the norms applied to societies, races, and nations

National

2. Describing the meaning of the Declaration of Independence and the first Constitution

National

3. Showing a positive attitude toward the protection and enforcement of human rights

Global

4. Showing an independent attitude toward express one’s own opinions

Universal

1. Showing behavior that follows the values of Pancasila (the Five Basic Principles of the Republic of Indonesia)6

National

2. Understanding the various constitutions adopted in Indonesia

National

3. Showing obedience to the national laws and legislation

National

4. Understanding the implementation of democracy in various aspects of life

Global, national

5. Understanding sovereignty of the people in the government system of Indonesia

National

1. Showing how participation helps in the defense of the country

National

2. Understanding the implementation of regional autonomy

Local

3. Understanding the impact of globalization on people as members Global, national of society, a race, and the nation 4. Showing one’s self goals according to one’s ability for the sake of the nation (bangsa)

Global, national

Standard competency of citizenship education for junior high school First

1. Understanding the nature of the nation and the Republic of Indonesia

Global, national

2. Showing a positive attitude toward the legal system and the national judicial system

Global, national

3. Showing the participation in the advancement, promotion and enforcement of human rights

Global, national

4. Analyzing the relation between the foundation of the nation and the constitution

National

5. Appreciating the equality of the people in the nation in various aspects of their lives

National

6. Analyzing the political system in Indonesia

National (continued)

5 Tardianto (2006), 366–374 and Peraturan Mendiknas no. 22 tahun 2006 dan Lampiran 3 (SMA/MA). 6 Pancasila consists of five basic principles, namely: (1) belief in One God Almighty; (2) a humanity that is just and civilized; (3) the unity of Indonesia; (4) democracy guided by the wisdom of representative deliberation; and (5) social justice for all Indonesians. See, for further information, Budimansyah and Bestari (2011).

92

Y. Nakata et al.

Table 5.2 (continued) Standard competency of citizenship education for junior high school Second

1. Analyzing the political culture in Indonesia

Global, national

2. Analyzing the democratic culture of civil society

Region, national

3. Showing the attitude to openness and justice as a member of the races (berbangsa) and the nation

Region, national

4. Analyzing international relations and international organizations Global, region 5. Analyzing international laws and the judicial system Third

Global

1. Showing a positive attitude to the Pancasila as an open ideology National 2. Evaluating various government systems

National, global

3. Evaluating the role of the press in democratic societies

National, region

4. Evaluating the impact of globalization

National, global

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

roles of Indonesia among the Southeast Asian countries.” Furthermore, high school second graders have the opportunity to learn “analyzing International Relations and International Organization,” and this includes the study of ASEAN countries. Even though these competencies are enough for students to understand the political position of Indonesia in Southeast Asia and in international society, it might be insufficient for understanding each ASEAN country or for having feelings of solidarity with other ASEAN countries.

5.3 Analysis of the Results of Questionnaire Survey to Students The following are the findings of the Questionnaire Survey (September 2011) to students.7

5.3.1 Students in Indonesia See or Hear Much More the Words “Social Justice/Fairness,” “Human Rights,” and “Democracy” Than “International Society” According to the answers to Question Part 1—Q3, students have seen or heard more often the following words: “Social Justice/Fairness” (Often = 61.4%, Yes = 33.3%); 7

References of the questionnaire survey for the children are: (1) Tables of questionnaire survey results of ASEAN countries at CESA 2012 (Questions Part1—Q3, Q6, Q7); and (2) Tables of questionnaire survey results by grade (school) on Questions Part 1—Q11 and Part 2—Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, and Q6.

5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member …

93

“Human Rights” (Often = 64.7%, Yes = 27.2%); and “Democracy” (Often71.3%, Yes = 22.4%) in comparison to “International Society” (Often = 35.3%, Yes = 47.9%). “Social Justice/Fairness,” “Human Rights,” and “Democracy” are some of the significant keywords of the post-Soeharto regime (New Order era) since 1998 in Indonesia. Furthermore, the Standard and Basic Competency of Citizenship Education (Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan) in Curriculum 2006 also includes these words for study, mainly at junior high school and high school levels.

5.3.2 Most of the Students Considered that Their English Proficiency is Low, Even Though They Know English is Important for Their Lives Almost 50% of Indonesian students think their English proficiency is low. According to the findings of Q7 (a question on English proficiency), around half of the students feel they are not good at speaking English (Not very much = 69.9%, Not at all = 10.7%); writing (Not very much = 41.9%, Not at all = 7.5%); browsing (Not very much = 43.5%, Not at all = 11%); or watching and listening it (Not very much = 42.5%, Not at all = 7.5%). However, the findings of Part 1—Q6 show that most students consider that their English abilities are important (Very important = 74.4%, Important = 22.3%).

5.3.3 Students Consider Peace Among ASEAN Countries to Be Important The findings of the questionnaire—Part 1—Q11 (Question on your local society, country, ASEAN countries, and the world)—indicate that Indonesian students’ recognition of peace among ASEAN countries is the highest (42.7%) among all ASEAN students.

5.3.4 Indonesian Students Are not yet Interested in Other ASEAN Countries The findings of the Question Part 2—Q1 “Match the number on the map below with names of ASEAN countries” show that more than 70% of Indonesian students know the geographical locations of Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and the Philippines. The breakdown of these data was as follows: only 50–60% of the primary school

94

Y. Nakata et al.

students knew the geographical location of these countries. However, around 70– 80% of the junior high school students and senior high school students knew the correct geographical location of these countries. According to the results of the different school levels, 64.2% of senior high school students understand where the geographical location of Thailand is. However, the findings indicate that only around 20–40% of primary school and junior high school students understand the geographical location of continental Southeast Asia, namely Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. This is because in textbooks for primary schools, the map of Southeast Asian countries does not mention every state in this region (See, for example, Sriwilujeng, 2007, 69–90.). The findings for Part 2—Q4 (When is an ASEAN Community expected to be established?) show that only 22.1% of the students chose the correct answer. The breakdown is as follows: 39.1% of primary school students, 7.1% of junior high school students, and 18.9% of senior high school students chose the correct answer. However, 59.2% of students chose the answer, “I don’t know.” This means that Indonesian students have not yet become fully aware of the establishment of the ASEAN Community. The findings of the Part 2—Q5 (How much do you know about other ASEAN countries?) indicate that students are unfamiliar with most of the continental Southeast Asian countries except for Thailand. Less than 35% of the students chose “know” and “know quite a bit” about Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. On the other hand, students answered that they “know” and “know quite a bit” about Malaysia, as follows: 57.6% (primary school students = 51.6%, junior high school students = 61.1%, and senior high school students = 60.7%) of students answered “know.” In addition, 15.7% (primary school students = 23.1%, junior high school students = 10%, and senior high school students = 13.4%) of students answered “know quite a bit.” In total, around 70% of students in Indonesia indicated that they know about Malaysia.8 The findings on Singapore are as follows: 50.5% (primary school students = 41.3%, junior high school students = 55.5%, and senior high school students = 55.7%) of students answered “I know”; and 15.7% (primary school students = 22.20%, junior high school students = 10.9%, and senior high school students = 13.4%) of them answered “know quite a bit.” These findings clarify that around 60% of students in Indonesia recognize that they know about Singapore. One of the interesting findings is about students’ understanding of the Philippines. Even though around 70% of the students correctly chose geographical location of the Philippines on Part 2—Q1, only 33.1% of students (primary school students = 38.7%, junior high school students = 32.2%, and senior high school students = 27.9%) chose 8 One of the possible answers for this finding is that Malaysia has been labeled as the saudara serumpun (brotherhood family) by most Indonesian people and Indonesia and Malaysia are known as “One Race; two nation states.” It is also interesting to note here that the news and views pertaining to Malaysia in the Indonesian mass media, including on the Internet, are very popular, such as news and views about the cases of Indonesian workers in Malaysia, disputes in border islands, claims of original heritage cultures, and so on. See, for further information, Suwirta and Ahmad (2007) and Sunarti (2013, 77–88).

5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member …

95

the answer “I know,” and only 5.8% of the students (primary school students = 10.2%, junior high school students = 2.4%, and senior high school students = 4.5%) chose the answer “know quite a bit.” on Question Part 2—Q5. The findings for these questions indicate that even if students know of the geographical location of other ASEAN countries, they may not have enough knowledge and understanding about these countries.

5.3.5 Major Impacts of Media (Internet, TV, and Books) and School on Students’ Understanding of ASEAN Countries The results of Part 2—Q6, “In what ways have you learned about ASEAN? (Circle all that apply),” show that more than 70% of the Indonesian students chose the following sources: books, television, the Internet, and school as the ways they have learned about ASEAN. Primary school students chose books (88.9%), Internet (83.1%), and school (76.4%). However, junior high school and senior high school students stated that they mostly learned about ASEAN from the Internet, as follows: junior high school students chose the Internet (91%), books (87.7%), and school (82.5%). Senior high school students also received most of their learning from the Internet (87.1%), followed by books (85.6%), television (83.1%), and school (82.1%).

5.4 Analysis of the Results of Delphi Survey 5.4.1 Findings from Questions in Part 1 About 70–90% of the respondents answered that local level Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes have achieved the goals at present. National level Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes are as follows: 73% of the respondents answered that Knowledge and understanding at national level was at the appropriate level, and 83% of respondents answered that Values and attitudes at national level had been achieved. However, only 53% of the respondents considered that Skills and abilities at national level had been achieved to an appropriate level. Regarding universal level, around 60% of respondents answered that Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes had been achieved to appropriate levels at present. However, about half of the respondents or more thought that there were problems in achieving the appropriate level of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes at a regional and global level at present. According to the respondents’ answers, only 40–50% of

96

Y. Nakata et al.

them considered that the regional and global level of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes had been achieved at the proper level.

5.4.2 Findings from Questions in Part 2–1 (Questions on Knowledge and Understanding) More than 70% of the respondents answered that the following topics, (1) Environment, (2) Coexistence and living together, (3) Different cultures, (4) Social justice and equity, (5) Democracy, (7) Interdependence, (9) Social welfare, and (10) Human rights were dealt with in the class or in their research (Very often/Often) (Q1). However, only around 30% of the respondents considered that the following topics, (8) Foreign language, (11) ASEAN history and culture, and (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries, were often dealt with in their education and research. More than 90% of the respondents answered that all topics from (1) to (12) about Knowledge and understanding would be “Completely achieved,” “Achieved to some extent,” or “Achieved” to the appropriate level 10 years later (Q4). However, on the current situation, around 20% of the respondents answered “Fully achieved,” “Achieved to some extent” regarding (8) Foreign language, (11) ASEAN history and culture, and (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries. In addition, more than 40% of respondents answered “Not fully achieved” or “Not achieved at all” for these (8), (11), and (12) (Q3). Most of the respondents stated that topics from (1) to (10) about Knowledge and understanding should be studied at elementary school (Q5). However, many respondents considered that the following topics, (6) Sustainable development, (11) ASEAN history and culture, and (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries, should be studied by the upper grades of elementary school or by older children. For instance, 23% of the respondents answered that (6) Sustainable development should be studied at 17 years old or older; furthermore, 30% of the respondents answered that (11) ASEAN History and culture should be studied at 11–12 years old, and 26% of the respondents answered that (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries should be studied at 11–12 years old.

5.4.3 Findings of the Questions in Part 2–2 (Questions on Skills and Abilities) More than 70% of the respondents answered that the following topics, (1) To express opinions on social problems, (2) To have self-discipline and self-control, (3) To solve problems, (4) To make decisions, (5) To respond to ICT, (6) To make a peaceful resolution, (7) To think critically, (8) To improve quality of life, (9) To cooperate with each other and (11) To contribute to society, are dealt with in their classes or their

5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member …

97

research (Very often/Often) (Q1). However, around 60% of the respondents answered that the following topics, (12) To use foreign language, (13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and (14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people, are considered to be dealt with inadequately or not dealt with in their classes or research. Most of the respondents answered that all topics from (1) to (14) about Skills and abilities will be “Fully achieved,” “Achieved to some extent,” or “Achieved” to the appropriate level 10 years later (Q4). However, the respondents did not have positive opinions on the current situation (Q3). For instance, less than 35% of the respondents answered “Fully achieved” or “Achieved to some extent” regarding (5) To respond to ICT, (6) To make a peaceful resolution, (10) To develop sustainably, (11) To contribute to society, (12) To use foreign language, (13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and (14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people. Furthermore, 40% of the respondents answered, regarding (12) To use foreign language, that it was “Not fully achieved.” In addition, 41% of the respondents, on the topic (13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries, answered “Not fully achieved.” Equally, 33% of the respondents answered “Not fully achieved” for the topic (14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people. Regarding the ages when students should study (Q5) for the topics (1) to (14), 50–60% of the respondents for each topic answered that those of “8 years old or younger” should study the following topics: (2) To have self-discipline and selfcontrol and (9) To cooperate with each other. On the other hand, around 35–40% of the respondents for each topic answered that “17 years old or older” should study about (10) To develop sustainably, (13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and (14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people.

5.4.4 Findings from the Questions in Part 2–3 (Questions on Values and Attitudes) More than 60–90% of the respondents answered that the following topics: (1) To face wrong things and injustice, (2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development, (4) To respect cultural diversity, (5) To place importance on the law, (8) To respect tradition and culture, (9) To have morality and pride as a nation, (10) To respect democracy, (11) To respect human rights, (12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology are dealt with in their class or research (Very often/Often) (Q1).

98

Y. Nakata et al.

Table 5.3 Analysis of the degree of achievement of the characteristics at present (Indonesia) Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company Top three topics

Lower three topics

Knowledge and understanding (2) Coexistence and living together (5) Democracy (1) Environment and (3) Different cultures

(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries (8) Foreign language (11) ASEAN history and culture

Skills and abilities (1) To express opinions on social problems (14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN (2) To have self-discipline and self-control countries with other people (12) To use foreign language (9) To cooperate with each other (13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries Values and attitudes (10) To respect democracy (11) To respect human rights (4) To respect cultural diversity

(3) To have self-dependence (7) To pay attention to global issues (6) To promote international cooperation

However, only 8% (“Very often”) + 35% “Often”) of the respondents dealt with (3) To have self-dependence; moreover, 10% (“Very often”) + 24% (“Often”) of the respondents dealt with (6) To promote international cooperation in the class or their research. Most of the respondents considered that all the topics from (1) to (14) about Values and attitudes are significant (Q2). Furthermore, more than 80% of the respondents answered that all of these topics are “Fully achieved,” “Achieved to some extent” or “Achieved” to the appropriate level 10 years later (Q4). However, the respondents did not have positive opinions on all the topics as they currently stand. For instance, less than 35% of the respondents answered “Fully achieved” or “Achieved to some extent” to the following topics: (1) To face with wrong things and injustice, (3) To have self-dependence, (6) To promote international cooperation, (7) To pay attention to global issues, and (13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN. Regarding the appropriate age for when students should study (Q5) topics (1) to (13), mor than 50% of the respondents for each topic answered that students of “8 years old or younger” should study the following issues: (2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development, (3) To have self-dependence, and (11) To respect human rights.

5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member …

99

5.4.5 Topics that Are Considered not Sufficiently Covered at Present The following Table 5.3 shows the top three and lower three topics of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities and Values and attitudes based on the results of the Tables 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6, that are the results of comparison of weighted averages of Questions on Knowledge and understanding (Table 5.4), Skills and abilities (Table 5.5), and Values and attitudes (Table 5.6). According to Table 5.3, the lower three topics of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities and Values and attitudes include topics about foreign language and ASEAN countries. Furthermore, the lower topics of Values and attitudes include global issues, namely (6) To promote international cooperation, and (7) To pay attention to global issues. According to the results of the Q5 of Delpfi survey, around 40% of respondents considered Foreign languages as one of the topics of both Knowledge and understanding ((8) Foreign language) and Skills and abilities((12) To use foreign language) should be studied at 8 years old or younger. Besides, around 30% of respondents considered both the knowledge and understanding of (11) ASEAN history and culture, and (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries should be studied at 11–12 years old, however around 30–40% of the respondents considered the following topics should be studied at 17 years old or older, namely the topics of Skills and abilities (13) to behave in accordance with the common rules and values among ASEAN countries, (14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people, and the topics of Values and attitudes of (13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN. Furthermore, around 70% of the respondents also considered topics about global issues, namely topics about Values and attitudes of (6) To promote international cooperation, and (7) To pay attention to global issues are should be studied at 13 years old and older. Tables 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 also show the results of the survey about “Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B).” According to these tables, what the respondents chose the top five topics are the followings: The top five topics of Knowledge and understanding the respondents chose were (2) Coexistence and living together, (1) Environment, (5) Democracy, (3) Different cultures and (4) Social justice and equity. Besides, the top five topics of Skills and abilities the respondents chose were (8) To improve quality of life, (7) To think critically, (3) To solve problems (2) To have self-discipline and self-control and (4) To make decisions. Furthermore, the top five topics of Values and attitudes the respondents chose were (11) To respect human rights, (10) To respect democracy, (4) To respect cultural diversity, (8) To respect tradition and culture, and (12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology. From the above results, the findings of this study clarified that topics that are classified as “Global” and “Universal” are mainly considered to be achieved 10 years later rather than “regional”topics concerning ASEAN.

3.65 3.48

3.04

(6) Sustainable development

3.70

2.62

(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries

3.66

2.98 2.68

(10) Human rights

(11) ASEAN history and culture

3.62

2.87

(9) Social welfare

3.38

3.45

3.44

3.06 2.63

(7) Interdependence

(8) Foreign language

3.75

3.02 3.20

3.07

3.11

3.61

3.58

3.24

3.31

3.52

3.60

3.61

3.34

3.70

(4) Social justice and equity

3.08

(3) Different cultures

3.69 3.76

3.83 3.91

Q4: The Q2: The characteristics that significance of this should be achieved characteristics (C) 10 years later (B)

(5) Democracy

3.08 3.31

(1) Environment

Knowledge and understanding

(2) Coexistence and living together

Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A)

Questions topics

0.76

0.77

0.67

0.75

0.81

0.42

0.61

0.55

0.68

0.63

0.60

0.76

The gap between present and future “(B) − (A)” (D)

Table 5.4 Comparison of weighted average of questions on knowledge and understanding (Indonesia) Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

100 Y. Nakata et al.

Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A) 3.32 3.32 3.23 3.16 3.03 3.01 3.22 3.13 3.24 2.97 3.02 2.73 2.68 2.82

Skills and abilities (1) To express opinions on social problems

(2) To have self-discipline and self- control

(3) To solve problems

(4) To make decisions

(5) To respond to ICT

(6) To make a peaceful resolution

(7) To think critically

(8) To improve quality of life

(9) To cooperate with each other

(10) To develop sustainably

(11) To contribute to society

(12) To use foreign language

(13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

(14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

Questions topics

3.32

3.32

3.56

3.70

3.65

3.81

2.97

3.04

3.20

3.30

3.24

3.58

3.59

3.58

3.90

3.39

3.68

3.48

3.54

3.87

3.79

3.84

3.58

3.65

3.86

3.43

3.78 3.85

0.50

0.64

0.83

0.68

0.68

0.57

0.76

0.65

0.66

0.75

0.68

0.63

0.53

0.46

Q4: The Q2: The The gap between characteristics that significance of this present and future should be achieved characteristics (C) “(B) − (A)” (D) 10 years later (B)

Table 5.5 Comparison of weighted average of questions on skills and abilities (Indonesia) Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member … 101

3.47 3.57 3.50

3.86 3.88 3.80 3.57

3.39 3.38

(10) To respect democracy

(11) To respect human rights

(12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the 3.26 new science and technology

(13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

3.14

3.51

3.77

3.26

3.21

3.11

3.55

(9) To have morality and pride as a nation

3.52 3.80

2.84 3.27

3.13

3.51

3.54

2.83

3.53

(7) To pay attention to global issues

3.46

3.79

3.74

3.24

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

(8) To respect tradition and culture

2.80

(6) To promote international cooperation

3.84

3.33 3.18

(4) To respect cultural diversity

2.91

(3) To have self-dependence

(5) To place importance on the law

3.51

3.13

(2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development

3.63

2.95

(1) To face wrong things and injustice

Values and attitudes

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A)

Questions topics

0.43

0.54

0.49

0.46

0.51

0.53

0.68

0.66

0.61

0.50

0.60

0.61

0.69

The gap between present and future “(B) − (A)” (D)

Table 5.6 Comparison of weighted average of questions on values and attitudes (Indonesia) Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

102 Y. Nakata et al.

5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member …

103

5.5 Comparative Analysis of Two Surveys The results of the student questionnaire survey clarified two points in relation to ASEAN. First, Indonesian students have insufficient knowledge about countries that are members of ASEAN. Second, more than 70% of Indonesian students responded that they have learned about ASEAN through school, books, television, and the Internet. On the other hand, the results of the Delphi survey showed that educational experts recognize that students’ knowledge and understanding, abilities, and skills regarding ASEAN member countries are limited and should be resolved. The two surveys pointed out that students and educational experts are aware that Indonesian students have insufficient knowledge of ASEAN. Most of the students chose schools as one of the main sources of information about ASEAN, even though the students’ knowledge of ASEAN is not sufficient. Therefore, reinforcing the discussion of ASEAN in subjects, such as citizenship education and social studies, in the classroom may improve the students’ ASEAN-related knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes.

5.6 Conclusion Citizenship education in Indonesia is important as one of the subjects learned by students in schools (from elementary through to secondary level). In fact, in the tertiary education sector, a Department of Citizenship Education has been established in 10 LPTKs (Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan or Institutions of Teacher Education) in Indonesia since 1960. Accordingly, the subject matter of citizenship education has been introduced formally and systematically in the curriculum since the early 1970s (Curriculum 1975, 1984, 1994, 2004, 2006, and 2013). The main objective of citizenship education in Indonesia is to help students become good citizens, to understand their rights and obligations as citizens, to be law abiding, have a democratic attitude, uphold the unity and integrity of the state, and have respect for diversity, freedom, and human rights. In the current Curriculum 2013, the aim of Citizenship Education is confirmed as developing learners’ knowledge of citizenship, attitudes to citizenship, citizenship skills, persistence of citizenship, commitment to citizenship, and general citizenship competencies. Citizenship Education in Indonesia is related to the four pillars of nationhood. It has been developed through having a Key Competency and Basic Competency, and by strengthening the moral values and principles of Pancasila, the values and norms of the 1945 Constitution, and the values and spirit of Unity in Diversity, as well as the insights and commitments of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. However, the knowledge, attitudes, and abilities of character education in Indonesia are not owned solely by the subject matter of citizenship education. There

104

Y. Nakata et al.

are some other subjects related to character education, including knowledge of Southeast Asian countries, such as Social Studies Education (Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial), Religious Education (Pendidikan Agama), and Indonesian Language Education (Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia) for primary and junior high school students; and history education, geography education, economic education, and sociology education for senior high school students. Citizenship Education in Indonesia, since first introduced in the early 1970s, has been oriented to nation and character building, so that it has become nation centric and not region (ASEAN) centric yet. Accordingly, in order to enhance education for ASEANness in the Indonesian context, we think that the content related to Southeast Asian countries should be extended and elaborated on more in the school curriculum. The teachers of citizenship education, including the teachers of other subjects related to character education in Indonesia should join together in sharing their knowledge and experience with teachers from the other Southeast Asian countries about how to be proud and respectful of each other in being members of the ASEAN Community.

References Apandi, I. (2013). Kuriculum PPKn 2013 (Apandi, I. (2013). Curriculum on Pancasila and civic education 2013) Retrieved January 18, 2014, from http://www.lpmpjabar.go.id/?q=node/691. Budimansyah, D., & Bestari, P. (Eds.). (2011). Aktualisasi nilai-nilai Pancasila dalam membangun karakter warga negara. Widya Aksara Press and Laboratorium PKn UPI.(Budimansyah, D., & Bestari, P. (Eds.). (2011). Actualization of Pancasila values in building the character of citizens. Widya Aksara Press and Laboratorium PKn UPI). Hasan, S. H. (2004). Pandangan dasar mengenai kurikulum pendidikan sejarah. ReHISTORIA: Jurnal Pendidikan Sejarah, 5/1, 1–27. (Hasan, S. H. (2004). Basic view of history education curriculum. ReHISTORIA: Journal of Educational History, 5/1, 1–27). Hirata, T. (2013). Chiiki Tougou wo Mezasu ASEAN Shokoku niokeru Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in ASEAN countries aiming for regional integration). In Hikaku Kyouikugaku Kenkyuu (Comparative Education) (Vol. 46, pp. 104–117). Japan Comparative Education Society, Toshindo. Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2017). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community). Toshindo. Meirista, D. (2013). Pendidikan kewarganegaraan, Rizqi Offset, Bandung. (Meirista, D. (2013). Civic education , Rizqi Offset, Bandung). Peraturan Mendiknas no.22 tahun 2006 dan lampiran, (Minister of education and culture regulation no.22,2006) Retrieved April 20, 2013, from http://litbang.kemdikbud.go.id/index.php/2013-0618-06-42-52. Samsuri. (2013). Paradigma pendidikan kewarganegaraan dalam kurikulum 2013.(Samsuri. (2013). Paradigm of civic education in the 2013 curriculum) Retrieved January 25, 2014, from http://eprints.uny.ac.id/10665/1/PARADIGMA%20PENDIDIKAN%20KEWARGANEG ARAAN%20KURIKULUM%202013.pdf. Sriwilujeng, D. (2007). Pendidikan kewarganegaraan untuk sekolah dasar kelas VI, ESIS Penerbit Erlangga, Jakarta. (Sriwilujeng, D. (2007). Civic education for grade VI elementary schools, ESIS Erlangga Publisher, Jakarta). Sunarti, L. (2013). Menelusuri akar konflik warisan budaya antara Indonesia dengan Malaysia. SOSIOHUMANIKA: Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Sosial dan Kemanusaan,6/1, 77–88. (Sunarti, L.

5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member …

105

(2013). Tracing the roots of the cultural heritage conflict between Indonesia and Malaysia. SOSIOHUMANIKA: Journal of Social and Human Science Education , 6/1, 77–88). Suwirta, A., & Ahmad, A. R. (2007). Sejarah dan pendidikan sejarah: Perspektif Malaysia dan Indonesia, Historia Utama Press and Penerbit UKM. (Suwirta, A., & Ahmad, A. R. (2007). History and history education: Malaysian and Indonesian perspectives. Historia Utama Press and UKM Publisher). Tardianto, T. (ed). (2006). Kerangka dasar, struktur kulikulum standar kompetensi dan kompetensi dasar tingkat SD/MI, SMP/MTs, CV BP Panca Bhakti, Jakarta. (Tardianto, T. (ed). (2006). Basic framework, curriculum structure of competency standards and basic competencies for SD/MI, SMP/MTs, CV BP Panca Bhakti, Jakarta). Winataputra, U. S. (2012). Pendidikan kewarganegaraan dalam perspektif pendidikan untuk mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa: gagasan, instrumentasi, dan praksis, Widya Aksara Press. (Winataputra, U. S. (2012). Civic education in the perspective of education to educate the nation’s life: ideas, instrumentation, and practice.Widya Aksara Press).

Chapter 6

Citizenship Education in Lao PDR: Developing Increased Awareness for ASEAN Toward Globalization Miki Inui and Souphany Heuangkeo

Abstract This chapter aims to investigate citizenship education in Laos. Specifically, it queries how the educational domain presumed to impart citizenship education has thus far been transformed at the primary school level. It also probes potential schemas for the direction and development of citizenship education in the future. The chapter comprises three parts: (1) an introductory outline of curriculum revisions after the establishment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Economic Community (AEC); (2) an examination of the characteristics and contexts of the outcomes obtained from a questionnaire survey of young students conducted in Laos on citizenship in ASEAN countries; and (3) the results of a Delphi survey conducted to forecast the features required for citizenship education in the future. The Delphi survey elucidated two points. First, the students evinced a high level of knowledge and understanding of citizenship education. However, they displayed low levels of skills and abilities. Second, students in Laos exhibited a below-par awareness and comprehension of foreign languages and inadequate cognizance of ASEAN. Their desire to achieve such learning after 10 years was also minimal, indicating that they were not adequately aware of the ASEAN or other countries. Thus, citizenship education in Laos confronts the challenge of constructing an internally and externally balanced educational curriculum of citizenship education in the future to cultivate superior international awareness in students. More studies are mandated on teacher training to foster teachers capable of achieving this goal. Keywords Citizenship education · Curriculum · Delphi survey · Globalism · Lao PDR

M. Inui (B) School of Human Science and Environment, University of Hyogo, 1-1-12 Shinzike Honcho, Himeji 670-0092, Hyogo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] S. Heuangkeo Ministry of Public Works and Transport, Lanexang Avenue, P. O. BOX 10618, Vienatiane, Lao PDR e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_6

107

108

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

6.1 Introduction This chapter aims to investigate citizenship education in Laos. Specifically, it queries how the educational domain presumed to impart citizenship education has thus far been transformed at the primary school level. It also probes potential schemas for the direction and development of citizenship education in the future. The education system in Laos does not offer a dedicated subject related to citizenship education; instead, topics relating to citizenship are incorporated into subjects that fuse science and social studies such as moral education, geography, and the world around us. Efforts have been made since the establishment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Economic Community (AEC) in 2015 to promote citizenship education to conform to the ideals of globalization. Additionally, international aid has facilitated the updating of the education curriculum. This chapter comprises three parts: (1) the introductory section outlines the revisions effected to the curriculum after the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) was instituted, (2) the second section attempts to examine the characteristics and contexts of the outcomes obtained from a questionnaire survey of young students conducted in Laos on citizenship in ASEAN countries, and (3) the third section reports the results of a Delphi survey conducted to forecast the features required for citizenship education in the future.

6.2 New Trends of Citizenship Education After the Establishment of AEC Most Lao people could not comprehend the benefits of an ASEAN membership when Laos became a member of this association in 1997. The citizens of Laos were also not adequately informed via literature or mass media about the other ASEAN members. Information on the ASEAN countries began to be incorporated into primary and secondary school syllabi only when the AEC was ready to be established. However, the Lao people must have learned about other ASEAN member countries through domestic and international mass media, e.g., programs broadcast on Thai television. There are two news programs related to ASEAN: Inside ASEAN and ASEAN Today. Many local sectors have been focusing on improving domestic development to achieve standards equivalent to those of other ASEAN members ever since Laos became a member of the association. Local schools, entrepreneurs, government departments, and ministries aware of the importance of the ASEAN membership have highlighted the enhancement of domestic sectors and internal resources in Laos so that country can advance and become more competitive with other ASEAN countries. Billboards announcing “Welcome to AEC” were installed in communities. National flags and illustrations related to ASEAN members adorned private and

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

109

public schools and their surrounding areas. Demonstrations and exhibitions were conducted as principal school activities to raise awareness about ASEAN: for example, schools held fashion shows featuring the national costumes of the ten ASEAN countries and hosted dancing, singing, and ASEAN-related Q&A sessions. Information on AEC was increasingly broadcast on local media such as radio, newspapers, and television. Such social phenomena manifested the Lao people’s enthusiasm and pride in their nation’s membership of AEC. The Lao government has focused increasingly on developing human resources and augmenting the educational sector to upgrade and benchmark education to the levels of other ASEAN members. If the Lao people could boost their knowledge and skills, they could pursue careers in other AEC member nations. Besides upgrading the educational curriculum and the co-curricular activities, the Lao government has advanced plans to review and revise the syllabus of every school grade with the help of international organizations such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) (Table 6.1). It is apparent from a comparison of the old and new school curricula that the former did incorporate some information about ASEAN. For instance, the general backgrounds of ASEAN members, their geographical locations, and their national flags, among other aspects, were observed in the general knowledge section of a fifthgrade primary school textbook. The updated curricula will build on that foundational knowledge and add information on traditional cultures, costumes, lifestyles, national festivities, and important dates about the ASEAN nations. Extra in-school activities and games related to ASEAN nations are also being inserted. Teaching resources such as the ASEAN curriculum sourcebook (USAID, 2012) were not yet utilized. However, the interviewed students indicated that only a few schools incorporate ASEAN studies and cited the National University of Laos (NUOL)-attached institutions as exemplars. For instance, on the instructions of the president and the dean of the NUOL, an attached primary school named Public Primary School teaches students about ASEAN countries in a class titled “World Around Us” as an aspect of the integrated social studies and science curriculum. Moreover, the secondary school associated with NUOL embeds ASEAN studies within geography, history, and civic studies syllabi, often using supplementary materials to impart the requisite information (Figs. 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3). Table 6.1 The plan for the review and revision of school syllabi by grade

Grade

To finish by year

Grade

Primary 1

2018

Lower secondary 1

To finish by year 2023

Primary 2

2019

Lower secondary 2

2024

Primary 3

2020

Lower secondary 3

2025

Primary 4

2021

Lower secondary 4

2026

Primary 5

2022

Higher secondary 1

2027

Higher secondary 2

2028

Higher secondary 3

2029

Source Research Institute for Educational Science

110

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

Fig. 6.1 ASEAN flags drawn by a primary student. Source Taken at a primary school in Vientiane

Fig. 6.2 Text materials for ASEAN studies used at a lower secondary school. Source Thammavong (2014), MOES and RIES (2012)

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

111

Fig. 6.3 Text materials used at a higher secondary school for ASEAN studies. Source Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2016)

6.3 Characteristics of Citizenship in the Questionnaire for Young Students This section discusses the questionnaire survey on citizenship education conducted in 2011 with young students. A total of 628 school students in Laos (195 elementary, 200 secondary, and 233 high school) took this survey. The questionnaire comprised two parts: (1) questions on citizenship education and (2) questions on ASEAN countries.

6.3.1 Questions on Citizenship (Part 1) Interestingly, the survey responses revealed that young students in Laos consider it important to study their history and culture but do not feel the same way about the ASEAN countries and other nations worldwide. A major proportion of the surveyed students registered the answer of “very important” to questions about the importance of their history (77.9%) and traditional culture (83.0%). However, these percentages dropped to 28.7 and 25.5%, respectively, in answer to similar queries about ASEAN history and traditional culture. A considerable gap is thus indicated in the way the responding students regard their country vis-à-vis other ASEAN members. The ratio representing the importance placed by the students on the study of the traditions

112

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

and cultures of nations and regions worldwide was also modest (35.7%), evincing a general lack of interest in knowing about other countries and cultures. Some questions queried the frequency of seeing and hearing certain words. In response, most students selected environment (73.1%) and democracy (73.1%) as words they were exposed to “very often.” Only a small number of students chose terms such as international understanding (16.2%) and international society (8.5%) as appearing “very often” to them. An analysis of the textbooks of the responding students clarifies the paucity of global content apropos the world outside Laos. Conversely, the textbooks encompass a large amount of universal content related to morality: 58.3% of the surveyed students answered “very often” to questions concerning the frequency of seeing and hearing the word “coexistence.” Even though this ratio was low, it marked the highest percentage registered in nine surveyed countries. Thus, Lao students emphatically imbibe lessons about the coexistence of people and about coexistence with people. Also, 9.7 and 11.6% of the surveyed students, respectively, chose “completely” to items stating “to make a decision alone when taking action” and “to face injustice, inequality, and discrimination.” These items alluded to their behavior in the future and the ratios were extremely low compared to the other eight countries. These results were probably influenced by the fact that Laotians have a particularly gentle nature. However, it must also be taken into account that teachers impart information inscribed in textbooks to students in a one-sided manner and that the extant curriculum is not easily connected to the lifestyles of contemporary students.

6.3.2 Questions on ASEAN Countries (Part 2) The results obtained from the first part of the questionnaire indicated that the respondents were not very aware of the world outside Laos, but the participating students achieved high accuracy rates for questions about ASEAN members. For example, the accuracy rates for questions concerning “the meaning of the ASEAN flag,” “the year of the founding of ASEAN,” and “the year that ASEAN is to be integrated” were 65.3, 59.1, and 32.3%, respectively, and these ratios were the highest among the nine surveyed countries. The results revealed that the students did not really recognize the importance of learning about ASEAN and other countries of the world, but they did remember what they had learned. An analysis of their textbooks also disclosed the reasons for these results. Elementary education and teacher training courses encompass learning about ASEAN countries. In addition, reports relating to the ASEAN were frequently broadcast in the media since the ASEAN summit was hosted in Vientiane in 2004, and the outcomes of the survey probably reflected this awareness, demonstrating that the people of Laos are becoming more conscious of expanding their knowledge and keeping in pace with the other ASEAN members. However, the results for questionnaire items that probed the geographical location of the other ASEAN members disclosed that the students tended to know less about countries such as Brunei, Singapore, and

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

113

Malaysia that were further away from Indochina. Thus, the contents of their textbooks, including their study material for geography, should be comprehensively examined. The investigation also indicated that Laos must participate in the movement for the development of a common education program that is more aware of the ASEAN Community.

6.4 Analysis of the Delphi Survey 6.4.1 Method The survey attempted to identify the type of citizenship awareness expected from students of ASEAN members. The first survey in Laos was conducted in September 2012, and the second survey was administered in March 2013. The subjects included 299 people, including principals, teachers of social studies, and presidents of the Parents and Teachers Association (PTA). The collected data were analyzed using SPSS. The items of the surveys were broadly categorized into two parts: (1) those identifying existing citizenship-related attributes and ascertaining the evaluation of specialists apropos the type of citizenship they expected to achieve in 10 years and (2) those determining vital citizenship-related qualities in terms of knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, values and attitudes, and the appropriate ages at which these qualities of citizenship should be inculcated.

6.4.2 Backgrounds of the Respondents Of the 299 respondents, 137 were men (45.8%) and 151 were women (50.5%). The gender of 11 subjects remained unidentified. In terms of age, people in their 50s formed the largest group (32.1%), followed by subjects in their 40s (25.1%), 20s (9.7%), 60s (13.0%), and 70s (0.7%). With respect to their occupations, 76 respondents (25.4%) were elementary school teachers, 64 (21.4%) were teachers at institutions of higher education, and 62 (20.7%) were civil servants. The number of secondary school teachers was 14 (4.7%). Almost all respondents (72.9%) were involved in educational activities and 3.7% of them were engaged in research. The results of the surveys will be briefly presented in sections that follow.

114

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

6.4.3 Results: Part 1 The questions asked in Part 1 concerned the identification of presently imbibed citizenship-related characteristics and attempted to ascertain the type of citizenship that was expected to be achieved in 10 years according to the estimation of the respondents. Space constraints do not permit a detailed discussion of the obtained results; nonetheless, it was elucidated that among the stated attributes comprising local, national, regional, global, and universal, the local level was identified as the highest for the existing citizenship characteristics of the people of Laos. However, the other four characteristics that lagged behind the local arena were expected to be higher 10 years later. The local citizenship-related attributes were classified as knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes. The results demonstrated very high levels of knowledge and understanding as well as values and attitudes (75 and 80%, respectively). However, the level of achievement for skills and abilities was found to be quite low (59%). It is widely acknowledged that the standards of education in Laos are not as high as the benchmarks set by the other ASEAN members. Practical pedagogies have not yet been established in Laos for young students. The results indicate that students in Laos are good at learning and understanding what they are taught in schools and in processing the information they receive through the media. However, their skills and abilities must be enhanced in preparation for the forthcoming ASEAN integration. Thus, the results of this study’s analysis of the data obtained from the questionnaire survey on citizenship education suggest that the education system in Laos must offer theoretical knowledge to students in tandem with the awareness of how they can translate their knowledge into practical abilities. Laos can foster people with skills in various fields through its education system by overcoming these challenges.

6.4.4 Results: Part 2 6.4.4.1

Questions About Knowledge and Understanding

Table 6.2 displays that the surveyed respondents answered items on knowledge and understanding that they frequently dealt with characteristics of citizenship-related to the environment (64%), coexistence and living together (63%), democracy (69%), interdependence (57%), social justice and equity (56%), and human rights (56%). Table 6.2 indicates low respondent ratios for topics such as ASEAN history and culture (44%) and common social problems of ASEAN countries (48%); however, more than 50% of the respondents acknowledged the importance of learning about ASEAN history and culture. The results also show that the respondents recognized the value of understanding different cultures (41%) and foreign languages

33

56

69

295

(3) Different cultures

(4) Social justice 297 and equity

64

24

42

294

296

299

299

294

(7) Interdependence

(8) Foreign language

(9) Social welfare

(10) Human rights

(11) ASEAN history and culture

44

56

57

44

299

295

(5) Democracy

(6) Sustainable development

63

299

289

(1) Environment

(2) Coexistence and living together

31

38

36

38

38

33

40

25

34

57

33

14

8

18

33

10

14

5

10

11

3

5

Few (%)

4

1

2

5

0

2

1

0

0

1

1

None (%) 293

289

297

291

289

292

296

293

291

297

291

51

55

52

51

63

55

72

57

41

63

72

Very important (%)

46

41

43

43

32

40

26

37

51

30

27

Important (%)

2

3

3

6

5

4

3

3

7

6

1

Important a little (%)

N

Often (%)

N

Very often (%)

Q2 The significance of these characteristics

Q1 Your specialty (you often deal with these characteristics in the class or in your research)

Table 6.2 The Knowledge and understanding of specific specialties and the significance of the identified characteristics

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

2

1

0

0

(continued)

Not important at all (%)

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 115

None (%)

240

48

38

12

3

235

53

Very important (%)

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries

Few (%) 42

Important (%) 4

Important a little (%)

N

Often (%)

N

Very often (%)

Q2 The significance of these characteristics

Q1 Your specialty (you often deal with these characteristics in the class or in your research)

Table 6.2 (continued)

1

Not important at all (%)

116 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

117

(51%); however, the respondents also admitted at 33 and 24%, respectively, that these subjects are not taught very often. As previously described in the section on the analysis of the textbooks, school students in Laos are taught about the environment, coexistence, and democracy. However, information on ASEAN members and inter-country cooperation is only briefly introduced in fifth-grade elementary school classes. Young students in Laos are accorded with scant opportunities to learn about countries outside Laos and to be exposed to different cultures. A curriculum modification is required for Laotians to prepare appropriately for prospective ASEAN integration programs. The next section overviews the evaluation of responses to questions concerning the current levels of achievement of citizenship education in relation to the items presented in Table 6.3 and the extents of learning that should be achieved in 10 years. Table 6.3 illuminates a keen desire in respondents to comprehensively inculcate citizenship attributes related to the environment (47%) and democracy (48%) in 10 years. The outcomes also reveal that according to the respondents, citizen characteristics pertaining to the understanding of different cultures (19%) and foreign languages (17%) are currently extremely low. The respondents also did not display much desire to attain increased knowledge about discrete cultures (38%) or foreign languages (30%) in a decade. The lack of interest possibly stems from the fact that the respondents felt it would be easier to achieve citizenship attributes concerning the environment and democracy within a decade because these topics are frequently taught in schools. However, the media in Laos are not very inclined to broadcast extensive programs on foreign cultures, which appears to influence low expectations of achieving citizen characteristics related to the understanding of diverse cultures and foreign languages in 10 years. Moreover, the residents of Laos seem to believe it would be impossible for learners to acquire sufficient English proficiency in the future even though language education begins at the secondary school level. The absence of exposure to other cultures and the lack of adequate language education could represent reasons for the low expectations registered by respondents for achievements in these areas in 10 years. Hence, to prepare for the forthcoming ASEAN integration, the residents of Laos must become highly aware of the features of citizenship required to understand other cultures and languages and should aim to attain such abilities and attributes. Table 6.4 overviews the assessment of responses to questions probing the ages at which students should study the specified citizenship characteristics. Many respondents reported that the environment (30%), coexistence (29%), social justice and equity (29%), different cultures (28%), and common social problems of ASEAN countries (28%) should be taught at ages 9 and 10 years. Despite these results, common social problems observed in ASEAN countries are rarely found in textbooks; it is thus urgently necessary to print information related to ASEAN countries in textbooks and to create an environment in which students can learn about these issues in preparation for the ASEAN integration. The results of the analysis indicate that almost all respondents recognized the importance of foreign languages, but this facet is lacking in both curricula and educational research. Also, a high 47% of the respondents agreed that foreign languages

19

23

35

297

299

(3) Different cultures

(4) Social justice and equity

17

297

298

(7) Interdependence

(8) Foreign language

298

296

(11) ASEAN history and culture

26

22

38

(9) Social welfare 298

(10) Human rights

29

23

297

296

(5) Democracy

(6) Sustainable development

50

39

30

39

38

38

43

42

45

44

43

20

22

19

25

21

27

20

19

22

27

24

5

11

11

11

22

6

13

3

10

10

3

0

2

2

3

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

291

291

296

286

292

295

293

295

297

292

291

38

40

36

30

38

37

48

42

38

38

47

Completely (%)

40

41

36

40

38

36

36

36

33

45

37

To some extent (%)

21

17

22

26

23

25

14

19

25

16

16

Achieved (%)

1

2

5

4

1

2

2

3

4

1

0

Not efficiently achieved (%)

25

30

299

295

(1) Environment

(2) Coexistence and living together

Not at all (%)

Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later

Not efficiently achieved (%)

N

Achieved (%)

Completely (%)

N

To some extent (%)

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present

Table 6.3 The degrees of current achievement and levels to be achieved in 10 years

(continued)

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Not at all (%)

118 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

40

20

10

1

237

37

43

To some extent (%) 19

Achieved (%) 1

Not efficiently achieved (%)

29

Completely (%)

237

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries

Not at all (%)

Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later

Not efficiently achieved (%)

N

Achieved (%)

Completely (%)

N

To some extent (%)

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present

Table 6.3 (continued)

0

Not at all (%)

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 119

120

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

Table 6.4 The ages at which students should imbibe specific citizenship-related characteristics Q5 The age when the students should study these characteristics N

8 years old or younger (%)

9–10 years old (%)

11–12 years old (%)

13–14 years old (%)

15–16 years old (%)

17 years old or older (%)

(1) Environment

289

35

30

11

11

5

8

(2) Coexistence and living together

289

38

29

18

3

5

7

(3) Different cultures

291

26

28

17

12

7

9

(4) Social justice 290 and equity

20

29

12

10

16

14

(5) Democracy

293

33

19

11

6

13

18

(6) Sustainable development

287

16

27

10

11

8

27

(7) Interdependence

290

33

23

14

9

10

11

(8) Foreign language

286

47

23

10

4

7

9

(9) Social welfare

288

22

22

13

7

14

23

(10) Human rights

291

29

20

12

10

13

16

(11) ASEAN history and culture

286

16

24

19

12

14

14

(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries

235

14

28

21

11

14

12

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

should be taught to students aged 8 years old or younger, evidencing the requirement of constructing an environment that introduces language education at the elementary education stage. Incidentally, after the surveys were conducted, the teaching of English was introduced in the third grade of elementary schools in 2015.

6.4.4.2

Questions About Practical Abilities

Table 6.5 clarifies that, according to the respondents, curricula and educational research often address issues pertaining to self-discipline and self-control (64%), mutual cooperation (67%), decision-making (57%), improving quality of life (53%),

33

35

36

33

293 64 (2) To have self-discipline and selfcontrol

293 52

288 57

293 33

(3) To solve problems

(4) To make decisions

(5) To respond to ICT

(6) To make a 289 53 peaceful resolution

39

50

15

26

4

12

3

8

0

5

1

1

0

0

279 62

282 50

280 54

281 65

281 68

32

40

42

31

30

35

6

9

4

4

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

289 22

290 15

287 22

291 25

293 27

294 23

44

32

44

38

46

39

29

29

28

32

24

32

4

21

5

4

3

5

(continued)

1

3

1

1

1

1

Completely To Achieved Not Not (%) some (%) efficiently at extent achieved all (%) (%) (%)

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present

Very Important Important Not N important (%) a little important (%) (%) at all (%)

288 64

Very Often Few None N often (%) (%) (%) (%)

(1) To express 295 42 opinions on social problems

N

Q1 Your specialty (you often Q2 The significance of these characteristics deal with these characteristics in the class or in your research)

Table 6.5 Skills and abilities and its significance

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 121

28

39

33

295 67

294 40

292 43

292 31

(9) To cooperate with each other

(10) To develop sustainably

(11) To contribute to society

(12) To use foreign language

45

39

295 53 (8) To improve quality of life

(7) To think critically

47

31

16

14

4

7

23

5

1

2

1

1

1

280 61

280 52

283 60

284 69

284 63

34

42

36

27

35

53

5

5

3

4

2

9

0

1

1

0

0

0

291 18

290 26

293 28

293 36

292 26

293 17

29

31

38

31

43

37

33

33

24

28

24

31

16

10

7

4

5

11

(continued)

3

1

3

1

2

4

Completely To Achieved Not Not (%) some (%) efficiently at extent achieved all (%) (%) (%)

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present

Very Important Important Not N important (%) a little important (%) (%) at all (%)

286 38

Very Often Few None N often (%) (%) (%) (%)

292 28

N

Q1 Your specialty (you often Q2 The significance of these characteristics deal with these characteristics in the class or in your research)

Table 6.5 (continued)

122 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

45

(14) To solve 293 27 common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

23

13

5

2

267 48

282 47

45

49

5

4

2

1

291 21

36

35

32

33

7

8

3

1

Completely To Achieved Not Not (%) some (%) efficiently at extent achieved all (%) (%) (%)

292 23

Very Important Important Not N important (%) a little important (%) (%) at all (%)

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

49

Very Often Few None N often (%) (%) (%) (%)

295 35 (13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

N

Q1 Your specialty (you often Q2 The significance of these characteristics deal with these characteristics in the class or in your research)

Table 6.5 (continued)

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 123

124

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

achieving peaceful resolutions (53%), and problem-solving (52%). Almost all respondents also thought it was valuable to share rules and values with ASEAN countries, but reported that the topic is minimally reflected in-school classrooms at 27%. These results suggested that the respondents were aware of their membership in the ASEAN Community. In terms of practical abilities, the respondents believed that critical thinking and ICT-related skills were currently extremely inadequate at 15 and 17%, respectively. However, these characteristics were considered significant. The questionnaire on citizenship education evinced that Laotians were not very adept at expressing their own opinions. In addition, they do not yet have access to a sufficient budget to improve ICT-related deficiencies. These reasons probably explain why respondents desired so highly to improve critical thinking and ICT education in the future. Another table is omitted because of limitations of paper width. However, to overview the results, respondents recognized the importance of using foreign languages (very important, 51%), even though they were rarely taught in schools (27%). ASEAN members must be able to use foreign languages to communicate. The questionnaire administered to students also illuminated that they regarded learning English as important and felt that mastering foreign languages would be pivotal to ASEAN integration. According to Table 6.6, the highest percentage of respondents registered mutual cooperation (completely, 46%; to some extent, 35%) as an attribute to be inculcated over a decade. The respondents also reported that this characteristic should be taught to learners quite early at age 8 or younger (24%) or at ages 9 and 10 (21%). Foreign language usage (35%) and self-discipline and self-control (27%) were considered by respondents as characteristics of citizenship that should be inculcated early at age eight or younger. Interestingly, responding to ICT was considered a characteristic of citizenship that should be imbibed at ages 9 and 10. However, the ages at which students should be imparted with the requisite skills such as critical thinking, enhancing the quality of life, sustainable development, and shared problemsolving of ASEAN-specific difficulties were weighted at age 17 and above. Issues related to critical thinking, quality of life, and sustainable development were noted as required attributes for high school students; thus, the awareness of an ASEAN Community appears to be growing in Laos.

