1 Introduction

At this point, a plethora of critical academic works have emphasised the downsides of OECD-related (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) global competition and policy borrowing practices [e.g., 28, 64, 67, 68, 73]. However, a less well-researched area is if OECD countries are converging due to what is known as world culture theory [e.g., 12, 13, 19–21, 30, 62]. For instance, does the curricular content point to striking differences or are the countries’ educational systems converging due to for instance globalisation, OECD membership and policy recommendations? In the current study, the authors have compared Korea and Sweden in such regards.

Whereas Korea and Sweden are, indeed, not the only countries relevant for such a comparison they are appropriate to analytically juxtapose for four major reasons: first, South Korea (hereafter Korea) may be regarded as a ‘model country’ for Sweden since it outperforms the latter in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) mathematics [e.g., 8, 54]; second, there is a gap in the literature and no such country comparison has been made; third, Korea is sometimes portrayed in the Swedish media, academia, and education policy as an ‘extreme’ country in regard to educational diligence, competition and quantity [e.g., 34, 76] and this depiction needs further examination in order to discern complexity and nuances; fourth, two nations as culturally different as Korea and Sweden [e.g., 7] make up an important case in regard to world culture theory. As such it expands on the scholarly curriculum convergence/divergence debate which have mostly focused on the European context [e.g., 53]. To examine this topic, it is important to have a historical outlook and compare at least two distinct periods both diachronically and synchronically. Therefore, the current article focuses on Korea and Sweden as their national curricula were constituted around 1980 and how they are constituted regarding current curricular documents at the national level. In this regard, we theoretically build upon world culture theory [e.g., 46].

While this study is the first in this specific respect and therefore may be considered exploratory, there have been other curricular research studies that focus on either Korea, Sweden, or cross-national comparisons. An important contribution to transnational curricular studies is Kim [33], who provides a critical overview of curricular discourses of Korea’s past and suggestions of future endeavors in the field. The author hopes for a partial ‘Koreanisation’ of curricular understandings. Further, Kim [33] stresses that Korean high school students construct schematic narrative templates of world history and link the suffering of other people to Korea’s colonial past. Kim and Chang-Rundgren [32], on their part, emphasise that as Korea gradually becomes more ethnically heterogenous due to a large influx of migrants, social inclusion (SI) of students with a multicultural background (SMBs) has become a more pertinent issue in regard to educational reform and practice. Hong and Choi [26] on their behalf have found that Korean mathematics textbooks are more theoretical and put less emphasis upon mathematical reasoning compared to American counterparts, where the latter also focus on ‘everyday problems’ to a greater degree. This proclivity is also discussed by Kim [33]. Jho [29] examined the 2015 Revised Social Studies Curriculum and found that it is differentiated from the previous versions in terms of for example the integrative approach to the core courses, and a heightened emphasis on multiculturalism and global awareness. Moreover, economics, trade and finance have been incorporated into the social science curriculum to a larger extent.

Pang [56] underlines that Korea’s mathematics curriculum has been modified in relation to its different alterations. The fourth curriculum “prioritized the acquisition of accurate knowledge and skills over understanding mathematical logic” (p. 262). Furthermore, it was influenced by the ‘back to basics’ approach that was dominant in the US at time (p. 263). The same author asserts that the 2009 version was characterised by reduced mathematics content such as volume conversion and finding patterns with building blocks. The intermediate periods introduced a problem solving-centered curriculum with some selective features at the middle school level. Moreover, students’ character-building and creativity is emphasised by So and Kang [67]. The creativity aspect of the revised 2007 mathematics curriculum is further underlined by Hwang et al. [27] while Lew [42] examined the nexus between the Korean mathematics curriculum and its implementation into textbooks. Moon and Koo [48] have analysed Korean textbooks in civics education longitudinally and found that global citizenship themes have increased drastically, partly because Korea has since the 1990s held prominent positions in organizations such as the United Nations.

Tahirsylaj and Wahlström [74], who partly build on Wahlström [77], analysed curricular and policy documents in the Albanian and Swedish school systems in relation to ‘twenty-first century skills’ such as ‘critical thinking’. In regard to Sweden, the authors underscore that critical thinking is more implicit in the Swedish context as compared to the Albanian counterpart. Sundberg and Wahlström [71] and Alvunger [2], have accentuated that Lgr 11 (i.e., the Swedish national curriculum from 2011) might be understood as a combination of a ‘neo-conservative’ curriculum tradition (subject focus) and technical-instrumental curriculum ideology. Nordin and Sundberg [53] have examined transnational policy-making processes in Sweden and found that these seem to converge in a European context. Specifically, this process might be described as curriculum convergence.

There is a dearth of cross-national comparative curricular studies in general (i.e., those that involving Korea or Sweden and any other country) and with regard to Korea and Sweden in particular. Hence, while it is possible to relate to some of the earlier curricular studies in Korea and Sweden the current study largely stands on its own, although it partially hinges on similar concepts and research questions as Nordin and Sundberg [53] and Moon and Koo [48]. Compared to these studies, however, the current study focused more on the content than the institutional contexts, albeit that is mostly a question of degree.

