Comparing Teaching Methods Between Asian Countries, Europe, and the US: What Can Thailand Learn?
- Nonthapat Hansiri
- Jul 28
- 2 min read
Updated: Aug 29
Why do students in some countries excel in math while others struggle? A key part of the answer lies in how math is taught.
This article explores major differences in teaching approaches across Asia, Europe, and the United States, based on global studies and classroom practices—and offers insights into what Thailand can learn from each system.
📊 International Achievement Snapshot
According to PISA 2022 (by OECD):
Country/Region | Math Score (2022) | World Rank |
Singapore | 575 | 1 |
Japan | 536 | Top 5 |
South Korea | 527 | Top 10 |
Finland | 484 | Above Avg |
United States | 465 | Below Avg |
Thailand | 394 | 70th |
This wide gap is not just about student effort—but also about how they are taught.
🧠 Key Differences in Teaching Philosophies
Region | Core Teaching Focus | Example Approach |
East Asia | Deep conceptual understanding, mastery | One topic at a time, taught in depth |
Europe | Flexible thinking, student reasoning | Inquiry-based, discovery learning |
US | Individual creativity, variety of methods | Mixed strategies, project-based learning |
🇨🇳/🇯🇵/🇸🇬 Asian Approach: Teach Less, Learn More
Asian countries like Singapore, Japan, and China use:
Mastery approach: Stay on one topic until most students understand it deeply.
Bar models, CPA (Concrete–Pictorial–Abstract), and real-world contexts.
Problem variation: Same concept taught in different ways to deepen insight.
Carefully planned lessons that minimize confusion and maximize clarity.
📚 Research: Singapore’s curriculum, based on Jerome Bruner’s CPA approach, is linked to top global scores (PISA, TIMSS). Japanese lesson study also supports collaborative teaching improvement.
🇫🇮/🇬🇧/🇳🇱 European Approach: Student Agency and Reasoning
European countries often emphasize:
Conceptual discussion over procedural repetition
Student-led inquiry (e.g., “How else can we solve this?”)
Fewer standardized tests, more formative feedback
Flexible curricula with local teacher autonomy
📌 In Finland, math is taught with minimal homework and high trust in teacher professionalism—yet students consistently outperform international averages.
🇺🇸 US Approach: Mixed Strategies, Project Emphasis
In the US, classrooms often include:
Multiple methods for solving one problem
Group work and presentations
Emphasis on math communication and modeling
Wide use of technology and manipulatives
📚 However, inconsistent curricula and inequity between school districts have affected national averages.
🇹🇭 Thailand: Between Memorization and Modernization
Thailand has made strides, but still faces:
Overemphasis on rote procedures and formula memorization
Focus on test preparation rather than flexible reasoning
Unequal access to high-quality teaching materials or training
📌 Good news: Recent reforms—like the OBEC active learning initiative and introduction of coding and Singapore Math models—are aligning Thai classrooms more closely with international best practices.
🔍 What Thailand Can Learn
Strength to Adopt | From Where? |
CPA and mastery approach | Singapore |
Lesson study (collaborative planning) | Japan |
Flexible curriculum and teacher trust | Finland |
Inquiry and real-world problems | UK, Netherlands |
Math modeling and tech use | United States |
✨ Final Thoughts
There is no single “perfect” math system. But by combining the strengths of global practices, Thailand can build a more balanced, student-centered approach to mathematics—one that values deep thinking, creativity, and real-world relevance.
🌱 As we evolve, the best math education isn’t just about better scores—it’s about raising thinkers, not just calculators.
Comments