6.4.4.3

Questions About Values and Attitudes

Detailed figures are omitted from this section; however, a high percentage of the respondents were found to react positively to items about including lessons on values and attitudes in the curricula. Essentially, more than 70% of the respondents answered that they often dealt with citizenship characteristics related to morality and national pride, respect for democracy, and deference for culture and tradition. The analysis of textbooks revealed that moral education, respect for other people, and respect for human rights were being taught in many classes, and the results of the survey suggested that the inculcation of pride in Laos’ ASEAN membership has already

37

34

33

288

289

287

291

286

292

(2) To have self-discipline and selfcontrol

(3) To solve problems

(4) To make decisions

(5) To respond to ICT

(6) To make a peaceful resolution

(7) To think critically

(8) To improve 292 quality of life

33

34

34

35

28

294

Completely (%)

(1) To express opinions on social problems

N

47

37

43

39

41

38

42

46

To some extent (%)

18

24

21

19

22

25

20

24

Achieved (%)

2

5

3

8

3

1

2

2

Not efficiently achieved (%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

289

288

281

290

283

287

288

290

13

11

24

18

20

19

27

16

8 years old or younger (%)

15

14

11

27

17

24

26

22

9–10 years old (%)

11

12

10

14

16

12

7

9

11–12 years old (%)

16

17

15

13

14

12

12

14

13–14 years old (%)

11

15

11

12

12

11

16

13

15–16 years old (%)

(continued)

34

31

28

15

19

22

10

26

17 years old or older (%)

Q5 The age when the students should study these characteristics

Not at N all (%)

Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later

Table 6.6 Citizenship characteristics that should be achieved in a decade and the ages at which students should study the specific features

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 125

32

29

31

291

290

291

(10) To develop sustainably

(11) To contribute to society

(12) To use foreign language

(13) To behave 291 in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

35

46

Completely (%)

(9) To 292 cooperate with each other

N

40

42

39

42

35

To some extent (%)

25

26

23

23

17

Achieved (%)

3

1

2

2

1

Not efficiently achieved (%)

1

1

0

0

0

288

289

288

288

289

11

35

20

14

24

8 years old or younger (%)

17

21

16

12

21

9–10 years old (%)

20

13

12

15

13

11–12 years old (%)

14

11

11

14

13

13–14 years old (%)

17

11

17

11

14

15–16 years old (%)

(continued)

21

8

24

34

15

17 years old or older (%)

Q5 The age when the students should study these characteristics

Not at N all (%)

Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later

Table 6.6 (continued)

126 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

30

Completely (%)

41

To some extent (%) 27

Achieved (%)

1

Not efficiently achieved (%) 1

288

9

8 years old or younger (%) 15

9–10 years old (%) 19

11–12 years old (%) 15

13–14 years old (%) 17

15–16 years old (%) 24

17 years old or older (%)

Q5 The age when the students should study these characteristics

Not at N all (%)

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

(14) To solve 286 common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

N

Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later

Table 6.6 (continued)

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 127

128

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

been initiated. The imparting of information on ASEAN members was considered by respondents to be meaningful, who also asserted that attention should be paid to possible changes in the education policy. Table 6.7 outlines the results pertaining to citizenship characteristics that were regarded as currently achieved and that should be attained in 10 years. These outcomes indicated that the citizenship features of respect for democracy (39%), respect for human rights (34%), and self-autonomy (31%) had already been achieved. Respect for democracy (54%), morality, and pride in the ASEAN membership were cited as citizenship attributes that should be comprehensively attained in 10 years. The respondents also indicated the desire for an increase in awareness about ASEAN based on the expectation that the forthcoming integration could stimulate students to learn more about ASEAN. The questionnaire administered to students in 2011 was mentioned in the first half of this chapter as divulging that young students in Laos do not know a lot about ASEAN countries and globalization. Hence, the specialist respondents of the Delphi survey expected students to take a greater interest in international cooperation and other global issues.

6.4.5 Summary of the Delphi Survey The results of the Delphi survey illuminated two aspects: first, the knowledge and understanding of citizenship education are currently high, but practical abilities are under par. One reason could be that classroom pedagogy in Laos is still limited to unidirectional methods aiming to provide knowledge to students, and mainstream teaching still predominantly depends on rote memory. In general, students are good at memorizing study materials to obtain high scores in tests because high-scoring students are evaluated highly at schools. However, citizenship education focuses on the improvement of practical abilities; thus, the potential of developing educational methods that are more young student-centered should be examined to improve the skills of young students in Laos. Lectures are still the most common method of imparting regular education in Laos, and students tend to listen passively during classes. Active classroom learning requires the introduction of workshops, group work, and other active learning methods. Given the finding of low ICT-related abilities in students, the building of environments conducive to ICT education and appropriate teacher training is mandated for students to receive the requisite level of ICT expertise. Second, the students of Laos displayed a low level of knowledge and understanding of ASEAN countries and foreign languages. Their wish to achieve such awareness and comprehension after 10 years is also low, indicating a general paucity of cognizance about ASEAN and other countries. The teaching of English from the third grade of elementary schools commenced in 2015 in Laos, and textbooks were subsequently published (MOES, 2018); however, very few young adults can speak

21

32

294 (2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development

291

294

295

295

(3) To have self-dependence

(4) To respect cultural diversity

(5) To place importance on the law

(6) To promote international cooperation

27

30

31

20

Completely (%)

297

(1) To face wrong things and injustice

N

36

43

37

36

48

50

To some extent (%)

31

23

27

26

28

23

Achieved (%)

6

4

5

5

3

7

Not efficiently achieved (%)

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present

0

0

0

0

0

0

295

293

295

287

295

296

36

43

44

44

40

35

Completely (%)

33

34

36

34

42

44

To some extent (%)

27

20

19

19

17

19

Achieved (%)

4

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

Not at all (%)

(continued)

Not efficiently achieved (%)

Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later Not at N all (%)

Table 6.7 The degrees of current achievement and achievements expected in 10 years

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 129

34

17

291

293

295

295

(9) To have morality and pride as a nation

(10) To respect democracy

(11) To respect human rights

(12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology,

39

29

28

295

(8) To respect tradition and culture

18

Completely (%)

293

N

42

36

35

44

44

39

To some extent (%)

30

24

21

24

22

36

Achieved (%)

10

5

4

3

5

6

Not efficiently achieved (%)

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present

(7) To pay attention to global issues

Table 6.7 (continued)

0

1

0

0

0

1

293

287

292

294

295

292

Not at N all (%)

32

43

54

40

38

27

Completely (%)

42

35

29

35

37

42

To some extent (%)

20

20

15

23

23

29

Achieved (%)

5

3

2

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

1

1

Not at all (%)

(continued)

Not efficiently achieved (%)

Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later

130 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

N

40

To some extent (%) 27

Achieved (%)

3

Not efficiently achieved (%) 0

289

Not at N all (%) 46

Completely (%)

34

To some extent (%) 18

Achieved (%)

2

Not efficiently achieved (%)

1

Not at all (%)

Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

31

Completely (%)

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present

(13) To have morality and 291 pride as a member of ASEAN

Table 6.7 (continued)

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 131

132

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

English, and the levels of their communicative abilities are also not high. The knowledge and understanding of foreign countries will improve in students as they learn to speak English with more proficiency. The evaluation and reform of the currently imparted English curriculum and pedagogy are thus necessary. The analysis of the questionnaire administered to students revealed their high levels of knowledge and understanding of ASEAN members; the learning of foreign languages, in addition to the enhancement of their already acquired knowledge of ASEAN countries, could be another effective way of ameliorating their potential for learning foreign languages. The teaching of languages such as Chinese and Vietnamese that are spoken in neighboring countries in addition to English is also likely to increase the interest of students in the English language and in other countries. Laos could also create indigenous teaching materials by gaining inspiration from teaching materials used in Thailand, a neighboring country with a culture and language similar to that of Laos. Thai education pertaining to ASEAN is more advanced than its Lao counterpart. Curricular material and learning guides relating to ASEAN countries have been published in recent years. Educators in Laos should take the best advantage of such study material to cater to the high levels of awareness displayed by their students and to increase their own recognition and morale.

6.5 A Comparison of the Student Questionnaire and the Delphi Survey The comparison of the student questionnaire and the Delphi survey indicated two perspectives. The first standpoint is globalization. The questionnaire results indicated that Lao students obtain factual information about ASEAN integration. However, their recognition of the contexts and specific geographies of the member nations is weak. The Delphi survey also revealed that currently, classroom lectures do not delve into intercultural studies or foreign languages. Moreover, although the command over the English language was considered important, students evinced par English abilities according to the Delphi survey. Thus, the curriculum must be improved to conform to the realities of globalization. The second viewpoint concerns human development. The student questionnaire revealed that the Lao students were not good at expressing their opinions or at critically thinking through issues. The Delphi survey also disclosed that these skills were not acquired but were considered important. Hence, positive changes in education policy are mandated based on such research results.

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

133

6.6 Conclusion: The Future Challenges for Citizenship Education This study performed an analysis of school textbooks, a close examination of the questionnaire administered to young students in 2011, and the outcomes of the Delphi survey of specialists in relation to the area of education assumed to deal with citizenship-related issues. A larger picture has emerged through the present study about the type of people that are sought to be fostered through education. The current Laos government has announced education that is inclined toward socialism because it is concerned about excessive overseas influences. At the same time, however, the government is confronted by circumstances that compel the cultivation of human resources capable of handling globalization. A future challenge of governance relates to the conflicting aspects of globalizing the mindsets of citizens and promoting socialist ideals. Globalization is unavoidable as Laos prepares for ASEAN integration. The extant subjects dealing with citizenship education (moral education and the world around us) have not corresponded adequately to globalization. International content is now being initiated in these subjects but to a limited extent. Morris et al. (2002) assert that the two movements of globalization and multiculturalism offer indications of the desired citizenship characteristics and the roles that should be discharged by citizenship education. Therefore, internationalism and diversity will become significant keywords relating to citizenship education in Asian countries. The present study concludes that the construction of internally and externally balanced educational curricula relating to citizenship education and the fostering of high levels of international awareness in students represent the predominant challenges confronting citizenship education in Laos in the future. Thus, this study recommends that these two issues are promptly addressed through a review and reform of educational policies. In recent years, newspapers and the media have increasingly begun to address ASEAN members; thus, children in Laos are now accorded with more opportunities of receiving information relating to ASEAN. In such circumstances, the international sense and awareness should be enhanced both through efforts in education and through the aegis of the media and political agencies. The current educational domain in Laos is mostly lacking in the appropriate human resources and teaching methodologies that could contribute to the amelioration of ICT-related skills and a global mindset. The achievement of these goals will necessitate increased research initiatives in teacher training and will mandate the cultivation of teachers capable of teaching foreign languages. To this end, it will be expedient to utilize the powers of foreign assistance, ICT education, and active learning to ensure the fostering of more adept and efficacious teachers.

134

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

References Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2017). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community). Toshindo. Ministry of Education and Research Institute for Educational Science (MOES). (2012). Geography textbook for Grade 2 of junior high school. Ministry of Education and Sports & Research Institute for educational sciences (MOES & RIES). (2018). English for Lao primary school: Student’s book for Grade 3–5 of primary school. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2016). Cooperation for peace and development. Meedee Books. Morris, P., Cogan, J. J., & Liu, M. (2002). A comparative overview: Civic education across the six societies. In J. Cogan, P. Morris, & M. Print (Eds.), Civic education in the Asia-Pacific region: Case studies across six societies (pp. 167–189). Routledge Falmer. Thammavong, K. (2014). Break through ASEAN: Strategies to build people-build organizations to ASEAN economic community. USAID (United States Agency for International Development). (2012). ASEAN curriculum sourcebook. (Lao language).

Chapter 7

Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys on the Development of Students’ Citizenship Abilities and ASEAN Awareness Masahiro Teshima and Kumaraguru Ramayah Abstract Since independence, the national integration policy is the biggest challenge for Malaysia which is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country. Hence, “Civics”, “Local study” and “History” and the current “Civics and Citizenship Education” subjects which contents target the core that is “citizen” = “nation” and “citizenship = responsibility and rights as the nation” aiming to finally produce “Becoming a member of Malaysia”, through emphasizing the improvement of national consciousness which targeted to nurture the citizenship related to “National” through various occasion. The priority element for the image of citizen (nation) can be considered as: 1. 2. 3.

Appreciate the responsibility and moral value as the member (citizen) of each community. Understand and respect the characteristic of each ethnic’s custom. Have the responsibility to the participation in politics and society, the rights given and obligation as a Malaysian.

As stressing the “challenges and success towards globalization”, “sustainability and development of Malaysia as the world recognition country”, etc., it is also desired to go beyond “National” to achieve multi-layer citizenship in “Regional”, “Global” and “Universal”. In a sense, the process of forming a Malaysian society that seeks to “coexist” while recognizing diverse ethnic identities in a multi-ethnic and multicultural complex society can be considered as a “Little ASEAN”. Therefore, the experience of Malaysia in creating National Integration for a Nation can be useful to be utilized by ASEAN to create a Regional Integration in the form of “ASEANness” and “ASEAN citizenship. Therefore, Malaysia is seen as a country which can take the leadership in ASEAN to create the curriculum of “experiential and practical M. Teshima (B) Faculty of Education, Bunkyo University, 3337, Minami-Ogishima, Koshigaya-shi, Saitama 343-8511, Japan e-mail: [email protected] R. Kumaraguru Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, UTM, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, FSSH, Block 05, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_7

135

136

M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

learning approach” and “Active citizenship” by utilizing the common communication language English and ICT education. Keywords Active citizenship · Civics and citizenship education · Complex nation · Little ASEAN · National integration

7.1 Introduction Since the independence from British in 1957, Malaysia is welcoming the 63rd anniversary of Independence Day in 2020 with a population of approximately 32.25 million.1 Malaysia is a complex racial country with multiple cultures and races that consists of Islamic Malays who are known as the Bumiputra (Son of the land) (about 66%), indigenous Chinese (about 25%), who are mainly Buddhist, Taoism and Christians followed by Indians (7%) who the majority are Hindu, Islamic and Christian and others (1%). By the end of World War II, each race was divided and ruled under the British colonial policy. Consequently, most of the Malays lived in rural areas, the majority of Indians lived in rubber estates while the Chinese lived in urban areas. This complex social structure was created from the co-existence of communities with different cultures and social backgrounds, within the same nation. It is necessary to consider the constitution of such complex social and the resulting impact when discussing citizenship education in Malaysia. After the independence, Malays who were the majority were left behind in the economy and modernization of education compared to the Chinese and Indian. In the 1970s, the economic and social gap among the races was increasing. The Malaysian government attempted to improve the economy and social status of the Malays through the implementation of the Bumiputra policy which allocated special priorities to the Malays. In conjunction with the policy, National Integration Policy was preceded by making the Malay language as the lingua franca of the Malaysian education system. As a developing independent country, it was essential to impose the identity of Malaysian citizens on Malay, Chinese and Indian communities who tend to have a strong sense of belonging among their respective races. Therefore, “How is it to nurture the consciousness of citizenship, above the race consciousness” was the indispensable task to consider for citizenship education in Malaysia.

7.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Overview and New Trend 7.2.1 Concept of Citizen and Citizenship in Malaysia The “Citizenship” is stated in Malaysia’s Federal Constitution, from Article 14 to Article 31 and divided into 3 separate Chapters with respect to “The Acquisition of

7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys …

137

Citizenship”, “The Revocation of Citizenship” and “Complement”.2 With reference to the constitution, the interested party who wishes to be naturalized has to fulfill some requirements, such as being born within Malaysia territory or spouse to Malaysian, or, residing in Malaysia for a certain period, has the intention to reside permanently in Malaysia, has a good personality, able to converse in basic Malay language, etc. In other words, this regulation prescribes ata variety of people possess citizenship and concurrently provides the proof and registration of nationality. “Citizenship” is known as “Kewarganegaraan” in the Malay language. The word is translated as “member of the country”, where warga means member and negara means country. From this, citizenship is comprehended as the privilege and obligation of the member of the country and nation who is attached to it. Generally, a citizen is defined as a member who involve in politic; a nation is defined as a member of the country who possess the nationality. However, “Citizenship” or “Nationality” in Malaysia is identical and “citizen” and “nation” is considered as a compatible synonym.

7.2.2 History of Citizenship Education 7.2.2.1

Change of Subject to Support Citizenship Education

After the independence from British in 1957, the citizenship education in Malaysia was in the form of “Civics” which was made compulsory by the Education Review Committee in Malaysia from primary standard 6 until secondary Form 5 in 1960. From 1983 onward, “Environment and Human (Alam dan Manusia)” was introduced under the New Primary School Curriculum (KBSR) as the integration subject that consists of science, history, geography and Health. Later in 1995, “Environment and Human” was divided into “Science” and “Local Study (Kajian Tempatan)”. From 1988, the “Local Study” was continued as a “History” subject in secondary school. The current “Civics and Citizenship Education” was introduced in 2005. The content of “Civics”, “Local Study” and “History” that supported the citizenship education, consists of various cultivates, such as: 1. 2. 3. 4.

To develop patriotism. To have tolerance and consideration on religion, race, behavior and custom. Self completion. Attitude and ability to understand and solve social problems, and make a contribution to the society.

These cultivate promote the participation and contribution towards the Malaysian society as a member of this complex country by encouraging the public awareness, establishing identity and suffrage that focus on understanding the situation of the multi-cultural society.3 In order to foster a society that is patriotic and loyal to the country, pride as a Malaysia nation, harmony and unity, promote democracy, progressive and appreciation towards the grace of God, the “Local Study”4 in primary school which is the succession subject of “Civics”, aimed to nurture the children who can cooperate with

138

M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

each other. The definite objective composed of 10 items becomes the learning content as the elements of civics to develop consciousness as Malaysian. It begins with the understanding of the characteristic of multi-cultural multi-ethnic in Malaysia. Subsequently, the role and responsibility of family and society members, the privilege as a nation, as well as the mutual understanding of the culture and religion of each ethnic, a sense of togetherness among ethnic, family and friends, school life and public spirit. Conversely, the New Secondary School Curriculum (KBSM) which was introduced in 1988, aimed to provide an understanding of historical incidents and fostering of patriotism and loyalty5 . In the secondary school level, 5 topics were cited integrally within the syllabus of the history subject: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Pride as Malaysian Loyalty toward the country Integration of nation Discipline Productivity.

However, the efforts of such citizenship education were indicated as a failure due to the lack of teaching skills and knowledge among the instructors/teachers of the subject. In addition, both the students and teachers placed high emphasis on tests and examinations, which lead to the subject solely being taught by memorizing the historical incidents instead of evaluating the development of citizenship. Therefore, a clear definition about the value of citizenship that should be delivered through history was completely missing.6

7.2.2.2

Introduction of New Civics and Citizenship Education

In August 2003, the ministry of education proclaimed the establishment of a new subject that promote the importance of national unity and patriotism, due to the increase of necessity for an independent subject that is equivalent to the previous “Civics” subject.7 By the time, primary and secondary education in Malaysia introduced Islamic Education (Pendidikan Islam) to Malay students; Moral Education (Pendidikan Moral) to non-Malay (Chinese, Indian, etc.) students at the same timetable period. However, due to the emphasis on “difference” in identity, rather than the “common” in a public spirit, it was evident that nation awareness which goes beyond the ethnic boundary was lacking. Thus, the ministry of education intended to introduce a new subject for all ethnic to learn their respective history and culture, as well as enhancing the public awareness. In August 2004, “Civics and Citizenship Education (Pendidikan Sivik dan Kewarganegaraan)” was introduced. From 2005 onward, the subject was introduced to primary school Standard 4 to secondary school Form 1, with 2 periods per week. The objective of the new subject was to develop an understanding on the diversity between races, fostering patriotism and national integration among the children. Pedagogical training for the subject was started by the ministry of education as well.8

7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys …

139

7.2.3 Overview of the Civics and Citizenship Education 7.2.3.1

Objectives and Goals

“Civics and Citizenship Education” became the new subject for primary school Standard 4 and secondary school Form 1 since 2005. As stated in the introduction, “Citizenship” is translated as “kewarganegaraan” in Malay language. Therefore, it is clear that this subject was targeted on education related to citizenship and unity (regarding responsibility and rights). Furthermore, the title of the subject is known as “公民 教育 (Citizenship Education)” in Chinese language adaptation textbook. The word, “公民 (citizen)”, the same as in Malay language, it gives the meaning of “nation” and “people who have the nationality” that is obliged to the rights and responsibility defined by the constitution. Regarding the objective of the subject which is similar to primary school and secondary school, it is stated as: As to produce the unity and patriotism citizen who can contribute to the development of Local society, country and world, Civics and Citizenship Education intended to foster the awareness of individual responsibility and rights, social responsibility, and national consciousness among the children and students.

By adopting this objective, the 6 topics that are stated below are being learned at primary schools. Each of the 6 topics is repeated with the same topic on each school grade, and putting into a higher level of practice with respect to the school grade. 1.

To take care of myself – My responsibility, Have confidence in myself, Dietary education, Health management, etc.

2.

Family life – Home and family, Happy family, etc.

3.

School and social life – Rule and responsibility of school life, Appreciation towards teachers, etc.

4.

Social and culture of Malaysia – Understanding the culture (clothes, food culture, lifestyle, etc.) and religion of the main ethnic, social manners, etc.

5.

My homeland Malaysia – Geography, history, politic, economy, state flags, nature, characteristics National principle (Rukunegara), national anthem, national flag, a symbol such as crescent moon that depicts Islamic religion, etc., promote patriotism via songs, etc.

140

6.

M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

The future prospect of the country – Create better culture together, effort towards success, improvement through competition, cultivating the IT ability, future creation, etc.

Meanwhile, similar to primary school, 6 topics are established for secondary school (From 1–5) as well. The learning content at secondary school is focused on the relationship between an individual with the society, from self-accomplishment to the challenge of globalization and consciousness towards success, which are based on the primary school topics but with a broader and thorough scope. 1.

Self-accomplishment – Identity, Resolution of the conflict, Self-improvement, Setting a personal goal, Humanity that leads to peace, etc.

2.

Family relationship – Happy family, Needs for marriage, Preparation of having a family that constitutes the country, etc.

3.

Life of the community – Pride towards alma mater, Harmony with other person’s rights, conservation of environment, Laws and regulations, etc.

4.

Multi-cultural heritage of Malaysia – Tales of each ethnic, Important religious leaders, contributions of diverse cultures towards society, etc.

5.

Sovereign state of Malaysia – Democratic government, Parliamentary democracy system, self-completion to sustain the country, etc.

6.

Future challenges – Sustaining peaceful living, challenges and success in globalization, continuous development of Malaysia towards global recognition, etc.

Thus, as a member of the community (nation), the children learn the responsibility and moral value of citizenship in conjunction with the expansion of concentric society in the form of “Self → Family → School → Region → Country → World”. Likewise, the characteristic of custom of each ethnic, respect and understanding of various religion, mutual cooperation among ethnic, realization of the responsibility and rights as a citizen to take part in politics and society, etc., has become the learning structure in the syllabus. Each topic in the textbook is divided into units. Each unit contains the learning outcomes and numerous activities. The activities required children and students to do self-exploration, presentation and writing reports, as to deepen the knowledge

7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys …

141

stated in the outline. In order to obtain the cognition, skill and value as a citizen, children and students are to accomplish 10 periods of hands-on learning activities. The hands-on learning is known as the “Citizenship Project (Projek Kewarganegaraan)” for primary school students and “Community Service (Khidmat Masyarakat)” for secondary school students. The instructor can decide the suitable project based on the environment, progress and result of the students. The project is intended to cultivate the problem solving ability in students through investigation and hands-on experience, e.g. creating pamphlets about individual health management, campaigns on respecting the culture, greening and cleaning the school, region and tourism spot, cleaning the mosque or temple, study of the language and traditional custom of each ethnic, no-smoking campaign, English advancement campaign, etc. As the overview of the project illustrates, instead of obtaining knowledge in the classroom, the project aimed to equip the students with the key competencies that are needed to improve their quality as a citizen through practical learning and problem solving.

7.2.3.2

Evaluation

Although there is a system for the evaluation of “Civics and Citizenship Education”, teachers and instructors are requested to evaluate children and students from various aspects regarding their knowledge, skills and values. Therefore, the evaluation should not be judged only by using the examination results; children and students should be evaluated based on a checklist relating to the desirable attitude and manner, responsibility as well. This evaluation system is the succession of the system implemented in the 1980s for science and Local study after the revision of the curriculum, where the evaluation is completed by examination results and reports of the citizenship projects.9

7.2.3.3

Analysis of the Content

Each unit’s title and content of the 6 topics from each school grade of the primary school edition “Civics and Citizenship Education” was analyzed and classified as “Local”, “National”, “Regional”, “Global” and “Universal”, based on Hirata’s “Quality of citizenship” table (Table 7.1). According to the table, the content of the “Civics and Citizenship Education” in Malaysia corresponds more to “Universal”, “Local” and “National”, compared to “Regional” and “Global”, as mentioned previously. This can be understood due to the fact that Malaysia is a complex country. For instance, “To respect the diversity of social and culture” which is stated in the table of “Quality of Citizenship”, the intended value and attitude for the relationship between “cross-cultural understanding” (knowledge) and “co-existence and co-prosperity with a different cultures” (ability and skill) is corresponding to the learning content of “4 Social and culture of Malaysia” which emphasizes on the

142

M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

respect and understanding towards culture and custom that generated from ethnic and religion, is confirmed by the learning content shown as in Table 7.1. The features here presume to be the strong topic that weigh on the element of national to foster the mutual understanding of the characteristics and value of each ethnic’s culture and custom, co-existence and mutual respect among the nations. However, due to the multinational society and culture, it is noticeable that the learning content is exceeding the “National” frame, and spread in the “Regional” and “Global” categories. Moving to secondary school, learning contents corresponding to “Regional” and “Global” are eventually increased in all the 6 topics mentioned earlier. As an example, under topic 3, “Life of the community” contents such as “To respect other people’s rights” and “Form of identity” and under topic 6 “Future challenges” contents such as “Safety assurance in the (ASEAN) region”, “International cooperation” and “Handle global issues” are included. Thus, it is clear that from the description of the subject’s objective and chronology of implementation, from the flow of the national integration policy, “Civics and Citizenship Education” initially targeted providing the learning about the history and culture of each other and to enhance the public consciousness thru a common subject. Obviously, the contents related to “National” are strongly reflected. However, it is inevitable to emphasize on “National” due to the characteristic of Malaysia as a multinational country. The connection of mutual respect and understanding among ethnic that starts with the individual, a member of a family, school and local, a member of country, as well as a member of international society beginning with ASEAN, depicts the objective of establishment of a multilevel identity. In other words, in the environment, it is considerably easy to exceed the “National” and transform into “Regional” and “Global”, even though emphasizes on “National”. According to the overview of the “Civics and Citizenship Education” that is considered to be the core of citizenship education in Malaysia, it is possible to make these summaries. Firstly, at the primary school level, the main objective is to learn the basic key competencies as the “citizen” on each level, such as the “Universal” which includes the general contents of taking good care of self and family, responsibility, self-realization, and so on; “Local” which is related to the Knowledge and understanding concerning the individual, family, school and local community; “National” which cultivates the knowledge, understanding and attitude related to the country, through hands-on learning activities. Oppositely, the content related to “Regional” and “Global” is less. Meanwhile, at the secondary school level, through the practical learning activities, the quality as the “citizen” is intended at each dimension from “Universal”, “Local” and “National” to “Regional” and “Global”.

7.2.3.4

The Leaning Content of ASEAN Relationship

This section will provide an overview of learning content on ASEAN which is considered to be the representative of “Regional”. For example, content related to ASEAN

7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys …

143

is noticed in the “International relationship with Malaysia” within topic 6—Challenges for the future, found in the secondary school Form 2 textbook. On that topic, students are requested to obtain the knowledge and perceptive of the establishment of ASEAN, chronology, purpose and relationship between Malaysia and other ASEAN members. However, the content regarding the basic knowledge of ASEAN and other international organizations is lecture orientated, whereas the practical activities to achieve the conscious and approach en route to ASEAN integration, promote the ASEAN identity such as sharing the regional common rules and viewpoint, sense of belonging towards ASEAN and ASEAN awareness which alert about the mutual understanding culture, history and civilization, is barely seen. Additionally, the establishment of ASEAN economic community is being taught in the geography subject in secondary school Form 4 and 5, but it is also emphasizing on the theory only.

7.2.3.5

New Trend of Citizenship Education in Malaysia

In June 2019, the Ministry of Education of Malaysia announced a new approach of teaching on citizenship education. In addition to the subject of “Civics and Citizenship Education”, the Ministry of Education of Malaysia has set up a class of civics education that integrates multiple subjects across the subject. Civics education is conducted in schools in an integrated and holistic manner, including both literacy and practical aspects of the subject. The implementation will take place inside and outside the classroom involving schools, communities, the private sector and the ministry.10 Civics education, which was introduced in June 2019, takes up one hour in the fourth week of every month during the teaching of the Malay Language (Bahasa Melayu), English, Islamic Education, Moral Education and History subjects as well as during the assembly and co-curricular activities. In the case of pre-schools, pupils will be taught civics education for 30 min, as well as during the assembly and co-curricular activities. A module for civics education has been created with an example of this theme, a manual on school construction and noble practices, and a manual on civics education practices in the curriculum to help teachers conduct civics education. Several groups in the private sector are also moving forward to help promote the civics values taught in schools, and these practices are being promoted outside schools. Civics education aims to help citizens learn about their rights, responsibilities and moral values and contribute to the well-being of their communities and nations. Students will learn integrity, trust, diligence and discipline, hate corruption, power abuse and bullying, the importance of appreciating the less able group and having mutual respect for our differences, unity and love for the country. However, some schools do the practical civics education classes twice a month, 30 min each, while other schools switch to exam subject classes. In other words, although the Ministry of Education of Malaysia is trying to move “Civics and Citizenship Education” away from classroom-based knowledge-based lessons into practical learning activities, the gap in awareness among schools seems to be still large.

144

M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

7.3 Analysis of the Results of Questionnaire Survey to Students The result and analysis of the survey on children and students related to citizenship education are described in Morishita’s study. The survey is carried out between 16– 23, July 2011, in Putrajaya and Johor Bahru, among a total of 699 students comprising of 229 primary school Standard 6 students, 299 secondary school Form 3 students, 165 Form 5 students and 6 from unknown institutions. (1)

Part 1—Questions related to citizenship

First, regarding “Importance of learning about the history at each level”, by comparing the average of 4 selections, with “very important” counts as 4 points, while “not important at all” counts as 1 point, the result obtained is “About the ethnic history” 2.8 points, “About the Malaysia history” 3.6 points, “About the ASEAN history” 3.1 points and “About the world history” 3.4 points. “About the Malaysia history” obtained the highest score, followed by “About the world history”. This shows the same pattern for the “Importance of culture” as well. History of ethnic and ASEAN shows relatively low scores as well. In other words, the National Integration Policy which aims to break the boundary among ethnics in Malaysia emphasizes on “National” and “Global” is reflected in the result, that national history and world history are more important than ASEAN history and ethnic history. In addition, on “Citizenship-related keyword”, the frequently heard keyword such as “environment” 3.9 points, “peace” 3.8 points, “development” 3.7 points, “Helping each other” 3.6 points, and 3.5 points for “Sustainable development”, “Human rights”, “Cross-cultural understanding” and “Democracy”, achieve high percentage. This trend may be a representation of the learning process which goes in the order from “Local”, “National”, “Regional”, and “Global” to “Universal”. However, “Living together” depicts a relatively low score of 2.8, although the significance of living together is being taught and needed in daily routine in Malaysia as a multinational country. The reason for this result is that the concept of “Living together” is not mentioned, the students might have answered without putting too much thought into that matter. In the survey on “Whether the Active citizenship is attached or not”, questions such as investigating various social problems (2.5 points) and having opinions (3.0 points) things considered serious and who actually gives opinion (2.1 points) and taking action in order to solve the problem (1.9 points) is relatively low, as the ratio shows that majority answered “not too much” or “total not”. To be exact, the result shows that, Active citizenship is not achieved, but is still progressing. Furthermore, at the “Regional” and “Global” levels, the importance of English as the communication tool for mutual understanding is considered to be important (97.7%), with 55.3% feeling that it is “very important”, and 42.4% for “important”. For the question concerning “Which you think is important”, it shows that “World peace” (56.5%) > “Conscious and pride as Malaysian” (35.1%) > “Protect the tradition and culture of ASEAN region” (28.6) > “Local tradition and culture at the place you live” (24.9), which is in the sequence of “Global” > “National” >

7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys …

145

“Regional” > “Local”. However, for the selection of “The most important thing”, items related to ASEAN obtained very little “most important” response, whereas “Identity of ASEAN” received zero response. From the perspective of ASEAN integration, ASEAN awareness and ASEAN identity, it shows considerably unreliable results. (2)

Part 2—Questions regarding various ASEAN countries

Firstly, in “Position of various ASEAN countries on the map” children and students achieve relatively high correct answers for Singapore (91.7%), Brunei (88.6%), Indonesia (88.2%), Thailand (84.8%) and the Philippines (60.5%), for the country which are considered to be at the same or higher level of development compared to Malaysia. However, more than half of the students were unable to answer the questions correctly for developing countries such as Myanmar (46.4%), Laos (42.0%), Vietnam (41.4%) and Cambodia (38.1%), as the students shows less consciousness towards these countries even they are part of the ASEAN. Result also shows the same outcomes for the question concerning “Level of knowledge towards each ASEAN country”. Moreover, the correct ratio for the “Meaning of ASEAN flag” achieved 56.9% for “Not sure” and 21.3% for “Do not know”. Furthermore, for “Year of ASEAN established (1967)” only 18.1% obtained the correct answer and for “Targeted year of unification for ASEAN (2015)” only 3.9% had the correct answer, which sadly is the lowest among the 8 countries. In other words, the basic knowledge about various ASEAN countries that should be learned in school is not truly attached to the students. Besides, children and students believe that the knowledge about the ASEAN community that they learned in school is someway deviated from what is shown in mass media such as television, internet, news, etc. Therefore, the response for “Want to know more about ASEAN” attained 86.0% for “Highly agree” and “Agree” collectively. Awareness on the importance of the regional connection in ASEAN is relatively high with 95.3% agreeing that it is beneficial for Malaysia to be a member of ASEAN, and 90.8% believed that being part of ASEAN is beneficial to them. Meanwhile, “Awareness, affection and pride as the ASEAN citizen” achieve 86.8%, and “ASEAN identity” achieves 82.0%. From the response, it is aware that the significance of the ASEAN correlation is obscured; this suggested that the linking of knowledge about various ASEAN countries that learned in school and the actual ASEAN correlation is poor due to the influence teaching and method of learning that emphasize on examination and knowledge.

7.4 Analysis of the Results of Delphi Survey: Citizenship Education of 10 Years Later The aim of the research was to clarify, what citizenship characteristics are required for students in ASEAN countries. Findings of this paper were derived from Malaysian experts on education, in the 1st Delphi survey where 99 experts responded on July

146

M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

2012, and in the 2nd survey where 66 experts responded on January 2013. Among the respondents were social studies teachers, school administrators/inspectors, and college and university lecturers. Data gathered were analyzed using SPSS program. The objectives were to (a) elucidate the perception of Malaysian experts on the citizenship characteristics they achieved at present and those expected to be achieved 10 years later, (b) report important citizenship characteristics, all in the domains of knowledge/understanding and the skill/ability, they dealt with in their classes and research, as well as the appropriate age of students to start learning these characteristics, (c) reveal the present achievement on their ASEAN literacy, and characteristics anticipated to be achieved 10 years later. The following point has become clear from the results of these investigations: Importance of each topic on “citizenship” and the level of achievement, Malaysian education experts showed higher average scores overall for both the present and 10 years later, but the score for the topics of ASEANness awareness are relatively low. The same trend can also be seen in the Comparison of Weighted Average of Questions on Knowledge and understanding (Table 7.2), on Skills and abilities (Table 7.3) and on Values and attitudes (Table 7.4). Frames that are shaded in Tables 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 are the frames where the values of the upper (B), (C) and (D) or lower (A) are shown than the average values in each table. First, in Table 7.2 (Knowledge and understanding), compare the results of “Q3: The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present (A)” and “Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)”. “Achievement of current (A)” for Q3, the average is 3.42 points, for the item “(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries” the average is 2.91 and for item “(11) ASEAN history and Culture” the average stands at 2.92. On the other hand, “achievement of 10 years later (B)” for Q4, the average is 4.53 points, the highest average seen for both “(2) Co-existence and living together” and “(3) Different cultures” at 4.71. The same trend is also visible in the following Q4: “(1) Environment (4.68)”, “(4) Social justice and equity (4.65)”, “(7) Interdependence (4.59)”, “(6) Sustainable development (4.58)”, and “(5) Democracy (4.55)” which are all above the average points. In addition, for “Q2: The significance of this characteristic (C)” the average stands at 3.43 which is substantially equal to the height of the degree of achievement in the Q3 as “present” but lower than 4.53 in the Q4 “10 years later”. From these results of “(B)-(A)” as “The gap between present and future (D)” (mean 1.12), the topics related to ASEANness as “(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries”, it resulted in the largest 1.42, and “(11) ASEAN history and Culture” is 1.41. In other words, it can be seen that the level of achievement in the nurturing of the ASEANness in citizenship consciousness is still considered relatively low at present. Second, in Table 7.3 (Skills and abilities), compare the results of “Q3: The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present (A)” and “Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)”. “Achievement of current (A)” for Q3, the average is 3.37 points, for the item “(13) To behave in accordance with common

7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys …

147

rules and values among ASEAN countries” the average is 2.86 and for item “(12) To use foreign language” the average stands at 2.92. On the other hand, “achievement of 10 years later (B)” for Q4, the average is 4.33 points, the highest average seen for “(1) To express opinions on social problems”, “(3) To solve problems”, and “(4) To make decisions” at 4.42. The same trend is also visible in the following Q4: “(2) To have self-discipline and self- control (4.38)”, “(5) To respond to ICT (4.35)”, “(6) To make a peaceful resolution (4.35)”, “(10) To develop sustainably (4.35)”, and “(9) To cooperate with each other (4.33)” which are all above the average points. In addition, for “Q2: The significance of this characteristic (C)” the average stands at 3.28 which is substantially equal to the height of the degree of achievement in the Q3 as “present” but lower than 4.33 in the Q4 “10 years later”. From these results of “(B)-(A)” as “The gap between present and future (D)” (mean 0.96), the topics of related to ASEANness as “(13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries”, it has resulted in the largest point 1.32. Third, in Table 7.4 (Values and attitudes), compare the results of “Q3: The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present (A)” and “Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)”. “Achievement of current (A)” for Q3, the average is 3.19 points, for the item “(12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology” the average is 2.79 and for item “(13) To have morality and a pride as a member of ASEAN” the average stands at 2.74. On the other hand, “achievement of 10 years later (B)” for Q4, the average is 4.28 points, the highest average seen for “(3) To have self-dependence” at 4.39, “(6) To promote international cooperation” at 4.36. Then, “(2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development” and “(4) To respect cultural diversity” are both at 4.33. Then “(1) To face wrong things and injustice” and “(8) To respect tradition and culture”, at 4.30 which are all above the average points. In addition, for “Q2: The significance of this characteristic (C)” the average stands at 3.29 which is substantially equal to the height of the degree of achievement in the Q3 as “present” but lower than 4.28 in the Q4 “10 years later”. From these results of “(B)-(A)” as “The gap between present and future (D)” (mean 1.09), the topics of related to ASEANness as “(12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology” is 1.41, and “(13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” is 1.36. A comparison of the results of “Knowledge and understanding (Table 7.2)”, “Skills and abilities (Table 7.3)” and “Values and attitudes (Table 7.4)” reveals almost the same tendency. This means, regarding Knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, Values and attitudes on the topic of ASEANness, the achievement at present is also thought to be relatively low, and there are relatively large gaps between the present achievement and the expectations of 10 years later. This result may suggest that the syllabuses require more improvement strategies such as materials and curriculum development for the ASEANness studies.

148

M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

However, this result does not mean that Malaysia is not putting greater emphasis on ASEAN. It is that when compared with other topics, such as the co-existence between ethnic groups, environmental issues, understanding of different cultures and fairness and social justice, the priority for ASEAN and ASEANness are relatively lower.

7.5 Comparative Analysis of Two Surveys In the case of Malaysia, from the Knowledge and understanding section; “Common social problems of ASEAN countries”, “ASEAN history and culture”, “Human rights”, in the Skills and abilities; “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries”, “To use foreign language”, “To contribute to society”, and in the Values and attitudes section; “To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology”, “To respond to various items such as have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN”, these topics are considered to be that which are the most important urgent issues. As mentioned in the previous Section 4, from the 697 elementary and junior high school Malaysian students’ questionnaires collected in 2011, we found that the learning for the knowledge and awareness on “Regional” related to ASEAN is weaker compared to topics such as “Global” and “Universal”. However, the awareness of students is relatively high for the item, importance on themselves and Malaysia’s relations with ASEAN. In the context of content related to ASEAN, elements such as the establishment year, history, aim and cooperation among ASEAN countries and Malaysia are expected to be included in the related syllabus. But in reality, in the Malaysian education system, only the acquisition of basic knowledge about ASEAN and other member countries is emphasized. Generally greater importance is given towards nation building and not much learning activities included on ASEAN integration, “ASEAN identity” or mutual understanding about the histories, cultures and civilizations of ASEAN countries. The challenges for the Malaysian Education system will be the development and enhancement of learning experience approaches and its practicality, such as linking the skills and knowledge learned in school to the real world. Cultivating the awareness of “Active citizenship” for example, actively interested in social problems, thinking about them and being able to act by themselves on problem solving are elements thought to be major challenges for the future of Malaysia. In addition, the ASEAN member countries understanding each other more about the society and culture of each country is essential towards ASEAN integration. For this purpose, the use of international understanding education would also be an effective means. For example, to perform a distance learning that connects each classroom between Malaysia to Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar and so on with the help of ICT (Information and Communication Technology), learning dissimilarity and commonalities of culture and society of each other, and discuss

7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys …

149

common issues be, is not means impossible in modern society. The common language of a time like this is going to be probably English. Thus, in all ASEAN countries, including Malaysia, the development of education curriculum in order to proceed more smoothly towards ASEAN integration and training of teachers who can implement such lessons remain a pressing issue exactly.

7.6 Conclusion: Recommendation of Model of Citizenship Education and Achieve the Citizenship that Go Beyond “National” In a sense, the process of forming a Malaysian society that seeks to “coexist” while recognizing diverse ethnic identities in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural complex society can be considered as a “Little ASEAN”. Therefore, the experience of Malaysia in creating “National integration” for the nation can be useful to be utilized by ASEAN to create a “Regional integration” in the form of “ASEANness” and “ASEAN citizenship”. Accordingly, Malaysia can be seen as a country which can take the leadership in ASEAN to create the curriculum of “experiential and practical learning approach” and “Active citizenship” by utilizing the common communication language English and ICT education. As mentioned repetitively, since the independence national integration policy is the biggest challenge for Malaysia which is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country. Hence, “Civics”, “Local study” and “History” and the current “Civics and Citizenship Education” subjects contents target the core that is “citizen” = “nation” and “citizenship = responsibility and rights as the nation” aiming to finally produce “Becoming a member of Malaysia”, through emphasizing the improvement of national consciousness which targeted to nurture the citizenship related to “National” through the various occasion. The priority element for the image of citizen (nation) can be considered as: 1. 2. 3.

Appreciate the responsibility and moral value as the member (citizen) of each community. Understand and respect the characteristic of each ethnic’s custom. Have the responsibility to the participation in politics and society, the rights given and obligation as a Malaysian.

As stressing the “challenges and success towards globalization”, “sustainability and development of Malaysia as the world recognition country”, etc., it is also desired to go beyond “National” to achieve multi-layer citizenship in “Regional”, “Global” and “Universal”. However, if the result of the questionnaire is studied collectively on how much the level of “citizenship” which exceeds the “National” in actual is obtained, it can be said that compared to the “Global” and “Universal” which has achieved the target, knowledge and awareness regarding the ASEAN-related “Regional” is

150

M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

apparently poor. From the perspective of ASEAN awareness and ASEAN identity towards the integration of ASEAN, this result is not promising. Therefore, since the significance of the relationship with ASEAN is important to Malaysia as a whole and as an individual, teaching and learning should not only be restricted to classroom learning; substantial experience and hands-on learning approaches that correlate the knowledge attained from school with the actual community are considered greatly necessary. Furthermore, it can be stressed that the development of “Active citizenship” should not only focus on the knowledge of “citizenship”. The capability and progressive attitude on what an individual can perform towards the community as a “citizen” at family, school, local area, national and ASEAN levels will be the main challenge in the future. Notes 1.

2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

10.

Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Portal. (2020). The Sauce of Malaysia’s Official Statistics, https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php, Accessed March 18, 2020. Abdul Aziz Bari, Farid Sufian Shuaib. (2004). Constitution of Malaysia Text and Commentary Revised Edition, Prince Hall Sprintprint, pp. 43–63. Ministry of Education. (1979). Report of the Cabinet Committee on the implementation of Education, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, p. 13. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (1994–1996). Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Rendah Kajian Tempatan Tahun 4–6, Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, (Ministry Education Malaysia. (1994-1996). Primary School Integrated Curriculum for Local Studies 4-6 years, Curriculum Development Centre) p.4. Ministry of Education. (1988). History for Lower Secondary School, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, p. 5. Anuar Ahmad. (2004). The Making of a ‘Good Citizen’ in Malaysia: Does History Education Play a Role? W. O. Lee, David L. Grossman, Kerry J. Kennedy and Gregory P. Fairbrother. (Eds.). Citizenship Education in Asia and the Pacific Concepts and Issues, Comparative Education Research Centre, The University Hong Kong, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 207–209. Nangoku Shinbun. (2003). 21 August, 2003. New Straits Times/Nation. (2004). 18 August, 2004. Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2007). Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah, Sukatan Pelajaran, Pendidikan Sivik dan Kewarganegaraan, (Curriculum Develop Centre, Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2007). Middle School Integrated Curriculum, Syllabus, Civic and citizenship Education), p. 10. Education minister. (2019). Civics Education to be Introduced in Malaysia Schools in Integrated, Holistic Manner, Malay Mail, 13 August, 2019, https:// www.malaymail.com/ March 18, 2020.

7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys …

151

Appendix See Tables 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4.

Table 7.1 Primary year 4–6 “Civics and Citizenship Education” content and classification Theme

Year

Unit

Classification

1 Self value

4

U1 Self recognition U2 Self health management

Universal

5

U1 Life with rules U2 Importance of time management

Universal

2 Family life

3 School and society life

4 Malaysian society and culture

5 Our motherland Malaysia

6 Future development of country

6

U1 Child’s right and responsibility

Universal

4

U3 Family recognition

Local/Universal

5

U3 Responsibility at home U4 Extension of family relationships

Local/Universal

6

U2 Family’s belief and religious belief

Local/Universal

4

U4 School community

Local/Universal

5

U5 Knowing our neighbors U6 Life of the community

Local/Universal

6

U3 Responsibility towards environment U4 Preserving clean and comfortable environment U5 Role of local government organization

Local/National/ Universal

4

U5 Recognition and understanding of Malaysian cultural heritage U6 Understanding of culture and etiquette of Malaysia society

National (Regional/Global)

5

U7 Enjoy Malaysian cultural heritage U8 Etiquette in Malaysian society

National (Regional/Global)

6

U6 Recognition and understanding of rich Malaysia culture U7 Responsibility in protecting Malaysian cultural heritage

National (Regional/Global)

4

U7 Know about Malaysia U8 Proud as a citizen

National (Regional)

5

U9 Our country’s politics and administrative system U10 Know and respect country leaders

National (Regional)

6

U8 Country’s proud historians U9 Responsibility of protecting Country’s independence

National (Regional)

4

U9 Creation of excellent future culture

National (Regional/Global)

5

U11 Individuality esteem and their features

National (Regional/Global)

6

U10 Active and healthy life

National (Regional/Global)

Created by Teshima and Kumaraguru based on: Year 4–6 Sekolah Kebangsaan Text Books, Pendidikan Sivik dan Kewarganegaraan, Panel Penulis Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 2004 Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

152

M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

Table 7.2 Comparison of weighted average of questions on knowledge and understanding Questions Topics

Q3:

Q4:

Q2:

The degree of

The

The

The gap

achievement

characteristics

significance of

between

of this

that should be

this

present and

characteristics

achieved 10

characteristics

future

at present

years later

(A)

(B)

"(B)-(A)" (D)

(C)

3.77

4.68

3.65

0.91

3.83

4.71

3.74

0.87

(3) Different cultures

3.77

4.71

3.71

0.93

(4) Social justice and equity

3.58

4.65

3.56

1.07

(5) Democracy

3.61

4.55

3.64

0.94

(6) Sustainable development

3.53

4.58

3.53

1.05

(7) Interdependence

3.42

4.59

3.44

1.17

(8) Foreign language

3.26

4.42

3.23

1.17

(9) Social welfare

3.33

4.45

3.29

1.12

(10) Human rights

3.08

4.41

3.33

1.33

(11) ASEAN history and culture

2.92

4.33

3.05

1.41

2.91

4.33

3.05

1.42

Sum

41.03

54.42

41.22

13.39

Average

3.42

4.53

3.43

1.12

(1) Environment (2) Coexistence and

living

together

Knowledge and understanding

(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys …

153

Table 7.3 Comparison of weighted average of questions on skills and abilities Questions Topics

(1) To express opinions on social

Q3:

Q4:

Q2:

The degree of

The

The

The gap

achievement of

characteristics

significance of

between

this

that should be

this

present and

characteristics

achieved 10

characteristics

future

at present

years later

(A)

(B)

"(B)-(A)" (C)

(D)

3.71

4.42

3.41

0.71

3.65

4.38

3.39

0.73

(3) To solve problems

3.65

4.42

3.47

0.78

(4) To make decisions

3.65

4.42

3.38

0.78

(5) To respond to ICT

3.62

4.35

3.33

0.73

(6) To make a peaceful resolution

3.48

4.35

3.35

0.87

(7) To think critically

3.39

4.29

3.36

0.89

(8) To improve quality of life

3.37

4.32

3.33

0.95

(9) To cooperate with each other

3.32

4.33

3.41

1.02

(10) To develop sustainably

3.20

4.35

3.27

1.15

(11) To contribute to society

3.02

4.26

3.20

1.24

(12) To use foreign language

2.92

4.18

3.06

1.26

2.86

4.18

2.98

1.32

NA

NA

2.92

NA

Sum

43.83

56.26

45.88

12.43

Average

3.37

4.33

3.28

0.96

problems (2) To have self-discipline and selfcontrol

Skills and abilities

(13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries (14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

154

M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

Table 7.4 Comparison of weighted average of questions on values and attitudes Questions Topics

Q3:

Q4:

Q2:

The degree of

The

The

The gap

achievement of

characteristics

significance of

between

this

that should be

this

present and

characteristics

achieved 10

characteristics

future

at present

years later

(A)

(B)

"(B)-(A)" (C)

(D)

Values and attitudes

(1) To face wrong things and injustice

3.45

4.30

3.33

0.85

(2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development

3.41

4.33

3.42

0.92

(3) To have self-dependence

3.47

4.39

3.26

0.92

(4) To respect cultural diversity

3.47

4.33

3.32

0.86

(5) To place importance on the law

3.29

4.27

3.35

0.98

3.23

4.36

3.32

1.14

(7) To pay attention to global issues

3.26

4.30

3.29

1.04

(8) To respect tradition and culture

3.24

4.30

3.36

1.06

3.08

4.23

3.33

1.15

(10) To respect democracy

3.08

4.27

3.27

1.20

(11) To respect human rights

2.95

4.18

3.26

1.23

(12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology

2.79

4.20

3.18

1.41

2.74

4.11

3.03

1.36

Sum

41.46

55.59

42.73

14.13

Average

3.19

4.28

3.29

1.09

(6) To promote international cooperation

(9) To have morality and pride as a nation

(13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

References Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. (2004). Sekolah kebangsaan buku teks, Pendidikan sivik dan kewarganegaraan, tahun 4, Panel Penulis Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (Language and Library Council. (2004). National school textbooks, Civic and citizenship education, year 4, Curriculum Development Center Writers’ Panel, Ministry of Education Malaysia). Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2017). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community). Toshindo.

7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys …

155

Lee, W. O., Grossman, D. L., Kennedy, K. J., & Fairbrother, G. P. (Eds.). (2004). Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific concepts and issues, Comparative Education Research Centre, The University Hong Kong, Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Malaysia Press Sdn. Bhd. (2004). Sekolah jenis kebangsaan buku teks, Pendidikan sivik dan kewarganegaraan, tahun 4, Panel Penulis Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (The Malaysia Press Sdn. Bhd. (2004). Textbook national type school, Civic and citizenship education, year 4, Curriculum Development Center Writers’ Panel, Ministry of Education Malaysia). The Malaysia Press Sdn. Bhd. (2005). Sekolah jenis kebangsaan buku teks, Pendidikan sivik dan kewarganegaraan, tahun 5, Panel Penulis Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (The Malaysia Press Sdn. Bhd. (2005). Textbook national type school, Civic and citizenship education, year 5, Curriculum Development Center Author Panel, Ministry of Education Malaysia). The Malaysia Press Sdn. Bhd. (2006). Sekolah jenis kebangsaan buku teks, Pendidikan sivik dan kewarganegaraan, tahun 6, Panel Penulis Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (The Malaysia Press Sdn. Bhd. (2006). Textbook national type school, Civic and citizenship education, year 6, Curriculum Development Center Author Panel, Ministry of Education Malaysia).