The current article aims to answer the following research questions:

  • RQ1: What major similarities and differences are identified in the South Korean and Swedish curricular documents in terms of values, subject content, and general emphasis?

  • RQ2: May a convergence (or homogenisation) tendency be identified in the curricula, meaning that the two countries have become more similar?

2 Background

2.1 The Korean education context

Korea has made a rapid development from a Confucian to a democratic society. This process has implied that educational opportunities were extended from a small elite to virtually all segments of society within the span of five decades, although formal class inequality was eroded in the late nineteenth century in the aftermath of western influences that were retrieved from Japan, prior to and during the colonial period (1910–1945), when Korea was colonised by Japan [14].

In 1945, the literacy rate in Korea was only 22% whereas by the time that the democratisation process was implemented in the late-1980s more than 93% of South Koreans could read. ‘Education remained the single most important factor affecting social mobility in the 1990s.’ [60]. This has occurred in conjunction with rapid urbanisation and westernisation [5]. In the mid-1970s, the average Korean class had almost 70 pupils [37], see also [35, 39]. As Savada and Shaw [60, p. 114] note, since 1945 the curriculum is and has largely been based on American standards: 6 years of primary school, 6 years of secondary school (middle school and high school), and four years of higher education (college or university). Clark [15, p. 144–146] and Kim [33] have identified a similar pattern that started in the 1980s and continued during the 1990s. Furthermore, the curriculum of mathematics has been revised nine times after the independence in 1945. The latest revision was implemented in 2011 to address the problem with rote learning and negative attitudes toward mathematics, as well as to foster greater character and creativity [49, 56]. As Kim [33] notes, much of Korea’s curricular development—including the nationalist-leaning Moral Education (ME)—was implemented from external, specifically North American sources. Hence, an element of ‘Americanisation’ has been present since 1945. In recent years, the US an external reference has been challenged but the largest influence is nevertheless American [31].

Between 1960 and 1980, Korea experienced a vast economic growth, and the country is now considered ‘wealthy’ [14, 39]. Around 1980, when the Chun Doo-hwan administration ruled the country after Park Chung-hee, Korea was still more of an authoritarian than democratic state and had a nationalistic agenda with authoritarian and militaristic features. On the other hand, due to earlier economic growth this period was characterised by a gradual expansion of the education system in both qualitative and quantitative terms [39, 60].

In more recent decades, the education system has been affected by neoliberal elements, partly influenced by the OECD [67] and globalisation [31, 48]. Some scholars have also noticed a substantial academic stress among Korean students at for example middle school level, at least around 2009 [1]. This in turn has led to a larger focus on so-called Happiness Education Policy (HEP) in the country, which is being part of a larger trend in the global North [34].

2.2 The Swedish education context

Due to the cumulative processes of democratisation, modernisation, and emancipation of women [70], as well as the growth of material wealth and prosperity in the early twentieth century, Sweden’s education system was reformed numerous times between 1900 and 1970. Increased secularisation paved the way for non-confessional (i.e., non-Christian) education in the 1950s onward. However, the major reforms, such as the introduction of the current version of upper-secondary education and the municipal adult education were introduced around 1970 and the regulations have been relatively stable ever since [59, pp. 89–140]. Sweden implemented multiculturalism in 1975 [58]. Around 1980, Sweden had experienced a long period of steady economic growth. Hence, the quality of the education system was high in an international perspective. Moreover, the culture and social system was characterised by social equity and an aim to decrease gender inequities [59].

Similarly, Imsen [28] underline that the Nordic model went from social democracy via progressivism to neoliberalism. Fredholm [23] stresses a conservative response to progressive and horisontal teacher–student relations associated with decreased discipline which have occurred during a period of deepened neoliberalisation since the 1990s. These changes have paved the way for a hybrid model of centralisation and de-centralisation of the Swedish education system [11].

Lpo 94 constitutes the Swedish national curriculum that was implemented and used between Lgr 80 and Lgr 11. According to earlier research [e.g., 45, 77], the subject contents were less specified in this curriculum. A new feature was that the curriculum was hereafter goal-oriented [45]. Lgr 11, the consecutive curriculum is also goal-oriented.

The national curriculum has been revised several times. The last major revision for the entire school system was launched in 2011, with a partial revision in 2018. Sweden offers nine years of mandatory elementary school education, in which ‘Årskurs 7–9’ (Grade 7–9) conform to middle school or lower-secondary school education. Furthermore, it consists of three years of non-mandatory upper-secondary education, and typically three to five years of higher education [59, 65].

2.3 World culture theory

According to the world culture theory of education, nations throughout the world are expected to converge and become more similar over time and space [46]. This is partly driven by the logic of human capital acquisition and economic growth [13]. This might happen because of for example globalisation, which affects education systems and possibly makes many of them more similar [e.g., 12]. Moreover, institutions such as the EU and OECD have since about 2000 taken a more offensive approach in diffusing curricular and educational ideas and recommendations [53]. However, these contentions require a critical lens. Carney et al. [13] stress:

Although rejecting the Parsonian notion that norms are necessarily internalized, world culture theorists offer the remarkable image of actors—individuals, organizations, and nation-states—adopting, unreflexively, the same universal messages irrespective of history, identity, or national context. Similarly, world culture theorists evoke Weber for his insights into certain aspects of societal rationalization rather than individual human rationality.

This implies a critique of naïve universalism in relation to education policy and practice. Indeed, each national culture has its own particular features. Hence, there are always instances of hybridisation; this largely reflects the broader social context and unique historical patterns, as well as contextual local conditions such as the degree of economic capacity to expand the education system and increase its ‘quality’ [12]. For instance, in Korea westernised features such as liberal democracy, consumerism, and capitalism [43] co-exist with local and regional features such as contemporary versions of Confucianism [63], linguistic politeness [36], and Buddhism [4]. As a rather unique artefact, the ‘responsible mean’, ‘lagom’, is typical for Swedish culture [6] and seems to almost contradictorily co-exist with increasing neoliberal individualism and competitiveness [7, 9, 24]. It is palpable that from the 1980s onward, Sweden and the other Nordic countries have become more globalised and affected by neoliberal competition. While there is somewhat of a ‘developmental lag’ in Korea relative to Japan and other wealthy countries [14, 75], changes occur at an even faster rate in an era of globalisation and digitalisation. For instance, the OECD membership of both countries (Sweden since 1960, Korea since 1996 might lead to further convergence in regard to educational policies). The interpretation of what such affiliations mean is also affected by bidirectional causality (e.g., the member states are part of the OECD because they already are partly similar in terms of economic development, and the OECD membership affects the education systems to some extent). Thus, for example curricular development is indirectly influenced by economic development but ‘mediated’ by the effects of membership in organizations such as the EU and OECD [e.g., 20, 21, 53].

Ideas relevant for the nexus between world culture and educational systems were emphasised by for example Dale [19, 20], Dale and Robertson [21], and Carnoy and Rhoten [12] about two decades ago. However, only lately have these conceptual suggestions been materialized in empirical research. Johansson and Strietholt [30] have ‘tested’ the world culture theory so to speak by using multiple regression analysis in regard to Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS data) (1995–2011). They found that the achievement patterns within different countries are far from uniform but that the most striking differences are in absolute terms where some countries perform high and others substantially lower. Little supplementary evidence suggests that international assessments like TIMSS or PISA affect the national curricula similarly in all countries. Moreover, several countries seem to preserve specific curricular patterns at the national and regional level. For example, in Russia algebra is taught from primary schools upward whereas in most western countries it is not implemented until the eighth grade. Overall, the authors found little evidence of a convergence effect at the global level [30], which is in accordance with Dale and Robertson’s [21] broader argument in regard to for example the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) impact upon associated education systems.

Regarding curricular texts it is important to underline the normative character of such discourses as they are the result of parliamentary decision-making processes and current pedagogical trends and ideals [23, 40]. Because education policy documents partly reflect the current state of the national culture, the authors stress that it is pertinent to discern themes (patterns) which may demonstrate convergence (i.e., homogenisation), divergence [77], or hybridisation (i.e., merging of Western/global ideas with local or regional features, such as Korean nationalism and moral education) [7]. In this regard, we focus on the curricular texts and related contexts to shed light on how and to which extent Korea and Sweden converge, diverge, or merge in regard to educational policy discourses [e.g., 53]. We also focus on the mathematics subject specifically because it is often in the focal point in the debate on international large-scale assessments such as PISA and important for the future educational trajectory among students across countries and cultures [30].

3 Methodology

3.1 Data, and analytical procedure

The analysed data comprise (a) The Swedish curriculum Lgr 80 (1980) and the current national curriculum from 2011 (Lgr 11) and partially revised in 2018 [65], (b) The fourth Korean national curriculum (see [52], documents presented in Korean and translated into English by the second author); (c) the latest version of the national curriculum in Korea [50], which is an updated version of the 2009 national curriculum, as well as NCIC [51] which focuses on mathematics. For a summary of the documents, see Table 1.

Table 1 Primary sources
Full size table

There are some other pertinent documents which provide context and information relevant for this study and might be considered as they convey important insights into the current curricular constitution and culture of these two countries such as NASEM [49] and MEK [47] in relation to Korea and Skolverket [66] in relation to Sweden, but these should be regarded as secondary sources that will be referred to where appropriate in the article. Nonetheless, the authors acknowledge that there might be other documents which are produced by the Ministry of Education in Korea and the Swedish National Agency for Education (i.e., Skolverket) and of pertinence in this regard.