Chapter 8

Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens Toshifumi Hirata and Minoru Morishita

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to examine what kind of citizenship Myanmar is trying to develop through its new educational reform, to clarify what kind of citizenship students actually have, and to consider what kind of citizenship education should be provided in the future. Currently, Myanmar is undergoing a major educational reform; the National Education Law promulgated in 2015 and the National Curriculum Framework enacted the same year have systematically increased the duration of basic education from 11 to 12 years. The following points are particularly noteworthy regarding the development of the new curriculum. First, it aims to develop good citizens with critical thinking, communication, and social skills. Second, it seeks to develop global citizens who are aware of human diversity and capabilities and who have a basic understanding of peace in their daily lives. From a questionnaire survey of students regarding citizenship, the following issues were identified: (1)

(2)

(3)

In the area of “Knowledge and understanding,” there is a lack of achievement in the subsets of “environment,” “peace,” “different cultures,” “sustainable development,” and “interdependence.” In the area of “Skills and abilities,” there is a lack of achievement in “foreign language” (English) and “coexistence with different cultures and ethnic groups,” which are characteristics unique to Myanmar. In the area of “Values and attitudes,” national morality and national pride ranked low among ASEAN countries, particularly in the area of ASEAN-related characteristics, and it became clear that a lack of knowledge and understanding of ASEAN-related issues was a concern.

Accordingly, in the ongoing educational reform, it is necessary to develop curricula and teaching materials related to these characteristics. T. Hirata (B) Faculty of Education, Oita University, Oita City 870-1192, Japan e-mail: [email protected] M. Morishita Faculty of Marine Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2-1-6, Etchujima, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8533, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_8

157

158

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

Keywords Citizenship education · Global citizen · National curriculum framework · Twenty-first-century skills

8.1 Introduction: The Present System of Citizenship Education In our study, we planned to conduct a survey on citizenship consciousness among students and a Delphi survey among experts on social studies and citizenship education (social studies teachers, school principals, educational supervisors, university citizenship education professors, and PTA heads, presidents, or representatives). We decided to collaborate with a Myanmar co-researcher and lecturer at the University of Yangon, Sai Khaing Myo Tun (Ph.D.). With the cooperation of Dr. Sai, we were able to conduct a survey on the consciousness of citizenship education among school children, although the survey has not yet been fully implemented. Unfortunately, we were unable to conduct a Delphi survey for intellectuals, primarily because of the political situation. In this chapter, we will first examine the policies, systems, educational content, and recent trends in educational reforms related to citizenship education in Myanmar, a member of the ASEAN Community, based on existing survey reports. Afterward, the results of a survey on student attitudes toward citizenship education will be analyzed and discussed.

8.1.1 Historical Changes in Myanmar’s Education Myanmar’s history as a country dates back to the fifth century AD, and it seems that education has been valued there since ancient times. In Myanmar, a Buddhist country like neighboring Thailand, there is a long history of temple education, traditionally conducted in Buddhist temples where children learn reading, writing, and arithmetic from monks. This indicates that both literacy and level of education were quite high in those days. Modern education was first implemented during British rule in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The basic framework of the education system was established then, and the education system that was implemented in India at that time was introduced. After the British colonial period (1886–1947) and the Japanese occupation (1942– 1945), the country regained its independence in 1948. First, the basic policy principle of Burmese socialism was “not to worry about the poor, but to worry about the unequal” (Kojima, 2014, p. 82). The prevailing idea was that “only by exterminating the exploitation of people by people and establishing a socialist economic system based on justice can we free ourselves from social evils and reach a society that is healthy and prosperous in body and mind” (Kojima, 2014, p. 83). The Burma Basic

8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens

159

Education Law of 1973 stipulates education under such an economic system. The objectives of this education are as follows: (1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

To turn people into physical and mental workers, well equipped with basic education, health, and moral qualities. To create a population with sufficient understanding, loyalty, and confidence in the ideology of Burmese socialism to be qualified to build and defend a socialist society. To lay the foundation for appropriate vocational education and training to be expanded as appropriate stages are established and maintained in a socialist society. To prioritize the science that contributes to increasing productivity and making productivity more effective. To give priority to the study of art for the protection and development of culture, art, and literature. To lay a solid educational foundation for the pursuit of university education. (Kojima, 2014, p. 85)

Burmese socialism ended with the democratization movement in 1988, and the country was temporarily ruled by an interim military government. The next major educational reform in Myanmar under this regime took place in 1998. In that year, a wide range of educational reforms were implemented, including the revision of the primary education curriculum (Masuda, 2010). In the course of these reforms, science was revived, a subject similar to Japanese integrated learning was established, and geography and history were reorganized into social studies. In the classroom, a child-centered approach was adopted in which the children learned independently. A teacher training system was also introduced, promoting the training of qualified teachers (Kojima, 2014, pp. 91–100). After the promulgation of the new constitution in 2008, Myanmar began to develop a new curriculum for the transition to a 12-year system of basic education, and a curriculum framework emphasizing the acquisition of “twenty-first century skills” was approved in May 2015 (Tanaka, 2017, pp. 325–344; Wint Zaw Htet, 2020, pp. 37–45). With the creation of the ASEAN Community at the end of 2015, a major challenge was how to keep pace with other ASEAN countries, how to fulfill responsibilities as member states, and how to build “education for ASEANness” (see Chap. 2).

8.1.2 School System Structure Since 2004, the basic education system in Myanmar has consisted of 5 years of primary school education (grades 1–5, ages 5–9), 4 years of lower secondary education (grades 6–9, ages 10–13), and 2 years of upper secondary education (grades 10–11, ages 14–15). In total, the basic education program was 11 years (Kojima, 2014, p. 91; Tanaka, 2017, p. 28). According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of

160

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

Japan, the school enrollment rate in Myanmar as of 2017 was 86.4% for primary schools, 63.5% for lower secondary schools, and 32.1% for upper secondary schools (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 2020). Compulsory education has been free for 5 years at the primary level; lower secondary schools were also made free in 2014 (Tanaka, 2015, p. 243). The enrollment rate in higher education institutions was 10.7% in 2007 (Mizuno, 2010, pp. 22–25).

8.1.3 Curriculum Structure and Social Studies Curriculum In Myanmar, a curriculum based on child-centeredness was introduced in the 1998 education reform. The pro-democracy movement broke out in 1988, and although Ne Win was deposed as head of state, the military eventually reentered politics and ended the pro-democracy movement. The military government abandoned the socialist economic system and revised the curriculum to be more child-centered. As a result, the subjects of geography and history were combined, and a new course, “social studies,” was introduced in the third and fourth grades of primary school. The goals of the newly introduced social studies course were as follows: (Grades 3 and 4) – Promoting awareness and understanding of the natural features of the country and the lives of its people – Strengthening the spirit of patriotism and nationalism and the will to preserve independence. (Kojima, 2014, pp. 112–113, Authors’ translation) In other words, the ultimate goals converged on the strengthening of the “spirit of patriotism” and the emphasis on the “spirit of nationalism.” As for the content of social studies, the third grade consisted of 33 units, and the fourth grade consisted of 55 units. These units consisted of four components: geography, history, moral civics, and life skills (Kojima, 2014, p. 116).

8.1.4 Citizenship Education: Developing Citizens For social studies, a teacher’s manual (fourth grade) was prepared. In the manual, the following aims were stated for the cultivation of patriotism and nationalism: – To understand the nature of the country and its lifestyle. – To strengthen the spirit of patriotism and nationalism and the will to preserve independence. – To cultivate the morals of a good citizen who is well-behaved and loyal (obedient). – To adapt to the environment and learn good basic habits. (Kojima, 2014, pp. 112– 113, 2015, p. 25)

8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens

161

According to Hirata, “in the Myanmar curriculum, we can find descriptions related to citizenship education in social studies.” In other words, as shown in the teacher’s manual, the section on the “morality of being a good citizen” is deeply related to citizenship education. This appears to be the first time in the history of education in Myanmar that the concept of “citizen” has appeared (Hirata, 2017, p. 160).

8.2 New Trends in Educational Reform and Citizenship Education A research report on the latest educational reforms in Myanmar education has recently been published by Tanaka (2017) in Japan, entitled “Education in Myanmar.” The data and information reported by Tanaka were valuable for our research. In Myanmar, educational surveys by foreigners are extremely restricted, and we were unable to obtain permission to conduct a survey for our project; however, Tanaka obtained data that is normally difficult to obtain and analyze. Thus, his book provides a valuable reference. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him. Tanaka analyzes and discusses the four major reforms currently being promoted in Myanmar: (1) school system, (2) educational administration, (3) curriculum, and (4) teacher training. Tanaka also cites two recent educational reforms that require special attention: the promulgation of the National Education Law in 2015 and the passage of the curriculum framework for basic education. These two reforms are invaluable resources for our research. Regarding the Basic Education Curriculum Framework, Tanaka (2017) highlights the following: The first major feature of this system is that it comprehensively covers a total of 13 years of education from kindergarten education (KG) to grade 12 as the basic education program. In addition, the country’s current school system of 5-4-2 (11 years) and the age range from 5–15 years has been changed to KG+12 (KG-5-4-3), and the age range has been expanded from 5–17 years. The second feature is the emphasis on the skills to be acquired. The new curriculum framework mentions “21st century skills” and “five strengths” and presents a model of competence that successfully integrates 21st century skills into the five strengths. The third characteristic is the emphasis on fostering “good citizenship.” Although “good citizen” is mentioned in one of the goals of the current “Moral and Civics” curriculum, “good citizen” in this context emphasizes moral values in the master–slave relationship, such as civility and loyalty. On the other hand, the “good citizen” emphasized in the new curriculum frame is to develop citizens who can fulfill their responsibilities and exercise their rights in a democratic society. (Tanaka, 2017, p. 326, Authors’ translation)

Another noteworthy aspect related to citizenship education is the particular emphasis placed on the development of both “twenty-first century skills” and “good citizens.” The former is defined as “the essential skills needed to succeed as workers and citizens in twenty-first century society” (Tanaka, 2017, pp. 328–329). The basic framework includes (1) core subjects and twenty-first-century themes; (2) learning

162

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

and innovation skills; (3) information, media, and technology skills; and (4) life and career skills (Tanaka, 2017, p. 329). In addition, the curriculum framework defines the “five strengths targeted for learning in the twenty-first century” as the ability to live in the globalized twenty-first century, encompassing a set of key competencies that “citizens” should possess: (1) intellectual strength, (2) physical strength, (3) moral and ethical strength, (4) social strength, and (5) economic strength (Tanaka, 2017, p. 333). A “good citizen” is defined as “a citizen who can fulfill his or her responsibilities and exercise his or her rights in a democratic society” (Tanaka, 2017, p. 326). The latest research report on the reform trend of social studies is that of Wint Zaw Htet (2020). Wint Zaw Htet study, like Tanaka’s book, provides valuable information for our research, for which we would like to thank the author. Wint Zaw Htet discusses the 2015 Myanmar National Curriculum Framework, basic education, and the goals of the new curriculum reform (Wint Zaw Htet, 2020, pp. 37–45). In particular, he points out that the major reform, as a systemic reform, is that the basic education period has been extended from 11 to 12 years; that is, the basic education period has been extended by 1 year. Within this National Curriculum Framework, the objectives of citizenship education are as follows. The students were able to do the following: a.

Become good citizens with well-developed five strengths, including critical thinking skills, communication skills, and social skills,

b.

Apply their civic and democratic skills in their daily lives and become good citizens who abide by laws,

c.

Become global citizens with awareness and appreciation of human diversity and abilities to practice basic knowledge of peace in their daily lives. (Wint Zaw Htet, 2020, pp. 39–40)

It also stipulates the necessity of “global citizens who are aware of human diversity and capabilities and who have basic knowledge of peace in daily life.” The development of “good citizens” and “twenty-first century skills” are required as principles related to citizenship in order to achieve these goals. Furthermore, Wint Zaw Htet introduced the four goals of teaching social studies in the curriculum, as follows: – To understand the basics of the natural environment and the livelihoods of different ethnic groups of Myanmar in order to utilize the knowledge in establishing more developed and better life. – To improve the reasoning skills regarding the relationship between the environment and their livelihoods. – To cultivate the Union spirit and nationalism by realizing the geographical and historical basics of the country. – To become good citizens who are capable of creating a peaceful society. (Wint Zaw Htet, 2020, pp. 41–42)

Of these, the fourth is closely related to citizenship education. In addition, social studies are composed of five areas: Geography, History, Life skills, Moral and Civics, and Local curriculum. Of these, citizenship education is provided in Life

8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens

163

skills and Moral and Civics classes. Especially the objectives of Moral and Civic Education are as follows: – To utilize the right ethical behaviors by analyzing systematically. – To be able to value human rights by following the duties and responsibilities of a citizen. – To pay attention and respect to the rules and disciplines. – To behave well not only as a productive citizen of the country but also as a fruitful person of the world. (Wint Zaw Htet, 2020, p. 43) Hence, the goal is to act analytically and ethically, respect human rights while upholding civic duties and responsibilities, and behave not only as productive citizens but also as human beings in the world. Finally, Wint Zaw Htet stated that in his own view there are three challenges: (1) whether the objectives of the new curriculum are implemented, (2) whether teachers can actually achieve the objectives and upgrade the teaching methods necessary to reach the targets of the new curriculum, and (3) whether it is possible to improve the facilities for the arts and physical education (Wint Zaw Htet, 2020, p. 44). As described above, Myanmar is currently undergoing significant educational reform. We need to carefully examine how the educational reforms reported by Tanaka (2017) and Wint Zaw Htet (2020) will develop in the future. Meanwhile, we need to conduct a full-scale research survey in the field of citizenship education. This will be a topic for future research.

8.3 Survey of Student Attitudes Toward Citizenship In this study, a questionnaire survey was conducted among schoolchildren to inquire about the current status of citizenship characteristics common in ASEAN countries. As mentioned above, there were difficulties involved in conducting the survey in Myanmar, and it was conducted as a study by Dr. Sai, our research collaborator. However, it was not possible to conduct the survey by asking for cooperation from schools as in other countries, so we had to follow the procedure of talking to students on the streets around secondary schools in Yangon. The Burmese translation of the questionnaire was drafted in Japan with the help of a Myanmar student, and the draft was sent directly from Japan to the site in August 2011, where it was revised and finalized by Dr. Sai. He continued to seek a way to conduct the survey, finally deciding on the method described above. He proceeded to conduct and collect several surveys, intermittently, per day. Later, in September 2012, we visited Dr. Sai in the field again to input the data for 138 copies of the questionnaire that had been collected by that time. We added 57 more copies that had been collected until February 2014, ultimately collecting a total of 195 questionnaires. Because we used a different method from those typically employed by researchers utilizing a questionnaire survey, the survey took more than two years to complete. In addition, all the questionnaires

164

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

distributed through soliciting participants on the street were collected, meaning that the collection rate was 100%. The following section is a discussion based on the results of the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of two parts, the first of which asked questions about attributes. For details, please refer to Hirata (2017) and Morishita (2013). The first part of the questionnaire was based on a table of citizenship characteristics developed in this study, with five levels (local–national–regional–global–universal) on one axis and three skill areas (knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes) on the other axis. The second part of the questionnaire asked about basic knowledge of ASEAN member countries and ASEAN as an international organization, the media used for acquiring such knowledge, and identity as a member of ASEAN.

8.3.1 Respondents’ Attributes The respondents’ demographics were as follows. In terms of gender, 47.7% of the respondents were male, 50.8% were female, and 1.5% did not answer. In terms of age, the majority of respondents were 14 years old (11.3%), 15 years old (43.6%), and 16 years old (39%), which corresponds to the age range from the last year of lower secondary education to upper secondary education. However, a very small percentage of respondents were between the ages of 17 and 21 (3%). Because of the survey methodology described above, we were unable to include respondents in the final year of primary education in Myanmar, unlike in other ASEAN countries. Looking at the results of the question on religious beliefs, the majority of respondents (94.9%) were Buddhist, and a small number of respondents were Christian, Hindu, or Muslim.

8.3.2 Citizenship from the Perspective of “Knowledge and Understanding” In part 1 of the questionnaire—Q1–Q3—we asked about the knowledge and understanding aspect of citizenship: Q1 asked about history learning, while Q2 asked about tradition and cultural learning, and participants had to report what they thought each learning’s importance was at each level: local, national, regional, and global. In each case, the respondents were asked to answer on a scale of 1to 4; 1 = not at all important, 2 = not very important, 3 = important, and 4 = very important. The results for Q1 showed that history at the national level was the most important. The mean values of the valid responses were, in order of importance, national (3.5), global (3.3), regional (3.1), and local (2.8). Similarly, for Q2, the national level was also thought to be the most important for cultural learning. The mean values of

8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens

165

the valid responses, in order of importance, were, national (3.7), local (3.2), regional (3.0), and global (2.9). From these, it can be seen that the national level is characterized as the most important for both history and cultural learning. The response trends were similar for both questions to those of other ASEAN countries. From a national perspective, these results may be closely related to the political system of the country. In Q3, participants were asked if they had seen or heard of any of the 11 concepts that were important to citizenship. Respondents were asked to choose from the following options: 1 = not at all, 2 = not very often, 3 = yes, and 4 = often. Considering the mean of the valid responses, “democracy” (3.4), “environment” (3.4), “peace” (3.3), and “development” (3.3) were most frequently recorded. However, “different cultures” (2.6), “sustainable development” (2.7), and “interdependence” (2.7) were ranked lower. Other items and their mean values were “human rights” (3.1), “international society” (3.1), “coexistence and living together” (3.0), and “social justice and equity” (2.9). In other ASEAN countries, “environment” (3.7 or higher in all eight other countries) and “peace” (also 3.6 or higher) were most frequently recorded. Likewise, Myanmar had a high score among the 11 items, but a low score compared to other countries. Following the above two items, “development,” “human rights,” and “democracy” were the most frequently cited items in ASEAN countries, and the results were similar in Myanmar. “Intercultural understanding,” “sustainable development,” and “interdependence,” which were low in Myanmar, were also low in other countries, with similar results. “Human rights,” “democracy,” and “development” were all supported, but these are all aspects of universal knowledge and understanding, and the fact that they received high support can be understood as indicating a certain educational effect.

8.3.3 Citizenship from the Perspective of “Skills and Abilities” From Q4 through Q8, we asked about the skills and abilities of citizenship. In Q4, for social issues (issues related to politics, the environment, human rights, conflicts, etc.), participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they had (1) conducted research or learned by themselves, (2) had their own opinions, (3) expressed their opinions in public, and (4) performed any action to solve the issue. The degree of their experience was indicated on a 4-point scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = not much, 3 = yes, 4 = very often. In terms of the average of valid responses, the score for (2) “I have had my own opinion” was 2.4, which was higher than that for the other items. Compared to other ASEAN countries, this score was higher than that of Vietnam (2.1) and Cambodia (2.3). The other items were (1) experience of learning (2.0), (3) experience of expressing opinions (2.0), and (4) experience of taking action to solve problems (1.8), in descending order. These items are also in the lower rankings among ASEAN countries. The results may be understood as

166

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

expressing an aspect of CLMV countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam) as the least economically developed ASEAN countries. In Q5, we asked, “Would you be able to express your opinion that right is right and wrong is wrong to the following people?” For each item, the respondents were asked to choose from the following options: 1 = yes, 2 = no, and 3 = do not know. In terms of the percentage of respondents who answered “yes” to each item, the results were: (1) 94.4% for friends, (2) 62.1% for parents, (3) 48.2% for teachers, (4) 51.8% for adults, (5) 25.1% for politicians, and (6) 28.7% for religious leaders. In ASEAN countries as a whole, there was a tendency for respondents to express their opinions to friends and parents, but be less likely to share their opinions with teachers and adults, and to increase the percentage of “don’t know” responses to politicians and religious leaders. The same trend was observed in the case of Myanmar. Looking at the results by item, the percentage of respondents who could express their opinions to teachers was the fourth lowest (48.2%) after Thailand (37.8%), Laos (38.5%), and Philippines (47.3%) with a large difference from those in Cambodia (83.4%) and Indonesia (73.6%). The percentage of those who could express their opinions to religious leaders was also low, behind Thailand (17.1%), Vietnam (20.1%), and Laos (25.6%), with a large difference from Malaysia (76.0%) and Brunei (63.2%). In the countries with the lowest percentage in case of religious leaders, Buddhism was the predominant religion, while in the countries with the highest percentage in case of religious leaders, Islam was the predominant religion, indicating religious characteristics. This may be significantly related to the fact that Myanmar is a Buddhist country. In Q6, we asked about the importance of learning English as a tool for expressing opinions internationally. Four options were provided: (1) very important, (2) important, (3) not so important, and (4) not important at all. Of the respondents, 86.2% answered that it was very important, which was higher than that of Laos (78.2%)— the highest among ASEAN countries—indicating that the importance of learning English is recognized by many Myanmar students. Why the result of the importance of learning English was much higher than in Laos, which received the highest support, is an interesting research topic that requires further investigation. There may be a close relationship with the self-evaluation of English proficiency in Q7. In Q7, we asked how they self-evaluated their English abilities by skill. The respondents were asked to rate their self-assessment of their English ability in the following specific situations: for conversational ability, “I can talk to people in English”; for writing ability, “I can exchange letters and e-mails in English”; for reading ability, “I can read English magazines, newspapers, and websites”; and for listening ability, “I can listen to English news and programs on TV and radio.” For listening comprehension, they were asked to answer on a scale of 1 to 4; 1 = not at all, 2 = not very much, 3 = able, and 4 = fully able. Regarding the average of valid responses, the scores were 1.8 for speaking, 1.9 for writing, 1.9 for reading, and 1.9 for listening, all of which were below 2 points. In other ASEAN countries, only Vietnam’s writing and reading comprehension scores were below 2 points, suggesting that Myanmar students’ self-assessment of their English ability is low among ASEAN countries as a whole. Based on the results of Q6 and Q7, it can

8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens

167

be stated that the current situation of Myanmar students is that they are aware that English is important, but they lack confidence in their abilities. In Q8, respondents were asked whether they would be able to acquire the characteristics of citizenship and live in a way that is considered desirable in the future. Specific questions were selected from our list of characteristics of citizenship, namely: (1) being able to make decisions on their own without asking others; (2) being able to lead a richer life, both physically and mentally; (3) being able to understand their own culture and foreign cultures; (4) being able to live together with people of different cultures and ethnicities; (5) being able to stand up against injustice, inequality, and discrimination; (6) being able to cooperate with others to solve various problems in a village, town, country, the ASEAN, and the world; (7) being able to cope with ICT in society; and (8) being able to contribute to world peace. Respondents were asked to answer on a four-point scale, where 1 = not at all, 2 = not very much, 3 = able, and 4 = fully able. Looking at the mean values of the valid responses for each item, (2) “more affluent life now” (3.2) and (1) “self-determination” (3.1) ranked first and second, and these two items were the highest among the ASEAN countries. However, two items, (4) “coexistence with different cultures and ethnic groups” (2.5) and (6) “problem-solving” (2.5) were low, and low among ASEAN countries. Since the overall trend in ASEAN countries was low in (6) “problem-solving,” we can assume that the unique issue for Myanmar students is “living together with different cultures and ethnic groups.” The low score on “living together with different cultures and ethnic groups” may have something to do with the unique ethnic composition and political situation of Myanmar.

8.3.4 Citizenship in Terms of “Values and Attitudes” In Q9, respondents were asked whether they followed and implemented the teachings of their own religion/faith in their daily lives. As is evident from the demographics of the respondents, about 95% of Myanmar students follow Buddhism. The options and percentages of respondents were as follows: (1) protect and perform well (54.4%), (2) protect and perform (32.8%), (3) do not protect or perform much (11.8%), (4) not at all/do not protect or practice (1.0%), and (5) do not have a specific religion (0.0%). The total of (1) and (2) shows that 87.2% of the respondents practiced religious faith on a daily basis, which is more than the 80% reported by other ASEAN countries, except for Vietnam (51.4%) which is notably less religious. Looking only at the percentage of respondents in (1) above, Myanmar students are the most religious among the ASEAN countries, surpassing the Philippines (44.8%) and Indonesia (40.3%), which are the topmost religious ASEAN countries. Therefore, when forming values for citizenship education in Myanmar, special consideration should be given to consistency with Buddhist doctrines. Religious practice is self-evident in Myanmar as a religious country. This highly enthusiastic result may be natural for a devoutly Buddhist country.

168

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

In Q10, respondents were asked whether they had morals and pride as citizens of their own country. The options and percentages of respondents were as follows: (1) had a lot (68.2%), (2) had enough (29.7%), (3) did not have much (0.5%), and (4) did not have any (1.0%). The total of (1) and (2) reached 97.9%, which means that national morality and national pride as a whole are common in Myanmar. However, it can be pointed out that the percentage of (1) alone is the third lowest after Thailand (56.9%) and Indonesia (59.3%), while most other ASEAN countries reported more than 80%. The success in raising moral awareness and fostering national pride can be interpreted as a result of the functioning and penetration of the country’s education policy. In Q11, the following characteristics common to each level, from local to global, were extracted from the citizenship characteristics, and respondents were asked which of each was the most important. The characteristics of the questions were as follows: (1) “love and preservation of traditions and culture,” (2) “pride as a member,” (3) “maintenance of peace,” (4) “maintenance of democracy,” (5) “having an interest in the environment and development problems,” (6) “having an interest in human rights problems,” and (7) “having a sense of belongingness as a member.” At the local level, (1) “local traditions and culture” (32.3%) and (3) “peace in the village or town” (30.8%) were selected most often, which was the same as the overall trend in ASEAN countries. At the national level, (10) “peace in the country” (27.7%), (8) “patriotism and national traditions and culture” (26.2%), and (11) “preservation of national democracy” (15.4%) were selected most frequently, in that order. Compared to other ASEAN countries, only Myanmar and Brunei had the highest percentage of respondents who selected (10) “peace in the country,” while the response rate for (8) “patriotism and national traditions and culture” was low, and for (11) “democracy in the country,” the response rate was higher than that of Thailand (15.1%), which had the highest percentage. At the regional (ASEAN) level, (17) “peace in the ASEAN region” (34.4%) received the highest responses, along with Indonesia (42.7%) and the Philippines (30.2%). This was followed by (15) “ASEAN tradition and culture” (21.5%) and (18) “preservation of democracy in ASEAN” (15.4%), in that order. At the global level, the most common responses were (24) “world peace” (44.1%), (22) “loving the earth and acting according to global rules and customs” (21.0%), and (23) “pride in being a global citizen” (11.8%), in that order. The highest percentage of respondents selected (24) “world peace,” which follows the trend in many other ASEAN countries. As described above, it is clear that “peace” is considered most important at the national, regional (ASEAN), and global levels, which are characteristic of Myanmar students. However, at the local level, many students selected local cultures. Furthermore, in Q11, students were asked which of the answers they selected from the four levels they thought were the most important. The results indicated that (24) “world peace” (29.2%) was selected most frequently. No other option exceeded 10%. It is easy to understand why “peace” is considered to be of paramount importance at the national, regional (ASEAN), and global levels when taking into account past democratization movements and the current political situation.

8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens

169

In Q12, we listed 15 characteristics of citizenship at the universal level and asked the respondents to select up to three of them deemed necessary in today’s society. The percentages of respondents who selected each question were as follows: (1) “having your own thoughts and beliefs” (49.2%), (2) “caring for the other’s feelings and living in peace and happiness with them” (22.6%), (3) “being patient and not selfish, having a strong will in achieving your goal or in what you want to do” (23.1%), (4) “making decisions in a calm manner and having self-control” (13.8%), (5) “contributing to the public or mankind (i.e. volunteering, mutual aid)” (25.1%), (6) “observing basic ethics and morality” (16.9%), (7) “having the courage to say what is right” (44.6%), (8) “becoming involved in activities to improve society” (8.2%), (9) “observing the law” (19.5%), (10) “cooperating with other nations to solve problems” (8.2%), (11) “catching up with the new science and technology and the world economy” (7.2%), (12) “understanding the differences among cultures in the world and respecting these cultures” (6.2%), (13) “having an interest in world problems (i.e. environment, poverty, conflict, peace, discrimination, human rights, and development) and solving them” (17.9%), (14) “making decisions and putting them into action” (11.3%), and (15) “having respect toward human rights” (23.6%). The two most frequently selected items in Myanmar were (1) and (7), with more than 40% of the respondents selecting them. Item (7) was selected by more than 40% of the respondents in no other country, making it a unique characteristic of Myanmar. Item (1) was also high in many other ASEAN countries. Item (2), which was ranked first in five other ASEAN countries, was ranked sixth in Myanmar, showing the same trend as that of Malaysia and Brunei. As to why there were more (1) and (7) than other countries, it is understandable that this is due to the political situation.

8.3.5 “Knowledge and Understanding” of the ASEAN In the second part of the questionnaire—Q1–Q5—we asked about knowledge about ASEAN countries and basic knowledge about ASEAN itself. In Q1, the task was to match the names of the ASEAN countries with their respective numbers, ranging from 1 to 15, on a white map representing Southeast Asia and its surroundings. Five of the numbers were assigned to countries that were not members of the ASEAN. In terms of the percentage of correct answers, 96.4% of the students answered correctly for Myanmar, their home country. The neighboring countries of Thailand (78.5%) and Laos (69.2%) also had high percentages of correct answers. This was followed by Indonesia (63.6%), Singapore (63.1%), and the Philippines (60.5%), where the percentage of correct answers exceeded 60%. The lowest percentage of correct answers was found for Brunei (47.2%). Compared to the other ASEAN countries, this was a good result, followed by Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos, where the percentage of correct answers was generally high. In Q2, the students were asked to choose the meaning of the ASEAN flag from among the five options. The correct answer rate for Myanmar students was 50.3%.

170

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

Among other ASEAN countries, the percentage was above 50% in many countries, including Indonesia (71.6%), and Myanmar had the second lowest percentage after Cambodia (41.1%), which had the fewest correct answers. In Q3, the students were asked to choose the year of establishment of the ASEAN from among the four options. The correct answer rate for Myanmar students was 22.6%. The percentage of correct answers for Q3 tended to be lower for ASEAN countries overall compared with that for Q2, and the same was true for Myanmar. Specifically, 34.4% of the students answered, “I do not know.” In Q4, the students were asked to choose the target year for ASEAN integration from among the four options. The correct answer rate for Myanmar students was 27.7%. Compared to the other four ASEAN countries, where the percentage of correct answers was in the single digits, the percentage of correct answers by Myanmar students was relatively high, with only Cambodia (37.9%) and Laos (32.3%) scoring higher. In Q5, we asked the respondents how much they knew about the ten ASEAN countries, including their own countries, using a four-point scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = not much, 3 = know, 4 = know a lot. In terms of the average of valid responses, the scores were in the 2 or 1 range, except for Myanmar, where the score was 3.6. For Brunei, Cambodia, and Vietnam, the score was 1.9, indicating a low level of knowledge. Among the other ASEAN countries, Brunei, Cambodia, and Vietnam were the only countries that received a score of 1. In these three countries, the mean values of the responses to Myanmar were 1.7, 1.9, and 1.7, respectively. It is evident that there is a lack of mutual understanding between Myanmar and these three countries. It can be said that there is a challenge in learning about neighboring countries. In Q6, respondents were asked to choose from 15 options regarding the media and methods to find information about ASEAN, with no limit on the number of responses. The choices were: (1) advertisements, (2) books, (3) TV, (4) radio, (5) newspapers, (6) the Internet, (7) movies, (8) music, (9) sports, (10) family, (11) friends, (12) school, (13) travel, (14) work experience, and 15) other. The top responses from Myanmar students were newspapers (65.6%), TV (61.5%), school (51.8%), and books (50.8%). Although Myanmar shares the same tendency as other ASEAN countries to rank newspapers, TV, and schools at the top, the Internet, which ranked high in Indonesia (87.0%) and many other countries, was only 37.9% in Myanmar. This may have been because the Internet was not yet widely available in the country.

8.3.6 Consciousness About ASEAN In the second part of the questionnaire, Q7 through Q11, respondents were asked about their attitudes toward ASEAN. In all cases, the responses were based on a four-point scale: 1 = agree very much, 2 = agree, 3 = do not agree much, and 4 = agree not at all. The following analysis was based on the average of valid responses.

8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens

171

In Q7, the students were asked if they would like to know more about ASEAN countries. The average value for Myanmar students was 1.7. This indicates that they actively seek knowledge. This value lies in the middle of other ASEAN countries, which are distributed in the range of 1.4–1.9, indicating a desire for mutual understanding across ASEAN. In Q8, students were asked if they thought that being members of ASEAN was beneficial to their country. The average value for Myanmar students was 1.7. It is believed that they recognize the significance of the ASEAN in their countries. Other ASEAN countries are distributed in the range of 1.3–1.9, and Myanmar is in the middle of the range. In Q9, the students were asked if they thought that being a member of the ASEAN was beneficial to them. The mean value for the Myanmar students was 2.1. Although this value itself can be considered high, the total percentage of students who chose options 3 and 4 in Q9 was 28.7%, which is higher than that of 8.2% in Q8. This indicates that the students do not feel that it is as beneficial for them as it is for their country. Other ASEAN countries also showed a similar trend, with a larger mean value in Q9 than in Q8. In Q10, students were asked if they were aware of being an ASEAN citizen, had an attachment to ASEAN, and felt proud to be an ASEAN citizen. The mean value for Myanmar students was 1.9. Looking at the content of their responses, 52.3% were concentrated on option 2, indicating that they were neither actively in favor nor against. In other ASEAN countries, the distribution was relatively wide, ranging from 1.6 to 2.2; thus, Myanmar again falls in the middle of the range. In Q11, the students were asked if they thought that they shared a common identity with the people of ASEAN countries in order to achieve ASEAN’s goals. The mean value for Myanmar students was 2.0. Similar to Q10, Q11 also shows a certain amount of negative opinions, with 51.8% of responses concentrating on option 2, and 22.1% opting for options 3 and 4. In other ASEAN countries, the percentages were distributed between 1.9 and 2.3, and Myanmar was relatively high. Evaluating the results of the responses from Q7 to Q11, it can be said that Myanmar follows the same trend as that of other ASEAN countries. This may be due to a lack of teaching and learning. This indicates that there is a need for curriculum content reform. In fact, as we analyzed the new reform trends in the first half of this chapter, curriculum reform has taken place since this survey. Therefore, further investigations are necessary and expected.

172

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

8.4 Conclusion 8.4.1 Summary Based on the analysis of the educational system and curriculum reform trends, it is clear that the government is trying to develop good, global citizens for the twentyfirst century, including those who possess critical thinking, communication skills, and social skills. The analysis of the results of the questionnaire survey of students is summarized below. In terms of “Knowledge and understanding,” a similar trend was observed in other ASEAN countries. In other words, the national level was considered to be the most important in terms of learning history and traditional culture. Regarding the experience of seeing and hearing about the concept of citizenship, “democracy,” “environment,” “peace,” and “development” were most frequently selected. As for the challenges, the values of “environment” and “peace” were lower than those of other ASEAN countries and, as in other countries, “different cultures,” “sustainable development,” and “interdependence” were chosen more frequently. There is a need for students to be provided with opportunities to learn about concepts that they have little experience with. In terms of “Skills and abilities,” the experience of researching and learning about social issues and that of having and expressing one’s own opinions are both ranked low among ASEAN countries, and it can be said that the development of skills to improve society is an issue. In addition, although the importance of English as an essential language for communication in the ASEAN Community and global society is recognized, the self-evaluation of English proficiency is remarkably low. Practical English learning is, therefore, important. Furthermore, in terms of how they will live their lives in the future, Myanmar students seem to have confidence in “a richer life than now” and “self-determination.” However, “coexistence with different cultures and ethnic groups” is an issue that is unique to Myanmar, perhaps because of the ethnic conflict in the country. Regarding “Values and attitudes,” Buddhism is the religion followed by the majority of the respondents, and they are the most enthusiastic among ASEAN countries in practicing their religion. However, in terms of national morality and national pride, they are at the bottom of the group among ASEAN countries, which poses a challenge. Regarding values related to citizenship characteristics by level, the most important characteristic is that “peace” is consistently considered to be the most important from the local to the global level. Regarding universal values, “having one’s own ideas and believing in oneself” and “being able to say the right thing is the right thing” are considered important, and the latter is not often selected in other ASEAN countries, indicating a different trend. In terms of ASEAN “Knowledge and understanding,” there is evidently insufficient knowledge of Brunei, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Knowledge of the meaning of the ASEAN flag and the year of its establishment is also an issue. As a source of information, the Internet, which is widely used in other countries, is rarely used

8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens

173

in Myanmar. This issue requires improvement through information technology. In terms of ASEAN consciousness, Myanmar ranked in the middle of ASEAN countries in terms of average values for many questions. It should be noted, however, that there is a strong tendency for respondents to select “agree,” the second most common answer, rather than “strongly agree,” the most positive answer. In any case, finding opportunities to learn about ASEAN would be challenging.

8.4.2 Recommendations In the Basic Education Curriculum Framework, the goal was to develop “good citizens” and “global citizens,” which was addressed in the social studies curriculum. Such citizenship entails the acquisition of critical thinking skills, communication skills, social skills, obeying the law, having basic knowledge about peace, and so on. It is also a kind of citizenship, referred to as “global citizenship.” The twentyfirst-century skills included being an analytical and ethical citizen, observing duties and responsibilities, respecting human rights, being a productive citizen, and being a human citizen of the world. From the questionnaire survey, the following characteristics were identified as issues to be addressed: (1)

(2)

(3)

The areas of “Knowledge and understanding,” including “environment,” “peace,” “different cultures,” “sustainable development,” and “interdependence.” The areas of “Skills and abilities,” including “foreign language” (English) and “coexistence with different cultures and ethnic groups,” as well as that of “Values and attitudes,” such as national morality and national pride (the lowest group in ASEAN). The area of “ASEAN relations,” including a lack of knowledge and understanding of ASEAN relations.

All these characteristics (issues in “Knowledge and understanding,” “Skills and abilities,” and “Values and attitudes”) were almost identical to the citizenship characteristics being targeted in the ongoing educational reform in Myanmar. Therefore, in order to develop good citizens and global citizens under the new curriculum, we must promote the development of curricula and teaching materials that support the characteristics identified as issues in the questionnaire survey. Policy-makers should consider these characteristics in the national education policy and basic education curriculum. In addition, undergraduate and graduate students (including in-service teachers) should be trained to develop curricula, units, and teaching materials related to these characteristics in lectures and seminars.

174

T. Hirata and M. Morishita

References Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2017). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community). Toshindo. Kojima, F. (2014). Social studies in Myanmar. Keisuisha. Kojima, F. (2015). Myanmar to Thai no Shakaika Karikyuramu no Hikaku Kenkyuu: Global Karikyuramu niokeru “Kokumin” to “Shimin” no Kantenyori (A comparative study of the social studies curricula of Myanmar and Thailand: From the perspective of ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’ in the global curriculum). Educational Studies: International Christian University, 57, 23–33. Masuda, T. (2010). Myanmar Gunjiseiken no Kyouiku Seisaku (Myanmar military regime’s education policy). In T. Kudo (Ed.). Myanma Gunjiseiken no Yukue: Chousa Kenkyuu Houkokusho (The future of Myanmar’s military regime, research report) (pp. 5.1–5.20). Institute of Developing Economies. Retrieved February 17, 2022, from https://www.ide.go.jp/library/Japanese/Pub lish/Reports/InterimReport/2009/pdf/2009_404_ch5.pdf. Mizuno, A. (2010). Myanmar no Kyouiku Jijou (Myanmar’s educational situation). Ryugakukouryu, 5, 22–25. Morishita, M. (2013). ASEAN Shokoku niokeru Shiminsei ni kansuru Jidouseito heno Ankeeto Chousa (A questionnaire survey to the students on citizenship in the ASEAN countries). Hikaku Kyouikugaku Kenkyuu (Comparative Education). Japan Comparative Education Society, 46, 118– 133. Toshindo. Tanaka, Y. (2015). 21 Seikigata Sukiru to Shogaikoku no Kyouiku Jissen : Motomerareru Atarashii Nouryoku Ikusei (The 21st century skills and educational practices in various countries: Fostering the new abilities required). Akashi Shoten. Tanaka, Y. (2017). Myanma no Kyouiku: Gakkou Seido to Kyouiku Katei no Genzai, Kako, Mirai (Education in Myanmar: present, past, and future of the school system and curriculum). Akashi Shoten. Wint Zaw Htet (2020). Basic education curriculum reforms in Myanmar and the role of social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia, 9, 37–45. Website Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://www. mofa.go.jp/mofaj/toko/world_school/01asia/infoC11800.html.

Chapter 9

Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness Hirofumi Nagahama, Arthur S. Abulencia, and Jerick C. Ferrer

Abstract K to 12 education reform is necessary to be on par with ASEAN progress and the ASEAN Economic Community. It aims to create the next stage of citizenship education in the Philippines. This study seeks to understand how the Philippines promotes citizenship education under the process of ASEAN integration, using the Delphi survey to conduct a multifaceted analysis of the implications of the hidden influence of regular citizenship education. Education in the Philippines has long integrated UNESCO’s values and concepts of human rights and human dignity into the curriculum, especially into values education, which will eventually characterize future generations’ citizenship education in the Philippines. The results of the Delphi survey revealed how significantly aware students are of the ASEAN region and its values compared to their teachers and other experts. This will help create a multilayered ASEAN identity through education, reforming the Southeast Asian cultural sphere. The Delphi survey revealed that Filipino teachers and officials predict that Filipino students need time to accept ASEANness, to integrate it and become aware of their multiple or multilayered identity. However, as students become aware of the significance of a stronger connection with ASEAN countries, if the teachers and officials became seriously involved in ASEAN integrity, their awareness of and obtaining an ASEAN citizenship, ASEANness, may be realized in the near future. Keywords ASEAN economic community · Citizenship education · Delphi survey · K to 12 program · Values education H. Nagahama (B) Faculty of Law, Toin University of Yokohama, 1614 Kurogane-cho, Aoba-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 225-0025, Japan e-mail: [email protected] A. S. Abulencia Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Philippine Normal University-Manila, Taft Avenue cor. Ayala Boulevard, Manila 1000, Philippines e-mail: [email protected] J. C. Ferrer Faculty of Education Sciences, Philippine Normal University-Manila, Taft Avenue cor. Ayala Boulevard, Manila 1000, Philippines e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_9

175

176

H. Nagahama et al.

9.1 Introduction How is the Philippines promoting school education in the context of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) integration? This study aims to clarify the influence of the K to 12 educational system and the initiation of the ASEAN community on citizenship education in the Philippines via a comparative study of ASEAN-related education in the Philippines, focusing on the results of previous research, specifically, a Delphi survey of Filipino educators (Morishita, 2013, pp. 118–133). First, we consider the K to 12 program as a major educational reform being promoted, then we analyze the attitude survey on citizenship among pupils and students in ASEAN countries, conducted in the fiscal year 2011. Subsequently, we analyze the Delphi survey. The Philippines had been attempting to introduce a 12-year education system for some time, and later was successful in finally transitioning the country’s educational system to the K to 12 basic education program. By clarifying the significance of the K to 12 reform, which has now been officially implemented, we believe that a more multifaceted analysis of the implications of citizenship education and the results of the Delphi survey will be possible.

9.2 Citizenship Education and Educational Reform in the Philippines 9.2.1 The Process and Significance of the Introduction of the K to 12 Education System Filipino citizenship education aims to cultivate ideal citizens who practice social responsibility and compliance with the law through the promotion of social responsibility. Article XIV in Section 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly states, “(1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula. (2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency” (Sison, 1999, pp. 143–144). This study presents an understanding of the Filipino concept of “citizenship” reflects the understanding of “citizenship,” emphasizing respect for others, persistence in education, education for cultural development, cultural heritage, freedom of expression, constitutional content, common good, and concepts of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Historically, the Philippines possessed a strong tradition of citizenship and citizenship education, which was enhanced during the Commonwealth of 1935–1946 (excluding during

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

177

Japanese occupation) under the U.S. territory. Following the People Power Revolution (EDSA) of 1986, values education, based on the UNESCO values, was implemented as part of the Philippines’ basic education, as well as in the curricula of teacher training institutions (Romero, 2002 & Tuga, 2016). The Philippines currently employs the 6–4–2 basic education system (6 years of primary education, 4 years in junior high, and 2 years in senior high school education). Prior to this, from 1957 to 1973 the “2–2” plan was practiced, which divided secondary education into the first two and second two years: The first two years included common courses for all students, which were later divided into vocational and preparatory courses in the next (third) grade. However, due to weak financial bases and inadequate facilities, few schools were able to provide substantial vocational education, and their educational offerings had little relevance to the requirements of national and regional industries. Moreover, vocational education programs were not attractive to students: In 1967, 83% of the graduates of the employment course went on to university, making the “2–2 Plan” ineffectual. As such, this program was abolished in 1973 under the Marcos administration (Cortes, 1983, p. 157; Ishida, 1995, p. 50). Examination of the reasoning and background behind the 2012–2013 inauguration of the K to 12 education system provides a deeper understanding of why and how the concepts of “citizenship” in the Philippines have emerged or changed (Camposano, 2019). The Philippines government is currently working to improve the quality of education through various educational reforms, including, the introduction of the K to 12 system, school-based management tailored to each school, and cooperation between public and private schools. This commitment is anchored in the Education for All (EFA) goals that aim to provide educational opportunities for every Filipino child to support the development of the community and society. Thus, the K to 12 Law or Republic Act No. 10533 (Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013) established a “universal kindergarten” and introduced Grades 11 and 12 to high school education in public and private schools. Prior to this Act, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were eight international development goals for the year 2015, were established following the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000. The Philippines’ EFA goals also contributed to the global pursuit of these eight MDGs, especially MDG 2, which called for universal primary education, and MDG 3, which aimed for gender equality in education by 2015. Participation in this system of education was expected to contribute to the development of the local community and society, and the pursuit of EFA. Following the end of the MDGs in 2015, another laudable project was initiated by the United Nations encouraging all governments, civil society, and other key partners to build on what was accomplished by the MDGs. The United Nations launched the post-2015 development agenda, known as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which originated at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio + 20, in 2012. Of the 17 SDGs put forward, the goal related to education is No. 4 (Quality Education)—Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. This goal served as one of the bases of the education reform program in the Philippines.

178

H. Nagahama et al.

With the dismal results of the Philippines in the 2018 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Department of Education (DepEd) renewed its commitment to globalizing the quality of education. The assessment results of PISA served as guiding inputs and insights for education experts, and DepEd’s Sulong EduKalidad (“boost or push education quality”) campaign was launched, which was DepEd’s rallying call for a national effort for education quality, guided by a masterplan to install aggressive reform in four key areas: “(1) K to 12 curriculum review and updating; (2) Improvement of the learning environment; (3) Teachers’ upskilling and reskilling through a transformed professional development program; and (4) Engagement of stakeholders for support and collaboration” (Department of Education, 2019, p. 43). Sulong EduKalidad focuses on Filipino learners helping them achieve their full potential and realize their dreams through quality basic education for all.

9.2.2 The Influence of the AEC on Creating Citizenship in the Philippines Another compelling motivation for creating the new concept of “citizenship” through the K to 12 curricula is to be substantive to the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), which was established in 2015. Since the creation of ASEAN as a regional organization in 1967, its ten member states have envisioned a “single, competitive market and productivity” through economic integration. The AEC creates a huge economic market of 600 million people, accounting for at least 8% of the world’s population, and allows more liberalized trade between ASEAN countries. The removal of both tariff and non-tariff barriers, both in goods and services, among member states is expected to promote deeper and stronger economic relations among the countries in the region: Countries will gain better access to larger resources in the region’s workforce, which will facilitate the exchange of industrial practices and ideas between AEC member countries. Further, it has been noted that establishing an ASEAN citizenship plays an important role in developing the new regional mentality and identity. In response to this international situation, the Philippines’ DepEd promotes the quality of education through partnerships with other educational institutions, such as the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). Efforts are underway to concretize these partnerships. The introduction of the K to 12 program eliminates the overcrowding and congestion of the basic education curriculum and integrates primary and secondary education, allowing students more time and choices for learning. It is expected that this would result in students fully mastering the various competencies, which would lead to greater career opportunities, as the completion of high school would result in a certificate of competence that can be employed or adapted to employment.

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

179

Further, research has suggested that the K to 12 education system reform contributes to national economic growth. During each additional year, this reform increased wage income by 10% up to 2019. The longer the time spent on education, the greater is the potential for employment acquired by the students; thus, with the addition of one year of learning, the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for an average of 40 years will increase by approximately 0.37%, while one year of schooling generally shows a return of 25–30%. In international competitions, it is expected that Filipino students are more competitive and their level of education is on par with global standards, resulting in international professional recognition for Filipino workers in their respective fields (SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2012, p. 6).

9.2.3 The K to 12 Program and Citizenship Education In 2005, the DepEd formulated and implemented its major reform agenda known as the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) with the primary aim of institutionally, systematically, and nationally improving education outcomes. The overall goals of BESRA are: (1) universal adult functional literacy; (2) universal school participation and elimination of drop-outs and repetition in first three grades; (3) universal completion of the full cycle of basic education schooling with satisfactory achievement levels by all at every grade or year; (4) total community commitment to attainment of basic education competencies for all. BESRA has considerably improved access and quality of education in the country though more is yet to be done. Under the leadership of former president Benigno Aquino, the national government spelled out its “10-Point Education Agenda.” One point on the agenda was K to 12 reform, which is the addition of 2 years to the basic education cycle (Table 9.1). Table 9.1 10-Point Education Agenda for K to 12 program

1. A 12-year basic education cycle 2. Universal Pre-schooling for all 3. Establish the Madaris Education as a sub-system in the current education system 4. Re-introduce technical and vocational education in public high schools 5. Every child a reader by Grade 1 6. Improve science and mathematics 7. Expand government assistance to private education 8. Use of mother-language instruction 9. Better textbooks 10. Build more schools in cooperation with LGUs Source UNESCO, 2015, pp. 9–10

180

H. Nagahama et al.

Unlike in European countries, there is no specific subject dedicated to teaching “citizenship” in the Philippine educational curriculum; however, changing international climates, regional unity in the AEC, and domestic economic development all demand that Philippine education adapts to prepare its students for further social development and transformation. In all subjects, including the primary subjects of Filipino, English, mathematics, and sciences, citizenship education should be promoted; social studies (Araling Panlipunan) and values education (Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao) play a significant role in strengthening the concept of the new Filipino identity of living within today’s global society. Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO), a historic organization founded in 1970, has become an important part of ASEAN’s unity as a regional community. The SEAMEO center in the Philippines is one of 19 regional centers, and the organization itself is led by the ministers of education of ASEAN nations, university presidents, and donors in associate member countries that also provide international assistance, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan. SEAMEO centers provide training and research programs in various fields of education, science, and culture. An important global education framework at the turn of the twenty-first century was the P21’s Framework for 21st Century Learning. This was included by education experts and policy-makers in the development of the K to 12 curriculum. The following knowledge, skills, work habits, and character traits associated with 21st-century skills were all reflected in the K to 12 curriculum: (1) critical thinking, problem-solving, reasoning, analysis, interpretation, and information synthesis; (2) research skills and practices, interrogative questioning; (3) creativity, artistry, curiosity, imagination, innovation, personal expression; (4) perseverance, self-direction, planning, self-discipline, adaptability, and initiative; (5) oral and written communication, public speaking and presenting, and listening; (6) leadership, teamwork, collaboration, cooperation, and facility in using virtual workspaces; (7) information and communication technology (ICT) literacy, media and internet literacy, data interpretation and analysis, computer programming; (8) civic, ethical, and social-justice literacy; (9) economic and financial literacy, entrepreneurialism; (10) global awareness, multicultural literacy, humanitarianism; (11) scientific literacy and reasoning, the scientific method; (12) environmental and conservation literacy, ecosystems understanding; (13) health and wellness literacy, including nutrition, diet, exercise, and public health and safety. Cognizant of the challenges of the twenty-first century, which comprises an interdependent, diverse, and rapidly changing global society, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is decisively advancing the inclusion of global competence education. “Global competence is a multidimensional capacity. Globally competent individuals can examine local, global, and intercultural issues, understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views, interact successfully and respectfully with others, and take responsible action toward sustainability and collective well-being” (OECD, 2018, p. 4). Global competence has the following four dimensions: (1) examine issues of local, global, and cultural significance; (2) understand and appreciate the perspectives and world views of others; (3)

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

181

engage in open, appropriate, and effective interactions across cultures; and (4) take action for collective well-being and sustainable development. The DepEd has emphasized global knowledge, skills, values, and competence in its curriculum, particularly in assessment. In terms of this new Filipino identity and citizenship, SEAMEO INNOTECH expresses the Filipino capabilities and characteristics expected to develop from the new K to 12 education program as follows. Filipino high school graduates are envisioned to (a) Possess sufficient mastery of basic competencies (e.g., literacy, numeracy, problem-solving, etc.) to develop themselves to the fullest; (b) Be emotionally developed and competent enough to live a meaningful life; (c) Be socially aware, pro-active, and involved in public and civic affairs and contribute to the development of a progressive, just, and humane society; (d) Be adequately prepared for the world of work, entrepreneurship, or higher education; (e) Be legally employable; (f) Be globally competitive. Further, they are expected to (a) Possess a healthy mind and body; (b) Have a solid moral and spiritual grounding; (c) Appreciate and care for humanity, the world, and the environment; (d) Be proud to be Filipino (SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2012, p. 8). These ideas can be found integrated into value education, social studies, and all other subjects. The target areas for Philippine values education (Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao) comprise the following themes: (1) Self and family responsibility, (2) Treating others as fellow human beings (Pakikipag-kapwa), (3) Contribution to national development and world unity, and (4) God-centeredness and preference for goodness (pp. 40–41). To achieve these themes, 62 personal and social values are taught. These educational goals and themes not only comprise those of the Philippines’ EFA efforts but also demonstrate the position of Filipino nationals and citizenship in the new AEC regional relations. In future school education, it is expected that the same values education will be practiced considering the solidarity with the ASEAN region. In the field of social studies (Araling Panlipunan), the new curriculum includes learning about the self, the community, and the history of the ASEAN region and encourages a deeper understanding of history, geography, politics, economy, and national development in the Philippines, Asia, and the world. During high school, students learn about current problems, challenges, and suggested solutions, as well as critical thinking, logical reasoning, creativity, and appreciation for the culture of one’s country. They also learn research skills, communication skills, responsibility, productivity, environmental awareness, and global vision; thus, it can be reasonably speculated that the Philippine K to 12 system will integrate the value of citizenship to encourage the younger Filipino generation to respond to the challenges of the international community, especially regarding the country’s rapid integration with ASEAN or new AEC countries. Considering the above-mentioned changes in school education, the following section will compare the recognition of citizenship and citizenship education in the Philippines through the analysis of a Delphi survey on citizenship. Through its primary educational agency—the DepEd—and partnerships with other institutions such as the CHED and TESDA, the Philippines is striving to materialize the goals of improving the quality of its national educational offering.

182

H. Nagahama et al.

9.3 The Citizenship Education Survey in the Philippines 9.3.1 Analysis of the Student Opinion Survey The survey of Citizenship Education among students (473 students) was conducted in 2011. The target age groups of 12, 15, and 18-year-olds were then in the sixth year of primary school, the third year of secondary school, and the second year of university in the Philippines, respectively. This was different from other countries in ASEAN with a 12-year education system; this difference will be eliminated by the K to 12 reform. The items in the survey on students’ attitudes consisted of questions on Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes. In terms of Knowledge and understanding of citizenship, students were asked to choose from: (1) not at all important, (2) not very important, (3) important, and (4) very important for Q1–history study, Q2–tradition and culture study, and Q3–understanding of the concept of citizenship. This level of importance is similar to that of other ASEAN countries. In Q2–Traditions and Culture, students rated their own traditions and culture (3.7), world traditions and culture (3.5), traditions and culture of ASEAN countries (3.3), and traditions and culture of one’s own village or town (3.2). The Philippines was characterized by more than 3 points in all categories, suggesting that the students understand the importance of protecting and passing on the traditions and culture. As for the important concepts for citizenship in Q3, high importance was given to the environment, peace, human rights, and democracy (3.7 each), followed by development (3.6), social justice and equity (3.3), sustainable development and progress (3.0), interdependence (2.9), and intercultural understanding (2.8), with international society and coexistence (2.7) selected as the least important. These results are similar to other ASEAN countries in that the environment, peace, human rights, and democracy were rated as highly important. These have been studied especially in values education and social studies subjects in the Philippines; therefore, it is not surprising that they were selected more frequently. It can be concluded that the students selected items that were more familiar to them as important. Citizenship from the viewpoint of Skills and abilities, in Q4–social problems (problems related to politics, environment, human rights, conflicts, etc.), the students were asked to select from (1) not at all, (2) not much, (3) yes, and (4) often. (3.1), (3) Have you ever expressed your opinion (2.3), and (4) Have you ever taken action to solve a social problem (2.4), with (2) being particularly high. Although the tendency of selection was similar to that in other ASEAN countries, the high frequency of the score of 2 may also indicate the emphasis of the social studies subject in developing critical thinking and social awareness among the students (DepEd, 2019). In Q5, “Can you state your opinion about the right and wrong of the following people?”, the students were asked to choose from (1) I can, (2) I can’t, and (3) I don’t know. The results showed that they could state their opinion about the following: friends (92.7%), parents (71.9%), school teachers (47.3%), adults and older people

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

183

(51.1%), people who play politics (23.4%), and religious leaders (29.6%). Stating their opinion about friends and parents was similar to that of other ASEAN countries. However, given the fact that in other Muslim ASEAN countries the figures are high in terms of expressing their opinions to religious leaders, it can be considered that there is a difference in the way reverence for religion is expressed in the Philippines. This may be because the influence of Catholic religious authority is still maintained in Philippine society today. In Q6, regarding the importance of learning English, the students were asked to choose from (1) very important, (2) important, (3) not so important, and (4) not important at all, and the percentage of respondents who chose (1) was the highest in the Philippines at 76.8%. In addition, in Q7, which was the English proficiency question, when asked to select from (1) not at all, (2) not very much, (3) able to, and (4) able to adequately, the percentage of respondents who selected 1 was the highest at 76.8%. Nevertheless, the number of respondents with the ability to speak English as an official language in the Philippines was higher than that in Malaysia and Brunei. This shows how well English as an official language has taken root in the Philippines. It also reflects the fact that being able to understand English is an essential skill required for all opportunities in the Philippine society, including living, going to school, and finding a job. In Q8, regarding future citizenship skills, the students were asked to choose from the following four response options: (1) Can’t do anything at all, (2) Can’t do much, (3) Can do, and (4) Can do enough. The scores were as follows: understand my own and other cultures (3.0), live with other cultures and peoples (2.8), fight injustice, inequality, and discrimination (2.7), work together to solve problems and act (2.9), cope with the information society (3.0), and help for world peace (3.3). While the scores were high, they were average compared to other ASEAN countries. The highest scores were obtained on questions related to world peace. This can be attributed to a sense of global citizenship that was formed in the process of overcoming the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in the Philippines, as well as the devout religious beliefs that are fundamental to the country. Regarding citizenship in terms of values and attitudes (Q9), the respondents were asked whether they observed and practiced the teachings of their religion/faith in their daily lives, and had to choose from five options: (1) I observe and practice it enough, (2) I observe and practice it, (3) I do not observe or practice it much, (4) I do not observe or practice it at all, and (5) I do not have a specific religion/faith. The Philippines had the highest percentage of respondents choosing option 1, at 44.8%. In terms of demographic attributes, 93.2% of the pupils who responded to the survey were Christians (Catholics). In the multi-religious Southeast Asian region, which comprises people who follow Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., the Philippines is considered to have religious beliefs different from other regions due to its long colonial rule. In addition, when asked Q10, “Do you have morals and pride as a citizen?”, of the options of (1), (2), (3) not much, and (4) not at all, options 1 and 2 accounted for over 90%. Again, the results showed a high level of awareness of faith among Filipinos.

184

H. Nagahama et al.

Q11 inquired about the following citizenship qualities: (1) preservation of tradition and culture, (2) pride in being a member of the community, (3) peace, (4) preservation of democracy, (5) concern for the environment and development issues, (6) concern for human rights issues, and (7) a sense of identity (belonging) from four local to global levels: village/town, nation, ASEAN, and global (world). At all levels, the students believed that preserving traditions and culture is important, especially on the level of the nation (37.0%) and the world (35.7%), higher than in villages and towns (23.2%) and ASEAN (25.2%). When asked about “peace,” the results were higher for the world (37.7%), followed by ASEAN (30.2%), nation (19.1%), and village/town (26.6%). Other high preferences were for peace (26.6%) and environment and development issues (22.7%) in villages and towns, peace in the nation (19.1%), peace in the ASEAN region (30.2%), global rules and customs (35.7%), and environment and development issues (12.7%). This is similar to other ASEAN countries, but the Philippines is unique in that the respondents also recognized the importance of all other questions. Q12 asked the students to select the qualities of citizenship from 15 options, and the quality of “self-control and goal achievement” was the most frequently chosen by Filipino students (39.3%), followed by “respect for human rights,” and “solving global problems,” which were also selected by more than 25% of the students.

9.3.2 Filipino Students’ Understanding of ASEAN and Challenges In the second part of the survey, the respondents were asked about their awareness of ASEAN: Q1 “Location of ASEAN on the map,” Q2 “Meaning of the ASEAN flag,” Q3 “Year of ASEAN’s establishment,” Q4 “Year of ASEAN’s integration,” Q5 “Knowledge of ASEAN member countries,” and Q6 “Media means to obtain information on ASEAN. The percentage of correct answers to the question “Do you know the exact location of the other ASEAN countries on the map” was not very high (except for the Philippines (98.6%) and Indonesia (50.0%), the percentage of correct answers was in the 20–30% range). Additionally, the percentages of correct answers for Q2–Meaning of the ASEAN flag (57.7%), Q3–Year of establishment (12.5%), and Q4–Year of integration (9.1%) were not high. The students’ knowledge of other ASEAN countries was also average. When asked how much they knew about ASEAN countries (Q5), among the choices of (1) not at all, (2) not much, (3) know, and (4) know enough, the scores were in the range of 2, except for knowledge of the Philippines (3.8). On the question about knowing information about ASEAN (Q6), although media and means, books, TV, newspapers, and the Internet were selected, more than 50% of the students reported that they learned at school. Regarding the awareness of ASEAN, the following scores were obtained: Q7 “I want to know more about it” (1.6), Q8 “It is beneficial for my country” (1.7), Q9 “It is beneficial for me” (2.0), Q10 “I am aware, attached, and proud of being an

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

185

ASEAN citizen” (1.8), and Q11 “ASEAN identity” (1.9). ASEAN countries can be mentioned as well, but not at a very high level. Q10 “Awareness of, attachment to, and pride in being an ASEAN citizen” was the most frequently selected answer in the Philippines after Laos (33.6%). For Q11, “Do you think you have a common identity with people in ASEAN countries?”, “Very strong” was selected most often (22.2%), followed by Laos. Thus, the results of the Philippine students suggest that at this phase of their learning, their knowledge and understanding of other ASEAN countries is not sufficient. However, the fact that “ASEAN citizenship, attachment, and pride” and “ASEAN citizenship identity” were chosen with high frequency indicates that Filipino students are aware of their connection to ASEAN, although additional knowledge (learning) is still required. With the establishment of the AEC at the end of 2015, school education in the Philippines is expected to focus on the importance of being a good citizen of the local community and nation, as well as a responsible citizen of ASEAN. The historical and cultural differences between the islands and continental Southeast Asia, as well as relationships with countries that have various religions as their national identity, are expected to add more diversity to the civic consciousness of the Christian Philippines.

9.4 Delphi Survey to the Educational Experts 9.4.1 Method The Delphi survey technique was used as the research method of this study. In the first round of the survey, there were 214 respondents, including school headmasters, social studies teachers, Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) officers, and college and university lecturers. During the second round of the survey, 51 respondents from the first-round sample participated. Topics and items in the questionnaires were developed from the first-round items. The second-round questionnaire comprised two parts. Part I focused on citizenship characteristics concerning Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes at the local, national, regional, global, and universal levels to be achieved, currently, and 10 years later, by experts in education. Part II comprised questions regarding the relationship between respondents’ specialty and citizenship characteristics, characteristics that they perceived as important both currently and in 10 years, and the student age range at which they perceived it appropriate to study these characteristics.

9.4.2 Findings In terms of basic data, there were a total of 51 respondents, comprising 18 females (35.29%) and 28 males (54.90%). Most of the respondents (31.37%) were in their

186

H. Nagahama et al.

30 s, followed by those in their 40 s (27.45%). Only 6 respondents (11.76) were 60 years old or above. In terms of respondents’ occupation, 26 were school teachers (50.98%) and 10 were lecturers of higher educational institutions (19.61%). Most respondents (84.31%) worked in the field of social studies, while 32.46% responded that they were involved in other responsibilities (although these responsibilities were not elaborated upon).

9.4.3 Part I: Characteristics Currently Achieved and Those Expected to Be Achieved in 10 Years Q: Among the characteristics, which characteristics do you think you have already achieved, and which characteristics do you expect to have achieved in 10 years? Knowledge and understanding of Domain Citizenship Characteristics Most respondents perceived that they had achieved the specified characteristics (knowledge and understanding of citizenship education) at the local (94%) and national (84%) levels, followed by those at the universal, regional, and global levels. The respondents further indicated that 10 years from now, they expect to have achieved these characteristics at the global level (35%), followed by the regional (31%), universal (24%), national (16%), and local levels (6%). Skills and abilities Domain Citizenship Characteristics Respondents indicated that, currently, they possessed citizenship characteristics in the domain of skills and abilities at the local level (84%), followed by those at the universal (72%) and national (65%) levels, but had achieved them least at the global level (55%). Ten years later, most of them expected to achieve the characteristics at the global level (45%), followed by those at the regional (37%), national (35%), and universal (30%) levels, but the least expected to achieve those at the local level. Values and attitudes Domain Citizenship Characteristics In the areas of values and attitudes, most respondents (92%) denoted that, currently, they had achieved the characteristics at the local level, followed by those at the universal (84%), national (82%), and regional and global (61% each) levels. As for characteristics they expected to achieve 10 years later, most indicated that the regional and global levels would be achieved (39% each), followed by the national (18%), universal (16%), and local (8%) levels.

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

187

9.4.4 Part II–1: Questions on Knowledge and Understanding Q1: Characteristics within each specialty Data indicate that 31–64% of the respondents often used all the topics in their work; however, particularly notable were foreign languages, democracy, and ASEAN history and culture, which were used less often in the respondents’ specialties. Conversely, the themes of the environment, different cultures, social justice and equality, democracy, and human rights were very often used in their specialties. Q2: Significance of these characteristics Respondents believed that all the characteristics were extremely important, with answers ranging from 39 to 76%. It was also significant that foreign languages (58%), different cultures and interdependence (54% each), ASEAN history and culture and the common social problems of ASEAN countries (52% each), and coexistence and living together (50%) were considered important by the respondents. Interestingly, a large number of respondents considered foreign languages to be important, with only a few considering them less important. This needs to be further investigated to understand the point of view of those educators who consider learning foreign languages as inconsequential to imparting citizenship education. Q3: Present degree of achievement Most respondents claimed that they had achieved all characteristics in this domain except foreign languages, which had not been efficiently achieved (38%). Evidently, environment (13%), democracy (16%), and human rights (13%) had been completely achieved, as reported by the respondents. Q4: Characteristics expected to be achieved in 10 years (Table 9.2) ((tabe2).The respondents reported that they expected to completely achieve all the characteristics within 10 years, although the most significant expectations were regarding social justice and equity (51%) and coexistence and living together (48%). The characteristics that were expected to not at all be achieved in 10 years were knowledge and understanding of foreign languages, social welfare, ASEAN history and culture, and the common social problems of ASEAN countries. Q5: Appropriate ages to study these characteristics Respondents identified 9–11 years as the most appropriate age to study almost all of the characteristics in the domain of knowledge and understanding, except for ASEAN history and the culture and common social problems of ASEAN countries. Meanwhile, they believed the appropriate age to learn a foreign language was 17 years and older.

188

H. Nagahama et al.

Table 9.2 At the level of Knowledge and Understanding, which characteristics do you expect to achieve 10 years from now? N/A

Characteristics

completely Achieved (%)

Achievedto some extent (%)

Achieved

Not efficiently achieved

Environment

K1

8

21 (48)

17 (4)

5

Coexistence and living together

K2

8

15 (34)

21 (48)

7

Different cultures

K3

8

15 (34)

20 (46)

6

2

Social justice and equity

K4

8

15 (34)

22 (51)

5

1

Democracy

K5

10

18 (43)

16 (39)

6

1

Sustainable development

K6

9

16 (38)

19 (45)

6

1

Interdependence

Not achieved at all

K7

9

13 (30)

20 (47)

8

1

Foreign language K8

8

7 (16)

18 (41)

16 (37%)

1

1

Social welfare

8

16 (37)

17 (39)

10 (23%)

K9

Human rights

K10

9

19 (45)

17 (40)

6

ASEAN history and culture

K11

8

12 (27)

20 (46)

9 (20%)

1

1

Common social problems of ASEAN countries

K12

8

10 (23)

20 (46)

10 (23%)

2

1

Source Abulencia, Ferrer, & Nagahama

9.4.5 Part II–2: Questions on Skills and Abilities Q1: Characteristics within each specialty. Respondents stated that they often used all characteristics in the domain of skills and abilities in their classes and research studies, and the topic of cooperating with each other was particularly identified as “very often” used; however, interestingly, 47% of the respondents claimed that they never used their abilities in foreign languages. Q2: Significance of these characteristics All characteristics in this domain were denoted as very important by most of the respondents (55– 82%)—in particular, that of “cooperating with each other,” which was identified as very important by 82% of the respondents. Further, the characteristics of “ability to use foreign languages,” “behaving in accordance with the common rules and values of ASEAN countries,” and “solving common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people,” were perceived as important topics by only a

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

189

minority of the respondents; “ability to solve problems” and “to improve quality of life” were both rated unimportant by at least one respondent. Q3: Present degree of achievement Most respondents (37–65%) reported that they had already achieved the characteristics “to some extent” except “behaving in accordance with the common rules and values of ASEAN countries” (38%) and “solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (40%), which were labeled by the majority as only “achieved” and the “ability to use foreign language” (12%), which was labeled as “not efficiently achieved.” One respondent claimed that they had not achieved only the characteristic “to respond to ICT” at all. Q4: Characteristics that are expected to be achieved in ten years (Table 9.3) A total of 45–62% of the respondents expected to completely achieve all the characteristics within 10 years. The characteristics “cooperating with each other” and “having self-discipline and self-control” garnered the highest percentage of positive responses (62 and 60%, respectively); however, the following four characteristics were described by the majority as likely to be achieved only to some extent: “responding to ICT” (52%), “ability to use foreign languages” (47%), “behaving in accordance with the common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (48%), and “solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (45%). Q5: Appropriate ages to study these characteristics There was no clear consensus among the respondents as to the appropriate age to study the given characteristics. Most of the respondents classified six characteristics (S3, S5, S6, S8, S10, S11) as being appropriate to study at the age of 9–10 years, and four characteristics (S1, S6, S13, S12) as appropriate for those aged 13–14 years. Meanwhile, the respondents believed that only two characteristics (S2, S9) were appropriate to be studied at the age of 8 years.

9.4.6 Part II–3: Questions on Values and Attitudes Q1: Characteristics within each specialty Data indicate that 54–73% of the respondents often used the themes of all characteristics in their work. Among these characteristics, 73% stated that they often used values and attitudes related to “beliefs in scientific thinking and keeping abreast of new science and technology,” followed by those connected to “belief in self-dependence” (68%), and “respecting democracy” (63%). Further, respondents revealed that they very often used characteristics related to “putting emphasis on the law” (48%) and “respecting human rights” (43%). Interestingly, regarding the value of “respecting

9

9

9

9

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S10

S11

S12

To express opinions on social problems

To have self-discipline and self-control

To solve problems

To make decisions

To respond to ICT

To make a peaceful resolution

To think critically

To improve quality of life

To cooperate with each other

To develop sustainably

To contribute to society

To use foreign language

20

19

9

10

9

9

9

9

N/A

S1

Characteristics

10

20/48%

20/49%

26/62%

22/52%

20/48%

19/45%

15

22/52

24/57%

25/60%

21/50%

Completely achieved

15/47%

16

15

11

14

18

19

22/52%

14

12

11

15

Achieved to some extent

4

5

5

4

6

3

2

5

4

4

5

5

Achieved

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

Not efficiently achieved

Table 9.3 At the level of Skills and Abilities, which characteristics do you expect to have achieved 10 years from now?

1 (continued)

Not at all

190 H. Nagahama et al.

20

S14

To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

Source Abulencia, Ferrer, & Nagahama

N/A

S13

Characteristics

Table 9.3 (continued)

12

10

Completely achieved

14/45%

15/48%

Achieved to some extent

4

5

Achieved

Not efficiently achieved

1

1

Not at all

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 191

192

H. Nagahama et al.

human rights,” almost all the respondents stated that they used it either very often or often, while none used it infrequently. Q2: Significance of these characteristics All characteristics were perceived as very important by 55–76% of respondents, with the most frequently rated as very important being “respecting human rights” (76%), “respecting democracy” (71%), and “respecting cultural diversity” and “putting emphasis on the law” (69% each). Q3: Present degree of achievement 44–56% of respondents indicated that, currently, they had already achieved to some extent all the characteristics in this domain. Among these characteristics, 56% claimed that they had achieved the characteristic of “belief in scientific thinking and keeping abreast of new science and technology,” followed by 55% for “belief in self-dependence.” Notably, 18% of the respondents believed that they had completely achieved the characteristics of “thinking highly of morality and national pride” and “respecting democracy.” The following three characteristics were rated highly by the respondents as not efficiently achieved: “intolerance of injustice (24%),” “thinking highly of natural resources, preservation of the environment, and placing emphasis on its development (22%)”, and “belief in scientific thinking and keeping abreast of new science and technology (20%).” Q4: Characteristics that are expected to be achieved in 10 years (Table 9.4) A total of 48–57% of the respondents stated that they expected to achieve all characteristics in this domain to some extent in the next 10 years. Among these characteristics, most respondents (57%) stated that the characteristics of “putting emphasis on international cooperation” and “belief in morality and ASEAN pride” were to be achieved at this level, while 37% reported that they expected to completely achieve the characteristics of “thinking highly of morality and national pride,” and “thinking highly of natural resources, preservation of the environment, and placing emphasis on its development.” Q5: Appropriate ages to study these characteristics Most of the respondents classified five characteristics (V2, V3, V5, V10, V11) as appropriate to be taught to 8-year olds, and three characteristics (V1, V4, V8, V9) were classified as appropriate for 9–10-year olds. Only two characteristics (V6, V14) were classified as appropriate for students aged 11–12 years, and only one (V7) was believed to be appropriate for students aged 13–14 years. Only a few respondents classified the characteristics as being appropriate for ages 15–16 and 17 and above.

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

193

Table 9.4 At the level of Values and Attitudes, which characteristics do you expect to have achieved 10 years from now? N/A

Characteristics

Completely achieved

Achieved tosome extent

Achieved

Not efficiently achieved

To face wrong things and injustice

V1

18

16

11

To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development

V2

23

15

8

To have self-dependence

V3

21

18

8

To respect cultural diversity

V4

23

13

11

To place importance on the law

V5

24

13

10

To promote international cooperation

V6

17

19

10

To pay attention to global issues

V7

22

15

10

To respect tradition and culture

V8

24

13

10

To have morality and pride as a nation

V9

27

11

9

To respect democracy

V10

27

11

9

To respect human rights

V11

27

10

9

To think in a V12 scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology

20

15

10

1

To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

26

11

9

1

V13

Source Abulencia, Ferrer, & Nagahama

Not at all 1

1

1

194

H. Nagahama et al.

9.4.7 Analysis of the Delphi Survey: Citizenship Education Now and 10 Years Later The following are the conclusions drawn from the results of the study: (1)

(2) (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Regarding the demographic profile of the respondents, the following was observed: Most of the respondents were aged 30–40 years, were teachers of secondary education, and reported that teaching was their primary responsibility. Regarding the characteristics of different levels at present, the following observations were made: At the local level, respondents claimed to have achieved: (1) knowledge and understanding of local history, wisdom, traditions, culture, and so on; (2) skills and abilities related to political participation in the local community, cooperation in the local community, problem-solving, and so on; (3) values and attitudes to love the local community and behave in accordance with the middle path, tradition, and culture. At the national level, they had achieved: (1) knowledge and understanding of various areas including national history, tradition, culture, law, social problems, and sustainable development; (2) skills and abilities related to how to behave according to national traditions and culture, have national identity as a nation, and love for the nation,; (3) values and attitudes about how to behave according to national traditions and culture, have national identity as a nation, and love for the nation. At the regional level (ASEAN), they had achieved: (1) knowledge and understanding of history, tradition and culture, social problems, development, human rights, peace, democracy; (2) the ability to value democracy and human rights, solve environmental problems, undertake sustainable development, maintain the peace, use foreign languages, understand different cultures, commit to social issues, coexist; (3) ASEAN identity, ASEAN awareness, respect for human rights, and democratic attitudes. At the global level, they had achieved: (1) knowledge and understanding of world history, social justice, the environment, sustainable development, different cultures, and mutual interdependence; (2) skills and abilities related to political participation, peaceful solutions, the understanding of different cultures at an international level; (3) values and attitudes about awareness of international cooperation, their identities as global citizens, and global issues. At the universal level, they had achieved: (1) knowledge and understanding of cultural diversity, human rights, peace, development, the environment, and democracy; (2) skills and abilities related to theoretical thinking and judging, respecting human rights, and decision-making; (3) values and attitudes with respect to responsibility, a happy life, the pursuit of truth, legal solutions, and making contributions to fellow human beings.

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

195

Filipino educators who participated in the survey reported that they had already achieved the above characteristics. The same respondents also considered the same characteristics as goals that could be achieved ten years later. (3)

On Knowledge and understanding, the following observations were made:

(a)

Within their specializations, participants emphasized that they very often dealt with democracy, human rights, and the environment; often dealt with coexistence/living together, different cultures, interdependence, sustainable development, and social welfare; and seldom dealt with foreign languages, ASEAN history and culture, and the common social problems of ASEAN countries. With regard to the significance of these characteristics, participants believed that the environment, democracy, social justice and equity, sustainable development, social welfare, and human rights are very important; interdependence, foreign languages, different cultures, coexistence/living together, ASEAN history and culture, and the common social problems of ASEAN countries are important; and foreign languages are a little important. As to the degree of present achievement, the Filipino experts reported that characteristics related to the environment, coexistence/living together, different cultures, social justice and equity, democracy, sustainable development, interdependence, social welfare, and human rights had already been achieved to some extent, although the characteristic of foreign language had not been efficiently achieved. Concerning the characteristics, they expected to have achieved in 10 years, the Filipino experts believed that those related to the environment, human rights, and democracy would be completely achieved. Knowledge of different cultures, coexistence and living together, social justice and equity, sustainable development interdependence, foreign languages, social welfare, human rights, ASEAN history and culture, and the common social problems of ASEAN countries were the characteristics that they expected would be achieved to some extent. Regarding the appropriate ages to study the characteristics, the participants indicated that topics related to the environment, coexistence and living together, different cultures, democracy, sustainable development, foreign languages, social welfare, and human rights could be taught to 8-year-old pupils; those regarding the environment, different cultures, social justice and equity, democracy, sustainable development, interdependence, social welfare, and human rights could be taught to pupils aged 9–10 years; students aged 11–12 years could be instructed in different cultures, democracy, and interdependence; sustainable development, and ASEAN history and culture, and the common social problems of ASEAN countries could be taught to 13– 14-year-old students, and, finally, foreign languages and the common social problems of ASEAN countries are appropriate topics for students aged 17 years and above.

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(4)

On questions related to Skills and abilities, the following significant observations were made:

196

H. Nagahama et al.

(a)

As to their specialization, the Filipino participants indicated that they very often deal with expressing opinions on social problems, having self-discipline and self-control, solving problems, making decisions, improving quality of life, and cooperating with each other; often deal with the 14 characteristics; and, perhaps most interestingly, seldom deal with foreign language usage behaving in accordance with the common rules and values of ASEAN countries, and solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people. With regard to the significance of the characteristics, participants reported that expressing opinions on social problems, having self-discipline and self-control, solving problems, making decisions, responding to ICT, peaceful resolutions, critical thinking, improving quality of life, cooperating with each other, sustainable development, and social commitment are very important, while foreign language usage, behaving in accordance with the common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people were important. As to the present degree of achievement of these characteristics, participants reported that expressing opinions on social problems, having self-discipline and self-control, solving problems, making decisions, responding to ICT, peaceful resolutions, critical thinking, improving quality of life, cooperating with each other, sustainable development, and social commitment had been achieved to some extent. The characteristics of foreign language usage, behaving in accordance with the common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people had not been achieved to the same level. Interestingly, and consistent with other responses, the ability to use foreign languages had not been efficiently achieved. In terms of the characteristics that participants expected to have achieved in 10 years’ time, they noted that the following had been completely achieved: expressing opinions on social problems, having self-discipline and self-control, solving problems, making decisions, critical thinking, improving quality of life, cooperating with each other, sustainable development, and social commitment. Furthermore, in 10 years, expressing opinions on social problems, skills concerning sustainable development, skills concerning social commitment, the ability to use foreign languages, responding to ICT, ability to make a peaceful resolution, thinking critically, behaving in accordance with the common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people were expected to have been achieved to some extent. With regard to the appropriate age to study the characteristics, the expert respondents said that having self-discipline and self-control, solving problems, making decisions, responding to ICT, peaceful resolutions, critical thinking, improving the quality of life, cooperating with each other, and sustainable development are best taught to 8-year-old pupils. Meanwhile, the respondents indicated that 9–10-year-olds could be taught the following characteristics: expressing opinions on social problems, solving problems, responding to ICT,

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

197

peaceful resolutions, critical thinking, improving quality of life, cooperating with each other, sustainable development, and social commitment. Expressing opinions on social problems, solving problems, making decisions, responding to ICT, critical thinking, foreign language usage, behaving in accordance with the common rules and values of ASEAN countries, and solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people were considered appropriate for 11–12-year olds. Finally, respondents believed that 13–14-yearold students could study the following characteristics: expressing opinions on social problems, solving problems, responding to ICT, peaceful resolutions, critical thinking, behaving in accordance with the common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people. (5)

Regarding the category of Values and attitudes, the following highlights were observed:

(a)

Regarding their specialization, the Filipino participants very often dealt with the following characteristics: preserving natural resources, protecting the environment and having an interest in its development, respecting cultural diversity, giving importance to the law, paying attention to global issues, respecting tradition and culture, having morality and pride as a nation, respecting democracy, and respecting human rights. All the characteristics related to values and attitudes were reported by the respondents as often dealt with in their teaching. Interestingly, they showed that intolerance to wrong things and injustice, emphasis on international cooperation, awareness of global issues, and belief in morality as a member of ASEAN were seldom dealt with in their work. As to the significance of the characteristics, respondents emphasized that all the characteristics were very important. Regarding their present degree of achievement of these characteristics, the respondents reported that all had been achieved to some extent. Regarding the achievement of the characteristics 10 years from now, respondents indicated that all characteristics would be completely achieved by that time. In terms of the appropriate ages for teaching the defined characteristics, the respondents suggested that preserving natural resources, protecting the environment and having an interest in its development, self-dependence, giving importance to the law, respecting tradition and culture, having morality and pride as a nation, respecting democracy, and respecting human rights were suitable topics for 8-year-old pupils. For pupils aged 9-10 years, the appropriate topics were considered to be intolerance of wrong things and injustice, preserving natural resources, protecting the environment and having an interest in its development, respecting cultural diversity, giving importance to the law, respecting tradition and culture, having morality and pride as a nation, respecting democracy, respecting human rights, thinking in a scientific

(b) (c) (d)

(e)

198

H. Nagahama et al.

way, keeping abreast of new science and technology, and having morality and pride as a member of ASEAN. For pupils aged 11–12 years, the most suitable topics were intolerance of wrong things and injustice, self-dependence, respecting cultural diversity, giving importance to the law, promoting international cooperation, paying attention to global issues, respecting tradition and cullture, having morality and pride as a nation, respecting democracy, thinking in a scientific way, keeping abreast of new science and technology, and having morality and pride as a member of ASEAN. Students aged 13–14 years were also considered to be of appropriate age to learn about the following characteristics: intolerance of wrong matters and injustice, self-dependence, respecting cultural diversity, placing importance on the law, promoting international cooperation, paying attention to global issues, respecting tradition and cullture, and having morality and pride as a member of ASEAN.

9.5 Comparison of the Students’ Citizenship Survey and the Delphi Survey From the students’ citizenship survey, discussed earlier in this article, it can be understood that students have learned and mastered the value of ASEANness, which is required for the new citizenship, but they do not yet have sufficient knowledge of each member country of ASEAN. It is evident that while they are aware that ASEANness is expected in the future, they are not learning sufficiently about it in social studies and other subject areas in primary and secondary education. This not only indicates a lack of learning, but also reflects the fact that experts (educators) understand that there is a lot of content associated with qualities and values that should be taught in higher grades, as shown in the Delphi survey. In other words, it can be inferred from the experts’ opinions that the formation of an identity rooted in the new citizenship of ASEANness is founded on the formation of an identity as a Filipino and as a citizen of the world. However, the importance of ASEAN has been included as a learning content in the K to 12 education reform, and it is expected that the understanding of both awareness and knowledge of ASEANness will be improved in the future, along with the deepening of learning about the nature of diverse citizenship through value education. In addition, although foreign language education is inadequate at present, the reasons behind the lack of emphasis on learning foreign languages must be understood on the premise that the Philippines is already a multilingual society, with many local languages, the national language (Filipino), and English (the official language) being used as everyday languages. If a foreign language assumed by both pupils and educators is a third language other than English, it is not at all unnatural to think that it is important to raise English to a higher level than that. The school education system in the Philippines has been struggling for years to find an appropriate balance in teaching the three above-mentioned languages. As a result, while English proficiency in the Philippines has supplemented the national treasury by sending people abroad to work, at the same time it has caused a brain

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

199

drain; therefore, the issue of foreign languages is considered rather delicate. However, from the perspective of understanding ASEAN, learning foreign languages other than English has some significance. This is because the acquisition of foreign languages as expertise will be a challenge for the Philippines in the future, as can be seen from the modest evaluation of educators in the Delphi survey. Understandably, the result of the uncertainty of the pupils’ knowledge about ASEAN is a problem on the part of the teaching staff. There may be a perception that they are well prepared for learning after entering secondary education. However, although educators teach many values and qualities, even at the secondary level, the teaching of values and qualities that cultivate knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, values, and attitudes about ASEAN is not always at the same level as that of other values and qualities. In addition to teaching the qualities required in any society, such as democracy, human rights, peaceful resolution, and compliance with laws and regulations, it is necessary to teach the students what these qualities mean globally and, especially, in the ASEAN region. In fact, although the students are not knowledgeable enough, they are politically and economically interested in the kinds of relationships they can build with other ASEAN countries in the future and how the Philippines can deal with the international community. Under the tense situation of territorial disputes in the South China Sea, which sometimes directly affect the interests of Southeast Asian countries, the question of whether ASEAN can take a “unified stance” is a crucial issue in determining how much the AEC will grow into a regional community. The question of whether the AEC can demonstrate a unified stance as a regional community is also a crucial issue for the future growth of the AEC. The educators who participated in the Delphi survey also reaffirmed the geopolitical necessity of teaching the new regional identity of ASEANness through social science subjects. It is also possible to foresee the possibility of the emergence of a sense of ASEAN solidarity. Additionally, there is a growing possibility that, during active exchanges with East Asia and other countries that differ from the Southeast Asian diplomacy of the past, the groundwork for an awareness of ASEANness will be laid.

9.6 Conclusion In response to the development of AEC, “regional ASEAN solidarity” has been proposed as a new value related to national identity in educational reform in the Philippines. In the field of education, the promotion of the ASEAN Social and Cultural Community (ASCC) aims to form a regional community identity, ASEANness, that is, a shared identity with ASEAN countries. It is based on the following concepts: (i) the promotion of ASEAN awareness as ASEAN citizens, especially among young people, (ii) strengthening ASEAN identity through education, (iii) building ASEAN human resources in the field of education, and (iv) the educational effort of building inter-university networks, which have been advocated at the ASEAN Education Ministers’ Meeting. This enhancement of ASEANness has been

200

H. Nagahama et al.

extended to other projects in the field of education, and SEAMEO INNOTECH’s involvement in education reform is evidence of this. What this current AEC has established and understands is that it is a different regional community than the European Union: The EU is not only an economical but also a political community sharing democratic beliefs, based on which it implements a rule-of-law policy with conditions that complement each other via certain common economic policies. In that sense, the AEC could be compared to the EU’s former incarnation, the European Economic Community (EEC), which was not based on a strict ratification of policy agreements and treaties. The current objective of the AEC is to form a framework for a regional economic partnership aimed at accelerating economic growth through trade liberalization and market integration within the region; thus, the AEC can be seen as a current situation where many stakeholders are promoting their own agendas, which may be an unavoidable process in the formation of a new regional framework. This current forming of an economic community is a tentative process aiming to allow each state to expect clear benefits in what is predicted to be a new vehicle of economic growth in Asia. It will be difficult but imperative for the people of ASEAN countries to rapidly form a new identity, that of ASEANness. On the other hand, as shown in the survey results, teaching citizenship in Asia as ASEANness is considered more appropriate during secondary school due to its delicate character, which touches upon students’ national and personal identities. As mentioned earlier, ASEANness is becoming more significant than teachers and experts judge, and students now realize that they must also be aware of ASEAN membership. It is believed that through basic education, children in the Philippines will be able to realize and make sense of the reality of ASEANness in their society and create a new identity to expand their already multi-tiered characters, regarding which consistency will be found soon. The country’s former president, Rodrigo R. Duterte, who is noted for his extreme remarks and security policy, fully understands that a nation can only be built by improving cooperation with ASEAN (AEC) and other foreign countries, thus, improving economic cooperation and education.

References Camposano, C. C. (2019). Citizenship and civic education: A critical elaboration on the pedagogy of Rizal’s La Liga Filipina. Philippine Journal of Public Policy: Interdisciplinary Development Perspectives, pp. 1–28. Retrieved June 22, 2021, from https://cids.up.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/ Camposano-Article-2019.pdf. Cortes, J. R. (1983). The Philippines. In Neville Postlethwaite, T. & Murray Thomas, R. (Eds.), Schooling in the ASEAN region (pp.). Oxford: Pergamon. Department of Education. (2019). DepEd Order No. 21, s. 2019 - Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program. Department of Education. (2019). PISA 2018 national report of the Philippines. Pasig City: Department of Education. Ishida, K. (1995). Fyiripin niokeru Barangay Highschool no Setsutitukatei nikansuru Kosatu Chousa (A study of formation of Barangay Highschool System in the Philippines). Hikaku Kyouikugaku

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

201

Kenkyu (Comparative Education), Nihon Hikaku Kyouiku gakkai (Japan Comparative Education Society (JCES)), 21, 50–59. Morishita, M. (2013). ASEAN Shokoku niokeru Shiminsei ni kansuru Jidouseito heno Ankeeto Chousa (A questionnaire survey to the students on citizenship in the ASEAN countries). Hikaku Kyouikugaku Kenkyuu (Comparative Education). Japan Comparative Education Society, 46, 118– 133. Toshindo. OECD. (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework, OECD. Retrieved June 22, 2021, from https://www.oecd.org/education/ Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf. Romero, R. C. (2002). Human rights education in selected UNESCO associated schools in the Philippines. Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, 5, 27–33. SEAMEO INNOTECH. (2012). K-12 toolkit: A reference guide for teacher educators, school administrators and teachers. SEAMEO INNOTECH. Sison, C. V. (1999). The 1987, 1973, and 1935 Philippine constitutions: A comparative table. University of the Philippines Law Center. Tuga, J. B. (2016). Comparing global citizenship education pedagogies in southeast Asia: Towards the development of a model of GCE integration in teacher education. Ph.D. dissertation for Philippine Normal University, p. 324. UNESCO. (2015). Philippine education for all 2015 review report. Originally submitted to the UNESCO’s World Education Forum (Incheon, Republic of Korea, 19-22 May 2015).

Chapter 10

Citizenship Education in Singapore: Implementation of Character and Citizenship Education and Revised National Education Mitsuhiro Ikeda Abstract In Singapore, as an immigrant state and multiethnic society, moral education and citizenship education have always been a national issue. The government has promoted various moral education programs to integrate ethnic groups and develop human resources. Moral education from the early days to the 1990s had mainly emphasized state-oriented, abstract ideas such as Confucian ethics, and Asian values, and the norms of behavior as a good citizen. However, the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), which was introduced to primary and secondary schools in 2014, has become more student-centered and has taken effective approaches. In moral education, ASEAN topics had been used to emphasize the need for Singapore’s national integration and its successful economic development. In Singapore, as an English-speaking society, global citizenship had been recognized as more important than ASEAN citizenship. However, a new curriculum plan, announced by the Ministry of Education in 2020, would change this trend. The plan consists of the following three areas: “Enhancing CCE,” “Knowing Asia,” and “Strengthening Digital Literacy.” Under the new curriculum, an enhanced humanities curriculum, including social studies, geography, history, and economics, will be enhanced for a deeper understanding of Asia, including ASEAN at the secondary and pre-university levels. It seems to be developed and strengthened the complementary relationship between CCE, which is responsible for the education of moral and cultural values, and humanities subjects, which are designed to foster global awareness through the learning of Asia’s growth. Since the author could not conduct a questionnaire survey to the students and a Delphi survey on Singapore due to the tight school hours, this chapter provides an overview of the history and current situation of moral education and citizenship education in Singapore. Keywords Character and citizenship education · Civics and moral education · Global awareness · National education

M. Ikeda (B) Faculty of Human and Social Services, Yamanashi Prefectural University, Iida 5-11-1, Kofu-city 400-0035, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_10

203

204

M. Ikeda

10.1 Introduction: Overview of Educational System, Curriculum, and so on or Background of Citizenship Education 10.1.1 Historical and Social Background of Moral Education In the British colony of Singapore in the late nineteenth century, the population was deeply divided along ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines. Socially, racial groups, such as the Chinese, Malays, Indians, and the British colonial government separately established and managed each school to teach their cultures and languages. Their schools also fostered the children’s loyalty to their communities and homelands. In 1965, Singapore separated from Malaysia and became a sovereign state. The government immediately launched various educational policies to foster the national identity as Singaporean among its people. However, these policies also aimed to undermine the ethnocentric mindset of each ethnic group. Through the public school system, the government and the Ministry of Education have long endeavored to strengthen their national identity as Singaporean. Moral education, especially in the early days, played an important role in uniting people with different values and in advancing nation-building. From the 1950s to the 1970s, the government introduced and implemented various moral education programs and related activities in public schools to enhance national unity and citizenship, including the following: • 1959 The Ministry of Education published a syllabus to teach ethics in primary and secondary schools. The syllabus aimed to inculcate ethical values such as “politeness,” “honesty,” “perseverance,” and “kindness.” The objective was to “lay the foundation for character development in young children so that they would develop into self-respecting individuals and good citizens” (Ong et al., 1979, p. 2). • 1966 After Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965, a bilingual education policy became compulsory in all secondary schools. Moreover, the Ministry of Education launched various practical programs to equip children with awareness as Singaporean citizens with a sense of social responsibility. For example, a national flag raising ceremony, which practiced taking the national pledge and singing the national anthem, was instituted in all schools. The Civics Training Subject Committee was formed that year to develop a new civics syllabus. • 1967 The Committee published the civics syllabus to replace ethics, which aimed to foster Singaporean pupils with a love for their country and its people. The syllabus for primary schools emphasized values such as “patriotism,” “loyalty,” and “civic consciousness.” Civics for secondary schools was composed using six broad themes: the individual, family, school, community, nation, and the world. Civics, as a compulsory but non-examination subject, was introduced to all Chinese- and English-medium schools by 1968.

10 Citizenship Education in Singapore …

205

• 1974 Education for Living (EFL), which combined civics with history and geography, was introduced into primary schools. EFL contained both moral and social education, with the aim of enabling pupils to obtain a better understanding of the geographical environment and economic realities of the country.

10.1.2 Two Ministry Reports in 1979 and the Beginning of Religious Education in 1984 By the late 1970s, Singapore had succeeded in achieving spectacular economic growth and rapid industrialization. However, the Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, and the People’s Action Party (PAP) leaders had developed fears that young Singaporeans would gradually lose their distinctive Asian values with their increasing use of English and adoption of Western culture and values. The year 1979 was a landmark year in which the Ministry of Education published two prestigious reports, the Report on the Ministry of Education and the Report on Moral Education. These reports intensely criticized the trend of Westernization among young Singaporeans and the curriculum and practice of existing moral education. The first report, produced by the influential Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Goh Keng Swee, mainly focused on the direction of reform toward effective bilingual education, but another focus was the values debate. The report devoted a section to the topic of moral education, and was convinced that much of the material in the EFL textbooks was “irrelevant and useless. Subjects such as the use of community centers, functions of government outpatient clinics are of little value in inculcating moral beliefs in children” (Goh, 1979, p. 1–5). It also acknowledged that previous moral education “may not be sufficient to provide the cultural ballast to withstand the stress of living in a fast-changing society,” and strongly warned that “with the large-scale movement to education in English, the risk of deculturization cannot be ignored” (Goh, 1979, p. 1–5). Therefore, Dr. Goh proposed that “One way to overcoming the dangers of deculturization is to teach children the historical origins of their culture. Chinese pupils could be taught in the Chinese language in secondary school early Chinese history up to the setting up of the Confucian state in the Han dynasty; Indians, the ancient history of India; and Malays, the early history of their peoples and the Archipelago” (Goh, 1979, p. 1–5). Prime Minister Lee agreed with his confidant’s views on moral education. Specifically, he asserted the relation between building good citizenship and the ethics of Confucianism. He suggested that “the greatest values in the teaching and learning of Chinese is in the transmission of the norms of social or moral behavior. This means principally Confucianist beliefs and ideas, of man, society, and the state” (Goh, 1979, p. v). Four months after the Goh report was published, Ong Teng Chong, the Minister for Communication, and his Moral Education Committee submitted the Report on Moral Education to Dr. Goh. The report pointed out that EFL for the primary level

206

M. Ikeda

and Civics for the secondary level were too broad and had little direct relevance to moral education. The report noted that the “presentation in the civics textbooks is generally dull and somewhat factual and dogmatic. There are too many ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ without adequate explanation and illustration of the “‘why’ and ‘how’” (Ong et al., 1979, p. 5). Therefore, it called for these subjects to be scrapped and replaced with a “Moral Education” program that covered both primary and secondary levels under the charge of a single subject standing committee. For its development, the Committee had studied moral education in Japan, Taiwan, and the former USSR, and suggested that the Moral Education program focuses on three main areas: personal behavior, social responsibility, and loyalty to the country. Moreover, the report observed that many teachers in mission schools “have a strong religious background, which lends support to their teaching of EFL and Civics” (Ong et al., 1979, p. 7). Thus, the report acknowledged the important role that religious studies played in promoting moral values among young Singaporeans. Consequently, following the Goh and Ong reports of 1979, two new citizenship education programs, the “Good Citizens” program for primary schools and the “Being and Becoming” program for secondary schools, replaced EFL and civics, respectively, in 1981. The “Good Citizens” program used a didactic, teacher-centered approach. This approach was later found wanting in transmitting values and in meeting the pupils’ needs. Conversely, the “Being and Becoming” program encouraged pupils to deliberate and reflect on value issues and then debate and arrive at their own judgments. Another outcome from the Ong report was manifested in the introduction of Religious Knowledge in 1982. This was made a compulsory subject for upper secondary level students, who were offered six options: Bible Knowledge, Buddhist Studies, Islamic Religious Knowledge, Hindu Studies, Sikh Studies, and Confucian Ethics. Even though Confucian Ethics was only one of six options in the Religious Knowledge curriculum, the PAP leaders and mass media eagerly praised and encouraged Confucianism. A group of Confucian scholars from the United States and Taiwan were invited to Singapore by the government in 1982 for three weeks of discussions, lectures, and consultations. They agreed with the government’s view and efforts that the preponderance of the Chinese in Singapore made it justifiable to introduce the teachings of Confucianism. However, Singaporean society’s excessive preoccupation with Confucianism made the non-Chinese in Singapore feel threatened that “Confucianism may be used by the government to displace other religions. They are also concerned that Chinese chauvinism may eventually dominate other groups” (Vasil, 1995, p. 73). Moreover, in the late 1980s, Religious Knowledge explicitly recognized the potential problem. The government was faced with a dramatic shift among the young, especially the English-educated Chinese, toward the rapidly growing and charismatic Christian churches. By the end of the decade, Religious Knowledge, including Confucian Ethics, was abandoned when it was made a non-compulsory option subject, as it was perceived as threatening ethnic harmony and heightening religious fervor. The “Being and Becoming” and “Good Citizens” program were unsuccessful in achieving the government’s goals for citizenship education. In 1992, they were

10 Citizenship Education in Singapore …

207

replaced with the Civics and Moral Education (CME) program for primary and secondary level students as a compulsory, non-examinable subject. The aim of CME was to develop a commitment to nation-building. Disseminating messages about the success story of the country and its fragile condition, CME emphasized moral and political socialization. Students were taught the major difficulties faced by Singapore since independence, as well as issues of national concern, such as population growth, racial and religious harmony, economic growth, and national security. Students were also encouraged to think about the ways that they could support and contribute to national campaigns.

10.1.3 Discussion of “National Ideology” and the “Shared Values” Project On October 28, 1988, the First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong raised the notion of a national ideology: a set of core Asian values. He stated that “Like Japan and Korea, Singapore is a high-performance country because we share the same cultural base as the successful East Asians, that is, Confucian ethics. We have the same core values which made the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese succeed. If we want to continue to prosper, we must not lose our core values such as hard work, thrift, and sacrifice. The question is how to preserve them when daily we are exposed to alien influences. My suggestion is: formalize our values in a national ideology and then teach them in schools, workplaces, homes, as our way of life” (Speeches, 1988. p. 15). By quoting the success of Pancasila in Indonesia and Rukunegara in Malaysia in giving people a strong sense of unity, he emphasized the importance of Singapore building its own ideology based on Asian values for Singaporeans. In other words, the government seemed to attempt to embrace the spirit of Confucianism by using the concept of a national ideology as a set of core Asian values so that it could be widely accepted by all ethnic and religious groups. This attempt was incorporated in the opening of Parliament on January 9, 1989, by President We Kim Wee. Early in the same year, the Institute of Policy Studies was requested to conduct a study to identify national values. In June 1990, the Institute published its report as a result of the study to facilitate public discussion and debate on the issues. The government’s White Paper on Shared Values was issued on January 6, 1991, and was reported in the media. It was debated in Parliament on January 14. The White Paper proposed that the following should form the basis for developing shared values among Singaporeans: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Nation before community and society above self. Family as the basic unit of society. Regard and community support for the individual. Consensus instead of contention. Racial and religious harmony.

208

M. Ikeda

Following the government’s White Paper on Shared Values, the Ministry of Community Development announced the Singapore Family Values in 1994. These are. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Love, care, and concern. Mutual respect. Filial responsibility. Commitment. Communication.