The two authors are proficient in Swedish, English, and Korean which enables a tripartite linguistic understanding and analysis. The first author coded all the curricular documents in Swedish and English, while an external researcher—who is also a well-experienced mathematics teacher—contributed with judgements and comments about mathematics content in all documents. This person was asked to evaluate the relative difficulty of the contents in the documents and also look for contents that are included/excluded in each documents and summarize the findings in a table format. This joint effort has been conducted to increase interrater validity [18] and trustworthiness [44], a term similar to validity [18]. Moreover, it follows suggestions in regard to cross-cultural research in mathematics education [16].

The analysis of these documents provides both diachronic comparisons between Sweden (1980) and Sweden (2018), Korea (1981 compared to 2017), and synchronic comparisons between Sweden and Korea (around 1980 and 2018). However, because the intermediate periods are omitted it is more correct to stress that the authors have studied the period 1981 and 2009–2017 in Korea, as well as 1980 and 2011–2018 in Sweden but due to brevity and simplicity the title encompasses 1980–2018.

To increase coherence and address the research questions, only middle school/lower-secondary education was considered, although some broader directions and guidelines in the introductory sections of each document were also relevant and therefore studied. Since educational research is centered in an English-reading international community, we have focused on the English translations of the latest national curriculum in Korea and Sweden (NCIC, 2009/2015; Skolverket, 2011/2018). However, the documents from 1980/1981 were in Korean and Swedish and therefore translated into English where appropriate (see Appendix A for a longer translation of the Korean curriculum). An additional benefit is that a descriptive approach eschews critical-subjective interpretations that may obfuscate the comparisons over time and space [9]. Nonetheless, we are aware that textual analyses are difficult to replicate [7].

Krippendorff [38, p. 192] has outlined a set of key principles in regard to content analysis, an analytic field which has evolved over the last decades. For instance, he stresses:

Multiple interpretations are not limited to qualitative scholarship either. Content analysts can adopt multiple contexts and pursue multiple research questions. The researchers' reflexive involvement—systematically ignored in naturalist inquiries, often acknowledged in qualitative scholarship—manifests itself in the awareness that it is content analysts who construct contexts for their analysis, acknowledging the worlds of others, in the pursuit of their own research questions and in the adoption of analytical constructs based on available literature or prior knowledge about the contexts of given texts [38, p. 89]

Thus, it is similar to Fairclough’s [22] discourse analytical framework in which the broader social, cultural, political, and economic contexts are pertinent. Such macro contexts were predominantly described by earlier research, but the values and directions of the national curricula do tell us something about the macro contexts as well. Hence, our analysis has not only focused on the mathematical content. To the extent that quantitative features are significant we have examined the frequency of key concepts such as knowledge (kunskap in Swedish and 지식 in Korean) and quantified the current mathematics curricula [e.g., 48]. This is appropriate because the analysis is mainly descriptive and comparative.

Partially based on ‘the guiding set of principles’ [10, p. 587] and a ‘6 phase approach of thematic analysis’ [17, p. 90], the analysis proceeded with the following steps. In order to fit the specific requirements for this particular set of texts and analytical design, only four major steps were essential.57

  • Step 1: Initial reading of the curricular texts.

  • Step 2: Translation into English (from Swedish and Hangeul).

  • Step 3: Identification of themes and sub-themes in all documents and relate them to earlier research and the theoretical framework.

  • Step 4: Write findings and insights and tie them to the research questions, previous research, and theoretical framework in order to suggest a relatively coherent discursive pattern.

Our aim has been to have a systematic and objective approach of the translations, readings, and analytical processes [e.g., ], but as briefly touched upon above we acknowledge the self-reflexive involvement in our interpretive processes [38].

Regarding the organisation of the results, we have kept the curricular sections on the first historical phase (1980–1981) which we scrutinize under separate headlines. However, the second phase (2009/2015 in Korea, 2011/2018 in Sweden) consists of more merged and comparative sections. The results do also include two broader comparative sections in which both countries and periods are evaluated.

4 Results

4.1 Curriculum contents in Korea and Sweden (1980–81)

4.1.1 Directions and values (Korea)

The Korean curriculum (see Appendix A) in 1981 stresses that students should develop a healthy body, rich emotions, refined hobbies, a strong will, and an aesthetic attitude. Important skills include basic learning skills, scientific inquiry skills, problem solving ability, and an ability to develop career paths. The moral character elements include independent self-realisation, honesty and integrity, autonomy and responsibility, fairness, and consciousness of order, as well as an attitude of human respect. At the social level, this includes social solidarity consciousness, devotion to building a democratic and just welfare society, a thorough national consciousness, a motivation to develop the national culture, and a human co-prosperity consciousness.

The educational goals underline that the middle school aims at nurturing a healthy mind and body and make [the students] acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to search for careers that match their personality, as well as nurturing fair judgement and the ability to act autonomously, to make understand democratic institutions and principles of life and practice [these] autonomously.