The CME syllabus for primary schools was published in 2000 and emphasized these core values in the teaching of CME. The syllabus stated that “To enable us to realize the goal and objectives of the Civics and Moral Education programs in our primary school pupils, five broad themes are drawn up. These themes reflect the structure of relationships that pupils will be inducted into, beginning first from self, moving on to the family and school, and finally extending to the society and the nation. Within the parameters of relationships extending from self to the nation, pupils are equipped with knowledge, skills, and attitudes that reflect the values and principles deemed important and good, and upheld by society, which include our Shared Values, Singapore Family Values, and the Desired Outcomes of Education” (CME syllabus, 2000, p. 3). The CME textbooks took up these values and tried to make pupils believe in these values.

10.1.4 Introduction of “National Education” and the “Desired Outcomes of Education” At the Teachers’ Day Rally on September 8, 1996, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong announced a major initiative to strengthen National Education (NE) in schools and establish a NE Committee to chart the plans for NE. The Committee established 13 project teams and was designed to develop strategies and measures for the implementation of the NE program in schools. Following recommendations by the Committee, in 1997, NE was introduced across multiple subjects, unlike the CME had been implemented as a single subject that occupied one period per week. As Key subjects of NE, especially Social Studies and CME for primary level, and History, Geography, and CME for secondary level, were expected to foster students’ sense of identity, pride, and self-respect as Singaporeans, both effectively and creatively. The objectives of NE were to develop students’ national identity by understanding the history and uniqueness of Singapore through experiential and active learning. The Learning Journey and the Community Involvement Program are well-known NE initiatives. Many students were encouraged to attend some activities, such as, visiting historical heritage and national institutions regularly as their Learning Journey to conduct research, or undertaking six hours of community service in elderly homes through the Community Involvement Program.

10 Citizenship Education in Singapore …

209

In August 1997, the prime minister launched the Singapore 21 Committee with the aim of strengthening the “heartware” of the Republic in the twenty-first century. In the face of the rapid changes and increasing uncertainty in the modern world, the Committee discussed how to enhance mutual respect, trust, and participation for citizens so that they might improve the ability to work together to solve complex or uncertain problems. As a way forward, the Committee proposed the notions of the “active citizen” and “active citizenship.” The “active citizen” meant that all citizens should realize that they have a stake in the country and should recognize Singapore as “the best home possible.” “Active citizenship” involved a partnership with social, public, and private sectors in the process of offering feedback and suggestions, and in being actively involved in the community and charitable work. In response to the NE initiatives and the Singapore 21 vision, the Ministry of Education announced the Desired Outcomes of Education (DOE) as a set of developmental outcomes for each key stage of the education system. As aforementioned, the CME syllabus also referred to the DOE concept in the following table. The DOE expressed that students should not only be “creative,” “innovative,” and “enterprising” to be well adapted to the knowledge-based economy but also have loyalty and a patriotic spirit to counter globalization. Throughout, the DOE “have given greater emphasis to values-based and student-centric education, maintaining social cohesion remains to be fundamental to a small multiracial nation state” (Boon & Wong, 2019, p. 183). Until the 1990s, Singapore’s moral education was dogma-like and state-oriented by advocating conservative Asian values such as Confucianism. However, it would seem that the concept of citizenship, which was announced to Singaporean society just before the twenty-first century, has emphasized competencies that actually contribute to economic growth and social cohesion via the DOE.

10.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Implementation of “Character and Citizenship Education” and Revived NE A new subject, the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), was introduced to primary and secondary schools in 2014 and Junior Colleges (JC) in 2016. The CCE aims to “inculcate values and build competencies in students to develop them to be good individuals and useful citizens” (CCE (primary) syllabus, 2014, p. 1) in a fastchanging and globalized world. It develops students through their understanding of the values that define Singaporean society, and inspires them to show concern about the world they live in and demonstrate empathy in their relationships with others. The goal of CCE is to foster students with six core values (Respect, Responsibility, Resilience, Integrity, Care, and Harmony) that are fundamental for a person of good character and a useful citizen of Singapore. The core values are derived from the

210

M. Ikeda

Shared Values, the Singapore Family Values, the Singapore 21 Vision, and the NE messages. The Learning Outcomes (LOs) of CCE (Table 10.1) indicate what moral values students should learn and achieve at each stage. The syllabus states that “LOs 1 to 4 depict different aspects of character building that are interrelated and feature social and emotional competencies. LOs 5 to 8 are guided by key tenets of 21st-century citizenship and are arranged according to attributes of citizenship such as identity, culture, and active, responsible engagement as a member of society” (CCE (primary) syllabus, 2014, p. 5) (Table 10.2). Students learn values through three overarching ideas (Identity, Relationships, and Choices) in six domains, starting with one’s own self and extending to the family, school, community, nation, and the world. Table 10.3 illustrates key questions for guiding primary and secondary school students to understand the habits, values, attitudes, competencies, and skills that they have in order to handle diverse life experiences (CCE (primary) syllabus, 2014, p. 12). As a theme related to “the world,” the CCE textbook of primary school introduces the relief activities by the Singapore Red Cross Society and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) for survivors of natural disasters in other countries. As a topic of Table 10.1 The key stage outcomes of education. Source MOE (n.d.), The Desired Outcomes of Education At the end of primary school, pupils should:

At the end of secondary school, students should:

At the end of post-secondary education, students should:

Be able to distinguish right from Have moral integrity wrong

Have moral courage to stand up for what is right

Know their strengths and areas for growth

Believe in their abilities and be able to adapt to change

Be resilient in the face of adversity

Be able to cooperate, share and care for others

Be able to work in teams and show empathy for others

Be able to collaborate across cultures and be socially responsible

Have a lively curiosity about things

Be creative and have an inquiring mind

Be innovative and enterprising

Be able to think for and express Be able to appreciate diverse themselves confidently views and communicate effectively

Be able to think critically and communicate persuasively

Take pride in their work

Take responsibility for their own learning

Be purposeful in pursuit of excellence

Have healthy habits and an awareness of the arts

Enjoy physical activities and appreciate the arts

Pursue a healthy lifestyle and have an appreciation for aesthetics

Know and love Singapore

Believe in Singapore and understand what matters to Singapore

Be proud to be Singaporean and understand Singapore in relation to the world

10 Citizenship Education in Singapore …

211

Table 10.2 Character and citizenship education learning outcomes. Source MOE (2014) LO 1

Acquire self-awareness and apply self-management skills to achieve personal well-being and effectiveness

LO 2

Act with integrity and make responsible decisions that uphold moral principles

LO 3

Acquire social awareness and apply interpersonal skills to build and maintain positive relationships based on mutual respect

LO 4

Be resilient and have the ability to turn challenges into opportunities

LO 5

Take pride in our national identity, have a sense of belonging to Singapore and be committed to nation-building

LO 6

Value Singapore’s socio-cultural diversity, and promote social cohesion and harmony

LO 7

Care for others and contribute actively to the progress of our community and nation

LO 8

Reflect on and respond to community, national and global issues, as an informed and responsible citizen

Table 10.3 Domains and key questions. Source MOE (2014) Domains

Key questions Identity

Relationships

Choices

Self

Being who I am How am I similar and becoming who to others? I can be How am I different from others?

How does the way I perceive and manage myself affect my relationship with others?

How are the choices I make good for others and me?

Family

Strengthening family ties

Who am I in my family?

How do I build and maintain relationships in my family?

How would my actions affect my family and myself?

School

Fostering healthy friendships and team spirit

How am I a friend to others? What are our roles when we work in a team?

Who are my friends? How do we work well together?

What do I want in a friendship? How would we use our strengths to build a team?

How do we understand and relate to others in an inclusive society?

What are our roles in building an inclusive society?

Community Understanding our What is an community and inclusive society building an to us? inclusive society Nation

Developing a sense of national identity and nation-building

What makes us Singaporeans?

How do my relationships with others contribute to nation-building?

How would we demonstrate our commitment to the well-being of Singapore?

World

Being an active citizen in a globalized world

What does it mean to be an active citizen in a globalized world?

How do we interact with the people in a globalized world?

How would we use our strengths and abilities to meet the needs of a globalized world?

212

M. Ikeda

Table 10.4 Curriculum timetable for CCE. Source MOE (2014, 2016) Primary (P1–3)

CCE lessons (30 hours)

Primary (P4)

CCE lessons (45 hours)

Primary (P5–6)

CCE lessons (45 hours)

Secondary (S1–S5) Pre-university

CCE lessons (20 hours) CCE lessons (40 hours)

School-based Total: 60 hours CCE per year (15 hours) School-based Total: 75 hours FTGP CCE per year (15 hours) (15 hours) School-based FTGP SEd Total: 75 hours CCE (15 hours) (4) per year (11 hours) School-based Guidance Total: 60 hours CCE modules per year (27 hours) (13 hours) Customized Total: Over 80 hours Cohort-level CCE CCE learning in 2 years (for JC) (40 hours) experience /3 years (for CI) FTGP (15 hours)

ASEAN, the textbook addresses that the SAF tried to communicate with the Indonesian people to provide what was useful to them when the Sumatra tsunami happened in Indonesia. The CCE curriculum at the primary and secondary level comprises CCE lessons, Form Teacher Guidance Period (FTGP), school-based CCE, and the CCE Guidance module. At the pre-university level, namely JC and the centralized institute, the components of CCE are CCE lessons, cohort-level CCE, and customized CCE learning experiences (CCE (primary) syllabus, 2014, p. 7; CCE (secondary) syllabus, 2014, p. 6; CCE (Pre-University) syllabus, 2016, p. 14) (Table 10.4). To learn about the myths, traditions, and cultural heritage of their own ethnic groups, the CCE lessons at the primary levels are taught in the Mother Tongue Language (MTL), namely Chinese, Malay, and Tamil. For the primary and secondary students that use minority languages except for their MTL, the CCE lessons are taught in English. In the FTGP lessons, form teachers interact with students through discussion and activities and teach Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), such as the lessons on Cyber Wellness, the Education and Career Guidance and Protection from Abuse. The school-based CCE is given the space and flexibility to customize and deliver the lesson over 11 to 15 h per year. This could include activities that focus on school values, such as school-wide commemoration and any assembly programs. The CCE Guidance module, namely Sexuality Education (SEd), addresses issues associated with child and adolescent development. Schools are required to set aside four hours a year in Primary 5 and 6 to deliver SEd. The CCE pedagogy is drawn from the constructivist theories. The teaching approaches aim to facilitate the learning of skills and internalization of values through action and reflection, as learners learn best when they are actively engaged. Teachers can use their repertoire of process-based approaches to select relevant instructional strategies such as role-play, dialoguing, cooperative learning, reflection, and group work to engage students in learning CCE. Since the start of 1997, NE faced many challenges in teaching. Over 10 years later in 2007, the Minister of State for Education mentioned that while students “enjoyed

10 Citizenship Education in Singapore …

213

NE in primary school, they became somewhat skeptical of NE at the secondary school level and beyond. A good number found Social Studies, which they equated most with NE, as burdensome, boring, or worse, relegated it to ‘propaganda’” (MOE, 2007). To refresh the situation, following a year-long review that was concluded in 2017, the NE Review Committee revised the purposes, curriculum, and methods to help children become more familiar with it. They recommended that NE should be a more aspirational and empowering process where students explore and examine their identity as citizens of society and the world, and arrive at a common set of ideals and values. The review report prescribed that NE should be rooted in the following citizenship dispositions: A sense of belonging, a sense of reality, a sense of hope, and the will to act. Moreover, the curriculum should be redesigned to allow students to exercise ownership of their community, build stronger relationships with their peers in an increasingly diverse society, and initiate ways to contribute to the nation in order to nurture a commitment to take action.

10.3 Conclusion 10.3.1 Summary In Singapore, as an immigrant state and multiethnic society, moral education and citizenship education have always been a national concern. The government has put in place various national initiatives such as “Civics,” “EFL,” “Being and Becoming,” “Good Citizens,” “Confucian Ethics,” within the “Religious Knowledge,” “CME,” “NE,” and the recent “CCE.” Moral education from the early days to the 1990s had mainly emphasized stateoriented, abstract ideas such as Confucian ethics, and Asian values, and the norms of behavior as a good citizen. However, since the 2000s, citizenship education has become more student-centered and has taken effective approaches that include SEL and holistic education. To achieve these methods, the current CCE policy has provided each school with sufficient space to customize their own unique curricula. Each school has the autonomy to develop its own teaching and learning materials to meet the interests of students and the specific needs of their neighborhood communities. This means that school leaders and teachers need to further improve their creativity, flexibility, and communication skills in order to develop the CCE curriculum in the twenty-first century.

10.3.2 Future Outlook In March 2020, the Ministry of Education announced a curriculum reform plan consisting of the following three areas: “Enhancing CCE,” “Knowing Asia,” and

214

M. Ikeda

“Strengthening Digital Literacy.” Under a new CCE curriculum, the Ministry of Education will enhance mental health and cyber wellness education across the primary and secondary levels. Moreover, they will emphasize the teaching of moral and cultural values during CCE lessons via mother tongue languages in primary schools, and the regular discussion of contemporary issues in secondary schools. With a deeper focus on ASEAN, China, and India, an enhanced humanities curriculum, including social studies, geography, history, and economics, will highlight the importance of the region at the secondary and pre-university levels. It seems to be developed and strengthened that complementary relationship between CCE, which is responsible for the education of moral and cultural values, and humanities subjects designed to foster global awareness through the learning of Asia’s growth.

References Boon, Z., & Wong, B. (2019). Character and citizenship education, Wong, Benjamin, Hairon, Salleh, Ng, Pak Tee. (Eds.). School leadership and educational change in Singapore, Switzerland: Springer. Goh, K. S., & the Study Team. (1979). Report on the mininistry of education 1978, Singapore: Ministry of Education Singapore. Ministry of Communication and Information Singapore. (1988). Speeches, a bimonthly selection of ministerial speeches. Ministry of Education Singapore. (2000). Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Civics and moral education syllabus—primary school, 2000. Ministry of Education Singapore. (2007). FY 2007 committee of supply debate. 3rd reply by MOS Lui Tuck Yew on national education enhancing NE: Strengthening heartware and rootedness. Retrieved April 1, 2020 from, https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20070307981. pdf. Ministry of Education Singapore, Student Development Curriculum Division. (2014). 2014 Character and citizenship education (primary) syllabus (English). Ministry of Education Singapore, Student Development Curriculum Division, (2016). Character and citizenship education (pre-university) syllabus: implementation starting from 2016. Ministry of Education Singapore (n.d.). The desired outcomes of education, Retrieved March 25, 2020 from, https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-system/desired-outcomes-of-edu cation. Ong, T. C., & Moral Education Committee. (1979). Report on moral education 1979, Ministry of Education Singapore. Vasil, R. (1995). Asianising Singapore: The PAP’s management of ethnicity, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore: Heinemann Asia Singapore.

Chapter 11

Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence of Traditional Citizenship to the Next Step Sunate Kampeeraparb, Koro Suzuki, Chantana Chanbanchong, Sumlee Thongthew, Sumontip Boonsombuti, and Waraiporn Sangnapaboworn Abstract This research provides a background on citizenship education in Thailand, conducts an analysis of the national core curriculum, and presents the results of a questionnaire survey administered to students and a Delphi survey administered to Thai experts on education. Thai society changed dramatically after the surge of globalization in the 1990s. The first national education law in history was enacted in 1999. The purpose of the law was to establish a global standard for the Thai nation and to foster Thai citizenry who can survive in the twenty-first century. Citizenship education provided by the current Basic Education Core Curriculum of 2008 is integrated into learning areas of Social Studies, Religion, and Culture as well as in the Thai Language. Furthermore, citizenship education through Social Studies, Religion, S. Kampeeraparb (B) Graduate School of International Development, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan e-mail: [email protected] K. Suzuki The Community Center for the Advancement of Education and Research, University of Kochi, 2-22 Eikokuji-cho, Kochi 780-8515, Japan e-mail: [email protected] C. Chanbanchong Faculty of Education, Naresuan University, Pitsanulok 65000, Thailand e-mail: [email protected] S. Thongthew Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Phayathai Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand e-mail: [email protected] S. Boonsombuti (Deceased) School of Educational Studies, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, Chaengwattana Road, Bangpood, Pakkret, Nonthaburi 11120, Thailand W. Sangnapaboworn The Suk-Kaew Kaewdang Foundation, 39/3 Moo 2, Lam Phaya, Muang Yala, Yala 95160, Thailand e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_11

215

216

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

and Culture is explicitly stated under the guidelines of Strand 2: Civics, Culture and Living in Society. In 2011, a questionnaire survey on citizenship education was conducted on students in grades 6, 9, and 12 in Bangkok, Thailand (n = 592). The Delphi survey was conducted in 2013 with Thai experts on education (n = 268). The aim of these surveys is to clarify what citizenship characteristics are required for students in Thailand, what has been achieved at present and what should be achieved a decade later—namely, more effort should be put into the Regional, Global, and Universal levels while maintaining Thai-ness at the Local and National levels. Many see that Thailand should be one actor in the ASEAN community; at the same time, education to promote knowledge of ASEAN and cultivate ASEANness should be encouraged. Therefore, in order to promote ASEAN literacy, Thailand should foster the foundation of citizenship relevant to the Thai context and integrate knowledge, understanding, and skills related to ASEAN into the school curriculum in a step-bystep manner. Keywords ASEAN literacy · Basic Education Core Curriculum of 2008 · Citizenship education in Thailand · Thailand’s Delphi survey

11.1 Introduction Unlike neighboring Southeast Asian countries, Thailand was never colonized by Western powers, and therefore its education system was developed from within (Watson, 1980). From the latter half of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century, modernization of national education was promoted and a modern school education system was introduced. In 1921, a compulsory education system was legally established and a national education system began to emerge. After the 1960s, human resource development was promoted for the economic development of the country. Primary education became widespread in the 1980s followed by lower secondary education in the 1990s. Since the 1990s, the wave of globalization has surged and Thai society has changed dramatically (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, 1996). Around 1996, educational policies to cope with globalization were launched in rapid succession. However, in 1997, the country was faced with a lifeor-death economic situation triggered by the Asian financial crisis. This led to calls for political, economic, social, cultural, and educational reforms in Thailand. Following the enactment of the 16th Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand in 1997, the first national education law in history was enacted in 1999 (Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, 1997, 1997). This law fundamentally reformed education in Thailand by establishing a global standard and fostering Thai citizenry who can survive in the twenty-first century. This educational reform is the biggest reform since the modernization of education.

11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence …

217

11.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Policies and Curriculum Based on the experience of the financial crisis, extant policies, and reports of various committees, this educational reform aimed not only to drastically reform education, but also to maintain competition in a global society while restructuring Thailand’s social, political, economic, and cultural systems. The essence of the reform would be “construction of a global standard for Thailand” (Department of Curriculum and Instruction Development, 2002, 1). In the wake of the currency crisis, the government was keenly aware of the need to train the Thai citizenry to survive in the twenty-firstcentury global community. Educational reform under the Education Law of 1999 covers a wide range of issues, including administrative reform of education, legislation of educational rights, reform of educational methods, reform of teachers, and the introduction of a system to guarantee the quality of education (Office of the National Education Commission, 1999). The Education Law of 1999 stipulated in Article 6 that “education should aim to make Thais perfect human beings in all aspects of body, mind, intelligence, knowledge and morals, to acquire ethics and culture for living, and to be able to coexist happily with others.” Therefore, in Article 7, in the learning process, the following goals are emphasized: “to correctly recognize the monarchal democratic system; to maintain and promote rights, duties, freedom, legal compliance, equality, and dignity as a human being; to take pride in being Thai; to protect the interests of the public and the state; to promote religion, art, national culture, sports, local wisdom, Thai wisdom, and universal knowledge; to protect nature and the environment; to have the ability to work; to be self-reliant; to be creative; and to be able to learn on an ongoing basis.” In response to the ideals of the 1999 Education Law, the basic education curriculum was announced in 2001 (Department of Curriculum and Instruction Development, 2002). This curriculum required the organization of a 12-year integrated curriculum, and led to the development of diverse school curricula that could be entered into on a voluntary basis by each basic educational institution. However, in actual educational institutions, due to the lack of relevant materials and other factors, there was confusion among those involved in the field, and the curriculum contents became too detailed, while the knowledge, abilities, and desirable qualities of learners did not reach a satisfactory level (Suzuki et al., 2004). Thus, in 2008, while continuing the framework of the 2001 curriculum, a revised curriculum emphasized key competencies, and the content-based curriculum was transformed into a standards-based curriculum (Office of the Basic Education Commission, 2008). The key competencies included communication, critical thinking, problem-solving, life skills, and technology utilization. In this way, a number of reforms have been carried out in accordance with the Education Act of 1999, but at the same time, there have been challenges in terms of curriculum reform. Although the reform resulted in each institution creating its own curriculum, it was almost impossible for small schools to create their own curriculum

218

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

due to the lack of teachers’ abilities. Curriculum reform, which continues to the present day, has to examine and evaluate how these issues will be resolved and how they will be addressed in the future. In addition, in the midst of the drastic transformation of Thai society itself, including the declining birthrate and aging population, various measures aimed at reforming the social structure have been promoted. The “12th National Economic and Social Development Plan” (2017–2021), which was launched in October 2016, pointed out the structural problems behind Thailand’s sluggish economic growth compared to other ASEAN countries, and the need to improve labor shortages and delays in technological innovation due to the declining birthrate and aging population (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, 2016). Following the “11th National Economic and Social Development Plan” and following the “Sufficiency Economy Philosophy” proposed by His Majesty the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej, ten strategies were developed to reduce income inequality and poverty, and strengthen the economy and international competitiveness. In addition, the “Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, 2017” was promulgated and enforced on April 6, 2017 (Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, 2017). To overcome these structural problems, the Constitution obliges the state to “develop a national strategy to serve as a sustainable development target” (Article 65). In fact, Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha has placed priority on formulating economic growth policies based on the “National Strategy” stipulated in the Constitution with visions of stability, prosperity, and sustainability (Online Reporters, 2018). Based on this Constitution, the interim government at the time drew up a “20-Year National Strategy” (2018–2037) to be taken over by the next government. Under this Strategy, Thailand is expected to achieve an average annual growth rate of 4.5% over the next 20 years, and to become a high-income country by 2036. In 2016, “Thailand 4.0” was presented as the next economic and industrial reform model to realize the “20-Year National Strategy” (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, 2018). The implementation of “Thailand 4.0” is legally secured by the provisions of the 2017 Constitution, and is considered to be effective even if a change of government takes place. It is ranked higher than the previous “five-year development plan” which was planned by the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB). Accordingly, the development of Thailand can be divided into the following three stages (The Secretariat of the Prime Minister, 2017). Thailand 1.0 is a society based on agriculture and refers to pre-industrial Thailand. Thailand 2.0 refers to the period after World War II when domestic enterprises were developed by light industries such as medical products and food processing. Thailand 3.0 refers to the period from the late 1980s to the present when the emphasis was placed on heavy industry and exports using technology introduced by foreign companies. Thailand 4.0, which Thailand is promoting, aims to shift to a value-added economy based on knowledge, creation and innovation in areas such as knowledgeintensive industries, green industries, renewable energy, medicine and transportation. In addition to the “middle-income countries trap,” Thailand is now facing issues such as a declining birthrate, an aging population, a shortage of skilled workers, and income inequality. In order to solve these problems, the Thai government says that

11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence …

219

it is necessary to add high value to existing low-value-added industries and products thereby shifting the industrial structure. The current “Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (2008)” consists of eight learning areas and covers 12 years from primary to secondary education. In addition to each learning area, there are Learner Development Activities. Moreover, activities provided by schools, depending on their readiness and priorities can be implemented as Additional Courses. The eight learning areas are as follows. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Thai Language, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Religion, and Culture, Health and Physical Education, Arts, Occupations and Technology, and Foreign Languages.

Citizenship education is included in Social Studies, Religion, and Culture, which aims at promoting peaceful coexistence in Thai society and the world community, good citizenship, faith in religious teachings, appreciation of resources and the environment, and patriotism and pride in Thai-ness. Social Studies, Religion, and Culture has five strands which are as follows. Strand 1: Religion, Morality, and Ethics, Strand 2: Civics, Culture, and Living in Society, Strand 3: Economics, Strand 4: History, and Strand 5: Geography. Strand 2: Civics, Culture, and Living in Society, which is most relevant to citizenship education, contains the following two standards. Standard So2.1: Understanding and personal conduct in accord with duties and responsibilities of good citizens; observance and preservation of Thai tradition and culture; and enjoying peaceful coexistence in Thai society and the world community. Standard So2.2: Understanding of political and administrative systems of the present society; adherence to, faith in, and upholding of the democratic form of government under a constitutional monarchy. As can be seen from the above standards, it depicts the image of a citizen who can fulfill his duties and responsibilities as a citizen and achieve peaceful coexistence with the world, with Thai tradition and culture at the core.

220

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

11.3 Background of Surveys on Citizenship Education in Two Phases Characteristics used in this study were defined as attributes that a human being should acquire. In this study, in order to become a member who has acquired characteristics that are desirable for the nation, it is important to acquire not only “Knowledge and understanding,” and “Skills and abilities” but also “Values and attitudes” to some extent. The characteristics of “Knowledge and understanding” include the environment, co-existence and living together, different cultures, social justice and equity, democracy, sustainable development, interdependence, foreign language, social welfare, human rights, ASEAN history and culture, and common social problems of ASEAN countries. “Skills and abilities” includes the ability to express opinions on social problems, have self-discipline and self-control, solve problems, make decisions, respond to information and communications technology (ICT), make a peaceful resolution, think critically, improve quality of life, to cooperate with each other, to develop sustainably, contribute to society, use foreign languages, behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and to solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people. Finally, characteristics related to “Values and attitudes” include attitudes to face wrong things and injustice, preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development, have self-dependence, respect cultural diversity, place importance on the law, promote international cooperation, pay attention to global issues, to respect tradition and culture, have morality and pride as a nation, respect democracy, respect human rights, think in a scientific way and catch up with new science and technology, and have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN. A team of Thai researchers led by Hirata (Chanbanchong et al., 2017) has conducted an international comparative study on Thailand and nine other ASEAN countries as part of the “Comparative Study on Education for ASEANness and Citizenship Education in Ten ASEAN Countries.” The study had two phases. In the first phase (2011), 592 Thai students were surveyed after analyzing the government’s policies, plans, and curriculum on the current state and challenges of citizenship education in Thailand. The Thai team also conducted a survey on ASEAN literacy among Thai students and published the results at the International Conference of the Comparative Education Society of Asia (CESA) held at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand in 2012. The second phase (2013) of the study aimed to clarify the current status of ASEAN citizenship perceived by Thai education professionals (university professors, school teachers, and school principals) and their expected characteristics in ten years. This study focused on clarifying the perceptions of the characteristics of citizenship—as seen by Thai experts. In addition, the importance of the characteristics of citizenship, the characteristics involved in teaching and research, and the age levels of students who should cultivate these characteristics were also analyzed. Finally, the team aimed to predict the current level of achievement of ASEAN literacy and the characteristics expected to be achieved in ten years.

11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence …

221

The research methodology used in the first phase (2011) was to conduct a questionnaire survey for students in ten ASEAN member countries. Respondents were Thai students in the final grade of primary education, lower secondary education, and upper secondary education which matched with children of ages 12, 15, and 18 years old. The questionnaire is composed of three parts, the first part questions the citizenship of students, and the second and third parts questions the knowledge and attitude concerning ASEAN. Part 1 sets five levels on one axis: Local–National–Regional– Global–Universal, and three aspects on the axes: of “Knowledge and understanding,” “Skills and abilities” and “Values and attitudes.” Part 2 asks about the basic knowledge of ASEAN member countries, the knowledge of ASEAN as an international organization, the media required to acquire such knowledge, and the identity as a member of ASEAN. Part 3 is dedicated to understanding the state of ASEAN Studies taught to Thai children. The Delphi survey was used as a research methodology for the second phase (2013). The questionnaire was distributed in 2013 to 290 people, and was targeted at school principals, teachers in charge of social studies, and university professors. Based on the characteristics of the Delphi survey, a questionnaire for the second round was developed by reflecting the results of the first round. The total number of respondents for the second-round survey was 268. The total number of respondents in Brunei was 101, Cambodia 89, Indonesia 160, Laos 299, Malaysia 66, Philippines 51, and Vietnam 92. The second-round questionnaire consists of three parts. Part 1 consists of current achievements in “Knowledge and understanding,” “Skills and abilities,” and “Values and attitudes” at the Local–National–Regional–Global–Universal levels and expectations for achievement in ten years. Part 2 consists of questions on the importance of citizenship characteristics at the present and ten years from now, and grade levels at which these characteristics should be developed. Part 3 looks at the state of ASEAN literacy and considered training methods used to develop professional skills. The survey from Part 1 to Part 2 is a joint survey with other ASEAN countries. For Part 3, a Thai survey team developed a survey item and conducted the survey independently.

11.4 Analysis of Survey on Citizenship Education to School Children Survey of the first phase (2011) has 592 Thai students as respondents. Students of ages 12 years old are 33.3%, those of 15 years old are 33.4%, and those of 18 years old are 33.3%. There are 38.3% male respondents and 59.5% female respondents.

222

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

11.4.1 Citizenship from the Viewpoint of “Knowledge and Understanding” In Q1 through Q3, the questionnaire asked about “Knowledge and understanding” of desirable characteristics of citizenship. Q1 asked about historical learning and Q2 asked about the importance of traditional and cultural learning at the Local, National, Regional and Global levels (1 = not important at all; 2 = not very important; 3 = important; 4 = very important). Looking at the average results for Q1, “national history” scored 3.7 points, indicating that the national-level history learning is seen as particularly important. This was followed by “world history” with 3.5 points, with the lowest being the “local history.” In other words, the order of importance is National > Global > Regional > Local. The response trend in Q2 was similar, but the score was higher for National > Global, and lower for Local > Global. In this way, Thailand is characterized by an emphasis on “Knowledge and understanding” at the National and Global levels. Q3 asked students if they had seen or heard about 11 concepts important to citizenship. Looking at the trends in the average value from the four-point evaluation, items with 3.6 points or more included “democracy” (3.8), “environment” (3.7), “peace” (3.6), and “development” (3.6). On the other hand, the relatively low items were “international society” (2.6), “understanding of different cultures” (3.0), and “sustainable development” (3.2). It is interesting that there are few opportunities to see and hear about these concepts, which are regarded as important terms in the field of international development led by developed countries.

11.4.2 Citizenship from the Viewpoint of “Skills and Abilities” Part 1, Q4–Q8, asked about “Skills and abilities” of citizenship. In Q4, respondents were asked to rate their level of experience on the following four levels: (1) have experience in researching and studying social issues, (2) have had their own opinions, (3) have expressed their own opinions, and (4) have acted to solve social problems. The results indicated that (3) the experience of expressing one’s opinion (2.2) and (4) the experience of taking action toward problem-solving (2.4) tended to be seen as low importance. In Q5, respondents were asked to choose whether they could express their opinions with (1) friends, (2) parents, (3) school teachers, (4) adults and older people, (5) politicians, and (6) religious leaders. Examining the percentage of those who answered 1 = yes revealed that while they were able to express their opinions to their friends (92.1%) and parents (72.6%), they were reluctant to express their opinions to religious leaders (17.1%) and politicians (19.3%). In Q6, the questionnaire asked about the importance of learning English, and in Q7, about self-evaluation of English ability. While 67.4% were strongly aware

11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence …

223

of the importance of learning English, self-assessment of English proficiency was 2.3 which was not necessarily high. Countries with high self-evaluation for English proficiency are the Philippines (3.3), Brunei (3.3), and Malaysia (3.1), and the gap between Thailand and other ASEAN countries is significant. In Q8, the respondents were asked whether they would be able to acquire the characteristics of citizenship in the future, and whether they would be able to lead a desirable life and way of living. They were asked to answer using the following scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = not much, 3 = yes, 4 = very often. In the case of Thailand, the country is characterized by high confidence in its ability based on its future citizenship, and all scores are 3 points or higher, except for (6) “Can you work with other people to solve problems?” (2.9).

11.4.3 Citizenship from the Viewpoint of “Values and Attitudes” Part 1, Questions 9 to 12 asked about the “Values and attitudes” of citizenship. In Q9, students were asked whether they followed and practiced their religion/belief teachings in their daily lives. Five options were presented: (1) yes, regularly, (2) yes, (3) not much, (4) not at all, and (5) I do not believe in any religion. With the exception of Vietnam, more than 80% of respondents in other countries chose either option (1) or (2). In Thailand, the response rate for option (2) (70.8%) was higher than that for option (1) (20.1%). In Q10, the respondents were asked whether they have morality and pride as a nation, and were asked to answer using four options: (1) yes, very much, (2) yes, (3) not much, and (4) not at all. While more than 80% of the respondents in other countries answered positively with option (1), the figure for Thailand is relatively low at 56.9%. Q11 asked which characteristic was the most important at each level, from Local to Global levels. A total of 28 items were shown at four levels. At the Local level, Thai students chose (5) preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development (24.4%) and (1) respect tradition and culture (23.7%). At the National level, many students chose (9) have morality and pride as a nation (25.2%) and (8) respect national tradition and culture (21.8%). At the Regional level, (19) preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development (20.5%) and (17) peace (16.8%) were selected as the most important. At the Global level, many selected (26) preserving natural resources, protecting the environment and having an interest in its development (24.4%) and (23) having morality and pride as a member of the world (17.3%). The general trend is to focus on respect for tradition and culture at the Local/National level, and on preserving natural resources, protecting the environment and having an interest in its development at the Local/Regional/Global levels.

224

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

Q12 asked about three characteristics that were considered important in the current society. Thai students chose, first, (2) care of others’ feelings and living in peace and happiness with them as the most important characteristic, second (3) be patient and not selfish, have a strong will in achieving your goal or what you want to do, and third, (9) observe the laws. The last item, (9) observe the laws, was not chosen by any other ASEAN countries, and can therefore be considered a particular aspect of Thai children’s “Values and attitudes.”

11.4.4 “Knowledge and Understanding” of ASEAN Part 2, Q1–Q5, of the questionnaire asked about the knowledge of ASEAN countries and the basic knowledge of ASEAN itself. Q1 asked the question of matching the names of ASEAN countries with the symbols on the map. The results showed that while the percentage of correct answers to questions concerning their own country was high (99.0%), the percentage of answers to questions concerning non-neighboring countries such as Brunei (55.0%), the Philippines (60.3%), and Indonesia (65.4%) tended to be low. In Q2, the meaning of the ASEAN flag was to be chosen from among five options. Similarly, in Q3, the year of establishment of ASEAN was chosen from six options, and in Q4, the target year of integration of ASEAN was chosen from six options. As a result, the majority of the respondents (61.0%) answered correctly about the meaning of the ASEAN flag, but the percentages of those who answered correctly about the year of establishment of ASEAN (20.2%) and the year of integration of ASEAN (22.2%) were low. There were large differences in the percentage of correct answers among countries depending on whether or not the national curriculum or textbooks included such content. Q5 asked students how much they know about ten ASEAN countries, including their own countries. 1 = not at all, 2 = not much, 3 = yes, 4 = very well. Except for Thailand’s 3.6 points, the average score was concentrated in the two-point range, but Brunei (2.0), Indonesia (2.2), and the Philippines (2.2) were also relatively low (see Table 11.1).

11.4.5 Awareness of ASEAN Part 2, Q7–Q11 asked the student respondents about their views on ASEAN. The scale answers are 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = somewhat disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree. Q7 asked if they would like to know more about ASEAN countries. The average value was 1.9, indicating a desire to know.

11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence …

225

Table 11.1 Knowledge of ASEAN countries (Thailand vs. eight other ASEAN countries) BN

KH

ID

LA

MY

MM

PH

TH

VN

Q1 Geographical knowledge of ASEAN countries (percentage of correct answers) Brunei

95.2

4.2

75.7

57.8

88.6

47.2

38.0

55.0

65.6

Cambodia

30.4

95.4

30.9

94.9

38.1

52.3

22.5

80.2

80.2

Indonesia

87.7

1.4

97.0

65.0

88.2

63.6

50.0

65.4

69.4

Laos

30.0

1.4

38.3

97.1

42.0

69.2

22.3

82.7

83.1

Malaysia

89.5

7.6

80.1

67.8

93.5

59.5

35.2

82.9

65.8

Myanmar

29.6

1.4

29.2

92.0

46.4

96.4

22.3

80.8

62.6

Philippines

72.7

0.2

70.0

64.6

60.5

60.5

98.6

60.3

76.9

Singapore

85.2

1.9

29.2

57.0

91.7

63.1

28.4

67.7

66.9

Thailand

58.0

1.8

46.5

96.3

84.8

78.5

23.2

99.0

79.6

Vietnam

29.4

1.1

38.9

95.2

41.4

51.3

33.6

80.0

91.2

Q5 Knowledge about ASEAN countries (average score; full score is 4.0) Brunei

3.8

1.8

2.3

2.3

2.7

1.9

2.1

2.0

1.7

Cambodia

1.6

3.6

2.1

2.7

2.3

1.9

2.1

2.5

2.2

Indonesia

2.7

2.1

3.8

2.5

2.9

2.0

2.5

2.2

2.0

Laos

1.6

2.2

2.1

3.6

2.2

2.0

2.0

2.6

2.2

Malaysia

2.9

2.2

2.9

2.6

3.5

2.4

2.6

2.3

1.8

Myanmar

1.7

1.9

2.0

2.5

2.3

3.6

2.0

2.5

1.7

Philippines

2.2

1.9

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.0

3.8

2.2

2.0

Singapore

2.7

2.3

2.8

2.7

3.0

2.5

2.8

2.4

2.3

Thailand

2.1

2.7

2.5

3.2

2.7

2.5

2.6

3.6

2.4

Vietnam

1.7

2.6

2.2

3.2

2.3

1.9

2.3

2.3

3.7

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

Q8 asked whether they thought being a member of ASEAN is beneficial for their country. The average value was 1.8, which showed benefits but was relatively lower than those of Laos (1.3) and Brunei (1.5). Q9 asked whether they thought being a member of ASEAN was beneficial to themselves. Countries such as Vietnam (2.2), Cambodia (2.0), Indonesia (2.0), and the Philippines (2.0) agreed, standing in the two-point range, while Thailand agreed with a score of 1.9 points. Q10 asked whether they were aware of their status as ASEAN citizens, whether they were attached to ASEAN, and whether they were proud of their status as ASEAN citizens. Thailand was again in higher agreement, scoring 1.9 points, compared with Vietnam (2.2) and Indonesia (2.0). Q11 asked if they thought that they had a common identity with the people of ASEAN countries in order to achieve their goals. While many other countries

226

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

expressed a negative view on this question (2.0 points or more), the Philippines and Thailand were more positive with 1.9 points.

11.5 Analysis of Delphi Survey: Current State of Citizenship Education and That of Ten Years Later The Delphi survey was conducted in 2013 with 290 respondents who were school principals, teachers in charge of social studies, and university professors; 268 respondents were retained in the second round.

11.5.1 Basic Data There were 166 female respondents or 61.94%, and 102 male respondents or 38.06%. Most of the respondents (53.73%) were in the age range of 50 years old followed by those in the age range of 40 years old (20.15%). There were only 9 respondents (3.36%) in the age range of 60 years old and above. As for the respondents’ occupations, it was found that most of the respondents in this second-round questionnaire were school teachers, 150 respondents or 55.96% of all respondents. There were 75 educational inspectors, or 28%. Among the 268 respondents, there were 27 teachers of higher educational institutions (lecturers at the university level) or 10.07%. Most of the respondents, 63.42%, reported being teachers or lecturers in the field of social studies, while only 1.87% stated that they conducted research on social studies topics. Eighty-seven respondents, or 32.46%, claimed that they were involved in other responsibilities. However, it was not clear what other responsibilities they referred to. It was possible that among such responsibilities were curricula inspecting and evaluating.

11.5.2 Part 1: Characteristics Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later In terms of “Knowledge and understanding,” Table 11.2 showed that most respondents perceived they achieved the specified characteristics at the Local level (91%) and at the National level (83%), followed by characteristics at the Regional, Global, and Universal levels, respectively. However, most respondents indicated that they expected to achieve characteristics at the Regional level (88%), followed by those at the Global level (87%) and also at the Universal level (87%). It was interesting to see that ten years from now they expected to put more emphasis on characteristics at the Universal, Global, and Regional levels over the Local and National levels.

11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence …

227

Table 11.2 Characteristics achieved at present and expected to be achieved ten years later by level Knowledge and understanding

Skills and abilities

Values and attitudes

Present (%)

Ten yrs. later (%)

Present (%)

Ten yrs. later (%)

Present (%)

Ten yrs. Later (%)

Local level 91

83

83

86

88

82

National level

83

82

72

86

91

77

Regional level

78

88

69

89

69

89

Global level

66

87

58

86

59

85

Universal level

65

87

68

85

68

85

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

In terms of “Skills and abilities,” most respondents indicated that at present they achieved citizenship characteristics in the domain of “Skills and abilities” at the Local level (83%), followed by those at the National (72%) and Regional (69%) levels, but these were least achieved at the Global level (58%). Ten years later most of them expected to achieve characteristics at the Regional level (89%) followed by the Global (86%), National (86%), and Local (86%) levels, but least expected such achievement at the Universal level. It was surprisingly found that there were shifts of emphasis on characteristics in this domain at all five levels, from low to high achievement. In terms of “Values and attitudes,” most respondents (91%), denoted that at present they achieved characteristics at the National level followed by those (88%) at the Local level. At the same time, they (59%) reported the least achievement at the Global level. As for characteristics they expected to achieve ten years later, most of them (89%) selected characteristics at the Regional level followed by those at the Global and Universal levels. It was interesting to find that 77%, or the least expectation, was characteristics at the National level. The expectation to achieve characteristics in the domain of “Values and attitudes” seemed to be higher than the characteristics the respondents achieved at present. Meanwhile, the characteristics at the National level seemed to be the least expected ten years later.

228

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

11.5.3 Part 2-1: Characteristics of “Knowledge and Understanding” Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later Respondents pointed out that at present they had a low level of complete achievement in all characteristics in this domain, especially regarding the characteristics of interdependence, followed by social justice and equity and democracy (see Table 11.3). Respondents reported that they expected to achieve all characteristics ten years later. Characteristics they expected to achieve at the degree of “completely achieved” were the characteristic of the environment (49%), and coexistence (43%), followed by foreign language (41%). The characteristics with a large difference between the present and ten years later were environment (45 points), coexistence (39 points), foreign language (38 points), and democracy (31 points). Table 11.3 Characteristics of “Knowledge and understanding” achieved at present and expected to be achieved ten years later Characteristics

Present

Ten yrs. later

Difference between present and ten yrs. later

Completely achieved (%)

Completely achieved (%)

Completely achieved

4

49

45

Coexistence and living 4 together

43

39

Environment

Different cultures

2

29

27

Social justice and equity

5

30

25

Democracy

5

36

31

Sustainable development

3

27

24

Interdependence

6

34

28

Foreign language

3

41

38

Social welfare

3

26

23

Human rights

4

31

27

ASEAN history and culture

3

31

28

Common social problems of ASEAN countries

3

31

28

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence …

229

11.5.4 Part 2-2: Characteristics “Skills and Abilities” Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later Among all characteristics, 10% of the respondents claimed that at present they had achieved the characteristic of “to respond to ICT” at the level of completely achieved (see Table 11.4). There were three characteristics with a large difference between Table 11.4 Characteristics of “Skills and abilities” achieved at present and expected to be achieved ten years later Characteristics

Present

Ten yrs. later

Difference between present and ten yrs. later

Completely achieved (%)

Completely achieved (%)

Completely achieved

To express opinions on social problems

3

24

21

To have self-discipline and self-control

3

26

23

To solve problems

3

26

23

To make decisions

5

30

25

To respond to ICT

10

46

36

To make a peaceful resolution

2

25

23

To think critically

2

24

22

To improve quality of life

3

27

24

To cooperate with each other

3

33

30

To develop sustainably

4

26

22

To contribute to society

5

39

34

To use foreign language

3

44

41

To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

1

31

30

To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

1

25

24

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

230

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

the present and ten years later, which were “to use foreign language” (41 points), “to respond to ICT” (36 points), and “to contribute to society” (34 points).

11.5.5 Part 2-3: Characteristics of “Values and Attitudes” Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later Among characteristics of “Values and attitudes,” respondents claimed that at present they achieved the characteristic of “morality and pride as a nation” (7%) and “democracy” (7%) at the completely achieved level (see Table 11.5). Among these characteristics, 37% of respondents reported that characteristics of “morality and pride as a nation” and “preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development” were to be achieved at the level of completely achieved ten years later. The characteristics with a large difference between the present and ten years later were “preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development” (32 points), “self-dependence” (30 points), and “morality and pride as a nation” (30 points).

11.5.6 Part 3: Questions on ASEAN Literacy Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later It was surprisingly observed that from 67% up to 93% of respondents stated that at present they already achieved all characteristics. Among these characteristics, 93% claimed they achieved the characteristic of “knowledge concerning the holistic picture of each country, including its economic system, political system, cultural system and so on,” followed by 88% with “Knowledge and understanding of the role and position of Thailand and Thai citizenry in the development of the ASEAN community,” and 82% with “skills and abilities to communicate with each other through the official (English) language of each country.” It was also noted that except for the characteristics of “knowledge concerning the holistic picture of each country, including its economic system, political system, cultural system and so on,” and “knowledge and understanding of the role and position of Thailand and Thai citizenry in the development of the ASEAN community,” all other characteristics were rated as being expected to be higher ten years later. The characteristics with the largest difference between the present and ten years later were “skills and abilities to communicate among each other through the official (English) language of each country” (22 points) and “knowledge and understanding of sustainable development for the benefit of ASEAN natural environment” (19 points) (Table 11.6).

11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence …

231

Table 11.5 Characteristics of “Values and attitudes” achieved at present and expected to be achieved ten years later Present

Ten yrs. later

Difference between present and ten yrs. later

Completely achieved (%)

Completely achieved (%)

Completely achieved

To face wrong things and injustice

3

25

22

To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development

5

37

32

To have self-dependence

3

33

30

To respect cultural diversity

5

30

25

To place importance on the law

4

31

27

To promote international cooperation

4

23

19

To pay attention to global issues

2

25

23

To respect tradition and culture

5

32

27

To have morality and pride as a nation

7

37

30

To respect democracy

7

34

27

To respect human rights

5

29

24

To think in a scientific 4 way and catch up with the new science and technology

30

26

To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

26

24

Characteristics

2

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

232

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

Table 11.6 ASEAN literacy achieved at present and expected to be achieved ten years later Characteristics

Present (%)

Ten yrs. Later (%)

Difference between present and ten yrs. later

Knowledge concerning the holistic picture of each country, including its economic system, political system, cultural system, and so on

93

89

−4

Knowledge and 88 understanding of the role and position of Thailand and Thai citizenry in the development of the ASEAN community

80

−8

Skills and abilities to 82 communicate with each other through the official (English) language of each country

94

12

67 Skills and abilities to communicate with each other through the official (national) language of each country

89

22

Knowledge and 76 understanding of the strength of their counterparts in order to set the standard for further national development

93

17

Knowledge and understanding of the weaknesses of their counterparts to render necessary assistance

73

91

18

Knowledge and understanding of roles expected of ASEAN members

72

90

18

Knowledge and understanding of sustainable development for the benefit of ASEAN natural environment

73

92

19

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence …

233

11.6 Comparative Analysis of the Two Surveys In the first phase (2011) survey on citizenship education for school children, in terms of “Knowledge and understanding,” history of one’s country and traditional and cultural learning at the National level are particularly important. Among 11 concepts important to citizenship, democracy, environment, peace, and development are seen as important issues. In terms of “Skills and abilities,” students have experience in researching and studying social issues and have had their own opinions but cannot express their own opinions or act to solve social problems. In order to express their opinions, they report being able to do so with their friends and parents. As for English proficiency, compared to other ASEAN countries, Thai students’ self-evaluation is not high. At the same time, their recognition of the importance of learning English is low. In terms of “Values and attitudes,” following and practicing their religion/belief is not especially prioritized. Sharing the moral conduct and pride as a nation is also relatively low. In addition, many realize the importance of love and preservation of tradition/culture at the Local and National levels, and environment and development problems at Local, Regional, and Global levels. In the second phase (2013) Delphi survey to Thai education professionals (university professors, school teachers, and school principals), in terms of “Knowledge and understanding,” many expect to achieve environment, coexistence, and living together and foreign language proficiency ten years later. With the realization of the ASEAN community and the increase of mutual exchange and inter-dependency, it seems that these qualities are expected of the Thai citizenry in the future. In terms of “Skills and abilities,” at present skills to respond to ICT are considered at the level of completely achieved and should remain in place ten years later. In addition, many expect to achieve skills to use a foreign language and skills to contribute to society. In terms of “Values and attitudes,” all characteristics are considered highly important. Many expect to achieve the characteristics of morality and national pride, national resources and preservation of environment, and democracy ten years later. The observance of morality and national pride, and democracy are two pillars of national integration that Thailand has long emphasized and hopes to continue. A comparative analysis of the two phases’ surveys can be summarized as follows. In terms of “Knowledge and understanding,” on the issue of environment, both student and Delphi survey respondents recognize its importance. However, in the survey of students, many students emphasize democracy but in the Delphi survey, the expectation of democracy is relatively low. In terms of “Skills and abilities,” in the Delphi survey, many expect to achieve a foreign language but in the student survey, students currently do not have high foreign language proficiency. In terms of “Values and attitudes,” at the National level, many students have chosen “having morality and pride as a nation” and “respect national tradition and culture” which coincides with the results in the Delphi survey.

234

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

11.7 Summary and Recommendations: Model of Citizenship Education 11.7.1 Summary Previous sections focused on the background of the study, research methodology, and research findings. In this section, the authors would like to consider some concerns about citizenship education in Thailand with a few suggestions on the pedagogical model for the Thai National Curriculum. Referring to the overall research findings, there seems to be an increasing awareness of citizenship characteristics in all three domains at the Regional, Global, and even Universal levels beyond the Local and National levels in the next ten years. Coincidentally, the increasing awareness of citizenship characteristics at a wider scope than at the Local and National levels seems to be highly supported by the new National Curriculum in Thailand. Looking scrutinizingly at the newly imposed citizenship characteristics in the ASEAN Education in Thailand, it is found that characteristics in all three domains focus upon knowledge, skills, and attitudes concerning ASEAN, and how to work cooperatively with each other in the ASEAN community. In the “Knowledge” domain, students are to learn about the emergence of ASEAN, ASEAN charters, ASEAN community, and Cooperation among ASEAN members. In addition, in the “Skills” domain, students must be able to communicate using at least two languages, use ICT efficiently, solve problems through peaceful measures, and must be able to live happily with others. Lastly, in the “Attitudes” domain, students must be able to express their “Thai-ness” as well as “ASEANness,” recognize their responsibilities as ASEAN citizens, respect cultural and individual differences, appreciate critical thinking and accept the “Sufficiency Economy Philosophy” as their way of life.

11.7.2 Recommendations As an approach to the teaching of social studies, the “expanding communities” concept can be applied in citizenship education. This concept identifies that an action moves from smaller and more intimate communities to larger and more inclusive communities when learners expand their activities geographically and culturally. Similarly, according to the Hierarchy of ASEAN Literacy Model presented at CESA 2012 (Thongthew, 2012), local knowledge and understanding, including skills and attitudes concerning citizenship education must be recognized in order to connect meaningfully what one has learned about ASEAN with their own Thai context. According to the Hierarchy of ASEAN Literacy Model, details of the three domains of citizenship characteristics, at the Local level, are to be provided as the first basic aspect of literacy, followed by the introduction of awareness and understanding of the relationships between ASEAN’s aims and missions and the well-being of Thai

11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence …

235

citizenry, and also of other people in the region. The third stage is to inculcate attitudes of appreciation and concerns for the essence of ASEAN in students. The last stage is to enhance the capacity for individual and collective actions and participation in some selected ASEAN missions. The four stages are designed to build on top of each other, from simple stage to more complicated ones. Thus, it is rather a challenge for us, the curriculum specialists, in trying to balance life and knowledge in the Thai context with more understanding and more active learning so that the Thai citizenry can build up necessary citizenship characteristics essential for participation in the larger world. To make the so-called “challenge” more tangible, one approach is briefly provided as the following. It is to combine learning about and learning from citizenship in action, together. Such learning encourages both the observation and participation in all three domains of characteristics, resulting in a truly integrated learning activity. Allowing students to learn citizenship education as a subject must also be enhanced through active learning, working, thinking, solving social problems, and even living in different contexts, with their friends from other ASEAN nations. With such an approach, students have the opportunity to reflect upon their answers and develop their own understanding of essential citizenship characteristics in their own meaningful terms. According to the guidelines of ASEAN Studies in schools (Office of the Basic Education Commission, 2011), there are four teaching strategies to be used in the process of ASEAN citizenship education. The four strategies are as follows. Strategy 1: Occasional addition of ASEAN contents in various subject areas. Teachers may occasionally add any ASEAN contents in any subject area and learning activity. Strategy 2: Integration among subject areas. Teachers may compile lesson plans that integrate ASEAN contents in different subject areas with Social Studies as a core. Strategy 3: Arrangement of an additional subject. Teachers may create a new subject regarding ASEAN to be responsive to local needs. Strategy 4: Supplementary learning activities. Schools may arrange various supplementary activities regarding ASEAN and the ASEAN community to provide students with knowledge and awareness of being a member of communities such as ASEAN Camp, ASEAN Corner, ASEAN Day, and so on. A commonly heard discussion among some concerned Thai experts in education regards the “challenge” associated with living in the best two worlds—one the locally derived world, intimately associated with most Thai citizenry, and the larger world, in this case, the regional, global, and universal world. In order to eliminate unnecessary tensions caused by differences in world views and ways of life, we, the educators and curriculum specialists, must extend the scope of citizenship education not only to assist our students to understand specific characteristics, and be able to perform them well, but to also assist our students to become active and fulfilled ASEAN members.