4.1.2 Curricular contents and guidelines (Korea)

The school subject activities are organized into twelve subjects: Moral Education, Korean Language, Korean History, Social Science, Mathematics, Science, Physical Education, Music, Art, Korean Literature, Foreign Language, BusinessFootnote 1 and Family Education.

The number of class days per year is over 170 days, and the class hours for subjects and special activities amount to over 80% of the total class hours presented in this curriculum.

4.1.3 Mathematics (Korea)

In mathematics, the goals of the subject include to make [the students] develop the ability to think mathematically about objects and their phenomena, with basic knowledge of mathematics as the basis, and to apply this to their lives, understand the basic concepts, principles and laws of mathematics, use mathematical terms and symbols correctly and have the ability to think mathematically about various phenomena that occur in life, to make [the students] use mathematical knowledge and skills to rationally solve problems.

In Grade 9, this includes specifically to make [the students] understand the properties of operations in the realm of real numbers, and to efficiently handle [mathematical] expressions through multiplication formula and factorization, to make [the students] learn how to solve quadratic equations so that [they] can apply this to problem solving, to make [the students] understand the properties of quadratic functions and their graphs, and the relationship between quadratic functions and quadratic equations, and to utilize them, to make [the students] understand the meaning of probability through numbers of simple cases and enable them to find simple probability, to make [the students] understand the Pythagorean theorem and the properties of trigonometric ratios, and systematically find out the properties of a circle and thereby be able to solve problems efficiently.

With regard to the values and directions described in the first sections, it is possible to identify both nationalist and modernist tendencies. While democracy was not realised until 1987 [33], democracy is still underlined on a few occasions. Moreover, there appears to be an emphasis upon moral character and physical fitness, indicated by phrases like a ‘strong body’, ‘aesthetic person’ and ‘has a high taste and pursues beauty’. The last two enunciations are themselves value-laden—what is an ‘aesthetic person’? what is a ‘high taste’? and what is ‘beauty’—but the reader is not provided any additional descriptions or explanations. Our understanding of this is that at this time, Korea was influenced by a hybrid system of Korean Confucianism, American humanism and anti-Communism, and Japanese and American military-style influences that glorified physical and aesthetic prowess [15, 29, 43, 48]. These elements tie to formulations such as “consciousness of order”, “national consciousness”, “a strong will”, and “an aesthetic attitude” mentioned above, whereas the democratic features constitute a means to display a nationalist anti-Communist agenda rather than a universal pursuit [48, p. 583]. Be that as it may, such content is downplayed in later Korean documents (NCIC, 2009/2015) and in the Swedish counterparts.

4.1.4 Directions and values (Sweden)

In Lgr 80, the overall goals accentuate a democratic view on society and people. For instance, as young people grow, they should gradually be given more influence in their lives, as well as in the school system. This should ideally occur in parallel with a broadened and deepened knowledge base that make the students ready for continuous studies and the future work life in various contexts. The aim is to inculcate democratic values and well-rounded individuals, not prepare them for specific and narrow future tasks.

The equality of people, regardless of gender, geographical position, and socio-economic background, is also underscored. However, equality does not imply sameness, as individuals are different with regard to interests, personalities, and abilities [41, pp. 15–18].

4.1.5 Curricular contents and guidelines (Sweden)

In Lgr 80, whose syllabus consists of Art, English, Home and consumer studies, Physical education and health, Mathematics, Modern languages, Music, Science (Biology, Physics, Chemistry), Social science (Geography, History, Religious Education, Social knowledge), Swedish, and Crafts, it is apparent that Sweden was ahead of many other countries regarding modern democratic values, such as gender equality, environmental concern, and inclusion of migrants. Korea had yet to be transitioned from a military dictatorship to a full democracy [15] and while Korea has focused on extended gender inequality since the 1990s many striking gender differences remain [33].

Nonetheless, assuming that Sweden has gradually become less authoritarian—and it certainly has [e.g., 59]—it is apparent that the curricular language has changed. For instance, Lgr 80 (p. 16) stresses, ‘Skolan skall fostra’, in which the word ‘fostra’ might be translated as ‘to foster’, which has more traditional-authoritarian connotations than the terms used in Skolverket [65]. As will be underlined below, Skolverket [65] is knowledge and value oriented. However, this was already the case in 1980. For instance, the sub-headings ‘Kunskaper och färdigheter’ (Knowledge and skills, p. 14) and ‘Fostran och utveckling’ (Fostering and development) and the related content clearly demonstrates this. In that regard, the Swedish education system has ‘stagnated’ as it already had laid out the foundations about 40 years ago. There are some differences, however, such as the emphasis on a detailed description of the typical school day, elements lacking in Skolverket [65]. This is a typical formulation in Lgr 80 (p. 21): ‘The school day shall include time for relaxation and rest. All do have a need to under controlled conditions speak to each other about experiences and events as well as to think and process experiences in peace and quiet.’ While this period in Sweden’s education history was influenced by critical sociology of education, at the expense of traditional essentialism [72], the curricular features appear quite straightforward and, in some regards, traditional. Students should be formed by teachers in vertical structures and relations.