236

S. Kampeeraparb et al.

References Chanbanchong, C., Thongthew, S., Boonsombuti, S., Kampeeraparb, S., Suzuki, K., & Sangnapaboworn, W. (2017). Tai no Shiminsei Kyouiku-ASEAN Shiminsei Kyouiku no Genjou to Sono Kadai (Citizenship Education in Thailand: Present and Anticipated Characteristics Concerning ASEAN Citizenship as Perceived by Thai Educators). In T. Hirata (Ed.), ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community) (pp. 213–241). Toshindo. Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, 1997. (1997). Office of the Council of State. Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, 2017. (2017). Office of the Council of State. Department of Curriculum and Instruction Development, Ministry of Education. (2002). Basic education curriculum 2001. Ministry of Education. Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2017). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community). Toshindo. Office of the Basic Education Commission. (2008). Core curriculum of basic education 2008. Ministry of Education. Office of the Basic Education Commission. (2011). Guidelines on learning for ASEAN community at secondary education level. Ministry of Education. Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board. (1996). The 8th national economic and social development plan (1997–2001). Office of the Prime Minister. Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board. (2016). The 12th national economic and social development plan (2017–2021). Office of the Prime Minister. Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board. (2018). The national strategy (2018–2037). Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board. Office of the National Education Commission. (1999). The national education act 1999. Office of the Prime Minister. Online Reporters. (2018, October 13). 20-year national strategy comes into effect. Bangkok Post. Retrieved February 21, 2022, from https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1557462/20year-national-strategy-comes-into-effect. Suzuki, K., Morishita, M., & Kampeeraparb, S. (2004). Tai Niokeru Kisokyouiku Kaikaku no Rinen to Sono Tenkai (A study on the principles and development of basic education reform in Thailand). Hikaku Kyouikugaku Kenkyuu (Comparative Education), Nihon Hikaku Kyouiku Gakkai [Japan Comparative Education Society (JCES)], 30, 148–167. The Secretariat of the Prime Minister. (2017). Thai Khu Fa, 33. Retrieved January 19, 2022, from https://spm.thaigov.go.th/web/CRTPRS/spm-sp-layout6.asp?i=71111%2E1441270211511 5122111511. Thongthew, S. (2012). Findings and reflecting on the overall findings relating to the state of an ASEAN literate citizenship. Presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the Comparative Education Society of Asia (CESA), Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. Watson, K. (1980). Educational development in Thailand. Heinemann Asia.

Chapter 12

Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness Masao Ishimura

Abstract In this chapter, first, we review the current conditions of Vietnam’s education policy in terms of the framework developed by ASEAN. Second, we introduce the situation of ASEAN education in Vietnam. At least legally speaking, the Vietnamese government has moved from having all students learn about citizenship through exams from the government’s perspective to have them think and act in their own context of citizenship. Analyzing the newly published textbooks, the part related to civic education and education for ASEANness is increasing. Third, we summarize the ASEAN education survey administrated to students. It is clear that there is more consideration for the country and where one lives, rather than for the region (ASEAN) knowledge. Fourth, we analyze the survey of the experts with similar contents. The acquisition of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes at the regional level is not sufficient. The Vietnamese respondents do not regard ASEAN as important and have not achieved it. This structure is similar at the global level. And, only Vietnam has a tendency to have a negative gap between many of the answers already achieved and what will be fulfilled over the next decade. This feature is not found in other ASEAN countries. For the experts on Vietnam, many items have already reached their “current” level and will not change or are regarded as efficient. Finally, we propose issues for the future development of education for ASEANness in Vietnam. It is to think of civic education within the framework of Vietnam, a socialist country on the one hand and to take into account is Vietnam’s “specialty” on the other. Based on the above assumptions, the proposals are made from three angles; Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes. Keywords Citizenship education · Education for ASEANness · Socialist country · Socialization of education · Vietnamese-ASEANness

M. Ishimura (B) International Cooperation Center for the Teacher Education and Training, Naruto University of Education, 748 Nakajima, Takashima, Naruto, Tokushima 772-8502, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_12

237

238

M. Ishimura

12.1 Introduction In this chapter, education for ASEANness is understood and analyzed in the conflict axis shown in Fig. 12.1 below. In this axis education for ASEANness is positioned as a symbolic issue in the direction of B. A Strengthening regulations on the privatization of education, with an emphasis on the Vietnamese framework (unique culture, socialism). B Promoting the privatization of education, with a focus on a global/Asian framework and emphasis on the market economy. Fig. 12.1 Relationship of concepts around ASEAN. For example, Article 6, Paragraph 2, of the 2009 Education Law stipulates that educational programs should “achieve the full quality of education that meets the demands necessary for going on the international stage”. This point is considered to strengthen the direction of B. Also, article 8, Paragraph 2 of the 2019 Act clearly states that “Educational programs must ensure … the demands of international integration”. Additionally, Article 109, Paragraph 2 of the 2009 Education Act revised the simple rule of the old law such that “international education cooperation is regulated by the government”. The 2009 Act declares that “The State encourages and creates conditions for Vietnamese schools and other educational institutions to cooperate with foreign organizations, individuals, and overseas Vietnamese in teaching, learning and scientific research”. These policies are in line with the direction of B. In this regard, Section 108, Paragraph 2 of the 2019 Education Act affirms that, “Educational cooperation with Vietnam must ensure the honor for the national cultural identity”. This policy stresses securing the national cultural identity while maintaining a focus on the A direction. First, we review the current conditions of Vietnam’s education policy in terms of the framework developed by the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Second, we introduce the situation of ASEAN education in Vietnam. Third, we summarize the ASEAN education survey administrated to students. Fourth, we analyze an expert survey with similar contents. Finally, we propose issues for the future development of ASEAN education in Vietnam.

A

B

Strengthening regulations on the

Promoting the privatization of

privatization of education, with

education, with a focus on a

an emphasis on the Vietnamese framework (unique culture,

global/Asian framework and emphasis on the market economy

socialism)

Fig. 12.1 The structure of Vietnamese education: Citizenship education. Source Author, 2022

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

239

In writing this chapter, I obtained the cooperation of the following Vietnamese researchers. Section 12.2: Dr. Trinh Quoc Lap and Dr. Huynh Thi Thuy Diem (Can Tho University), Sect. 12.3: Dr. Vo Thi Hoang Ai (Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh) and Sect. 12.4: Dr. GIAN TU TRUNG (Institute for Research of Educational Development).

12.2 New Trends in Citizenship Education: Policy, Curriculum, and so on The issue of socialization is an important one. Above all, the relationship with foreign countries over “socialization” is a notable problem. At the 11th Congress of the Communist Party held in January 2011, emphasis was placed on democracy and a partial revision was made to the Communist Party Code (1991). Aiming for a “fair and civilized society”, it also called for reinforcing relations with ASEAN countries. Vietnam’s education system is governed by the Education Law of 2019. Article 2 specifies the purpose of education. With regard to civic and international education, the text lays down the following: The goals of education are to shape and cultivate one’s dignity, civic qualifications and competence; to nurture one’s patriotism, national spirit, loyalty to the ideology of national independence and socialism; to develop potentials to foster talents, satisfying the demands building and defending the Fatherland and international integration. Furthermore, in analyzing civic education, the specialization of education has been underscored since the passage of the 2005 Education Law, and is considered in the context of socialization in Vietnamese society as a whole. The “socialization” of such education is grounded in the link between the contents of school education and actual society, especially the significance of education that leads to employment (i.e., useful education). To this end, it will shift from teacher-centered, results-based, and test-based education to learner-centered, process-oriented education. This follows from the viewpoint of citizenship education; at least legally speaking, the Vietnamese government has moved from having all students learn about citizenship through exams from the government’s perspective to having them think and act in their own context of citizenship. Next, we look at the state of ASEANess education. Vietnam’s curriculum, which is the basis for the country’s textbooks, is the “Common Across Education Program” , ,

ij

, ,

ij

ij

(CHUONG TRÌNH GIÁO DU.C PHÔ THÔNG CHUONG TRÌNH TÔNG THÊ). The current program was promulgated in 2018, and will be implemented in elementary schools from G1 in 2020–21, junior high school from G6 in 2021–22, and high school from G10 in 2022–23. The program will be executed on a grade-by-grade basis for each school type. As of the 2020 school year, the Ministry of Education and Training has recently published 32 textbooks for G1 only divided into 5 volumes/sets. Each series consists of the following subjects; Vietnamese, mathematics, ethics; nature and society; physical education; art, experiential activities, and

240

M. Ishimura

English. The contents of new textbooks to be issued in the future will likely be more suitable for citizenship education and education for ASEANness. However, since the details of those textbooks’ content have not yet been clarified, in this chapter, to examine textbooks collected by 2019 are tried. Students complete elementary over a five-year period (grades 1–5) and courses in morality (Dao Duc) are offered for one hour per week. On the international scale, third graders are taught how to interact with foreigners, and fifth graders are taught about international relations. In the fifth-grade textbook for the history and geography, there is an explanation of “East See” (the South China Sea) and the surrounding region under the title “Our Sea”. Australians, Malaysians, and Japanese appear in the thirdgrade English textbook (conversations with Vietnamese people). Students complete junior high school over a four-year period (grades 6–9). A course on civic education (Giao Duc Cong Dan) is offered one hour per a week for first to third graders, while fourth-graders take the class for two hours a week. Students complete high school over a period of three years (grades 10–12), and they take a class in civic education, first graders take it for 1 h, while second and third graders take it for 1.5 h. Previously, the junior high school textbook on “Civic Education” dealt slightly with international relations: In grade 9, the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) was discussed, specifically concerning relations between Asia and Europe, as well as between Vietnam and ASEAN. The subject of “History” covers Southeast Asia in grade 9, and only the content of Vietnam’s accession to ASEAN was included. However, in recent years, in a manner that goes beyond the revision of the textbook’s content and the accompanying curriculum reform described above, references to ASEAN have increased in textbooks meant for secondary education. Dr. Lap, an overseas collaborator of this research, suggested this at an international workshop held in 2017 regarding joint research. Although not directly related to ASEAN, textbooks on mathematics and physics have been published with explanations in English and Vietnamese as well as in Vietnamese only. In addition, in the grade 11 textbook on geography (published in January 2018, which means that it started to be used in autumn of 2018), the number of pages that covers Southeast Asia increased to 12 pages. Meanwhile, 11 pages are dedicated to the United States, and the EU is covered in 15 pages, 13 pages are set aside for Russia, 12 pages discuss China, 12 pages are dedicated to Japan, and 3 to ASEAN. Specifically, the following has been added to the textbook: “As part of the ASEAN Integration Process”, Vietnam has actively cooperated with ASEAN. Through such efforts, Vietnam’s international status has improved. Close relations with ASEAN countries have been established through imports and exports. In 2005, ASEAN accounted for 30% of Vietnam’s international trade. At the end of the section, the following question is asked: “Please explain how the relationship with ASEAN is extremely significant”. However, “differences in political systems” are mentioned in the section on ASEAN. It is crucial to discuss what democracy means in the ASEAN context and to what extent democracy is acceptable in Vietnam. “Democracy” is well respected in Vietnam. Yet, what is currently being achieved is “democracy” as understood in Vietnam. When considering ASEAN as a whole, it is necessary to determine the degree to which Vietnam and other ASEAN nations can reach a consensus. I wonder if there is a global standard for “democracy”.

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

241

The grade 12 English textbook (published in February 2016, which means that it was used starting in autumn of 2017) has 12 pages on Southeast Asia and ASEAN topics that were not often handled before. Conventionally, human exchanges within ASEAN have been active in terms of upper secondary and higher education (taking up the topics mentioned above in G12 is proof itself). Such effects gradually flow “downstream”. However, speaking of educational management of national unity as a large framework, the system has not changed each local government education office in terms of support from the People’s Committee. For example, defense textbooks for G11 and 12 both explain how to realistically protect Vietnam. “Remain Open” to foreign countries, but protect the country! Therefore, the degree of opening is questioned. What about the practice of classroom education? My Class observations (morality, civic education, English, physical education, etc.) were conducted in Ben Tre, Can Tho and Ho Chi Minh. There was a lot of creativity, such as experiments in the laboratory and mutual learning, but the emphasis was not placed on considering unexpected results from experiments or examining the ideas students obtained through mutual learning. Instead, the teacher’s conclusions were highlighted. For example, in a grade 7 class of civic education, the student participation method was adopted. Finally, a student memorized a “speech” probably written made by the teacher and brilliantly delivered it speaking about the class contents of the day. In a grade 8 chemistry class, students performed experiments in group learning, but at the end, teachers wrote down “conclusions” on an electronic blackboard, indicated what to learn, and students wrote notes (i.e., memorized the content). In short, the framework obtained from joint research (Ishimura et al., 1998) on “memorization → testing” is still alive and well.

12.3 Analysis of Survey on Citizenship Education to School Children 12.3.1 Overview of Student Surveys Period: December 2011–February 2012. Survey location: Ho Chi Minh City Target: 202 Tuy Ly Vuong Elementary School (5G), 202 Chanh Hung Junior High School (9G)198, Luong Van Can High School (12G) Total 602 Gender ratio of the respondents: Males 46.7% Females 51.5% Religion: Buddhism 61.3%, Christianity 10.8%, Confucianism 0.2%, Nonreligion 20.8%, Other 2.7, No answer 4.3%.

242

M. Ishimura

12.3.2 Findings on Citizenship 12.3.2.1

The Importance of Learning About Local, Regional, and Global History

The percentage of respondents who answered “very important” and “important” are as follows: 64.5% of respondents answered that Vietnamese history is “very important”, whereas 28.6% answered that it is “important;” 18.6% answered that ASEAN history is “very important”, whereas 36.7% answered that it is “important;” 31.7% answered that world history is “very important”, and 38.7% answered that it is “important”. It is worth noting that the percentage of those who answered that ASEAN history is “very important” or “important” was the lowest among the countries surveyed; for example, it was significantly lower than the percentages found when the survey was conducted in the Philippines (where 46.1% answered “very important” and 44.8% answered “important”). This finding indicates that for Vietnamese students, the history of their own country is considered more important than that of the ASEAN region.

12.3.2.2

Understanding Tradition and Culture

The percentage of respondents that answered “very important” to “Understanding Vietnamese tradition and culture” was 62.3%, and the percentage of respondents who answered “important” was 30.4% (giving a total of 92.7% of participants). In contrast, “Understanding ASEAN tradition and culture about” resulted in 17.9% for the former and 35.7% for the latter (totaling 53.6%), and “Understanding world tradition and culture” produced 33.1% and 36.0% respectively (totaling 69.1%). It should be noted that the percentage of respondents that are expected to appreciate ASEAN tradition and culture is over 50% and the percentage of respondents expected to appreciate world culture and tradition ought to be greater than that of ASEAN. In this regard, it should also be noted that, for this item, the ratio of responses for ASEAN (“very important” and “important”) is the lowest among surveyed countries and is significantly lower than the highest percentages in the Philippines (where 39.8% answered “very important” and 47.3% answered “important” 47.3%, totaling 87.1%).

12.3.2.3

Knowledge of Citizenship-Related Keywords

Keywords such as “environment” (70.1%), “peace” (65.6%), “development” (60.0%), and “democracy”: 50.0%, have a high percentage of “often heard”. Adding the answer “heard” to the above answers gives the following. “environment” (94.5%), “peace” (90.7%), “development” (87.2%), “democracy” (81.1%).

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

243

Morishita (2013) points out that, in terms of these data, the ratio of “often heard” and “heard” for “sustainable development/development” is higher than that of other ASEAN countries (78.1%: third after Malaysia and Thailand). In this regard, as seen in the discussion on the introduction of Japan’s Shinkansen (Bullet train) in Vietnam, “development in good standing” is often stressed. Furthermore, it is thought that the media are often taken up. Terms that are recognized relatively less frequently (“do not hear about at all”) include “the international community” (31.9%), “interdependence” (23.4%), “Coexistence/living together” (15.3%), “social justice and development” (12.0%), and “cross-cultural understanding” (11.1%).

12.3.2.4

About “Active Citizenship”?

Respondents who answered, “I do not do much” or “I do not do it at all”mentioned “research on various social issues” (69.7%),“I have an opinion on social issues”(63.9%), and “I have an opinion on social issues”(88.5%) and “Do something to solve social problems” (81.4%). The latter two are especially noteworthy. In this regard, Morishita (2013) remarked on a “lack of experience compared to other countries”. From the above, we can see that “active citizenship” is not very established.

12.3.2.5

To Whom Can You Say Whether This Opinion is Right or Wrong

For the question “Who can I say is right or wrong about that opinion?” the respondents said they can express it to friends (80.2%), parents (73.8%), and teachers (54.5%). Conversely, respondents commented that they cannot voice their opinion to 45.5% of adults and older people, 16.3% of politicians, and 20.1% of religious leaders.

12.3.2.6

Is English Important?

Out of all respondents, 94.6% consider learning English to be “very important” or “important”. The answer trend for this item is the same as for other ASEAN countries.

12.3.2.7

Reading, Writing, Listening, and Speaking in English

Out of all respondents, 20.6% said they “often” or “always” write letters and e-mails in English, and 20.6% said they “often” or “always” read newspapers, magazines, and websites in English. This ratio is the lowest among ASEAN countries. These items are unusually low compared to the Philippines (92.2% for the former and 97.9% for the latter). In addition, 26.6% of the respondents said they “often” or “always”

244

M. Ishimura

speak with foreigners in English, an extremely low figure. This ratio is second only to Indonesia (19.4%). In comparison, the ratio for this item in Brunei is 79.5%.

12.3.2.8

What You Think You Can Do in the Future

With regards to the item “Can solve and take action on various issues in the region, country, ASEAN and the world together”, 37.2% of Vietnamese respondents said they “can do so very well”. Meanwhile, 14.0% said they “can”. The total is 51.2%. This ratio is the lowest compared to other ASEAN countries. (For example, in Thailand, this figure is 75.2%, in the Philippines, it is 73.2%, and in Malaysia, it is 68.1%). In addition, 34.2% of the respondents said they “may be able to live with different cultures and different ethnic groups”, and 10.3% said they could. The total was 44.5%. This ratio is the lowest among the surveyed countries, with a response rate below 50%. This is consistent with the results of the expert survey. Regarding “the ability to solve social problems common to ASEAN countries together with others”, few expert respondents believe that such problems are not dealt with much in terms of class and research that this matter is not considered important and therefore has not been achieved.

12.3.2.9

National Pride and Morality

Out of the respondents, 70.3% said they “had a lot of” pride or morality in their country. Meanwhile, 19.6% said they “had” pride or morality. The total number of respondents is 89.9%. This ratio is the lowest compared to other ASEAN countries. (For example, overall in Laos this number is 99.2%, in Malaysia, it is 98.6%, in Brunei, it is 98.6%, in Cambodia, it is 98.4%, in the Philippines, it is 98.0%, in Indonesia, it is 96.8%, and in Thailand, it is 96.6%). This may be due to Vietnam having problems as a socialist nation and its widening social inequality, as mentioned above.

12.3.2.10

Regarding the Question, “What is Important to You?”

The answers to the question “What is important to you?” were as follows: the percentage of those who answered “Loving the town/village where I live and acting in accordance with its tradition and culture” was 33.1%, and the percentage of those who answered “Love the country and act in accordance with its tradition and culture” was 29.2%. Additionally, 20.9% answered “World Peace”; 20.6% answered “Being proud of being a member of the ASEAN”; 20.4% answered “Love countries around the world and act according to international conventions and customs”.

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

245

Furthermore, the percentage of respondents that ranked ASEAN as the most important thing was lower than respondents in other ASEAN countries (the order of importance was ranked as follows: country → town/village → world → ASEAN region).

12.3.2.11

What is Needed for Modern Society (Select up to Three)

The top 4 responses to “What are needed for modern society” were as follows: “Mutually caring and living with others” (40.9%); “Patiently achieving your goals” (37.2%); “Maintaining basic ethics and morals” (31.1%); “Keeping your thoughts and beliefs to yourself” (30.6%). Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “International cooperation for problem solving” (3.3%); “Making decisions and acting on them” (3.0%); “Understanding and cherishing the differences between world cultures” (2.0%). Based on these answers, it is apparent that a recognition of the value of coexistence exists. However, people do not apply this value to the international stage, and are hesitant to change the status quo.

12.3.3 Questions About Knowledge of ASEAN 12.3.3.1

The Accuracy Rate of Locating ASEAN Countries on a Map

Using a map, respondents demonstrated their knowledge of geography by pointing out where each ASEAN member country is located. The rates for correct answers were as follows: Laos (83.1%), Cambodia (80.2%), Thailand (79.6%), the Philippines (76.9%), Indonesia (69.4%), Singapore (66.9%), Malaysia (65.8%), Brunei (65.6%), and Myanmar (62.6%). Compared to the answers from respondents of other ASEAN countries, the answer rate was high and less biased between countries. Of these, Laos had the highest rate of correct answers, excluding answers about their own country.

12.3.3.2

The Correct Answer Rate for Understanding the Meaning of the ASEAN Flag

53.7% of respondents said “I don’t know” when asked whether they understood the meaning of the ASEAN flag (at 22.4%, Vietnam ranked 7th out of the 8 surveyed countries in ASEAN). The main reason for this is that they were not taught it.

246

12.3.3.3

M. Ishimura

The Accuracy Rate of the ASEAN Establishment Year (1967)

Vietnamese respondents had the highest correct answer rate (62.5%) to the question “In what year was the ASEAN established?” compared to respondents from other ASEAN countries. ASEAN’s establishment is taught in school textbooks with detailed explanations including the date (August 8th).

12.3.3.4

The Correct Answer Rate for the ASEAN Integration Target Year (2015)

The correct answer rate among Vietnamese respondents to the question “When is the ASEAN Integration Target Year?” was only 4.0%. In fact, 77.9% of respondents answered “I don’t know”, ranking seventh among the eight ASEAN countries. The ASEAN integration target year was not mentioned in textbooks at that time, which explains the low correct answer rate. These issues require history textbooks to be re-edited.

12.3.3.5

How Much Do You Know About ASEAN Member Countries?

The ratio of the top 3 countries whose respondents answered “I do not know anything at all” or “I do not know” to this question was as follows: Myanmar 82.2%, Malaysia 75.9%, and the Philippines 70.1%. On the other hand, the ratio of the top 3 whose respondents answered “I know some” or “I know a lot” was: Brunei 48.8%, Thailand 47.0%, and Singapore 39.5%.

12.3.3.6

Through What Kinds of Media Do You Gain Knowledge of ASEAN?

Schools (55.5%) ranked first, the Internet (52.3%) ranked second, and TV (44.7%) came in third. In terms of school being in the first place, this only occurs in Vietnam, as described above, suggesting that the influence of school is very strong.

12.3.3.7

Others

79.4% said they would like to know more about ASEAN. 81.0% think that being a member of ASEAN is beneficial for their country are the total of “I think so” and “I think so very much”. This ratio is the lowest among ASEAN countries, in contrast to other countries, which exceed 90%. Those who think that being a member of ASEAN is beneficial for themselves are the lowest among all ASEAN countries, at 67.4% (the total of “I think so” and “I think so very

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

247

much”). This ratio is in contrast to other ASEAN countries, which generally exceed 80% (but Laos is at 78.8%). “Awareness, attachment, and pride as ASEAN citizens” is the lowest among all ASEAN countries at 64.6% (the total of “feel” and “feel very much”). This ratio is also in contrast to the fact that other ASEAN countries generally exceed 80% (but Indonesia is at 77. 7%). The total of “feeling” and “feeling very much” regarding one’s “sense of belonging to ASEAN” is 61.3%, which is the lowest among ASEAN countries (Other ASEAN countries generally exceed 80% However, it is 68.0% in Indonesia and 79.0% in Laos).

12.4 Analysis of Delphi Survey: Citizenship Education of 10 Years Later 12.4.1 Overview of the Surveys Period: First survey, March–April of 2013, Second survey, June-July of 2013. Survey location: Ho Chi Minh City, Long An Province. Number of people surveyed: First survey, 100, Second survey, 90(out of 100 respondents who participated in the first survey.) Respondent’s Sex: Male 26, Female 72, Unknown 2. Respondent’s Age: 20’s 4, 30’s 38, 40’s 24, 50’s 29, 60’s 5. The respondents’ occupations were as follows: 49 people were “Social Studies Teacher”; 20 people were “University Professors specializing in social studies content”; 7 people were “Principals/School Administrators”; 5 people were “Social Science Researchers, Education Specialists”; 15 people were “Education management organization executives (municipalities, counties/prefectures, special cities)”; 1 person worked at a “Professional organization for education”; and 3 people answered “Other”. The characteristics of the respondents’ occupations were: “Mainly education activity” (62 people); “Mainly research activity” (7 people); “Mainly educational management activity” (28 people); “Everything mentioned above” (1 person); “Other” (2 people). As mentioned above, many respondents were involved in education or educational administration with only a few responses from researchers.

12.4.2 Findings of Citizenship 12.4.2.1

Ranking Answers for “Which Characteristics Do You Think that You Have Achieved at Present”

Regarding Knowledge and understanding, the Local level (86%), National level (71%), and the Universal level (60%) were the top three chosen options. The bottom

248

M. Ishimura

two were the Global level and Regional level (38%). Regarding Skills and abilities, the Universal level (72%), Local level (65%), and Regional level (41%) were the three most chosen options, while the Global level (18%) and National level (24%) were the least chosen. Regarding Values and attitudes, the Local level (96%), National level, and Universal level (82%) were the most chosen. The lowest was the Global level (35%) followed by the Regional level (59%). What should be noted here is that the Global level was the least chosen option, which is considered an accurate representation of the current situation in Vietnam. In addition, with regards to Skills and abilities, although achievements at the Universal level were being evaluated, it should be noted that achievements at the Global level were not. It should also be noted that the achievement rating at the National level, which was evaluated as an achievement at the other two levels, was low.

12.4.2.2

The Top Three and Bottom Three Items that Are Treated as “Very Often” and “Often” in Terms of Classes and Research on Knowledge and Understanding

The top 3 items that respondents answered “very often” and “often” to in classes and research on Knowledge and understanding were “Democracy” (91%), “Coexistence and living together” (83%), and “Sustainable development” (83%). Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “ASEAN history and culture” (29%), “Common social problems of ASEAN countries” (31%), and “Different cultures” (42%).

12.4.2.3

The Top Three and Bottom Three Items that Are Considered “Very Important” for Knowledge and Understanding

The top 3 items that respondents answered “very important” for were Knowledge and understanding are “Environment” (88%), “Democracy” (77%), and “Human rights” (75%). Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “ASEAN history and culture” (24%), “Common social problems of ASEAN countries” (25%), and “Different cultures” (26%). Vietnamese respondents said that “different cultures” (2.95: weighted average, hereby referred to as WA), “ASEAN history and culture” (2.91), and “Common social problems in ASEAN countries” (2.91) were not always considered very important. Respondents from other ASEAN countries consider these items to be very important. Instead, Vietnamese respondents strongly recognized the importance of three other items: Environment (3.93), Democracy (3.79), and Human rights (3.76).

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

12.4.2.4

249

Regarding Knowledge and Understanding, the Total of “Completely Achieved”, “to Some Extent”, “Achieved”

Regarding Knowledge and understanding, the percentage of those who answered “Completely achieved”, “To some extent”, or “Achieved” was 76% for “Human rights”; 74% for “Coexistence and living together”; 69% for “Interdependence” and “Democracy”. Conversely, this percentage was only 49% for “Environment”. The Vietnamese respondents indicated the lowest WA for current achievements regarding the items of the “Environment” (2.86) and “Sustainable Development” (2.89). In addition, other items showed the same results as other ASEAN countries. Of course, there is a large difference between the answers that these indicators have been reached now and those that should be reached in 10 years. The former is 0.67 and the latter is 0.39. This number is interesting given that it is between −0.24 and 0.06 in other indicators, that is, it is now believed to have already reached some extent. In particular, Democracy (−0.24), Social welfare (−0.22), Common social problems of ASEAN countries (−0.19), Coexistence and living together (−0.18), Social justice and equity (−0.15) show negative gaps. It should be that. Regarding Knowledge and understanding, negative WA is shown for 5 items out of 12 characteristics. These five items are: Coexistence and living together (−0.18), Social justice and equity (−0.15), Democracy (−0.24), Social welfare (−0.22), and “Common social problems of ASEAN countries”. The Vietnamese respondents believe that Knowledge and understanding of these items will not be as effectively achieved in the future as they are “at present”. In addition, the WA of the gap between the present and the future for the following items has changed minimally or not at all. “Different cultures” (0.03), “Interdependence” (0.06), “Foreign language” (0.00), “Human Rights” (0.06), and “ASEAN history and culture” (0.06). The only items that should be achieved in the next ten years were two characteristics: “Environment” (0.67) and “Sustainable development” (0.39) (Table 12.1).

12.4.2.5

The Top Three and Bottom Three Items Treated as “Very Often” and “Often” in Classes and Research on Skills and Abilities

The top 3 items that respondents answered “very often” and “often” to in classes and research on Skills and abilities were “To cooperate with each other” (94%); “To have self-discipline and self-control” (89%); “To solve problems” (88%). Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (18%); “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (26%); “To use foreign language” (46%).

250

M. Ishimura

Table 12.1 Comparison of weighted average of questions on knowledge and understanding Questions Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A)

Topics

Knowledge (1) Environment 2.86 and (2) Coexistence 3.42 understanding and living together

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

The gap between present and future “(B)–(A)” (D)

3.52

3.93

0.67

3.23

3.79

−0.18

3.22

3.26

2.95

0.03

(4) Social justice 3.33 and equity

3.18

3.39

−0.15

(5) Democracy

3.40

3.16

3.79

−0.24

(6) Sustainable development

2.89

3.28

3.72

0.39

(7) 3.17 Interdependence

3.22

3.11

0.06

(8) Foreign language

3.34

3.34

3.28

0.00

(9) Social welfare

3.52

3.30

3.58

−0.22

(10) Human rights

3.20

3.26

3.76

0.06

(11) ASEAN history and culture

3.29

3.34

2.91

0.06

(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries

3.47

3.28

2.91

−0.19

(3) Different cultures

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

12.4.2.6

The Top Three and Bottom 3 Items that You Think Are “Very Important” for Skills and Abilities

The top 3 items that respondents considered “very important” for Skills and abilities were “To have self-discipline and self-control” (69%); “To improve quality of life” (61%); “To solve problems” (58%). Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (20%); “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (21%); “To contribute to society” (36%).

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

251

Vietnamese respondents were more likely to focus on the following two items than other countries: “To have self-discipline and self-control” (WA, 3.84) and “To improve quality of life” (3.76). Other than these two items, “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (2.99) and “To solve common social problems in ASEAN countries with other people” (2.96). Vietnamese respondents recognized the importance of each item, in accordance with responses from other ASEAN countries.

12.4.2.7

Total of “Completely Achieved”, “to Some Extent”, or “Achieved” for Skills and Abilities

Regarding Skills and abilities, the percentage of those who answered “Completely achieved”, “To some extent”, or “Achieved” was 82% for “To respond to ICT;” 79% for “To cooperate with each other;” 77% for “To develop sustainablity”. While other items reached almost 70%, the ability for “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” and the ability for “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” had lower numbers, and only 56% of respondents gave answers for the two items above. The WA shows a high figure of 3.62 for “To solve problems”, 3.60 for “To respond to ICT”, 3.57 for “To cooperate with each other”, and 3.57 for “To develop sustainablity”. In addition, “To solve problems” exhibited a high value. For the two items, “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries”, “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people”, the WA shows positive values of 0.22 for the former and 0.53 for the latter, and the Vietnamese respondents believe that these will be achieved in the next 10 years. Regarding Skills and abilities, 11 out of 14 items show negative WA. These eleven items are as follows. “To express opinions on social problems”, “To have self-discipline and self-control”, “To solve problems”, “To make decisions”, “To respond to ICT”, “To make a peaceful resolution”, “To think critically”, “To improve quality of life”, “To cooperate with each other”, “To develop sustainably”, and “To use foreign language”. Regarding “To contribute to society” (0.05), the difference between the present and future of the WA is very small. It is believed that the Vietnamese respondents think this item will not be improved very much in the future (Table 12.2).

12.4.2.8

The Top Three and Bottom Three Items Treated as “Very Often” and “Often” in Classes and Research on Values and Attitudes

The top 3 items that respondents answered “very often” and “often” to in classes and research on Values and attitudes were “To respect human rights” (90%); “To respect democracy” (89%); “To have morality and a pride as a nation” (87%). Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “To promote international cooperation” (33%); “To preserve

252

M. Ishimura

Table 12.2 Comparison of weighted average of questions on skills and abilities Questions Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A)

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

The gap between present and future “(B)–(A)” (D)

(1) To express opinions on social problems

3.48

3.26

3.59

−0.22

(2) To have self-discipline and selfcontrol

3.49

3.27

3.84

−0.22

(3) To solve problems

3.62

3.29

3.72

−0.33

(4) To make decisions

3.41

3.22

3.62

−0.19

(5) To respond 3.60 to ICT

3.30

3.49

−0.30

(6) To make a peaceful resolution

3.28

3.20

3.64

−0.08

(7) To think critically

3.53

3.27

3.30

−0.26

(8) To improve 3.52 quality of life

3.34

3.76

−0.18

(9) To 3.57 cooperate with each other

3.29

3.74

−0.27

(10) To develop sustainably

3.57

3.27

3.69

−0.30

(11) To contribute to society

3.17

3.22

3.29

0.05

(12)To use foreign language

3.45

3.33

3.34

−0.12

(13) To behave 3.03 in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

3.26

2.99

0.22

Topics

Skills and abilities

(continued)

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

253

Table 12.2 (continued) Questions Topics

Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A) (14) To solve 2.86 common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

The gap between present and future “(B)–(A)” (D)

3.39

2.96

0.53

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development” (50%); “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (62%). However, some of the data require context. Although it is understandable that the ratio of people that chose “To have morality and pride as a nation” was high, the items of “To respect human rights” and “To respect democracy” were also high. There may be a difference between the perception of Vietnam from the outside and that from the inside. Similarly, there may be differences between the inside and the outside perspectives on human rights and democracy.

12.4.2.9

The Top Three and Bottom Three Items that You Think Are “Very Important” with Regard to Values and Attitudes

The top 3 items that respondents answered “very important” to with regard to Values and attitudes were “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development” (79%); “To respect human rights” (72%); “To respect democracy” (69%). Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (34%); “To pay attention to global issues” (36%); “To promote international cooperation” (46%). Looking at the WA, Vietnamese respondents valued many items. “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (3.17) and “To pay attention to global issues” (3.18) had the lowest importance of all the characteristics that were examined. Vietnamese respondents recognized the following characteristics as having the most importance: “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development” (3.88); “To respect human rights” (3.88); “To place importance on the law” (3.85); “To respect democracy” (3.84).

254

12.4.2.10

M. Ishimura

Regarding Values and Attitudes, the Total of “Completely Achieved”, “to Some Extent”, and “Achieved”

The percentage of those who answered, “To respect tradition and culture” was 86%; the percentage of those who answered, “To have morality and pride as a nation” was also 86%; and the percentage of those who answered “To promote international cooperation” was 83%. Other items also accounted for more than 70%, but 59% of respondents were “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development”, while 64% of respondents were “To face wrong things and injustice”. Regarding Values and attitudes, six out of 13 items show negative WA. These six items are as follows. “Self-dependence”, “To respect cultural diversity”, “To promote international cooperation”, “To pay attention to global issues”, “To respect tadition and culture”, and “To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology”. The following answers have the smallest difference in WA among the ASEAN countries. “To face wrong things and injustice”, “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development”, “To place importance on the law”, “To have morality and pride as a nation”, “To respect democracy”, “To respect human rights” and “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN”. It is estimated that the Vietnamese respondents think this item will not be improved or will worsen in the future (Table 12.3).

12.4.3 Discussion of the Survey Results As described above, in general, the acquisition of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, Values and attitudes at the regional level is not sufficient. What should be analyzed are the answers to the questions regarding ASEAN? It is thought that there is the following structure. The Vietnamese respondents do not regard ASEAN as important and have not achieved it. This structure is similar at the global level. However, as seen in 4-2-1, these items, that is, Knowledge and understanding at the regional level, and Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes at the global level, which are considered insufficient at this time, are expected to be satisfied in 10 years. Vietnam’s future policies and practices are drawing attention. The problem lies in whether they will become reality. For that purpose, at least the following points are important. It is vital to have Skills and abilities at the national level, such as political participation, which is deemed to have currently been satisfied at only 24%. Furthermore, only Vietnam has a tendency to have a negative gap between many of the answers already achieved and what will be fulfilled over the next decade. This feature is not found in other ASEAN countries. For experts on Vietnam, many items have already reached their “current” level and will not change—even after 10 years-, or are regarded as efficient.

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

255

Table 12.3 Comparison of weighted average of questions on values and attitudes Questions Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A)

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

The gap between present and future “(B)–(A)” (D)

(1) To face wrong 3.32 things and injustice

3.43

3.76

0.11

(2) To preserve 3.18 natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development

3.46

3.88

0.28

(3) To have self-dependence

3.35

3.33

3.77

−0.03

(4) To respect cultural diversity

3.33

3.31

3.64

−0.02

(5) To place importance on the law

3.13

3.29

3.85

0.16

(6) To promote international cooperation

3.60

3.38

3.39

−0.22

(7) To pay attention to global issues

3.53

3.31

3.18

−0.21

(8) To respect tradition and culture

3.47

3.34

3.63

−0.12

(9) To have morality and pride as a nation

3.47

3.48

3.82

0.01

(10) To respect democracy

3.19

3.22

3.84

0.03

(11) To respect human rights

3.15

3.28

3.88

0.13

(12) To think in a 3.60 scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology

3.42

3.78

−0.18

Topics

Values and attitudes

(continued)

256

M. Ishimura

Table 12.3 (continued) Questions Topics

(13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

Q3: The degree of achievement of this characteristics at present (A)

Q4: The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)

Q2: The significance of this characteristics (C)

The gap between present and future “(B)–(A)” (D)

3.23

3.33

3.17

0.10

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

12.5 Comparative Consideration of the Analysis Results of the Student Survey and the Delphi Survey An overview and comparison of the two surveys dealt with in this chapter reveals that the Vietnamese government has a solid educational policy framework for civic education and that there is no “blurring” between the two survey results. The results of the two surveys show that the same response tendency, and the contents of civic education, which the Vietnamese central government considers important, are properly policy-based, taught at schools, and accepted by students. Conversely, that which the government does not consider important is not policy-based, is not dealt with in schools, and is not communicated to students (for example, ASEAN education (3-210, 4-2-8, etc.)) Given the results of the Delphi survey (only Vietnam has a tendency to have a negative gap between many of the answers already achieved and those that will be fulfilled over the next decade), this situation will not change within the next decade. Here, the symbolic item that should be noted is “democracy”. Students think that democracy has been realized in Vietnam (3-2-3 the word “democracy” was “heard” and “often heard” at a high rate (81.1%)). For experts, “democracy” is treated as “often” and “very often” in terms of classes and research (91%, 4-2-2) and they consider it “very important” (77%, 4-2-3). Experts also think that it has been realized (69%, 4-2-4). The same applies to other items related to civic education, and it is “natural” for Vietnam, a socialist country, to realize each item. The stereotypical claims of capitalist countries that “the dictatorship of the Communist Party” violates the rights of its citizens should be examined in more detail. For example, the mode of “disagreeing” with others, which was revealed in the student survey, is not simply due to the maturation of “citizenship”. It is because the issue of citizenship in oriental familism or citizenship in the socialist system (democratic centralism) was not fully examined in this survey, and citizenship was set based on Western “citizenship”. This is an issue for future research.

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

257

12.6 Summary and Recommendation: Model of Citizenship Education Sorting out the problem of the overall structure of education in Vietnam against the background of education for ASEANness should be considered. The first thing to consider is that Vietnam is a socialist country and has a framework for citizen education within it. As mentioned above, it is important to note that Skills and abilities at the national level (such as political participation) are considered to have been fulfilled at just 24%. In order to solve this issue, it is necessary to deal with the following matters: (1) education for ASEANness will be realized as the framework of socialism is re-examined; (2) education for ASEANness will be carried out as part of socialism, which is supposed to have an international character, but has come to be debated and changed. However, this obstacle is beyond the scope of this chapter. Hence, let us assume that the status quo is maintained. In the framework of this assumption, we will consider how to develop Vietnamese-ASEANness, which means ASEAN within the national interest, secured by the central state, within the next decade. For this, it is necessary to consider the following. Under globalization, the range (the rule and model of inclusion/exclusion), contents (rights and responsibilities) and depth (the degree of commitment) of Citizenship need to be re-defined (Kimae et al., 2012). In Vietnam, Citizenship Education does not necessarily play a “role as relativization device of national identity education” (Minei, 2011), at least in government education sectors. It is necessary to think about the possibility of transforming this situation. If such a possibility cannot be found, will the Vietnamese government form and spread government-made ASEANness? In other words, will Vietnam create “Vietnamese-ASEANness” secured by the Vietnamese government and in the range of the national interest? It is necessary to analyze this further. The second thing to take into account is Vietnam’s “specialty”. Compared to ASEAN countries, awareness of ASEAN leading to “regional” and “global” citizenship is low in Vietnam. Other ASEAN countries have a high awareness of ASEAN, which engenders “regional” and “global” citizenship, but those figures are low in Vietnam. The fact that Vietnam is heading toward China, Japan, the United States, France, Australia, (etc.), may have also weakened its desire for a “regional” identity. In addition, it is necessary to scrutinize “active citizenship” in Vietnam. Vietnam has a higher national or traditional dominance than other ASEAN countries and needs to consciously break away from it. The Vietnamese government is taking steps to deepen its ties with the international community, including its connection with ASEAN. Questions remain about how to resolve the gap between such global and traditional policies at the individual level. There is still a “binary” relationship between the two policies. The key to overcoming this hurdle is the educational strategy in schools that links these two policies. The challenge is how Vietnam responds both philosophically and practically to the “classical problem” of how to relate to the members of the nation as well as of the international community. For this purpose, Skills and abilities at the national level (to express opinions on social problems, to cooperate with each other,

258

M. Ishimura

to have self-discipline and self-control, to solve problems. etc.) are acquired for the time being. Dr. Trung (2013) argued that if national and ethical (universal?) rules are in conflict, the latter should be emphasized. There is a problem in Vietnam where this must be stressed. However, in this regard, the following analysis has been conducted for other Asian and Pacific countries. Forming active citizenship in a conservative pedagogy based on national values and priorities remains a challenge, that is probably the biggest issue that needs to be addressed for civic education teachers in the future (Grossman et al., 2008). In Vietnam, the matter is more serious. In the case of Vietnam, it becomes a complication when going into ASEAN with the aim of integration specifically in terms of how to attain “national” integration through socialism. Integration into ASEAN carries the danger of a state becoming socialist, to counter this possibility an ASEAN member country should engage in a coalition that includes a capitalist country. ASEAN integration expands economy and socializes education. However, the disparity may widen further. In other words, while accepting the global era economically, it is considered unacceptable as a “national theory and national education theory in the global era” (Minei, 2011). However, in the current situation of not accepting a global system, although the need to provide education linked to employment and income is declared by law, there is a limit at the national level. Herein lies the difficult question of how to consider the degree of national involvement and the extent of freedom beyond the country. In this regard, Kennedy (Grossman et al., 2008) pointed out the issue of how to deal with the ongoing tension between the liberal economy, a free curriculum, and conservative (socialist in Vietnam) citizen values. This is illustrated schematically in Fig. 12.1 at the beginning of this chapter. Concretely, in terms of what should be done to further develop VietnameseASEANness, the issue must be clarified from three angles: Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, Values and attitudes. 1.

Regarding Knowledge and understanding, school had a strong influence. Therefore, it will be important to include cultural and social issues related to ASEAN in addition to history and geographical content in educational content (textbooks especially). As revealed in this survey, Vietnam has a high level of “knowledge” about ASEAN. Vietnamese students have a high level of “knowledge” about the year of ASEAN’s establishment and the position of each ASEAN member country. For the latter, as compared to other ASEAN countries, the answer to knowing each country’s position, there is no bias. On the other hand, as for what is not well taught at school (3-3-2, 3-3-4), the correct answer rate is extremely low. The challenge is to teach, in addition to already well-acquired knowledge, expertise that has not been sufficiently taught. This can be confirmed by an expert survey.

Looking at 4-2-3, 4-2-4 (Knowledge and understanding) and 4-2-6, 4-2-7 (Skills and abilities), they are relatively untreated in lessons/research and seem to be not important. Looking at 4-2-8 (Skills and abilities), these achievements are more than half. Let us analyze the answer regarding the Values and attitudes of “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN”. In examining 4-2-9, relatively few respondents

12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness

259

deal with this item in lessons or research. For 4-2-10, what I think is “very important” has the lowest selection rate among the items. Hence, when considering how to acquire such Knowledge and understanding regarding citizenship and education for ASEANness in classes and research, it is necessary to contemplate how such Knowledge and understanding are evaluated. It is essential in Vietnam to establish and disseminate an evaluation method for Knowledge and understanding that is not judged solely by test results. The improvement of the evaluation method is further emphasized in the 2019 Education Law, and I would like to pay attention to the implementation process in each school/classroom in the future. 2.

3.

4.

Regarding Skills and abilities, it is important to actually visit ASEAN countries and increase opportunities for concrete cooperation with those people. It is extremely important to build relationships with ASEAN people through such experiential and practical learning approaches. However, regarding “to behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries”, as mentioned below, it is necessary to discuss the following. In other words, what are the rules and values that can be co-translated and shared in Vietnam? It is necessary to clarify the above in terms of Values and attitudes, since they may be different from what is common in other ASEAN countries. Similarly, it is crucial to determine what form of democracy (according to ASEAN) is considered acceptable in Vietnam. At present, Vietnam respects “democracy”, but does not view it as a “thing to achieve in the future”. However, what is currently being upheld is “democracy”, which Vietnam recognizes as such. Here, it is also necessary to discuss the issue of how democracy should be realized under socialism, while taking into account that the idea of socialism itself has an underlying international character. In terms of Values and attitudes over the next decade, it will be vital to establish how far they can be collectively translated and shared between Vietnam and other ASEAN countries. In terms of future goals, it is clear from this survey that “being a member of ASEAN is beneficial to one’s own country”, and “a sense of belonging to ASEAN” are commonly shared concepts. Furthermore, the data reveals that “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” is a factor that adults believe children should acquire. Through the above, it is critical to analyze education for ASEANness and citizenship education in classrooms. How to teach/learn citizenship education, including education for ASEANness, in classrooms has to be examined. The cramming of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, Values and attitudes for citizenship education is inadequate. Learning from the experience of pupils/students and Practical Learning which relates to knowledge in society must be developed and enhanced (Kennedy et al., 2010). For example, through class observation, scholars should explore how a sense of self-respect among pupils/students is tied to citizenship education. In this regard, the following three points, which Kennedy points out to be imperative for citizen education,

260

M. Ishimura

are also significant in Vietnam. (i) Breaking away from traditional civic education, (ii) Breaking away from swallowing and drill learning, and (iii) Breaking away from test-based evaluation. In addition to the above, the issue is where to position education for ASEANness and citizenship education in the existing concrete subjects in schools. As mentioned in this chapter, such education is positioned to some extent in terms of Knowledge and understanding in subjects such as morals, civic education, history, and geography. In these subjects, it is also an issue to position such education from the aspect of Skills and abilities, Values and attitudes.

References Grossman, D. L., Lee, W. O., & Kennedy, K. J. (Eds.) (2008). Citizenship curriculum in Asia and the Pacific. CERC Studies in Comparative Education 22, Springer, Comparative Education Research Centre. University of Hong Kong. Hirata, T. (Ed.). (2017). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community). Toshindo. Ishimura, M., Otsuka, Y., & Chikada, M. (1998). Btetonamu (Vietnam). In: T. Umakoshi (Ed.), Ajia Chiiki no Chuutou Kyouiku no Naiyou to Hyoukahou ni Kansuru Chousa Kenkyuu (Research study on contents and evaluation methods of secondary education in Asian region) (pp. 77–100). Nagoya University. Kennedy, K.J., Lee, W.O., & Grossman, D.L. (Eds.). (2010). Citizenship pedagogies in Asia and the Pacific. CERC Studies in Comparative Education 28, Springer, Comparative Education Research Centre. The University of Hong Kong. Kimae, T., Tokiyasu, K., & Kameyama, T. (2012). Kattou Suru Shichizunshippu Kenri to Seiji (Conflicting citizenship: Rights and politics). Gendai Shokan. Minei, A. (2011). Tokutei Kadai Kenkyuu Purojekuto Nitsuite, Tokushuu Ronbun: Guroobaru Jidai no Shichizunshippu to Kokusai Rikai Kyouiku (About specific research project, special feature: Citizenship and international understanding education in the global age). International Understanding Education, Nihon Kokusai Rikai Kyouiku Gakkai (Japan Association for International Education), 17, 34–36. Morishita, M. (2013). ASEAN Shokoku niokeru Shiminsei ni kansuru Jidouseito heno Ankeeto Chousa (A questionnaire survey to the students on citizenship in the ASEAN countries). Hikaku Kyouikugaku Kenkyuu (Comparative Education). Japan Comparative Education Society, 46, 118– 133. Toshindo. TRUNG (Gian Tu). (2013). Moi Thu Cang Te Hai, Moi Nguoi Cang Phai Dan Than (The worse things get, the more people have to commit), Saigon Tiep Thi, So 24.

Part III

Citizenship Education Paradigm for Surviving the 21st Century in the ASEAN Community

Chapter 13

Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community Minoru Morishita, Toshifumi Hirata, and Masahiro Teshima

Abstract This chapter conducts a cross-sectional comparative analysis of the current status, characteristics, and challenges of citizenship education in the ASEAN community based on the results of two citizenship surveys conducted in the ASEAN countries, following the reports of the ASEAN countries in Part II (Chaps. 3–12). The two surveys were designed to be conducted in all ten ASEAN member countries. However, we were unable to conduct the student and Delphi surveys in Singapore and Delphi survey in Myanmar. Summarizing the results of the analysis, it is clear that although the ASEAN Community, which was founded in 2015, has made good progress and efforts are being made for further development, efforts are still needed to achieve its objectives. The remaining challenges for the ASEAN Community were how to overcome the diversity of each country, how to promote the transformation of students’ awareness of ASEAN, and how to promote national policymaking and curriculum development. This chapter is a partial translation, a compact reorganization, and a final summary (Summary and Recommendations) of “ASEAN Shokoku niokeru Shiminsei Kyouiku Chousa no Hikakubunseki (Comparative Analysis on Citizenship Education Survey in the ASEAN Countries)” (Morishita, 2017). In Toshifumi Hirata. (Ed.). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kuouiku (Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community). 270-307. Toshindo. Keywords ASEAN Community · Awareness of ASEAN · Comparative analysis · Delphi survey · Diversity · Student survey M. Morishita (B) Faculty of Marine Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2-1-6, Etchujima, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8533, Japan e-mail: [email protected] T. Hirata Faculty of Education, Oita University, Oita City 870-1192, Japan e-mail: [email protected] M. Teshima Faculty of Education, Bunkyo University, 3337, Minami-Ogishima, Koshigaya-shi, Saitama 343-8511, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_13

263

264

M. Morishita et al.

13.1 Comparative Analysis of the Results of Questionnaire Surveys for Students 13.1.1 Outline of the Survey The survey aimed to identify the characteristics, current status, trends, and issues in citizenship education in each country by comparing the attitudes of students in ASEAN countries toward citizenship and clarifying the current status of citizenship education they are actually acquiring. The timing and methods of the survey differed slightly from country to country, and the details are described in each chapter. In creating the questionnaire, we incorporated contents from the questionnaire developed for the JSPS Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) research project “An Empirical Comparative Study on Fostering Citizenship in Japan and Thailand” (2002–2004) (Hirata, 2007). The comparative analysis of the results of the student questionnaire survey in this chapter is based on the analysis in “A questionnaire survey to the students on citizenship in the ASEAN countries” (Morishita, 2013), with additional data from Myanmar.

13.1.2 Structure of the Questionnaire Survey The questionnaire consisted of two parts: the first part asked about students’ citizenship, and the second part asked about their knowledge and attitudes about ASEAN. In the first part, according to the citizenship quality table developed in this study, five levels of local–national–regional–global-universal were set on one axis. On the other axis are the three dimensions of knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes. The second part of the questionnaire asked about the basic knowledge of ASEAN member countries and ASEAN as an international organization, media for acquiring such knowledge, and identity as an ASEAN member. It was based on a survey of university students conducted by Thompson (2008).

13.1.3 Survey Results We will conduct a comparative analysis based on the nine-country comparison table for each question. In the analysis, we will proceed with Tables 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 13.5, 13.6 showing the average values and representative alternative answers to the questions of the four-step method.

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

13.1.3.1

265

Citizenship in Terms of Knowledge and Understanding

The first part of the questionnaire, Q1–Q3, asked about the knowledge and understanding aspects of citizenship. The results are shown in Table 13.1, where Q1 asks about history learning and Q2 asks about tradition and culture learning and how they consider their importance at each level (local, national, regional, and global). In Table 13.1, the mean of the responses of the four-level method is shown. Q1: Looking at the level of importance of history learning, all nine countries consider “History of my country” as the most important, followed by “History of the world.” The average value for “History of ASEAN countries” is low in Vietnam, which differs from the trend in other countries. Q2 Looking at the importance of learning about tradition and culture, “local tradition and culture” is considered the most important. As for the other items, the tendency differed depending on the country. Regarding local tradition and culture, the average value is lower in Malaysia (17.1%), where few respondents selected “very important” while it is important in Laos and Cambodia. Regarding tradition and culture in ASEAN, the level of importance is high in the Philippines, Thailand, and Laos, while it is low in Vietnam, Brunei, and Indonesia. Q3 was an attempt to measure the acquisition of knowledge by asking about the experience of seeing and hearing the keywords of citizenship. The results showed that (3) peace, (6) environment, and (8) development were seen and heard very well in each country. However, in Myanmar, the average value was slightly lower than that of other countries. (7) Human rights and (11) Democracy, which have high averages in many countries, were low in Brunei. (2) Social justice and equity was low in Brunei and Vietnam. Experience differs by country in the following aspects: (1) international society, (4) interdependence, and (5) sustainable development. The average values for (9) coexistence and (10) intercultural understanding were low in many countries, but the values for (9) coexistence were high in Laos and Thailand, and those for (10) intercultural understanding were high in Malaysia. Malaysia and Thailand are both considered to have many opportunities to acquire knowledge of citizenship, as 10 out of 11 items are above the mean value of 3. However, in Brunei, seven items were below the mean value of 3.

13.1.3.2

Citizenship in Terms of Skills and Abilities

The first part of the questionnaire, Q4–Q8, asked about the skills and abilities of citizenship. In Q4, respondents were asked about their experiences with learning, thinking, and acting on social issues (e.g., issues related to politics, the environment, human rights, and conflict). Table 13.2 shows the mean values of the responses to the fourstep method. The results show that (2) experience of having one’s own opinion is the most common, followed by (1) experience of learning by oneself, and (3) experience of expressing one’s opinion and (4) experience of taking action tend to

3.2

2.8 1 = Not at all, 2 = Not very often, 3 = Yes, 4 = Often

4. Diverse traditions and cultures from around the world

Source Morishita, 2017

2.8

11. Democracy

2.6

1.7 2.7

9. Coexistence

10. Understanding of other cultures

3.7

3.3

8. Development

3.8

3.3

2.4

3.7

3.7 2.7

3.4 2.3

3.1 2.7

4. Interdependence

5. Sustainable development

6. Environment

3.7

3.6

3. Peace

7. Human rights

2.5 3.0

2.9 2.7

1. International society

2. Social justice and equity

3.1

3.6

2.9

2.7

3.3

3.6

3.8

2.4

2.8

3.6

3.6

3.2

3.1

2.8

3.7

2.7

3.6

3.6

3.2

3.7

2.8

3.1

3.6

3.1

2.4

3.2

3.1

2.9

3.5

3.5

2.8

3.7

3.5

3.9

3.5

3.6

3.8

3.4

3.3

3.1

2.9

3.6

Q3 Record of observations on citizenship keywords

2.9

3.5 3.8

2.8

3.1 3.6

3.Tradition and culture in the ASEAN region

3.4 3.7

3.1 3.6

2 Tradition and culture of one’s own country

3.4

3.4

2.6

3.0

3.3

3.1

3.4

2.7

2.7

3.3

2.9

3.1

2.9

3.0

3.7

3.2

3.3

3.1

3.1

3.7

2.8

2.7

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.0

2.9

3.7

3.3

2.7

3.5

3.3

3.7

3.2

3.7

3.4

3.8

1 = Not at all important, 2 = Not very important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very important

3.6

1.Tradition and culture of the village or town where you live

3.6

3.1

2.8 3.5

Q2 Importance of learning about tradition and culture

3.4

3.2

2.8 3.6

3.1

3.3

3.3 3.8

Philippines

3.4

3.1

2.9 3.7

Myanmar

3. History of ASEAN countries

3.7

Malaysia

4. World History

2.9 3.7

2. History of one’s own country

Laos

1 = Not at all important, 2 = Not very important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very important

1. History of one’s own village or town

Indonesia

Q1 Importance of studying history

Cambodia

Brunei

Part 1: Citizenship

3.8

3.0

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.7

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.4

2.6

3.3

3.1

3.6

3.2

3.5

3.2

3.7

3.1

Thailand

Table 13.1 Comparison of citizenship in terms of knowledge and understanding (The numbers in the table are the averages for each country)

3.3

2.7

2.7

3.5

3.2

3.7

3.2

2.3

3.6

2.7

2.1

3.0

2.7

3.6

3.1

3.0

2.7

3.6

3.0

Vietnam

266 M. Morishita et al.

63.2

The numbers in the table indicate the percentage of respondents who answered “Yes”

6. To religious leaders

Q6 The importance of learning English

2.5

2.2

3.3

1.9

1.9

3.5

3.5

2.2

2.3

2.3

2.4

(continued)

2.2

1.8

1.9

2.1

2.5

3.3

3.3

3.0

3.4

2.1

1.9

1.8

4.Watching TV and listening to radio programs

2.4

3.0

2.9

2.4

2.1

2.2

3.4

2.5

2.1

3. Browse magazines, newspapers, and websites

67.9

20.1

16.3

45.5

2.7

67.4

17.1

19.3

2.5

76.8

29.6

23.4

54.5

3.2

86.2

28.7

25.1

42.0

37.8

3.1

55.3

76.0

36.6

51.1

47.3

2. Correspondence and e-mails

78.2

25.6

25.6

51.8

48.2

1. Conversation with a foreigner

74.4

41.8

19.5

56.3

67.7

1 = Not at all, 2 = Not very much, 3 = Can do, 4 = Sufficient (The numbers in the table are averages for each country)

66.0

39.1

29.9

35.0

38.5

73.8

80.2

1.6

1.3

2.1

1.9

Q7 English proficiency

75.5

18.1

67.8

73.6

72.6

92.1

5. To people who are in politics

71.3

71.9

92.7

83.4

62.1

94.4

48.9

89.4

79.9

61.2

68.6

91.9

4. To adults and older people

84.9

92.0

3. To school teachers

69.2 85.8

2.4

84.2

2.4

2. To parents

1.8

The numbers in the table indicate the percentage of respondents who answered “Yes”

1.9

2.2

2.8

2.5

67.7

2.3

2.3

3.1

2.8

Q5 To whom you can express your opinions?

2.1

2.0

2.4

2.0

1. To friends

2.3

2.1

3.0

2.5

1.5

1.9

2.8

2.4

4. I acted on my own to solve the problem

1.7

2.7

2.4

2.0

2.3 2.3

Vietnam

1.8

Thailand

2.6

Philippines

3. I expressed my opinions

Myanmar

2. I had my own opinions

Malaysia

2.0

Laos

1. I did my own research and learning

Indonesia

1 = Not at all, 2 = Not very often, 3 = Yes, 4 = Often (The numbers in the table are averages for each country)

Q4 Experience in social issues

Cambodia

Brunei

Part 1 Citizenship

Table 13.2 Comparison of citizenship in terms of skills and abilities; values and attitudes

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 267

Source Morishita, 2017

Q10 Morality and pride as a citizen

39.3

40.3

2.4

27.2

2.8

39.8

2.9

54.4

2.7

44.8

3.3

3.0

20.1

3.1

3.1

85.1

87.1

59.3

83.8

86.8

68.2

80.0

56.9

The figures in the table show the percentage of respondents who answered “have enough”

25.3

2.8

2.8

70.3

17.8

3.0

2.9

2.5

2.7

The figures in the table show the percentage of respondents who answered that they “fully protect and implement”

3.2

2.9

3.0

2.7

2.8

2.9

2.7

Q9 Practicing religion and faith in daily life

2.5

2.5

2.9

8. Helping toward world peace

2.8

2.7

3.1

3.0

2.7

2.6

2.3

2.4

7. Responding to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Society

2.6

2.7

3.0

2.5

2.8

2.7

2.5

3.3

2.9

2.5

3.0

3.1

3.1

3.1

6. Understanding regional, national, ASEAN, and global issues

3.0

3.0

3.1

3.0

5. Confronting injustice, inequality, and discrimination 3.1

2.9

2.7

3.2

3.1

2.5

3.1

3.2

3.1

2.8

2.9

3.0

2.7

4. Living with different cultures and ethnic groups

2.8

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.8 2.8

Vietnam

3.0

Thailand

3.1

Philippines

3. Understanding of native and foreign cultures

Myanmar

2. A richer life in body and mind than the present one

Malaysia

2.9

Laos

1. When I do something, I alone decide

Indonesia

1 = Not at all, 2 = Not very much, 3 = Can do, 4 = Sufficient (The numbers in the table are averages for each country)

Cambodia

Brunei

Part 1 Citizenship

Q8 Skills related to future citizenship

Table 13.2 (continued)

268 M. Morishita et al.

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

269

be less common. Vietnam, Brunei, and Myanmar have the least experience in these areas. On the other hand, the Philippines is the most active country, followed by Malaysia and Thailand. In Q5, respondents were asked whether they could express their opinions frankly and to whom. Table 13.2 shows the percentage of respondents who answered “I can.” The overall trend was that respondents were able to express their opinions to friends and parents, but less so to teachers and adults, and a larger percentage of respondents answered “I don’t know” to politicians and religious leaders. However, when we perform an item-wise analysis, we can observe a variety of trends. For teachers, the percentage of respondents who answered “don’t know” was quite high, at more than 70% in Cambodia and Indonesia, while the percentage was about half of that in Thailand and Laos, at around 30%. The response rate for religious leaders was high in Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia, in that order, while the response rate was low in Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar. We observed a trend wherein the response rate is higher when the predominant religion among the respondents is Islam and lower when the predominant religion is Buddhism. In Q6, we asked respondents about their awareness of the importance of learning English, ASEAN’s common language. Table 13.2 shows the percentage of respondents who answered, “very important.” There is a strong awareness of the importance of learning English in each country. Myanmar scored particularly high. Although only Malaysia appears to be reluctant, the total of responses for “not very important” and “not important” is 1.5%, which is the second lowest after Myanmar’s 1.0%. In Q7, respondents were asked about how they rated their English language skills necessary to understand, think about, and express opinions on global issues by skill (speaking, writing, reading, and listening). Table 13.2 shows the mean values of the responses to the four-point method. Overall, there are large differences between countries, and not large differences by skill within a single country. The countries with the highest self-evaluations were Brunei, the Philippines, and Malaysia, where the average score was generally in the 3-point range. This may be due to the fact that the British or Americans were sovereign countries during the colonial period and that some of the teaching terms were in English. On the contrary, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand, in that order, have lower self-evaluation scores. In Q8, respondents were asked whether they would be able to acquire the characteristics of citizenship and live in a way that is considered desirable in the future. The specific questions included eight items that were elaborated from the table of characteristics of citizenship. Table 13.2 shows the mean values of the responses to the four-step method. Looking at the overall trend, the scores are roughly in the upper 2 to lower 3 ranges and are not very dispersed. Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines can be said to be confident in their future citizenship-based abilities, with the majority of items in the 3-point range. Cambodia can be said to be less confident among the nine countries, with all items scoring within the two ranges. Looking at the results by item, (2) affluent life was high in all countries, while (6) problem-solving was low in all countries.

270

13.1.3.3

M. Morishita et al.

Citizenship in Terms of Values and Attitudes

The first part of the questionnaire, Q9-Q10, asked about the values and attitudinal aspects of citizenship. In Q9, we asked whether they observed and practiced teachings of their own religion/faith in their daily lives. One of ASEAN’s characteristics is the diversity of its religious beliefs. Although there are many multi-religious societies, more than 90% of the respondents in Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia answered that they follow Islam, followed by Thailand, Cambodia, and Myanmar with more than 90%, Laos with 86.8%, and Vietnam with 61.3%. The Philippines is the only country in which 93.2% of the respondents are Christian. Table 13.2 shows the percentage of respondents who answered the option “I fully observed and practiced it.” The results show that Myanmar has the highest rate at 54.4%, and the Philippines and Indonesia have rates above 40%. On the other hand, Vietnam’s percentage was less than 20%, and Thailand, Brunei, and Laos had percentages less than 30%. There are large differences between countries. In Q10, respondents were asked whether they had pride as citizens of their country. Table 13.2 shows the percentage of respondents who answered the option “I have enough.” Looking at the overall results, although the percentage is over 80% in many countries, it does not reach 60% in Thailand and Indonesia. It seems necessary to examine whether the results of nationalist education are in line with public expectations.

13.1.3.4

Citizenship At the Local-National-Regional-Global Level

In Q11, seven characteristics common to each level from local to global were extracted from citizenship characteristics, and respondents were asked which of each was the most important. The results are presented in Table 13.3. Looking at the overall response trends at the local level, (1) local tradition and culture was selected most frequently in all nine countries. Next, (3) peace was selected most frequently in Brunei, Myanmar, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. In Thailand and the Philippines, (5) environment and development was also selected. At the national level, (8) patriotism, tradition, and culture was selected by many respondents, except in Brunei. In Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, (9) national pride was selected by many respondents, while in Brunei and Myanmar, (10) peace was selected most frequently. At the regional level (ASEAN), the responses are less concentrated than at the other levels, which can be seen as a characteristic. The exceptions are Indonesia, Myanmar, and the Philippines, where (17) peace in ASEAN was selected most frequently. At the global level, (24) world peace attracted responses from all countries except Thailand, with more than 50% of respondents in Malaysia and Brunei in particular. In Q11, respondents were asked which of the four levels they thought were the most important, with (24) world peace coming first, followed by Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and the Philippines. Cambodia ranked first for (8) patriotism, tradition, and culture; Laos ranked first for (1) local tradition and

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

271

Table 13.3 Comparison of citizenship in terms of local-national-regional-global levels Part 1 Citizenship

Bru Camb Indon Laos Mala Myan Philipp Thaila nei odia esia ysia mar ines nd Q11-1 What according to you is the most important at the local level? (select only one)

Vietn am

46.6 56.8 24.9 32.3 23.2 23.7 1. To love one’s village or 20.7 51.2 town, and to preserve its traditional culture 10.0 4.3 13.1 3.1 1.8 8.2 2. To take pride in being a 10.2 4.4 village or town's delicacy 20.6 6.8 22.0 30.8 26.6 7.7 3. To have peace in one’s 36.0 17.2 village or town 8.0 6.1 7.6 6.3 15.4 13.0 15.3 4. To maintain 1.5 democracy in one’s village or town 5. To be concerned about 15.9 12.7 5.0 18.0 11.2 15.9 22.7 24.4 environmental and developmental issues in one’s village or town 3.9 4.4 3.3 5.5 1.5 6.4 6.6 6. To take an interest in 5.4 human rights issues in one’s village or town 2.5 7.1 2.1 15.5 1.0 5.9 12.4 7. To have an identity as 9.7 a member of a village or town Q11-2 What according to you is the most important at the national level? (select only one) 44.4 54.8 22.4 26.2 37.0 21.8 8. To love one’s country 17.9 57.9 and preserve its tradition and culture 29.4 13.2 35.1 11.8 12.5 25.2 9. To be proud of being a 23.5 11.2 member and a citizen of one’s country 13.2 8.1 22.8 27.7 19.1 10.8 10. To have peace in one’s 36.5 15.4 country 4.8 2.4 5.9 5.6 15.4 12.0 15.1 11. To preserve 1.5 democracy in one’s country 12. To be interested in the 7.9 6.4 4.4 11.1 5.6 9.2 10.7 13.1 environment and development issues in one’s country 13. To be interested in 5.7 3.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.1 5.7 3.2 human rights issues in one’s country 14. To have a national 5.9 0.2 3.9 2.5 4.5 7.2 2.5 8.4 identity Q11-3 What according to you is the most important at the regional level? (select only one)

33.1

15. To have a liking for the 12.0 ASEAN region and preserving its tradition and culture 16. To be proud of being a 16.1 member of the ASEAN

11.1 18.1 6.1

13.3

7.0

4.8

29.2

19.4

10.5 7.5 16.6

7.0

1.3

20.9

21.0

29.8

28.6

21.5

25.2

14.1

12.3

24.4

14.8

10.5

10.3

7.2

5.9

10.6

20.6

(continued)

272

M. Morishita et al.

Table 13.3 (continued) region 17. To have peace in the 25.0 27.4 42.7 17.4 18.2 34.4 30.2 16.8 11.1 ASEAN region 18. To preserve democracy 4.9 6.4 8.9 7.0 11.4 15.4 9.1 16.5 12.1 in the ASEAN region 19. To have an interest in 16.3 12.4 4.9 22.0 10.2 11.3 15.0 20.5 19.9 the environment and development in the ASEAN region 20. To be interested in 15.4 5.1 3.3 5.7 11.9 4.6 9.1 12.9 12.0 human rights issues in the ASEAN region 21. To have an identity as 9.9 3.2 4.4 5.6 7.2 5.1 5.0 6.4 3.3 an ASEAN member Q11-4 What according to you is the most important at the global level? (select only one) 22. To love Earth and follow 12.0 30.3 38.5 29.8 7.5 21.0 35.7 14.5 20.4 global rules and customs 23. To be proud to be an 6.2 12.4 7.4 10.4 3.9 11.8 2.7 17.3 8.1 Earthling 24. To have world peace 50.9 32.7 39.1 21.5 56.5 44.1 37.7 14.6 20.9 25. To preserve of 1.5 6.9 3.6 5.4 5.9 7.2 4.8 12.8 13.5 democracy in the world 26. To be interested in 14.1 8.5 4.6 21.3 9.2 8.7 12.7 24.4 15.3 Earth's environment and development issues 27. To be concerned about 6.1 5.3 4.1 6.7 8.8 2.6 3.0 4.9 8.6 global human rights issues 28. To have an identity as a 8.2 1.8 2.8 2.9 6.6 4.6 3.0 9.7 3.3 human being on Earth SQ11-1 What according to you is the most important among the four choices above from No.1 to No.28? (choose only one, choice number and response rate (%)) No. No.8- No.24- No. No.24- No.24 No. No.26- No.8, 43.4 1st 2418.1 23.2 1-29.2 2414.7 2430.4 15.3 27.7 4.7 No. No.1- No.8- No. No.9- No.22- No.22- No.23, 2nd 1013.1 21.8 810.2 7.7 16.8 24-8.4 8.7 13.7 No. No.24 No.9- No. No.1 No.26 No.8No.1, 3rd 26-12.9 11.6 240-6.8 -6.2 7.3 9-4.0 8.2 11.9 Q12 What according to you is necessary in today's society? (rank the 15 items and select up to 3 choices) 1. To keep one’s thoughts 2 5 3 2 2 1 6 6 4 to oneself and believe in oneself 2. To value each other's 1 4 1 4 1 6 2 1 1 feelings and live in harmony with others 3. To not be selfish, be 10 6 2 1 5 5 1 2 2 patient, and accomplish one’s goals 4. To make decisions calmly 12 12 8 6 3 10 7 5 5 and dispassionately

(continued)

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

273

Table 13.3 (continued) 5. To do things that benefit the public and humanity such as volunteering and helping each other 6. To have basic ethics (the way to be a human being) and morals 7. To be able to say what is right. 8. To participate in activities to improve society 9. To abide by the law 10. To work together internationally to solve problems 11. To keep up with the world's economic, scientific, and technological innovations 12. To understand and value the differences in cultures (ways of living and acting, and customs) around the world 13. To be concerned about and solve global problems (environment, poverty, conflict, peace, discrimination, human rights, development, etc.) 14. To make decisions and take action 15. To respect human rights

9

3

11

3

4

3

14

8

6

13

13

9

14

13

9

11

6

3

5

8

4

9

12

2

8

9

10

8

7

13

10

6

12

12

13

12

4 6

11 10

6 12

8 5

10 9

7 12

13 10

3 15

7 13

11

9

10

11

11

14

15

11

11

7

14

7

13

8

15

5

12

15

3

2

11

7

7

8

3

4

9

14

15

15

15

14

11

9

14

14

14

1

5

12

14

4

4

10

8

Source Morishita, 2017

culture at 15.3%; Thailand ranked first for (26) global environment and development (14.7%). In Vietnam, no item garnered more than 5% of support.

13.1.3.5

Universal Level of Citizenship

In Q12, the respondents were asked to list 15 characteristics of citizenship at the universal level and select three of them. Table 13.3 shows the rankings of the 15 items, with the top three shaded. The overall trend was that (2) getting along well was ranked first in the five countries of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, and (3) restraining oneself and achieving goals was ranked first in Laos and the Philippines. Next, (1) self-reliance ranked first in Myanmar. Only in Cambodia, (15) respect for human rights was ranked first, which shows the characteristics of the country. In contrast, (14) decision-making and action was ranked low in all countries.

274

13.1.3.6

M. Morishita et al.

Knowledge and Understanding on ASEAN

In the second part of the questionnaire, Q1 to Q5, respondents’ knowledge about ASEAN countries and their basic knowledge of ASEAN itself, were tested. Table 13.4 shows the results. In Q1, participants were asked to identify the location of the ASEAN member countries. Table 13.4 shows the percentage of correct answers. First, it is noteworthy that the Cambodian students provided a single-digit percentage of correct answers which is abnormally low. Regarding the location of their country, 95.4% of the respondents answered correctly. In the other eight countries, the percentage of correct answers was relatively high in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos. In contrast, the percentage of correct answers was generally low in the Philippines. Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia shared the same low percentage of correct answers for Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam, which are the least developed member countries. Additionally, in Indonesia and the Philippines, the low number of correct answers regarding Singapore was striking. In Q2, the students were asked to choose the meaning of the ASEAN flag from among four options. Table 13.4 shows the percentage of correct answers. The percentage of correct answers was high for Indonesia (71.6%), Laos (65.3%), and Thailand (61.0%), in that order; the percentage of correct answers for all nine countries is more than 50%, suggesting that the meaning of the ASEAN flag is well known to more than half of the students. In Q3, the respondents were asked to choose the year of establishment of ASEAN from among four options. Table 13.4 shows the percentage of correct answers. Overall, the percentage of correct answers tended to be lower than in Q2, with the exception of Vietnam, which had the highest percentage of correct answers (62.5%). Laos was the second highest (59.1%). In other countries, many respondents tended to answer “I don’t know.” In Q4, respondents were asked to choose the target year for ASEAN integration from among four options. Table 13.4 shows the percentage of correct answers, which was even lower than Q3, with four countries in the single digits: Malaysia (3.9%), Vietnam (4.0%), Brunei (6.4%), and the Philippines (9.1%). In Q5, we asked the respondents how much they knew about the 10 ASEAN countries, including their own. Table 13.4 shows the mean values of the responses in the four-step method. Overall, knowledge of countries other than one’s own is lined up with an average value of two points; one point is shown in the responses of four countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Vietnam. However, Myanmar and Brunei are not well known in this regard. It may be stated that each country faces a challenge in learning about its neighboring countries. In Q6, respondents were asked to choose from 16 items to answer the means/medium of finding information about ASEAN, with no limit on the number of responses. Table 13.4 shows the means and media that ranked third in each country, in order of the number of responses. It may be noted that television is among the top three in all countries, followed by the Internet, which is among the top three in eight countries. An exception is Myanmar, which seems to be due to the prevalence

Myanmar

Philippines Thailand Vietnam

0.2 1.9

72.7

Philippines

7.6

1.1

29.4

Vietnam

3.8 1.6 2.7 1.6

About Brunei

About Cambodia

About Indonesia

About Laos

1.8

2.2

2.1

3.6

2.3

2.1

3.8

2.1

2.3

3.6

2.5

2.7

2.2

2.9

2.3

2.7

3.9

2.0

2.0

1.9

1.9

27.7

2.0

2.5

2.1

2.1

9.1

61.0

2.6

2.2

2.5

2.0

22.2

20.2

53.7

(continued)

2.2

2.0

2.2

1.7

4.0

62.5

1 = I don’t know anything about the country, 2 = I don’t know much about the country, 3 = I know about the country, 4 = I know quite a bit about the country (The numbers in the table are averages for each country)

32.3

57.7 12.5

Q5 Knowledge of ASEAN member countries

22.1

50.3 22.6

37.9

56.9 18.1

6.4

59.1

65.3

91.2

79.6

66.9

76.9

62.6

65.8

83.1

69.4

80.2

65.6

Q4 Year of ASEAN integration

34.4

71.6

80.0

99.0

67.7

60.3

80.8

82.9

82.7

65.4

80.2

55.0

41.1

33.6

23.2

28.4

98.6

22.3

35.2

22.3

50.0

22.5

38.0

34.9

51.3

78.5

63.1

60.5

96.4

59.5

69.2

63.6

52.3

47.2

55.8

41.4

84.8

91.7

60.5

46.4

93.5

42.0

88.2

38.1

88.6

16.4

95.2

96.3

57.0

64.6

92.0

67.8

97.1

65.0

94.9

57.8

Q2 Meaning of the ASEAN flag

38.9

46.5

29.2

70.0

29.2

80.1

38.3

97.0

30.9

75.7

Q3 Year of establishment of ASEAN

1.8

85.2 58.0

Singapore

Thailand

1.4

89.5 29.6

Malaysia

1.4

30.0

Laos

Myanmar

95.4 1.4

30.4 87.7

Cambodia

Indonesia

4.2

95.2

Malaysia

Brunei

Cambodia Indonesia Laos

Brunei The numbers in the table are the percentages of correct answers for each country in the vertical columns and the country in question is indicated the rows

Part 2 ASEANness

Q1 Location of the country

Table 13.4 Knowledge and Understanding on ASEAN

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 275

1.7

About Vietnam 2.6

2nd

Source Morishita, 2017

Book TV

Newspaper Internet

TV Internet

1st

3rd

2.3 2.7

2.0

2.2

2.5

2.8

2.3

2.5

3.2

3.2

2.7

2.4

2.3

2.7

3.0

2.5

2.3

3.5

Malaysia

School

Internet

Book

Internet

Internet

2.3

2.6

2.8

3.8

2.0

2.6

TV

Book

TV

Internet

School

TV

2.3

3.6

2.4

2.2

2.5

2.3

TV

Internet

School

3.7

2.4

2.3

2.0

1.7

1.8

Philippines Thailand Vietnam

Newspaper Internet

1.9

2.5

2.5

2.0

3.6

2.4

Myanmar

Newspaper School

Newspaper TV

TV

Q6 Means and type of media to obtain information on ASEAN (multiple answers from 16 items)

2.7 2.1

About Singapore

About Thailand

1.9 1.9

1.7 2.2

About Myanmar

About Philippines

2.6

2.2

2.9

2.9

Cambodia Indonesia Laos

Brunei

Part 2 ASEANness

About Malaysia

Table 13.4 (continued)

276 M. Morishita et al.

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

277

of the Internet. In addition, newspapers (four countries), schools (four countries), and books (three countries) were among the top three. It will be interesting to see whether people learn about ASEAN from schools. The survey was conducted in 2011, after the advocacy of ASEAN Studies (2006) and before the publication of the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (2012). The results showed that learning about ASEAN in schools was highly prevalent in Indonesia (80.2%), Thailand (74.5%), and the Philippines (71.1%). In the countries where schools were selected among the top three mentioned above, the percentage was more than 50% in Vietnam (55.5%) and Myanmar (51.8%). In other countries, this percentage was below 50%.

13.1.3.7

Awareness of ASEAN

In the second part of the questionnaire, Q7 through Q11, respondents were asked about their attitudes toward ASEAN. The results are shown in Table 13.5, and the closer the answer is to 1, the more supportive the opinion is. In Q7, respondents were asked whether they would like to know more about ASEAN countries. Each country demonstrated a willingness to learn, with a score of 1. Indonesia and Laos were the most willing, at 1.4. In Q8, we asked the respondents whether they thought that being a member of ASEAN was beneficial for their country. As in Q7, each country acknowledged that it was beneficial with a score of 1. In particular, Laos was the most positive with a score of 1.3. In Q9, respondents were asked whether they thought that being a member of ASEAN was beneficial to them. For this question, the mean values were distributed between 1.8 and 2.2, which is more negative than Q8. In Q10, respondents were asked whether they were aware of being an ASEAN citizen, felt attached to ASEAN, or felt proud to be an ASEAN citizen. For this question, the mean values were distributed between 1.8 and 2.2, with relatively more negative opinions in Vietnam and Indonesia than in other countries. On the other hand, in Laos and the Philippines, more than 30% of the respondents answered “very much so,” a higher percentage than in the other countries. In Q11, respondents were asked whether they think that they have a common identity with the people of ASEAN countries to achieve the goals that ASEAN aims to achieve. Responses to this question were distributed between 1.9 and 2.3, with more negative responses. In particular, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Brunei had relatively more negative opinions than other countries. On the other hand, more than 20% of respondents in Myanmar, Laos, and the Philippines answered “very much agree,” which is a higher percentage than in other countries.

Source Morishita, 2017

2.0

2.1

Q11 Common ASEAN identity 2.3

2.0

2.0 2.0

1.6

1.9 2.0

1.9

1.8

2.0

1.9

2.1

1.9

1.8

2.0

1.7

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.8

2.2

2.2

2.2

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.9

2.0

1.7

1.6

1.8

1.3

1.7

Q10 Awareness, love, and pride being ASEAN citizens 1.9

1.6

1.9

Q9 Beneficial to me

1.6

1.4

1.5

Q8 Beneficial to my country

1.4

1.8

Q7 I want to know more

1.7

Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam

Part 2: ASEANness

Table 13.5 Attitudes toward ASEAN (The numbers in the table are averages for each country) 1 = Very much, 2 = Yes, 3 = Not much, 4 = Not at all

278 M. Morishita et al.

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

13.1.3.8

279

Summary of the Comparative Analysis

Based on the analysis results, the following points may summarize the characteristics commonly observed in the current situation and issues in ASEAN countries: First, in terms of values and attitudes, they are enthusiastic about religious beliefs and their practice, and have a sense of national pride and self-awareness. Second, in terms of knowledge and understanding, the importance they place on history, tradition, and culture at the national level is common. Furthermore, in terms of skills and abilities, they share a common problem with taking action. The results of the second part of the survey indicate that there is a lack of awareness of ASEAN as an international organization and its member countries. With regard to pupils’ ASEANness, they are interested in other ASEAN countries and are aware of ASEAN’s benefits. However, they lack awareness with regard to being an ASEAN citizen and identity formation. It may be pointed out that ASEAN countries need to address the issue of promoting education for ASEANness. While the above common issues were highlighted, there were also aspects that showed differences among countries, indicating the current state of diversity among the ASEAN countries. The factors and backgrounds that influenced the results of the questionnaire survey were considered different. For a discussion on these factors, please refer to the chapters in Part II of this book.

13.2 Comparative Analysis of the Delphi Survey Results 13.2.1 Outline of the Delphi Study The Delphi survey aimed to provide a ten-year forecast of citizenship education and ASEANness education in ASEAN countries. For this purpose, a Delphi survey was conducted with experts and knowledgeable people involved in citizenship education. In the Delphi method, the results of the first round of the questionnaire survey were presented to the respondents, and then they were asked to answer the same questionnaire again to achieve convergence of opinions and to improve the accuracy of future predictions. Two questionnaire surveys were conducted in each country. However, since it was not possible to conduct the survey in Singapore and Myanmar, the following comparative analysis was based on the results of the second round in eight countries. The surveys were conducted in 2012 and 2013. For an overview of the specific implementation, please refer to the chapters in Part II. The analysis of the survey results was based on discussions at a workshop held in February 2014 (Venue: Nagoya University). Sixteen research members from each ASEAN country participated in the workshop, and together with 13 members from Japan, the total number of research members was 29.

280

M. Morishita et al.

13.2.2 Composition of the Delphi Questionnaire The Delphi survey consisted of two parts. The first part was intended as a warmup to raise respondents’ awareness of citizenship and education. Therefore, these results are omitted from this report. The second part comprised the main part of the Delphi survey. This part is divided into three areas based on the framework of citizenship characteristics shown in Fig. 2.1 in Chap. 2 of this report. Specifically, 12 characteristics related to “Knowledge and understanding,” 14 characteristics related to “Skills and abilities,” and 13 characteristics related to “Values and attitudes” were selected from the table of citizenship characteristics shown in Table 2.1 in Chap. 2 of this report, as follows: Characteristics related to “Knowledge and understanding” (12 characteristics). (1) Environment (2) Coexistence and living together (3) Different cultures (4) Social justice and equity (5) Democracy (6) Sustainable development (7) Interdependence (8) Foreign language (9) Social welfare (10) Human rights (11) ASEAN history and culture (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries. Characteristics related to “Skills and abilities” (14 characteristics). (1) To express opinions on social problems (2) To have self-discipline and selfcontrol (3) To solve problems (4) To make decisions (5) To respond to ICT (6) To make a peaceful resolution (7) To think critically (8) To improve quality of life (9) To cooperate with each other (10) To develop sustainably (11) To contribute to society (12) To use foreign language (13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries (14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people. Characteristics related to “Values and attitudes” (13 characteristics). (1) To face wrong things and injustice (2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development (3) To have self-dependence (4) To respect cultural diversity (5) To place importance on the law (6) To promote international cooperation (7) To pay attention to global issues (8) To respect tradition and culture (9) To have morality and pride as a nation (10) To respect democracy (11) To respect human rights (12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology (13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN. For each of these characteristics, the following questions were asked: Q1 “Your level of involvement in this quality,” Q2 “Importance of this quality,” Q3 “How well does your child acquire this quality at present,” Q4 “How well should your child achieve this quality 10 years from now,” Q5 “At what age should your child learn this quality?”

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

281

13.2.3 Survey Results 13.2.3.1

Ranking of Citizenship Characteristics to Be Achieved in 10 years

Table 13.6 shows the results of the Delphi survey so that they can be compared across boards. This table shows the results by country in the order of the degree to which the respondents answered that “citizenship characteristics expected to be achieved in 10 years” in Q4 should be achieved in each of the areas of “Knowledge and understanding,” “Skills and abilities,” and “Values and attitudes.” In order to rank them, “fully achieved” was given a score of 5, followed by “achieved to some extent” (4 points), “achieved to some extent” (3 points), “not fully achieved” (2 points), and “not achieved at all” (1 point); then, the average was calculated, and the characteristics with the highest average scores were ranked in order. The “weighted average value” in the table is the average value calculated by the above operation. Although the above five options are strictly a ranking scale, we decided to treat the data as an interval scale by assigning numbers 1 to 5 to give respondents the impression that each option is equally spaced. In addition, in Table 13–6, the characteristics ranked within the top five in importance by domain in Q2 are italicized. Furthermore, the characteristics ranked within the top five in each domain are shown in bold, in descending order of the weighted average of the level of achievement at the present time in Q3 subtracted from the weighted average of the level of expectation 10 years from now in Q4. When determining the rankings, if the values were the same at the second decimal place, they were treated as having the same rank. Therefore, although the fifth-ranked characteristics are italicized or in bold, there are cases in which six or more items apply. In other words, the characteristics in bold are those that are insufficiently achieved at this point in time, but have high expectations 10 years from now, and are considered to be high-priority characteristics for curriculum development. Among these characteristics, if they have a high level of importance in answering Q2, they are extracted as the highest priority issues. On the other hand, even if quality has a high level of importance and a high level of expectation 10 years from now, if it can be achieved sufficiently at present, it is not considered a high priority for curriculum development. In the following section, we compare and analyze the responses of each country by domain.

13.2.3.2

Knowledge and Understanding

Among the citizenship characteristics in terms of knowledge and understanding of ASEANness, what characteristics are expected to be achieved in 10 years is discussed based on the results of Q4. Table 13.6 shows that “Environment” ranked first in five out of eight countries (Brunei, Laos, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam). Next,

Knowledge and understanding

1) Environment 2) Coexistence and living together 3) Social welfare 4) Interdependence 5) Sustainable development 6) Different cultures 7) Human rights 8) Social justice and equity 9) Foreign language 10) Democracy 11) ASEAN history and culture 12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries

Brunei

1) Democracy 2) Social welfare 2) Human rights 4) Social justice and equity 5) Coexistence and living together 6) Interdependence 7) Environment 8) Sustainable development 9) Common social problems of ASEAN countries 10) Different cultures 11) Foreign language 11) ASEAN history and culture

Cambodia 1) Coexistence and living together 2) Environment 3) Democracy 4) Different cultures 4) Social justice and equity 6) Human rights 7) Sustainable development 8) Social welfare 9) Interdependence 10) ASEAN history and culture 11) Foreign language 12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries

Indonesia 1) Environment 2) Democracy 3) Coexistence and living together 4) Social justice and equity 5) Human rights 6) ASEAN history and culture 6) Common social problems of ASEAN countries 8) Interdependence 9) Sustainable development 10) Different cultures 11) Social welfare 12) Foreign language

Laos 1) Coexistence and living together 1) Different cultures 3) Environment 4) Social justice and equity 5) Interdependence 6) Sustainable development 7) Democracy 8) Social welfare 9) Foreign language 10) Human rights 11) ASEAN history and culture 12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries

Malaysia 1) Environment 2) Human rights 3) Democracy 4) Coexistence and living together 4) Social justice and equity 4) Sustainable development 7) Social welfare 8) Different cultures 9) Interdependence 10) ASEAN history and culture 11) Common social problems of ASEAN countries 12) Foreign language

Philippines 1) Environment 2) Coexistence and living together 3) Democracy 4) Foreign language 5) Human rights 5) ASEAN history and culture 7) Different cultures 7) Interdependence 7) Common social problems of ASEAN countries 10) Social justice and equity 11) Sustainable development 12) Social welfare

Thailand

(continued)

1) Environment 2) Foreign language 2) ASEAN history and culture 4) Social welfare 5) Sustainable development 5) Common social problems of ASEAN countries 7) Different cultures 7) Human rights 9) Coexistence and living together 10) Interdependence 11) Social justice and equity 12) Democracy

Vietnam

Table 13.6 Delphi survey results: Ranking of citizenship characteristics expected to be achieved 10 years hence, by country (weighted average of Q4) [Italicized characteristics are ones ranked in the top five in terms of importance (Q2). Characteristics in bold are ones ranked in the top five, in terms of the difference (gap) from the current level of achievement (Q3) (weighted average of Q4 minus weighted average of Q3).]

282 M. Morishita et al.

Skills and abilities

Cambodia

1) To make decisions 2) To have self-discipline and self-control 2) To cooperate with each other 4) To improve quality of life 4) To contribute to society 6) To make a peaceful resolution 7) To think critically 8) To solve problems 9) To develop sustainably 10) To express opinions on social problems 11) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN Countries 12) To respond to ICT 13) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people 14) To use foreign language

Brunei

1) To cooperate with each other 2) To respond to ICT 3) To improve quality of life 4) To have self-discipline and self-control 4) To make decisions 6) To solve problems 7) To express opinions on social problems 8) To think critically 9) To make a peaceful resolution 10) To contribute to society 11) To develop sustainably 12) To use foreign language 13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries 14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

Table 13.6 (continued) Indonesia 1) To improve quality of life 2) To think critically 3) To solve problems 4) To have self-discipline and self-control 5) To make decisions 6) To cooperate with each other 7) To respond to ICT 8) To express opinions on social problems 9) To contribute to society 10) To make a peaceful resolution 11) To develop sustainably 12) To use foreign language 13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries 13) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

Laos 1) To cooperate with each other 2) To have self-discipline and self-control 3) To improve quality of life 4) To solve problems 5) To contribute to society 6) To make decisions 7) To make a peaceful resolution 7) To develop sustainably 9) To respond to ICT 9) To think critically 11) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries 11) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people 13) To express opinions on social problems 14) To use foreign language

Malaysia 1) To express opinions on social problems 1) To solve problems 1) To make decisions 4) To have self-discipline and self-control 5) To respond to ICT 5) To make a peaceful resolution 5) To develop sustainably 8) To cooperate with each other 9) To improve quality of life 10) To think critically 11) To contribute to society 12) To use foreign language 12) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

Philippines 1) To cooperate with each other 2) To have self-discipline and self-control 3) To solve problems 3) To improve quality of life 5) To think critically 6) To express opinions on social problems 6) To make decisions 8) To develop sustainably 9) To make a peaceful resolution 9) To contribute to society 11) To respond to ICT 12) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people 13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries 14) To use foreign language

Thailand 1) To respond to ICT 2) To use foreign language usage 3) To contribute to society 4) To cooperate with each other 5) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries 6) To make decisions 7) To improve quality of life 8) To express opinions on social problems 8) To solve problems 8) To develop sustainably 11) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people 12) To have self-discipline and self-control 12) To make a peaceful resolution 14) To think critically

Vietnam

(continued)

1) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people 2) To improve quality of life 3) To use foreign language 4) To respond to ICT 5) To solve problems 5) To cooperate with each other 7) To have self-discipline and self-control 7) To think critically 7) To develop sustainably 10) To express opinions on social problems 10) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries 12) To make decisions 12) To contribute to society 14) To make a peaceful resolution

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 283

Brunei

1) To have morality and pride as a nation 2) To have self-dependence 3) To respect cultural diversity 3) To place importance on the law 5) To respect tradition and culture 5) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development 7) To respect human rights 8) To face wrong things and injustice 8) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology 10) To pay attention to global issues 11) To promote international cooperation 12) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN 13) To respect democracy

Cambodia

1) To have morality and pride as a nation 2) To respect tradition and culture 3) To have self-dependence 4) To respect democracy 5) To respect human rights 6) To place importance on the law 7) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development 8) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN 9) To respect cultural diversity 10) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology 11) To promote international cooperation 12) To pay attention to global issues 13) To face wrong things and injustice

Indonesia 1) To respect human rights 2) To respect democracy 3) To respect cultural diversity 4) To respect tradition and culture 4) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology 6) To place importance on the law 7) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN 8) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development 9) To face wrong things and injustice 10) To have morality and pride as a nation 11) To pay attention to global issues 12) To have self-dependence 13) To promote international cooperation

Laos 1) To respect democracy 2) To respect cultural diversity 3) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN 4) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development 4) To have self-dependence 6) To respect human rights 7) To place importance on the law 8) To face wrong things and injustice 8) To have morality and pride as a nation 10) To respect tradition and culture 11) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology 12) To promote international cooperation 13) To pay attention to global issues

Malaysia 1) To have self-dependence 2) To promote international cooperation 3) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development 3) To respect cultural diversity 5) To face wrong things and injustice 5) To pay attention to global issues 5) To respect tradition and culture 8) To place importance on the law 8) To respect democracy 10) To have morality and pride as a nation 11) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology 12) To respect human rights 13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

Philippines 1) To respect human rights 2) To have morality and pride as a nation 2) To respect democracy 4) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN 5) To place importance on the law 5) To respect tradition and culture 7) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development 7) To have self-dependence 9) To respect cultural diversity 9) To pay attention to global issues 11) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology 12) To promote international cooperation 13) To face wrong things and injustice

Thailand 1) To have morality and pride as a nation 2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development 2) To respect democracy 4) To have self-dependence 4) To respect tradition and culture 6) To respect human rights 7) To respect cultural diversity 7) To place importance on the law 7) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology 10) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN 11) To pay attention to global issues 12) To face wrong things and injustice 13) To promote international cooperation

Footnote When determining the rankings, if the values were the same at the second decimal place, they were treated as having the same rank. Source Morishita, 2017

Values and attitudes

Table 13.6 (continued) Vietnam 1) To have morality and pride as a nation 2) To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development 3) To face wrong things and injustice 4) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology 5) To promote international cooperation 6) To respect tradition and culture 7) To have self-dependence 8) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN 9) To respect cultural diversity 9) To pay attention to global issues 11) To place importance on the law 12) To respect human rights 13) To respect democracy

284 M. Morishita et al.

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

285

“Coexistence” is ranked first in two countries (Indonesia and Malaysia). These characteristics are relatively high in all the countries. Only in Cambodia is “Democracy” ranked first. In addition to Cambodia, many other countries ranked “Democracy” at the middle or higher level, but some countries ranked it lower, such as Vietnam (12th) and Brunei (10th). On the other hand, there are commonalities among countries with low expectations. For example, the two items of “ASEAN history and culture” and “Common social problems of ASEAN countries” were ranked 11th and 12th in both Brunei and Malaysia, 10th and 12th in Indonesia, 10th and 11th in the Philippines, and 9th and 11th in Cambodia. On the other hand, in Vietnam, Thailand, and Laos, the range was from 2nd to 7th, and the trend of expectation in these three countries was different from the three countries above. It is also noteworthy that while “Foreign language” is ranked 12th in Laos and the Philippines, and 11th in Cambodia and Indonesia, it is ranked 2nd in Vietnam, and 4th in Thailand. Next, when we examine the characteristics considered to be of high importance in Q2, which are italicized, we find a tendency for many countries to occupy items with high expectations. This is not the case in Vietnam, where “Democracy” is ranked 12th, “Coexistence and living together” is ranked 9th, and “Human rights” is ranked 7th, all of which are of relatively low importance. In Thailand, too, the highly important “Sustainable development” was ranked 11th. Next, when we look at the characteristics in bold that have a large difference between the level of achievement today and the level of expectation ten years from now, we can see that they tend to be dispersed in both the top and bottom of the ranking. However, in Malaysia, four characteristics (“Foreign language,” “Human rights,” “ASEAN history and culture,” and “Common social problems of ASEAN countries”) are clustered at the bottom of the rankings, from 9 to 12th. In Indonesia, four characteristics (“Social welfare,” “ASEAN history and culture,” “Foreign language,” and “Common social problems of ASEAN countries”) are clustered in the 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12th positions. Seven countries have both or either of the two ASEAN-related characteristics in bold, with the Philippines as the only exception. Next, “Foreign language” is also in bold type in all seven countries. The exception is Vietnam. The characteristics that are relatively high in the ranking of Q4 and are italicized and expressed in bold as items that have a high priority for action, such as curriculum development, development of teaching materials, and dissemination of teaching methods, can be extracted by country as follows: “Sustainable development” in Brunei, “Democracy” and “Social justice and equity” in Cambodia, “Environment” in Indonesia, “Environment” and “Social justice and equity” in Laos, “Environment,” “Social justice and equity” and “Sustainable development” in the Philippines, and “Environment” and “Sustainable development” in Vietnam. No relevant quality was found in Malaysia or Thailand. The results show that the characteristics that are common among multiple countries are “Environment” (4 countries), “Social justice and equity” (3 countries), and “Sustainable development” (3 countries). In the case of cooperative measures among ASEAN countries, education in terms of knowledge

286

M. Morishita et al.

and understanding of these three characteristics is considered to have the highest priority. The characteristics in bold that are not highly important but are at the top of the ranking in Q4 can be regarded as characteristics for which countermeasures are essential, in that order. By country, “Interdependence” was selected in Brunei, “Social problems common to ASEAN countries” in Cambodia, “Social welfare” in Indonesia, “ASEAN history and culture” in Laos, “Interdependence” in Malaysia, “Social welfare” in the Philippines, “Foreign language,” “Human rights” and “ASEAN history and culture” in Thailand, and “ASEAN history and culture” in Vietnam. The results show that “ASEAN history and culture” is common in the three countries, and “Interdependence” and “Social welfare” are common in the two countries.

13.2.3.3

Skills and Abilities

Next, we consider citizenship characteristics in terms of skills and abilities in the middle section of Table 13.6. First, analyzing the commonalities from the results of Q4, “To cooperate with each other” is ranked first in three countries (Brunei, Laos, and the Philippines), and it is also ranked in the top or middle six in the other countries. However, only Malaysia was ranked 8th. “To make decisions” is ranked first in two countries (Cambodia and Malaysia) and is also ranked sixth or higher or in the middle in other countries. However, only Vietnam ranked 12th. In addition, “To improve quality of life” is ranked first in Indonesia, but it is ranked seventh or higher or in the middle in seven countries, except Malaysia. On the other hand, in terms of the characteristics with low expectations, “To have in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” and “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” are ranked 13th and 14th in Brunei, 13th and 13th in Indonesia (same rate), 12th and 13th in the Philippines, 11th and 13th in Cambodia, and 11th and 11th in Laos (same rate). Malaysia was ranked 12th. In Malaysia, the questionnaire did not include the item “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people.” On the other hand, in Vietnam, “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” was ranked first, indicating high expectations. This was followed by “To have in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” in Thailand, which ranked fifth, showing a different trend in these two countries. Next, when looking at “To use foreign language,” Cambodia, Laos, and the Philippines ranked the lowest at 14th. Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia also ranked low at 12th. However, Thailand and Vietnam ranked second and third, respectively, showing a different trend. Next, looking at the italicized characteristics that were considered to be highly important in Q2, we find that in many countries, these characteristics tend to occupy the items with the highest expectations ten years from now. However, there are some exceptions, such as “To express opinions on social problems” which ranked 13th in Laos and “To have self-discipline and self-control” and “To make a peaceful resolution” which ranked 12th in Thailand.

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

287

Next, looking at the characteristics in bold that have a large difference between the level of achievement today and the level of expectation ten years from now, there is a tendency for them to be dispersed in both the top and bottom of the ranking. By quality, there are seven countries in which both or either of the two ASEAN-related characteristics are indicated in bold, with Indonesia as the exception. In addition, “To use foreign language” is also shown in bold type in six countries, except for the Philippines and Vietnam. To determine the characteristics that have the highest priority for response measures, the characteristics that are relatively high in the ranking of Q4 and are italicized and shown in bold are extracted by country as follows. In Brunei, it was “To cooperate with each other” and “To make decisions”; in Cambodia, it was “To make decisions”; in Indonesia, it was “To improve quality of life”; in the Philippines, it was “To have self-discipline and self-control”; in Thailand, it was “To use foreign language”; in Vietnam, it was “To improve quality of life.” Additionally, no relevant characteristics were observed in Laos and Malaysia. Based on these results, the common characteristics among multiple countries are “To make decisions” (Brunei and Cambodia) and “To improve quality of life” (Indonesia and Vietnam). Education in terms of competence and skills in these two characteristics is considered the highest priority for cooperative response measures among the ASEAN countries. To determine the next most important characteristics that need to be addressed, the following is a list of the characteristics in bold that are not highly important but are ranked high in Q4 by country. In Brunei, “To express opinions on social problems”; in Cambodia, “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries”; in Indonesia, “To make decisions”; in Laos, “To contribute to society”; in Malaysia, “To develop sustainably”; in the Philippines, “To solve problems” and “To think critically”; in Thailand, “To behave in accordance with common rules and values in ASEAN countries,” and in Vietnam, “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people.” “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” was common in Cambodia and Thailand.