4.1.6 Mathematics (Sweden)

Mathematics does also underline the significance of everyday life and concrete experiences. Problem solving is likewise emphasised (Lgr 80). In Lgr 80, mathematics comprises problem solving, basic arithmetic, real numbers, percent, geometrical relationships, algebra and basic functions, statistics and probability theory, computer use and computer learning. Compared to other subjects, mathematics covers ten pages (Lgr 80, pp. 98–107). Thus, the syllabus is rather comprehensive, advanced, and detailed. Mere computer use signifies a striking difference between Sweden and Korea as these contents were not mentioned in NCIC [50].

At that time, Korea was still relatively poor compared to Sweden [37] whereas Sweden—unlike the Korea—was already a full democracy and had ensured a sufficient level of educational quality. Furthermore, Sweden has never had any entrance exams related to secondary schools in the first place, although it had always had school grades as means for students to enter upper-secondary and/or tertiary education [59]. Thus, the ‘developmental lag’ [e.g., 75] is palpable: Sweden, at that time, could focus on specific descriptions and prescriptions while Korea had to prioritise basic structural reforms and quality improvements. Whereas the Americanisation of Korea’s education system has been an ongoing process since World War II [33], the contextual conditions were quite different in comparison to wealthy western nations and Japan [14].

4.2 Curriculum contents in Korea (2009/2015) and Sweden (2011/2018)

4.2.1 Directions and values (Korea and Sweden)

Within the first pages of the ‘School Curriculum of the Republic of Korea’ [47] and the Swedish counterpart, ‘Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare’ [65], knowledge and democracy are mentioned multiple times and appear to have salient positions. Perhaps knowledge is such a basic concept that it becomes trivial, but to which degree it is emphasised and in connection to what other discursive elements matter. Moreover, in the first paragraph Confucianism is underlined, ‘Education held an important place in Korea’s Confucian tradition, which reveres learning. Parents’ interest in and passion for their children’s education was tremendous.’ ‘Was’ implies that Confucianism does not perhaps longer play an important role in Korea; the country has transitioned into a post-Confucian state [4], although with some continuity between the past and present [63]. However, equity and compensatory measures to handle underachieving students are also underlined:

The Basic Academic Skills Diagnosis-Adjustment System, which seeks to detect underachieving students early and give them support, was expanded to cover school years one to ten from its original range of three to nine years. Under this system, a support group is set up in school to provide assistance to underachieving students. These underachieving students first receive diagnosis of their learning difficulties and then are given consulting and coaching to improve their learning outcome [47].

The Swedish syllabus includes Art, English, Home and consumer studies, Physical education and health, Mathematics, Modern languages, Music, Science (Biology, Physics, Chemistry), Social science (Geography, Religious Education, History, Social knowledge), Swedish, Crafts, and Technology [65]. Because Imsen [28] emphasise that the curriculum reform in Sweden, launched in 2011, is knowledge oriented, one may suspect that themes like knowledge and skills will be repetitiously underlined throughout the document. Indeed, Skolverket [65] is entrenched by the concept of knowledge, although often interrelated to themes such as values, skills, and individual experiences (e.g., ‘can consciously determine and express ethical standpoints based on knowledge of human rights and basic democratic values, as well as personal experiences’, 10). In the revised Lgr 11 [65], the fundamental values and goals are presented:

The school should stimulate pupils’ creativity, curiosity and self-confidence, as well as their desire to translate ideas into action and solve problems. Pupils should have the opportunity to take initiatives and assume responsibility, and to develop their ability to work both independently and together with others. An environmental perspective provides opportunities not only to take responsibility for the environment in areas where they themselves can exercise direct influence, but also to form a personal position with respect to overarching and global environmental issues. (…) It is important to have an international perspective, to be able to understand one’s own reality in a global context and to create international solidarity, as well as prepare for a society with close contacts across cultural and national borders [65, p. 8]

One may therefore assert that the Swedish national curriculum is knowledge and value oriented. It is perhaps also possible to identify a broader accountability focus compared to earlier periods [72]. However, in the above quote the global citizenship aspects are mostly emphasized.

The general educational objectives in Korea are to develop individuality in order to foster a ‘well-rounded character’; demonstrate creativity with a solid foundation in basic knowledge and skills; to explore career paths on the basis of broad intellectual faculties; to create new values which hinge upon the national culture; to contribute to the community through democratic citizenship [47]. The goals in middle school education are to promote a well-balanced development of mind and body; help students foster problem-solving skills for learning and everyday life and to equip them with the ability to express thoughts and feelings; to inculcate national pride; and to cultivate an understanding of fundamental values and democratic principles. The ten main subjects in middle school are Korean language, Moral education, Social studies, Mathematics, Science, Practical studies, Technical studies/home economics, Physical education, Music, Art, and Foreign language (English) (NCIC, 2009/2015). Hence, it is possible to identify a continuity between modern Korea’s different phases [e.g., 60, 63].