13.2.3.4

Values and Attitudes

Finally, the citizenship characteristics in terms of values and attitudes are discussed in the lower part of Table 13.6. First, analyzing the commonalities from the results of Q4, “To have morality and pride as a nation” was ranked first in four countries (Brunei, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam), followed by the Philippines. However, some countries ranked it in the middle or lower, such as 10th in Malaysia, 8th in Laos, and 7th in Indonesia. Next, “To respect human rights” ranked first in Indonesia and the Philippines, but similarly, some countries ranked it as low as 12th in Malaysia and Vietnam. “To respect democracy,” which is ranked first in Laos, is ranked high or middle in many countries, but it is ranked 13th and lowest in Brunei and Vietnam, with a large difference. “To have self-independence,” ranked first in Malaysia, is also ranked high or middle in many countries, but it is ranked low in Indonesia at 12th

288

M. Morishita et al.

place. As shown above, some characteristics were common in the top rankings, but there was a tendency for some countries to rank low. On the other hand, “To face wrong things and injustice” is ranked 13th and lowest in Cambodia and the Philippines and is in the middle to lower range in many countries, although it is ranked as high as 3rd in Vietnam and 5th in Malaysia. “To promote international cooperation” is ranked 13th and lowest in Indonesia and Thailand. This quality is also ranked 11th or lower in many countries, but it is ranked 2nd in Malaysia and 5th in Vietnam. As for the ASEAN-related characteristics that ranked low in other areas, the question included one quality, “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN,” and while some countries ranked it low, such as Malaysia at 13th and Brunei at 12th, many countries ranked it relatively high or middle, such as Laos at 3rd. In Laos, in particular, it was ranked third. In Laos, in particular, “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (3rd) is much higher than “To have morality and pride as a nation” (8th), which is noteworthy. Next, when we look at the characteristics ranked as highly important in Q2, which are italicized, we find a tendency in many countries for these characteristics to dominate the items with the highest expectations ten years from now. The exception to this is Vietnam, where the three most important characteristics, “To place importance on the law,” “To respect human rights,” and “To respect democracy,” are ranked 11th through 13th. Furthermore, it may be noted that “To have morality and pride as a nation,” which was ranked highly important in Malaysia, is ranked 10th. Next, looking at the characteristics in bold that have a large difference between the level of achievement today and the level of expectation ten years from now, there is a tendency for them to be dispersed in both the top and bottom of the ranking. However, Malaysia stands out with five items from the bottom of the list, from 8 to 13th place. Cambodia is also in the 7th and 13th positions. In terms of characteristics, “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development” and “To face wrong things and injustice” are shown in bold type in six countries, with Malaysia and Thailand being the exceptions in both cases. This is followed by “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” in bold type in five countries. To find the characteristics that have the highest priority for a response, the characteristics that are relatively high in the ranking of Q4 and are italicized and shown in bold are extracted by country as follows. In Brunei, “To place importance on the law” and “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development”; in Cambodia, “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development”; in Indonesia, “To place importance on the law”; in Laos, “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development”; in the Philippines, “ To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development”; in Thailand, “To have self-dependence” and “To respect human rights”; and in Vietnam, “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development.” In Malaysia, no such quality has been found. These results indicate that “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

289

its development,” which is a common quality among the five countries, is the most important issue to be addressed by ASEAN as a whole. Next, the characteristics for which measures are most needed are examined by country: “To respect cultural diversity” in Brunei; “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” in Cambodia; “To face wrong things and injustice” in Indonesia; “To respect cultural diversity” in Laos; “To respect democracy” in Malaysia; “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” in the Philippines; “To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology” in Thailand; and “To face wrong things and injustice” in Vietnam. Here, these three characteristics are common to both countries. In addition, in Malaysia, a quality that is of high importance and for which there is a large gap between the current level of achievement and the level of expectation 10 years from now is “To have morality and pride as a nation.”

13.2.3.5

Age at Which Citizenship Characteristics Are Learned

In Q5, the respondents were asked about the age at which they thought each of the above characteristics should be learned. The six age categories were 8 years or younger, 9–10 years old, 11–12 years old, 13–14 years old, 15–16 years old, and 17 years or older. First, looking at the overall trend, in many countries, the knowledge and understanding aspect is considered to be appropriate to be studied at a relatively early age group, with many of the characteristics concentrated at the age of eight or younger, while some of the characteristics should be studied at a relatively older age group. In terms of skills and abilities, there are many characteristics that should be studied in the age group of 8 years or younger, but compared to knowledge and understanding, there are many characteristics that shift to a slightly higher age group and should be studied in the age group of 17 years or older. In terms of values and attitudes, there is a division between lower and higher age groups. The responses tend to differ by country. In Malaysia, knowledge and understanding are evenly divided into five levels, from 8 years old and younger to 15–16 years old, and skills and abilities, as well as values and attitudes, are evenly divided into three levels, from 11–12 years old to 15–16 years old. Moreover, the degree of convergence was high, with most opinions (more than 40%) clustered in one age group. Similar to Malaysia is the Philippines, where, with a few exceptions, characteristics are assigned to four age groups from 8 and under to 13–14. However, the degree of convergence is lower than in Malaysia, and there are not many characteristics that account for more than 40 percent of the total in any one age group. In Thailand, most of the characteristics should be studied at the age of 8 years or younger, with some exceptions at the ages of 9–10 years and 11–12 years, only a few people argue that the age should be 13 years or older. Close to Thailand is Brunei, where, with some exceptions, the distribution is almost entirely from under 8 to 11–12. In Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, and Vietnam, the distribution tends to be less than 8 or 15–16 or 17 + , respectively.

290

M. Morishita et al.

Moreover, opinions are divided between lower and higher ages depending on their characteristics. Next, we analyzed the age at which students believed they should learn the characteristics identified as high priorities for action based on their responses to Q2 through Q4. Looking at the knowledge and understanding aspects of “Environment,” “Social justice and equity,” and “Sustainable development,” in all eight countries the greatest number of respondents in “Environment” were aged 8 or younger. For social justice and equity, four countries have children under the age of 8, three have children aged 9 and 10 years, and one has children aged 11 and 12 years. These two characteristics should be taught at age 8 or younger, or at age 9 or 10. Sustainable development is a diverse topic with differing opinions among countries. Cambodia is divided between under 8 years old and 15–16 years old, in Laos between 9–10 years old and over 17 years old, and in Vietnam between under 8 years old and 11–12 years old. Looking at “To make decisions” and “To improve quality of life,” which were extracted from the ability and skills aspect, for “To make decisions,” the opinions of four countries are concentrated in the age group of 8 years or younger. This was followed by three countries at the age of 11–12 and one country at the age of 15–16. Broadly speaking, learning at the primary education level is desirable. However, the degree of convergence is lower in Laos, Indonesia, Cambodia, and the Philippines. As for “To improve quality of life,” there are large differences among countries. In Indonesia, Laos, and Vietnam, it is 17 years old or older, whereas in Brunei and Thailand, it is 8 years old or younger. In Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, the degree of convergence is low. Looking at the values and attitudes aspect of “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development,” seven countries are of the opinion that children should learn this at age 8 or younger. The exception is Malaysia. Malaysian experts believe that children should learn this at 11–12 years. Therefore, there is a commonality with regard to learning at an early age. The other five characteristics of ASEAN relations should also be examined. In terms of knowledge and understanding, for “ASEAN history and culture,” the age range is 9–10 years old in three countries, 11–12 and 15–16 years old in two countries, and 13–14 years old in one country. A slightly higher age range is desirable for all eight countries compared to the lower age ranges for most of the other knowledge and understanding characteristics. For “Common social problems of ASEAN countries,” even higher age groups are considered desirable, ranging from 9–10 years in Laos to 17 years and above in Cambodia. In terms of skills and abilities, “To have in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” and “To solve common problems of ASEAN countries with other people” are both considered desirable to be studied in older age groups than the other characteristics. In Thailand, where there is a tendency to focus on younger age groups, both of these characteristics are 9–10 years old, and in Brunei, where the same tendency exists, the former is 11– 12 years old and the latter is 17 years or older. In Malaysia and the Philippines, where characteristics tend to be distributed in a balanced manner, the age groups are 15–16 years old and 13–14 years old, respectively, which are higher than the

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

291

other ability and skill characteristics. In Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, and Vietnam, where there is a tendency to divide respondents into younger and older age groups, the respondents in each country were at least 17 or 15–16 years old. In terms of values and attitudes, only Thailand selected the age group of 8 years old or younger for “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN.” Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, and Vietnam set the age at 17 years and above. Summarizing ASEAN-related characteristics, it is desirable for all five characteristics to be learned in a higher age group.

13.2.3.6

Summary of Delphi Survey Results

The above analysis can be summarized as follows. Analyzing the characteristics that are expected to be achieved in 10 years, some characteristics are common in several countries for which there are high expectations: “Environment,” “Coexistence and living together,” and “Democracy” in terms of knowledge and understanding; “To cooperate with each other” and “To make decisions” in terms of skills and abilities; “To have morality and pride as a nation” in terms of values and attitudes. On the other hand, there are low expectations are: “ASEAN history and culture,” “Common social problems of ASEAN countries,” and “Foreign language” in terms of knowledge and understanding; “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries,” “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people,” and “To use foreign language” in terms of ability and skills; and “To face wrong things and injustice” and “To promote international cooperation” in terms of values and attitudes. However, diversity among ASEAN countries is more pronounced than their commonality. Even among the characteristics for which commonality was found in several countries listed above, there are often countries with completely different trends. Next, when we extracted the high-priority characteristics that require countermeasures, such as curriculum development, development of teaching materials, and dissemination of teaching methods, a variety of characteristics were narrowed down in each country. Some of these characteristics are common to multiple countries, and it is thought that effectiveness will be higher if such characteristics are addressed in order of priority when the entire ASEAN region works together. Specifically, these characteristics are “Environment,” “Social justice and equity,” and “Sustainable development” in terms of knowledge and understanding, “To make decisions” and “To improve quality of life” in terms of skills and abilities, and “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development” in terms of values and attitudes. In terms of the age at which citizenship characteristics are learned, there are marked differences in the trends across countries. The following countries can be categorized according to their tendencies: countries in which characteristics are distributed in a balanced manner in stages (Malaysia and the Philippines), countries in which quality tends to be concentrated in the younger age groups (Thailand and Brunei), countries in which quality tends to be divided into younger and older

292

M. Morishita et al.

age groups (Vietnam), and countries in which opinions tend to be dispersed and consensus building is difficult (Cambodia, Indonesia, and Laos). These countries can be classified on the basis of their tendencies. It is difficult to determine which country’s way of thinking is desirable, based on the results of this survey alone. However, it is reasonable to assign weight to the opinions of experts in Malaysia, where citizenship education is practiced, and in the Philippines, where integrated national education subjects have been practiced. Regarding ASEANness education, four of the five ASEAN-related characteristics tended to have very low expectations. Therefore, none of them were included in the characteristics of the top-priority issues mentioned above. However, there is a tendency for there to be a large difference between the level of achievement today and the level of expectation 10 years from now. Many countries consider these characteristics to be of high importance, so it may be stated that there is a need to plan and implement measures in accordance with the top priority issues. In terms of the age at which children learn, there is common agreement among the countries that it is desirable for all five characteristics to be learned at an older age.

13.3 Conclusion: Summary and Recommendations In summary, the results of the pupil survey were as follows: First, in terms of knowledge and understanding, it was confirmed that history and culture were mostly learned at the national level. This can be understood as evidence that the national education policy has sufficiently penetrated. Next, in terms of skills and abilities, it was confirmed that there were issues with actually trying to take action. As mentioned in Chap. 2, this indicates that the ultimate goal of “making decisions and taking action,” which is the framework of citizenship education in this study, has not been sufficiently achieved. Furthermore, religious beliefs and practices were enthusiastically followed in terms of values and attitudes. In this respect, it is reasonable to understand that this may be because the three major world religions are practiced in many ASEAN countries. However, the development of ASEANess has been inadequate. They seem to be interested in ASEAN and recognize its significance, but their knowledge of ASEAN seems to be insufficient. This may mean that while the policy at the national level is functioning well, the policy for fostering ASEANness is not yet fully functional (issue). It is appropriate to understand that educational reform and curriculum development for the development of ASEANness are required in the future. On the other hand, analysis of the Delphi survey shows that each country strives to develop various characteristics of citizenship and will continue to do so in the future. However, the characteristics required in each country are diverse, and therefore the realization of the ASEAN motto, “One Vision, One Identity, One Community,” may be difficult. The age of the students was not necessarily the same in all the countries, and the development of ASEAN-related characteristics did not seem to function well. ASEAN countries are diverse in terms of religion, ethnicity, society, political

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

293

systems, and many other aspects, and this may have created various challenges. This illustrates the difficulty in sharing a common vision for the ASEAN countries. Finally, in the area of education, the success of the ASEAN Community in its future development will depend on how students engage in ASEAN learning; how governments and education experts (experts) promote policymaking, curriculum development, and teacher training reform; and, consequently, how students and policy-makers/education experts work together to promote education and research. The successful implementation of these conditions will be a challenge in the future. In addition, the analysis in this chapter clarifies the characteristics and trends that can be read from the comparison table. We developed an analytical framework and hypotheses at the planning and design stage of the questionnaire. Nevertheless, analysis of the collected data shows that the “diversity” among ASEAN countries far exceeds our expectations. These data, together with the actual situation on the ground, should be analyzed in greater detail. Furthermore, the Delphi survey predicted the future of 10 years from now. To realize this future, several characteristics are recommended in the next chapter (Chap. 14) as those that should be prioritized. Therefore, we would like to conclude by pointing out that further analysis of this research data, tracking the reform trend of citizenship education, and examining the results 10 years after the establishment of the ASEAN Community (2025) are future tasks.

References Hirata, T. (Ed.) (2007). Shiminsei Kyouiku no Kenkyuu-Nihon-to Thai no Hikaku (Study on citizenship education: Comparative study between Japan and Thailand). Toshindo. Morishita, M. (2013). ASEAN Shokoku niokeru Shiminsei ni kansuru Jidouseito heno Ankeeto Chousa (A questionnaire survey to the students on citizenship in the ASEAN countries). Hikaku Kyouikugaku Kenkyuu (Comparative Education). Japan Comparative Education Society, 46, 118– 133. Toshindo. Morishita, M. (2017). ASEAN Shokoku niokeru Shiminsei Kyouiku Chousa no Hikakubunseki (Comparative analysis on citizenship education survey in the ASEAN countries). In Toshifumi Hirata. (Ed.). ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku (Citizenship education in the ASEAN Community). 270–307. Toshindo. Thompson, E. C., & Thianthai, C. (2008). Attitudes and awareness towards ASEAN: Findings of a ten- nation survey. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Chapter 14

Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community: Summary and Recommendations Toshifumi Hirata, Minoru Morishita, Masahiro Teshima, and Kumaraguru Ramayah Abstract This final chapter summarizes citizenship education in the ASEAN Community based on the research and professional opinions of the authors in the previous chapters and presents general conclusions and comprehensive recommendations. This chapter discusses our investigation into whether ASEANness was acquired through ASEAN studies and the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (2012). It also discusses the results of our student survey on citizenship awareness and our Delphi survey of education experts on their recommendations for citizenship over the next ten years. Overall, we found that the ASEAN Community appeared to function smoothly when issues of diversity and commonality in ASEAN were successfully balanced and integrated. While each country had citizenship education issues that required attention, there were also issues that affected ASEAN as a whole. In sum, although the entire ASEAN Community showed positive progress, ASEANness had not been sufficiently fostered. Therefore, we conclude with recommendations for ASEANness and citizenship education over the next ten years, including enhanced efforts to foster ASEANness, more rigorous curriculum development, and improved teacher development training.

T. Hirata (B) Faculty of Education, Oita University, Oita City 870-1192, Japan e-mail: [email protected] M. Morishita Faculty of Marine Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2-1-6, Etchujima, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8533, Japan e-mail: [email protected] M. Teshima Faculty of Education, Bunkyo University, 3337, Minami-Ogishima, Koshigaya-shi, Saitama 343-8511, Japan e-mail: [email protected] R. Kumaraguru Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, UTM, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, FSSH, Block D05, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_14

295

296

T. Hirata et al.

Keywords Active citizenship · Curriculum development · Diversity and commonality · Global citizens · Teacher development training

14.1 The ASEAN Community: Social Conditions in Individual Countries The ASEAN countries have diverse ethnicities, religions, languages, traditions, cultures, and customs. At first glance, this might suggest that it would be difficult to build unity among them and make the Community motto, “One Vision, One Identity, One Community,” unfeasible. Nevertheless, in the years since 2015, when the Community was officially founded (ASEAN, 2015a,b), the ASEAN Community has made great strides toward realizing its motto. At a recent ASEAN Summit (37th Congress, 2020) and the Education Ministers’ Meeting (11th Congress, 2020), the ASEAN Community declared its intention to strengthen partnerships among the ASEAN countries and further promote educational cooperation and exchange. They recognized that achieving further development under the Community’s motto required taking steps to ensure digital skills and literacy for the twenty-first century and ICT-based teaching and learning. We interviewed authors in some countries about the current status of the ASEAN Community and its citizenship education. The findings are summarized below.

14.1.1 Brunei Brunei emphasized the importance of being a member of ASEAN and committed itself to develop the ASEAN Community (ASEAN.2015a). Recognizing the importance of ASEAN youth awareness, King Hassanal Bolkiah facilitated efforts to provide youth with knowledge and information regarding his vision to develop a people-centered and people-oriented ASEAN. As one of his efforts, he prepared a curriculum to foster citizenship among the youth and expand their knowledge of ASEAN, including awareness. The King considered it important to educate young people to see themselves as members of ASEAN and have awareness about ASEAN.

14.1.2 Indonesia In Indonesia, citizenship education was undergoing further decentralization.

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

297

14.1.3 Laos Laos and ASEAN studies were not conducted, partly because of the country’s continued emphasis on developing its educational infrastructure. However, we saw evidence of ASEAN’s awareness in urban areas.

14.1.4 Malaysia Malaysia is a multiethnic, multicultural, and composite nation. Unifying the nation has been a central concern and the primary goal of its national language policy in Malaysia since its independence from the British Empire in 1957. Malaysian citizenship education views citizenship from the perspective that being a citizen is a subject of the nation, citizenship education has a national focus, and the ultimate goal is to emphasize and instill pride in their membership in the Malaysian nation. They associate citizens and citizenship with (1) understanding the responsibilities and moral values of being a member of the community; (2) understanding and respecting the characteristics, customs, and practices of all ethnic groups and the diversity of cultures and religions; (3) participating in politics and society as Malaysian citizens and taking responsibility for the rights that should be granted and duties that should be fulfilled. While they believe that students should recognize the multilayer nature of citizenship (i.e., local, national, regional, global, and universal), they emphasize national citizenship; they require that students understand the concepts of challenge and victory and do their part to perpetuate and develop Malaysia. In particular, the Malaysian team reported these priorities for citizens: (1) appreciate the responsibility and moral value of communities as a member of the Malaysian nation; (2) understand and respect others’ customs; (3) be responsible for and participate in politics and society and understand their rights and obligations as Malaysian citizens. Citizenship education stressed the concepts of Malaysia meeting its challenges and holding its position in today’s globalized world: Malaysians’ contributions to keeping the nation strong and prosperous, and understanding that beyond national citizenship, Malaysians are also local, regional, global, and universal citizens. Malaysia plans to survive in the twenty-first century by building a strong national identity while affirming its place in the world. The current educational content related to ASEAN emphasized learning about its establishment, history, objectives, and cooperation agreements. Thus, although Malaysia recognized the importance of ASEAN, citizenship education strongly emphasized national identity over ASEAN’s identity.

298

T. Hirata et al.

14.1.5 Thailand The 1997 economic crisis was a major turning point in Thailand. Between that time and the establishment of the ASEAN Community in 2015, Thailand focused on building the Thai nation with global standards and ensuring the survival of the Thai people in the twenty-first century. Their leaders attest that Thailand is currently implementing numerous educational reforms based on the 1999 Education Law. However, the new Constitution of 2017 conveys that Thailand is focused on structural issues and formulating a long-term strategy for sustainable development and social and human resource development. Thailand enjoys political, economic, and social stability within ASEAN and appears to be the most committed ASEAN member in dealing with ASEAN Community relations.

14.1.6 Vietnam Vietnam’s official name is the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, with an extensive public and private education system under the Ministry of Education and Training. While - i m´o,i (renewal, maintaining relations with the ASEAN, Vietnam is “continuing its dô innovation) policy, working on structural reforms and strengthening its international competitiveness” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan, 2021). The countries discussed above have diverse political, economic, and social systems; however, all remain deeply involved in the ASEAN Community. They strive to achieve the motto of “One Vision, One Identity, One Community.” Despite their social, cultural, political, economic, religious, and linguistic differences, these countries stand by this motto. Future research should follow up on how citizenship education functions and achieves results. ij

14.2 Laws, Regulations, Policies, Curricula, and Textbooks Table 14.1 summarizes the relevant laws, regulations, curricula, and textbooks in the 10 ASEAN countries. The overview in Table 14.1 indicates that all the countries constantly promoted educational reforms. As members of the ASEAN Community, each country was developing citizenship education to cultivate ASEANness and build global citizens, reflecting a strong awareness of the global society. All countries made some effort to make students aware that they were ASEAN citizens. Thailand even published a textbook specific to ASEAN studies, highlighting its interest in and support of the ASEAN Community. Thailand also made August 8, the ASEAN Day. On that day in 2013, the authors visited a large school event in which there was a special ASEAN room filled with students enthusiastic about learning about the ASEAN Community.

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

299

Table 14.1 Laws, policies, plans, curricula, and textbooks on citizenship education Brunei

Sistem Pendidikan Negara Abad Ke-21 (National Education System for the 21st Century) (SPN 21) (since 2008). The Malay Islamic Monarchy (Melayu Islam Beraja or MIB) (Muslim identity). Global and regional approaches are scarce and weak

Cambodia

ESP (Education Strategic Plan) 2019–2023; the National Curriculum Framework. Good citizenship education emphasizes being a good Cambodian and appropriate global citizenship. Growing awareness of ASEAN citizenship

Indonesia

2013 Curriculum. Pancasila and Citizenship Education. Curriculum content regarding ASEANness should be expanded

Laos

Education Act of 2015. World Around Us (reformed in 2010), integrating science, social studies, and environmental studies Education for socialism. Coping with globalization. Recent media broadcasts about ASEAN. Teachers need to be trained in foreign languages, ICT, and active learning

Malaysia

CCE taught since 2005. In 2019, a new civics education effort to deepen learning in multiple subjects (e.g., Malay, English, Islamic education, morality, history, assembly, and co-curricular activities). Fostering active citizenship is a future issue

Myanmar

The 2015 National Education Law, the 2015 National Curriculum Framework, Life Skills and Moral and Civics. Seeks to develop global citizens with critical thinking, communication, and social skills and basic understanding of peace

Philippines K–12. Students are expected to learn about and master the new citizenship characteristics of ASEANness. Multilingual education beyond the national language (Filipino) remains an issue Singapore

The 2020 curriculum plan covers three areas: enhancing CCE, knowing Asia, and strengthening digital literacy. The CCE is designed to develop global awareness

Thailand

Stipulated by the National Education Act of 1999 and the Core Curriculum of 2008. Fosters global standard citizenship characteristics; enthusiastic about ASEAN studies. Encourages regional, global, and universal citizenship as well as local and national Thainess. Seeks an active role in the ASEAN Community; has prepared a textbook for ASEAN studies

Vietnam

The 2019 Education Law. Aims for Vietnam’s version of ASEANness. Insufficient acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes at the regional and global levels. Current challenge is promoting national integration in socialism and citizenship education as a member of the ASEAN

Source Authors, 2021

14.3 The ASEAN Countries’ Key Concepts in Citizenship Education Based on the research results and the latest information, we conducted a comparison of the key concepts of the ASEAN countries in citizenship education from four perspectives. The following paragraphs and Table 14.2 provide summaries of the findings.

300

T. Hirata et al.

Table 14.2 Current status of citizenship education in the ASEAN community Brunei

Cambodia

Indonesia

Perspective (1): The ASEAN Community Regional educational cooperation

Regional and international educational organizations (e.g., CoL, ASCOE, ISESCO, SEAMEO, APEC, EDNET)

Intra-ASEAN cooperation included teacher training and student exchanges

Assistance mainly from developed countries; established cooperation in research and other areas

Relationships with the ASEAN Community

Presided over the ASEAN Summit and strengthened its relationship with the ASEAN Community

Maintains close relationship with China; criticized for giving China de facto veto power over ASEAN decision-making in return for economic assistance

Some regions had strong ties; others had weak ties

The future of the ASEAN Community

Interested in leadership roles, such as ASEAN chair in 2021 (Brunei, 2021)

Expects economic Required cooperation cooperation, in various fields, educational including education cooperation, and cultural exchange from ASEAN. Although the ASEAN holds the principles of human rights and democratic norms, it also holds the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, respecting the one-party dictatorship of the Cambodian People’s Party

Perspective (2): ASEANness education Understanding of ASEANness

Basic knowledge had been acquired

They had not yet acquired it

They had not yet acquired it

In Khmer language textbook and history and geography studies

Partly included in Indonesian language, religious education, Panchasila civic education, social studies, and history studies

Perspective (3): ASEAN studies Position in the curriculum

ASEAN education is not systematically positioned in the curriculum, but is partially addressed in social studies and MIB textbooks

(continued)

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

301

Table 14.2 (continued) Brunei

Cambodia

Status of ASEAN Community initiatives outside of ASEAN studies

Emphasis on learning English and addressing environmental issues

Institutional reforms to Encouraged learning improve the quality of focusing on key education and teacher competencies training

Indonesia

Preparation of teaching materials for ASEAN studies

No textbooks. Flags of ASEAN member countries

No textbooks. Schools rarely had the flags of ASEAN member countries or the ASEAN flag

No textbooks. Few schools had flags of ASEAN member countries or ASEAN flags

Creating an environment for ASEAN studies

Sought to provide young people with knowledge and information about the ASEAN’s vision fostering a people-centered, people-oriented ASEAN (Prime Minister’s Office 2015)

ASEAN sections are set up in some school libraries

Insufficient

Extra-curricular activities

None

None

None

Perspective (4) ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook Response status

Not supported

Not supported; Not supported however, some content was picked up

Laos

Malaysia

Myanmar

Received direct assistance from developed countries and educational support from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam (CLMV)

Unconfirmed

The ASEAN formed the basis of foreign policy. Economic and educational ties are likely to be strengthened in the future

Unconfirmed

Perspective (1): The ASEAN Community Regional educational cooperation

Main source was assistance from developed countries. Within the ASEAN region, received assistance from Thailand and Vietnam

Relationships with the The ASEAN was ASEAN Community actively engaged in international cooperation in various fields. The relationship was strong

(continued)

302

T. Hirata et al.

Table 14.2 (continued) The future of the ASEAN Community

Laos

Malaysia

Myanmar

Laos has scarcely contributed thus far but hopes to grow as a more active regional community partner

Economic ties within the ASEAN region are expected to continue to grow stronger

Achieving communality under the current administration seemed unlikely

Low acquisition of ASEANness

Unconfirmed. Expectations for the future New curriculum for 2015. Life Skills and Moral and Civics

Perspective (2): ASEANness education Understanding of ASEANness

Gradual progress and understanding

Perspective (3): ASEAN studies Position in the curriculum

The 2010 reform introduced basic content to the primary education subject The World Around Us

Primary year four and above civics and citizenship education textbook and secondary form two (Malaysia and International Relations) topic

Status of ASEAN Community initiatives outside of ASEAN studies

Emphasis on English language education starting from 3rd year of primary school, based on 2015 amendments to the Education Law. Efforts to improve quality, including implementing ICT education

Prioritized English as Unconfirmed a communication tool for regional and global mutual understanding

Preparation of teaching materials for ASEAN studies

Textbooks available. Few schools displayed the ASEAN flag

Some texts and Unconfirmed workbook materials for civics and citizenship education. Few schools displayed the flags of the ASEAN or ASEAN countries

Creating an environment for ASEAN studies

ASEAN section is set ASEAN section is set up in some school up in a few school libraries libraries

Unconfirmed

Extra-curricular activities

None

Nothing particular

Unconfirmed

Not supported

Unconfirmed

Perspective (4): ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook Response status

Not supported

(continued)

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

303

Table 14.2 (continued) Philippines

Singapore

Thailand

Vietnam

Supporting CLMV countries with university teachers

Mutual visits of teachers; dispatched teacher trainers to Thailand. Provided educational cooperation (assistance) to Laos

Perspective (1): The ASEAN Community Regional educational cooperation

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) were working as the Regional Center for Educational Innovation and Technology central hub

Relationships with the ASEAN Community

Betting close Strong confronting with the threat of China Joined RCEP

Proud to be an Weak and original member of delicate ASEAN. Maintained a flexible and all-round diplomacy, with a basic of cooperating with ASEAN and other major countries (e.g., Japan, the United States, China)

Future of the ASEAN Community

Expected strong economic and political relations with the ASEAN Community

Recognized the importance of the ASEAN Community; continued to contribute as a central actor

Economic aid organization with loose political ties

Knowledgeable but less so about ideologically distant countries

Did not identify with those that defined their own behaviors psychologically

Many training programs for the ASEAN in cooperation with advanced countries and international organizations (e.g., the Singapore Cooperation Program)

TTP and RCEP were important factors in inter-regional cooperation

Perspective (2): ASEANness education Understanding of Learning the ASEANness significance of close relations with ASEAN nations, but did not have sufficient knowledge yet

Saw the basis for ASEAN citizenship as being acquired through learning and life experiences

Perspective (3): ASEAN studies (continued)

304

T. Hirata et al.

Table 14.2 (continued) Philippines

Singapore

Thailand

Vietnam

Position in the curriculum

Taught as part of social studies (araling panlipunan) and values education (edukasyon sa pagpapakatao)

Taught as Diversity and Interaction in Southeast Asia in the latter half of the fifth-grade social studies course and as History of Southeast Asia in the third and fourth grades of junior high school

Added and expanded contents for social studies, religion, and culture

Lesson of morality (Dao Duc), lesson of civic education (Giao Duc Cong Dan), history, and geography

Status of ASEAN Community initiatives outside of ASEAN studies

Had an ASEAN leadership exchange program for all school ages, especially college level

Responsible Introduction of a key for the competency-oriented development of curriculum ICT education in the ASEAN work plan 2016–2020

Curriculum reform with an emphasis on key competencies

Preparation of teaching materials for ASEAN studies

Reading materials on ASEAN studies were usually integrated into social studies textbooks related to Asian study

Prepared a specialized textbook on Southeast Asian history for junior high school students

Had many textbooks and other materials. Displayed flags of ASEAN member countries and ASEAN in schools nationwide

Scarce availability of teaching materials in ordinary schools. Few flags of ASEAN member countries or ASEAN flags except in urban schools

Creating an environment for ASEAN studies

Internet access to information about ASEAN countries’ cultures and histories. Books on ASEAN. ASEAN flags displayed

ASEAN sections are set up in some school libraries

Special classrooms with a collection of ASEAN teaching materials and the ASEAN Center

ASEAN section is set up in the library of some schools

(continued)

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

305

Table 14.2 (continued) Extra-curricular activities

Philippines

Singapore

ASEAN Week celebration, UN Week celebration, museum visits, heritage tours, coastal clean ups

Participation in ASEAN Day the Southeast activities were Asian Games becoming popular school events. Used in-school announcements

Thailand

Vietnam Not practiced

Perspective (4): ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook Response status

No separate Not supported, ASEAN but covered sourcebook used many topics (e.g., nature, culture, history, economy, science and technology, and education)

Fully compatible with the secondary level of textbooks published in 2013

No correspondence

Source Authors, 2021

14.3.1 Perspective (1): The ASEAN Community Regional educational cooperation—We identified several points from the information provided by the various countries. The first point involved teacher training provided through educational cooperation and assistance from developed countries. In some countries, such as Brunei, aid and educational cooperation from international organizations coexist. Other countries, such as Cambodia and Laos, sent teachers to countries such as Thailand and Malaysia for training. Still, other countries, such as Vietnam, were conscious of the importance of cooperation. Thailand’s cooperative system is particularly noteworthy. Strengths and weaknesses of the relationship with the ASEAN Community— The ASEAN Summit is held once a year, with a new chair being elected every year. The host countries take the lead, and their involvement in the ASEAN Community increases. Some countries, such as Brunei, have tried to strengthen this relationship, but others have not. In general, however, this relationship appeared strong. The future of the ASEAN Community—None of the countries exhibited a negative stance towards the future. Some, such as Brunei and Malaysia, were willing to host and show leadership. Others, such as Indonesia, stressed the need to build a cooperative system not only in the field of education but also in other fields.

306

T. Hirata et al.

14.3.2 Perspective (2): ASEANness Education Our research addressed the question of whether ASEANness had been acquired. We identified countries that showed significant progress in acquiring ASEANness and those that did not. Although all the countries showed some progress, some were more advanced than others in their efforts. The reasons for this are topics for future research.

14.3.3 Perspective (3): ASEAN Studies Position in the curriculum—We placed different countries’ ASEAN studies in various subject areas, including specific subjects (e.g., the MIB and the World Around Us), civic education, religious education, social studies, history, geography, and moral education. Status of ASEAN Community initiatives outside of ASEAN studies—In addition to key competencies, teacher training, and environmental issues, we found a significant emphasis on English language learning and ICT. Preparation of teaching materials for ASEAN studies—Only two countries had textbooks that specifically covered the ASEAN: Malaysia and Thailand. Most countries have teaching materials related to ASEAN, such as flags. However, few countries displayed the flags of other ASEAN countries or the ASEAN flag; we found them only in Brunei and Thailand. Creating an environment for ASEAN studies—Many of the schools in ASEAN countries had well-maintained ASEAN sections in their libraries. Extra-curricular activities—Singapore promoted participation in the Southeast Asian Games. Thailand and other countries instituted the ASEAN Day, and ASEAN Day activities were widespread. However, most had not yet begun offering such extra-curricular activities.

14.3.4 Perspective (4): ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook Thailand responded actively and positively to queries about the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (2012). Some countries did not respond at all, and most provided only cursory responses. Thus, we obtained detailed information about the use of the Sourcebook only from Thailand, as described in Chap. 2, and one of our collaborators in Thailand (Chanbanchong, 2013) proposed a curriculum based on the Sourcebook. However, the research on the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook remains a topic for future research.

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

307

14.4 Recommendations for Citizenship Over the Next Ten Years: Results of the Delphi Survey Chapter 2 explains the meaning of the weighted values we used. Table 14.3 lists the top three characteristics with high WA values for each country following the (B)– (A) = (D) formula. The experts ranked these as the most important characteristics to acquire over the next ten years, meaning that ASEAN countries should prioritize curriculum and teaching material development to focus on these characteristics. Table 14.3 reveals some significant findings regarding the experts’ responses to our Delphi survey. First, the top three characteristics of knowledge and understanding were foreign language, ASEAN history and culture, and social problems common to ASEAN countries. The top three skills and abilities were ICT competency, the ability to understand and follow the common rules and values in ASEAN countries, and foreign language competency. The top three values and attitudes were valuing international cooperation, interest in addressing injustice, and the preservation of natural resources, environmental protection, and sustainable development. Chapter 1 discusses the nearly half-century evolution between ASEAN’s founding in 1967 and the establishment of the ASEAN Community in 2015. Most of the characteristics cited by the experts were placed on the agenda at the 2005 ASEAN Summit and the ASEAN Education Ministers Meeting. The importance of these characteristics has been frequently discussed and confirmed. For example, related concepts, such as ASEAN identity, ASEAN awareness, ASEANness, ICT competency, and foreign language competency, have been discussed in numerous meetings (ASEAN, 2005a, 2005b, 2006). At the 37th ASEAN Summit in 2020, it has been confirmed that efforts will be made to actively promote ASEAN awareness and ASEAN identity (ASEAN, 2020). Therefore, it is worth noting that even before the official establishment of the ASEAN Community, there was already a mutual recognition among the experts that these characteristics were essential and education was needed to achieve them. The Delphi survey results confirmed this finding.

14.5 Conclusions: Citizenship Education Paradigm for Surviving the 21st Century We have argued that a significant component of citizenship education is respect for, understanding, and coexisting with other cultures. This is easier said than done, given the critical issues currently facing the world. The ideal form of citizenship education involves making informed value judgments and decisions, and responding to immediate action. The experts’ views align with our own: improved education is essential, particularly in ICT and foreign language competency. The citizenship education curricula should be developed by government policy-makers, researchers,

308

T. Hirata et al.

Table 14.3 Citizenship characteristics to be acquired over the next ten years 1st

2nd

3rd

Knowledge and understanding

Foreign language

Common social problems of ASEAN countries

Sustainable development

Skills and abilities

To make decisions

To express opinions To solve common on social problems social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

Values and attitudes

To promote international cooperation

To face wrong To preserve natural things and injustice resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development. To respect for cultural diversity

Knowledge and understanding

ASEAN history and – culture. Common social problems of ASEAN countries

Social justice and equity

Skills and abilities

To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries. To respond to ICT

–

Values and attitudes

To face wrong things and injustice

To promote international cooperation

To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

Knowledge and understanding

Foreign language

ASEAN history and culture

Environment. Common social problems of ASEAN countries

Skills and abilities

To use foreign language

To improve quality of life

To respond to ICT

Values and attitudes

To face wrong things and injustice

To pay attention to global issues

To promote international cooperation

Knowledge and understanding

Foreign language

Social justice and equity

ASEAN history and culture

Skills and abilities

To respond to ICT

To use foreign language

To think critically

Values and attitudes

To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology

To preserve natural To respect cultural resources, protect diversity the environment, and have an interest in its development

Country Brunei

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos PDR

(continued)

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

309

Table 14.3 (continued) 1st

2nd

3rd

Knowledge and understanding

Common social problems of ASEAN countries

ASEAN history and culture

Human rights

Skills and abilities

To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

To use foreign language

To contribute to society

Values and attitudes

To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology

To have morality To respect human and pride as a rights member of ASEAN

Knowledge and understanding

Foreign language

Social justice and equity

Environment

Skills and abilities

To respond to ICT

To have self-discipline and self-control

To solve problems. To think critically

Values and attitudes

To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development

To have self-dependence

To face wrong things and injustice

Knowledge and understanding

Foreign language

Common social problems of ASEAN countries

ASEAN history and culture

Skills and abilities

To use foreign language

To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries. To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

-

Values and attitudes

To promote international cooperation

To pay attention to global issues

To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN

Knowledge and understanding

Environment

Sustainable development

Interdependence. Human rights. ASEAN history and culture

Skills and abilities

To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people

To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries

To contribute to society

Country Malaysia

Philippines

Thailand

Vietnam

(continued)

310

T. Hirata et al.

Table 14.3 (continued) 1st

Country Values and attitudes

2nd

3rd

To preserve natural To place resources, protect importance on the the environment, law and have an interest in its development

To respect human rights

Source Authors, 2021

PIan (PIanning) Law/Policy/Scheme/ Curriculum/Textbook

Action (Improving) A a Researchers/ By University Teachers/Students

By Government/ Policy-makers

Check (EvaIuating)

Do (Teaching) Local Schools Educational Practices By Schoolteachers/ Students Teachers

Local Schools Internal andCexternal evaluation By University Researchers/ Teachers/Students

Fig. 14.1 PDCA cycle of citizenship education in the ASEAN community (Made by Authors, 2021)

and graduate students and implemented by in-service teachers at schools. The framework of citizenship education must be refined and reconstructed through the PDCA cycle, as shown in Fig. 14.1. Plan (Planning): Government policy-makers and other experts producing laws, policies, schemes, curricula, textbooks, and other teaching tools. Do (Teaching): Local schools (school boards, administrators, schoolteachers, student teachers, etc.) implementing educational practices. Check (Evaluating): Local schools (researchers, teachers, students, etc.) conducting internal and external evaluations. Action (Improving): Researchers, teachers, students, experts, and governments to improve the curriculum.

14.5.1 Summary The following paragraphs briefly summarize the authors’ views on the citizenship education of ASEAN countries.

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

14.5.1.1

311

Brunei Status

The Delphi survey results indicated that Brunei’s experts should be able to design and implement a citizenship curriculum that improves students’ knowledge, understanding, skills, abilities, values, and attitudes at the local, national, regional, global, and universal levels. Enhancing and increasing the specific global content in textbooks would help teach balanced citizenship characteristics.

14.5.1.2

Cambodia Status

Cambodia has overcome the effects of genocide and horrific atrocities of the past Pol Pot regime and is trying to adopt education for the global age with international development assistance. The introduction of the National Curriculum Framework under the Education Strategic Plan 2019–2023 emphasizes good citizenship and the importance of good citizenship in building a civil society that respects democracy and human rights. It seems that students are equipped with the characteristics of the ASEAN citizens.

14.5.1.3

Indonesia Status

To enhance ASEANness education in the Indonesian context, Indonesia needs to expand and increase the school curriculum content related to Southeast Asian countries.

14.5.1.4

Laos Status

Laos needs to intensify its citizenship education, focusing on ASEAN and international awareness. The student survey addresses the development of an internally and internationally balanced curriculum regarding citizenship education to foster global awareness.

14.5.1.5

Malaysia Status

Malaysia needs to intensify its citizenship education, focusing on regional ASEAN knowledge and awareness to match the global and universal knowledge and awareness. The country’s lack of ASEAN awareness, ASEAN identity, and progress toward ASEAN integration are concerning.

312

14.5.1.6

T. Hirata et al.

Myanmar Status

Based on an analysis of reform trends in the education system and curriculum, Myanmar aims to develop good citizens and global citizens for the twenty-first century, who have critical thinking skills, communication skills, and social skills. The student questionnaire revealed that “peace” is seen as the most important, and that “having one’s own ideas and believing in oneself” and “being able to say the right thing is the right thing” are also considered important.

14.5.1.7

Philippines Status

The K-12 education reform is necessary for the progress of ASEAN and the ASEAN Economic Community. This K-12 reform will be the next step in citizenship education for the Philippines.

14.5.1.8

Singapore Status

Singapore is an immigrant and multiethnic nation, so citizenship education has become a major national concern. The Singapore government has been promoting various policies such as “Civics,” “EFL,” “EFL, and Being and Becoming. Good Citizens,” “Confusion Ethics,” and other policies.

14.5.1.9

Thailand Status

Over the next ten years, Thailand needs citizenship education that expands students’ understanding of regional, global, and universal issues while maintaining Thainess at the local and national levels—no easy task. Thailand should become more active in the ASEAN Community and encourage education to promote ASEAN knowledge and ASEANness.

14.5.1.10

Vietnam Status

Vietnam, as a socialist country, has a unique ASEANness version. It has not yet acquired the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills, abilities, values, and attitudes at the regional and global levels. This complicates the country’s discussions with other ASEAN members, especially those concerning regional integration and national integration through socialism. However, Vietnam has a framework for citizen education. Therefore, given its insufficient regional perspectives, it should develop an ASEAN curriculum. Some countries, such as Thailand and Vietnam, actively fostered ASEANness while maintaining and continuing citizenship education at the local and national

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

313

levels. However, other countries did not seem to have fully developed a sense of regional citizenship among students. Overall, the countries would benefit from further research and development related to ASEAN curricula and citizenship education integrating country-specific, regional, global, and universal perspectives.

14.5.2 Recommendations The authors also have some country-specific recommendations for the ASEAN Community.

14.5.2.1

Brunei Recommendations

Brunei needs to develop a curriculum that promotes international cooperation, morality, pride in the ASEAN, and international cooperation. They should incorporate Rosmawijah et al.’s (2019) 21st Century Learning Design (21CLD) professional development model in citizenship education.

14.5.2.2

Cambodia Recommendations

As shown in the results of the Delphi survey, students’ knowledge and understanding of ASEAN history, culture, and social problems in ASEAN, their ability to solve social problems in ASEAN, and their ability to act in accordance with the common rules and values of ASEAN, and their ability to cope with ICT, and their values and attitudes toward ASEAN, are the most important factors. In terms of values and attitudes, confronting injustice and international cooperation should be addressed in the future. It is also pointed out that the qualifications and abilities of teachers should be improved.

14.5.2.3

Indonesia Recommendations

Indonesia’s civic education teachers and teachers of related subjects should share their knowledge and experiences about ASEAN pride and respect with teachers from other Southeast Asian countries.

14.5.2.4

Laos Recommendations

Laos needs to develop teaching materials for ASEAN studies and train teachers to raise awareness of intercultural education.

314

T. Hirata et al.

Since the challenges are to develop a nationally and internationally balanced curriculum on citizenship education to enhance international awareness, these challenges must be addressed through a review and reform of educational policies on citizenship education.

14.5.2.5

Malaysia Recommendations

Because of the importance of the ASEAN relationship, teaching and learning, as a whole and individually, should not be limited to in-class learning, but should include experiences and learning approaches that relate to the knowledge gained from school in relation to the real community. In addition, it should be emphasized that active citizenship should be developed and not only focused on knowledge, but active citizenship should be fostered so that it can be nurtured and progressed at home, school, community, national, and ASEAN levels.

14.5.2.6

Myanmar Recommendations

Based on the new curriculum framework, it is desirable to develop good citizens and global citizens of the twenty-first century. To achieve this, it is necessary for those in charge of curriculum development in the Ministry of Education, researchers in universities, and teachers in schools to cooperate in developing curricula and accumulating educational practices related to citizenship education.

14.5.2.7

Philippines Recommendations

According to the Delphi survey, Filipino students need more time to acquire ASEANness. However, since students seem to be aware of the importance of the connection to ASEANness, schoolteachers and policy-makers should be more involved in ASEAN integration and make more efforts to acquire ASEAN citizenship and AESANness.

14.5.2.8

Singapore Recommendations

In particular, they should develop and strengthen the correlation between CCE, which plays a leading role in the teaching of moral and cultural values, and the humanities, which are designed to foster global awareness.

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

14.5.2.9

315

Thailand Recommendations

To enhance ASEAN literacy, Thailand should continue using the Thai context as the foundation for its citizenship education, but gradually integrate ASEAN knowledge, understanding, and skills into the school curriculum.

14.5.2.10

Vietnam Recommendations

The country needs to consider developing Vietnamese-ASEANness—a version of ASEANness that still highlights national interests secured by the central state. They need to add ASEAN-related knowledge and understanding of cultural and social issues in their historical and geographical educational materials, particularly their textbooks. Vietnam’s students should enhance their skills and abilities by building relationships with other members of the ASEAN Community through experiential and practical learning approaches. The recommendations are that ASEAN countries need to improve teacher training (especially in languages and ICT), expand exchange programs, and ensure that teachers can develop and use effective teaching materials. The countries should emphasize active citizenship and acquisition of knowledge. They should develop citizenship curricula according to their unique national circumstances while fostering ASEANness. The goal should be to embrace both national diversity and ASEAN commonalities. A 2014 presentation on citizenship education in the ASEAN Community at the Comparative Education Society of Asia reported that the foundation for citizenship education in the ASEAN Community was a balance between diversity and commonality (Hirata & Morishita, 2014). Figure 14.2 summarizes the above results.

Fig. 14.2 Diversity and commonality in citizenship education in the ASEAN community (Made by Authors, 2021)

316

T. Hirata et al.

14.6 The Study’s Challenges and Issues Chapter 1 discusses the limitations of the study. The paragraphs below identify several specific and concrete challenges and issues for future research. First, almost ten years have passed between the survey and the publication of this book. Thus, we need empirical verification of how the authors’ and experts’ predictions have been made. This will require a comparative longitudinal study with additional student and Delphi surveys to gather new information and recommendations for future citizenship education policies. In particular, we need to verify whether and how well the top-ranked characteristics identified from the Delphi survey have been achieved. Following the PDCA method, we passed through the P (Planning) and D (Teaching) stages and are now approaching the C (Evaluating) and A (Improving) stages. We cannot just sit back and watch what happens; we need additional predictive research. Second, we identified a common issue among the ASEAN Community: the challenge of fostering ASEANness in each country while respecting national interests. ASEAN studies and the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (2012) help with ASEANness education. However, we need to know more about how countries use the Sourcebook and why so many ASEAN countries do not take advantage of the resource. All countries’ governments, educational institutions, and education researchers need to promote curriculum and teaching material development. Future research should explore the ASEAN Community’s use of this Sourcebook; we believe that it could be the key to fostering ASEAN identity and ASEANness in all 10 countries. We also need to examine whether and to what extent countries’ citizens assimilate ASEANness. As Table 14.2 shows, even the incomplete data we gathered suggest that the results are far from uniform. Additional data are needed, and future research needs to investigate the reasons for the data. Third, the critical takeaway is the need to improve the quality of teaching in citizenship education, particularly in CLMV countries. This will require reforms in teachers’ training and development. Furthermore, educational exchange and cooperation should be promoted. Our research is not alone in noting the urgent need to improve the quality of the ASEAN nations’ teachers, including those in charge of citizenship education.

References ASEAN. (2005a). Statement of the ministers responsible for education of ASEAN countries, retreat. August 19. 2005. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/statement-of-the-ministers-res ponsible-for-education-of-asean-countries-retreat. ASEAN. (2005b). Chairman’s statement of the 11th ASEAN summit “One Vision, One Identity, One Community,” Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/chairmans-sta tement-of-the-11th-asean-summit-one-vision-one-identity-one-community-kuala-lumpur/. ASEAN. (2006). Joint statement from the 1st ASEAN education ministers meeting and 41st SEAMEO council conference Singapore, 23 March 2006. Retrieved June 20,

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community …

317

2021, from https://asean.org/joint-statement-from-the-1st-asean-education-ministers-meetingand-41st-seameo-council-conference-singapore. ASEAN. (2012). ASEAN curriculum sourcebook. ASEAN Secretariat. ASEAN. (2015a). Kuala Lumpur declaration on ASEAN 2025: Forging ahead together. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/book/asean-2025-forging-ahead-together. ASEAN. (2015b). Chairman’s statement of the 27th ASEAN summit. Kuala Lumpur, 21 November 2015, “Our People, Our Community, Our Vision.” Retrieved August 24, 2021, from https:// asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/2015/November/27th-summit/statement/Final-Chairm ans%20Statement%20of%2027th%20ASEAN%20Summit-25%20November%202015.pdf. ASEAN. (2020). Chairman’s statement of the 37th ASEAN summit Ha Noi, 12 November 2020, cohesive and responsive. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean.org/chairmans-statementof-the-37th-asean-summit/. Brunei Prime Minister’s Office. (2021). Brunei Darussalam’s ASEAN chairmanship 2021 deliverables. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://asean2021.bn/asean-brunei-2021/deliverables. Chanbanchong, C. (2013). Neewtaang Kaanchat Kaanrian Kaansoon Aasiansuksaa Nai Radap Pratomsuksaa Toon Plaai Taam Laksut Keenklang Asiansukusaa (A guide to ASEAN studies for upper elementary level from ASEAN curriculum sourcebook). Journal of Naresuan University, 2, 108–123. Hirata, T., & Morishita, M. (2014). Citizenship education in ASEAN countries: The analyses of Delphi surveys. Presented at the 9th biennial conference of the comparative education society of Asia (CESA). Hangzhou Normal University, China, May 16–18. Jawawi, R., Halida Jaidin, J., & Matzin, R. (2019). Transforming citizenship education into 21st century lessons. In: Proceedings of the 2019 7th international conference on information and education technology, Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan, pp. 174–178. Retrieved August 27, 2021, https:// doi.org/10.1145/3323771.3323818. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2021). Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved August 27, 2021, from https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/vietnam/data.html# section6.