4.3 Mathematics (Korea and Sweden)

In relation to mathematics, the Korean 2009/2015 mathematics curriculum for the middle school level comprises five content domains: Numbers and Operations, Variables and Expressions, Functions, Probability and Statistics, and Geometry. Further:

In the secondary school Mathematics Curriculum, the content is also comprised of five strands: numbers and operations, variables and expressions, functions, probability and statistics, and geometry. In the `numbers and operations` strand, including the concepts of sets, integers, rational and irrational numbers, and approximate values are dealt with. In the `variables and expressions` strand, including the concepts of polynomials, the interpretation and application of the four fundamental rules of arithmetic, and the contents of linear equations and inequalities, simultaneous linear equations and inequalities, and quadratic equations are presented [51].

It also underlines, that in the “’functions’ strand, the contents of the concepts of linear and quadratic functions and their applications are presented. In the ‘probability and statistics’ strand, including the basic meaning of probability, the contents of frequency distribution, representative values, and the measure of dispersion are included. In the ‘geometry’ strand, the contents of understanding and proof of the properties of basic figures, the understanding of the Pythagorean theorem and its application, and the concept of trigonometric ratios are presented.” [51]. This appears similar to the 1981 curriculum, although with less content saturation.

The Swedish mathematics curriculum in relation to the grades 7–9 underscores understanding and use of numbers, algebra, geometry, probability and statistics, relationships and change, and problem solving [65, pp. 59–60]. Thus, in this regard Lgr 80 and Lgr 11 are strikingly similar, as if Skolverket had travelled back three decades in time in order to find inspiration. On the other hand, ‘huvudräkning’ (mental arithmetic) and ‘överslagsräkning’ (rough estimate counting) are emphasised in Lgr 80 but not in Lgr 11 (e.g., see [3]), whereas the latter accentuates mathematics understood in various cultural and historical contexts. Thus, some diachronic differences are manifested.

4.4 Key similarities

Some of the major similarities between Korea and Sweden are the focus on knowledge and skills, democratisation, internationalisation, equity, and subject content. Both curricula emphasise the importance of creativity and confidence, problem-solving skills, and mathematical knowledge. The values and multi-faceted curricula contents appear to reflect a modern humanitarian discourse, although the element of national pride in Korea may reflect a hybrid discourse (humanitarian-nationalist) which in part is associated with a patriotic American influence [33]. For instance, the Swedish curriculum says, ‘The task of the school is to promote learning by stimulating the individual to acquire and develop knowledge and values. In partnership with the home, the school should promote the all-round personal development of pupils into active, creative, competent, and responsible individuals and citizens.’ [65, p. 7]. This is quite similar to Korea’s general guidelines. Indeed, Korea’s curriculum has become more cosmopolitan since 1981 [29, 31].

A school factor that lends support to convergence is that Korea’s school classes have decreased from almost 70 pupils per class in the mid-1970s [37] to less than 30 in 2017, while Sweden has about 20 [55]. Whereas Sweden had large classes in the past this was not the case in the 1970s [59]. On the other hand, Korea had only about 170 school days in 1981 compared to 190 in 2018 [55, p. 347]. However, whether this reflects a specific school development factor, or a macro-economic development process is difficult to disentangle as these might be parallel courses [12].

4.5 Key differences

A value-related difference is that Skolverket [65] stresses its Judeo-Christian heritage and western humanism, while only Confucianism is mentioned in a similar respect in the Korean counterpart. This is because Christianity and humanism are more recent phenomena in Korea [4] while deeply rooted in Sweden [59].

Subject-wise, in Korea mathematics is divided into algebra and geometry, whereas in Sweden they are integrated into a singular subject. The mathematics content appears to be slightly more advanced in the Korean curriculum (see Table 2), which we interpret as partial evidence against subject-specific convergence (i.e., Korean mathematics remains more advanced relative to Sweden). Moreover, the Korean curriculum underscores that the use of calculators in the classroom is prohibited, which may foster greater arithmetic skills. These may be somewhat useful in relation to for instance PISA tests. Another difference is that mathematics in Sweden, similar to American textbooks, emphasise everyday life and reasoning rather than pure theoretical knowledge. When contextualising these findings in relation to the broader social and educational contexts, it is notable that when measured around 2009 Koreans spend almost twice as many hours on schoolwork (regular school, homework, and cram schools) compared to Swedes [1, 61]. Thus, this particular difference has diverged over time, at least until 2009.

Table 2 Mathematics in South Korea and Sweden’s latest national curriculum
Full size table

Furthermore, ethics and hanja are not part of the Swedish equivalent, although some schools offer basic Chinese [65, pp. 69–72] and ethics are sometimes implemented in Religious Education or within the other subjects [69]. Moreover, Moral Education (ME) is not included in the Swedish curriculum, at any level of the education system. Perhaps ME has assisted in the inculcation of character skills to a greater degree than in the Swedish population.

Moreover, character plays a more dominant role in the Korean curricular discourse. While the emphasis on a well-rounded personality is present in both the Korean and Swedish versions, character specifically is more frequently evoked as a theme at the middle school level in Korea. The word ‘character’—either as a singular word or as part of character education or character-building—is mentioned 30 times in the section which treats middle school education but not once in the Swedish document. This points to inspiration drawn from influential education economists such as James Heckman [e.g., 25]. On the other hand, Skolverket [66] underlines similar vocabulary and research, but that report is not a part of the education policy (i.e., national curriculum). Thus, while character skills have been noticed by Skolverket it has not (yet) been implemented in the national curriculum.

5 Discussion and conclusion

Whereas there exist palpable similarities and differences in regard to curricular contents and the broader educational and sociocultural contexts, it is less clear to which extent a convergence effect is present or not. In other words: have Korea and Sweden education-wise, and specifically curriculum-wise, become more similar? Our answer can only be a fuzzy yes and no because there are contradictory tendencies in that regard. This implies a parallelization of differences and similarities within the global cultural realm and various education systems [7]. Syllabus-wise much remains the same in both countries. Many of the essential values of Sweden, such as normative gender equality and inclusion of migrants, were already implemented in Lgr 80 while typically lagging in Korea [33]. This signifies different sociohistorical trajectories or at least different educational policy patterns. MEK (2017) is not overly concerned about gender equality. More focus is on creativity and character education, perhaps to increase entrepreneurship and innovation, avoid rote learning, and increase wellbeing among students [34]. Our results are partly consistent with Nordin and Sundberg [53] and Moon and Koo [48], as there is some convergence identified, and the global emphasis in Korea is more pronounced in 2015 and 2017 compared 1981. However, because of the different subjects, data, and methodologies it is difficult it to make distinct comparisons.

In line with earlier research on Lgr 11 [2, 3, 71, 77] we found an emphasis on knowledge, knowledge development and various subject-specific skills. This is because such parlance is typically used and therefore identified at the surface level in many subjects, including Swedish [77], social science [2], and mathematics [3].

With regard to critical scholarship on world culture theory [e.g., 13, 30], we have used this framework to examine to which extent the curricula in Korea and Sweden have become more similar over time or not. Nevertheless, even our relatively straightforward descriptive and comparative analysis implies that the socio-historical contexts and trajectories matter. Even surface level similarities and overlaps in mathematical content cover broader and deeper differences at the cultural and social levels of the education systems. In pure quantifiable terms Korea and Sweden have similar amounts of school days, class sizes do not differ considerably, and the subject contents overlap in mathematics, but the implementation of these elements within structures are indeed likely not the same because there are cultural and political differences at the local level [e.g., 46, 48]. As Nordin and Sundberg [53] highlight, too much focus on quantifiable curricular elements lead to that institutional and transnational discourses are neglected. Nonetheless, we assert that such are necessary to identify stable and systematic similarities and differences for us to identify either convergence, divergence, or both [48]. We also acknowledge that for us to say something meaningful of the implementation of curricular documents in practice, a focus on for instance lessons and assignments is required. Hence, our analysis does mostly shed light upon educational policy convergence, divergence, or mergence.

This article aimed to discern some similarities and differences between the Korean national curriculum and the Swedish national curriculum and a set of complementary documents, both more broadly and generally and with special emphasis on middle school level mathematics education to identify content convergence over time (1980–2018). A set of striking similarities and differences were identified, such as the emphasis on character education in Korea which is largely ignored in Sweden. Whilst many differences persist, a slight homogenisation or convergence effect may be identified, especially if school material factors such as class size (but not annual number of school days, which were somewhat more similar four decades ago) are considered. In other words, due do economic growth, globalisation and westernisation disparate cultures may converge to some extent [48, 53]. In a world system perspective, this implies that educational systems become more similar [e.g., 46].

Our contribution is not extensive in the sense that only two countries have been examined and as such in relation to one particular subject (mathematics). Therefore, it may be regarded as adding incremental knowledge to critical scholarship on world culture theory. The study has several other limitations, as it is based only on texts and not on for example interviews with stakeholders such as politicians or teachers [e.g., 48]. Furthermore, the intermediate periods between 1980 and 2018, such as the 1990s and early years of the twenty-first century have not been examined as regards curricular content. However, such omitted documents and periods are a consequence of the supposed trade-offs between depth and quantity.

Nonetheless, our study is groundbreaking in the sense that it is, to our knowledge, the first curricular comparison between Korea and Sweden and the first translation of the 1981 curriculum from Korean into English. Further research may deepen or broaden the research using complementary texts and methods, such as interviews and observations in contemporary school contexts [e.g., 2]), or other countries.