Why offer the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme? A comparison between schools in Asia-Pacific and other regions

Abstract

The International Baccalaureate (IB) has become a powerful educational brand by developing a reputation for combining progressive approaches with academic rigour. This can be identified by the growing number of schools adopting IB programmes globally and especially in the IB Asia-Pacific region. As part of this trend, the IB Middle Years Programme (MYP), aimed at students between 11 and 16 years old, has expanded significantly in recent years. However, in Asia-Pacific, the MYP remains less popular relative to the IB’s Primary Years Programme and pre-university Diploma Programme (DP). This article compares the motivations of IB MYP and DP Coordinators for choosing the MYP in Asia-Pacific with their counterparts in other parts of the world. To achieve this, 175 IB Coordinators across 54 countries were surveyed. Findings revealed that IB pedagogy, holistic approach, philosophy and global citizenship were the most popular reasons to offer the MYP. Yet, IB Coordinators in Asia-Pacific put relatively greater weight on marketing, the MYP Certificate and external validation of school-based assessments. This article argues that this emphasis may stem from a high concentration of schools operating in the private international schooling sector and discusses the potential for the MYP to continue to expand across the Asia-Pacific region.

Keywords

Asia-Pacific coordinators International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme

Introduction

Over the past few decades, the International Baccalaureate (IB) has emerged as a powerful brand in education systems around the world. Programmes offered by the IB have become regarded by many as offering an effective mix of progressive educational approaches and academic rigour (Hallinger et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2014). Reflecting this reputation, the number of schools offering IB programmes has been increasing steadily in recent years. As of January 2016, there were 5494 IB programmes offered by schools globally, representing a 62% increase since 2009 (IB, 2016d, 2016e). In terms of geographical concentration, the United States remains the most common location for the IB and accounts for 39% of all IB schools worldwide (IB, 2016d). However, recent years have witnessed a significant growth of the IB in the Asia-Pacific region. Specifically, between 2005 and 2016 the number of schools offering IB programmes in the IB Asia-Pacific region more than doubled from 304 to 696 (IB, 2016d; Lee et al., 2012a; 2012b).

The various programmes offered by the IB have experienced different degrees of success in terms of uptake and implementation. Leading absolute growth globally and across Asia-Pacific has been the IB Diploma Programme (DP), aimed at 16- to 19-year-olds, typically for the final 2 years of secondary schooling. Research has consistently revealed that the programme is perceived by stakeholders to provide first-rate preparation for university admission and studies (see Hill and Saxton, 2014; Lee et al., 2014; Tarc, 2009). From 2009 to 2016, the number of schools adopting the DP globally increased from 2049 to 2934 (IB, 2016c, 2016d). Growth has been especially strong in the IB Asia-Pacific region where the DP currently represents almost half (48%) of all IB programmes (IB, 2016d). The IB Primary Years Programme (PYP), aimed at 3- to 12-year-olds, has also expanded rapidly around the world from 611 schools in 2009 to 1333 schools in 2016. As of 2016, the PYP accounted for 36% of all IB programmes offered in the IB Asia-Pacific region (IB, 2016d).

The IB Middle Years Programme (MYP), which is aimed at students aged between 11 and 16 years, has also grown since being first offered by the IB in 1994. Globally, the number of schools offering the MYP has increased from 636 in 2009 to 1227 in 2016 (IB, 2016c). Despite this, the MYP remains the least popular IB programme in terms of offerings by (1) IB schools globally with the MYP comprising only 22% of all IB programmes (IB, 2016c) and (2) IB schools in the IB Asia-Pacific region, which represent only 16% of all IB programmes in the region or 156 schools (IB, 2016d). The underlying reasons are of significant interest given that the MYP purports to offer a similarly progressive educational philosophy as the PYP and DP and has a strong focus on the core concepts of communication, holistic learning and intercultural understanding (IB, 2016e). To illuminate potential explanations, this article examines the motivations of IB Coordinators for choosing to adopt the MYP, with a particular focus on comparing IB Coordinators in the IB Asia-Pacific region with their counterparts in other parts of the world.

Literature review

There is an array of reasons for school offering the MYP or choosing an alternative programme. Based on a review of empirical studies and discussion papers in different education systems, the reasons for adopting the MYP can be categorised into three dimensions: (1) educational philosophy, (2) pedagogy and curriculum and (3) assessment.

Educational philosophy

A central factor in selecting the MYP is philosophical beliefs about teaching and learning. In terms of the MYP, the IB claims that its educational philosophy is based on three core concepts including communication, intercultural awareness and holistic learning (IB, 2016e). A wide range of studies have reported that such a ‘progressive’ orientation has been the major selling point of the programme (Behrenbruch and Harrison, 2013; Hare, 2010; Stevenson et al., 2014; Wade, 2011; Wade and Wolanin, 2013). This includes studies reporting success of the MYP in promoting ‘open-mindedness’ (Stevenson et al., 2014) and ‘global mindedness’ (Wade and Wolanin, 2013). In addition, the philosophical approach has been argued to be conducive to a holistic education which emphasises ‘whole person’ development, rather than a narrow focus on academic content. Hare (2010 p. 7) argues that the characteristics of the MYP are closely aligned with a holistic approach to education in terms of promoting personal responsibility, positive attitudes to learning and social skills. Further studies have reported that the MYP can supplement broad learning experiences with rigour in terms of engagement with academic content (Hallinger et al., 2011; Tan and Bibby, 2010; Wade and Wolanin, 2013).

Less positively, other studies have questioned the capacity of the MYP to effectively implement its progressive educational philosophy (Bunnell, 2011; Ellwood, 1999; Phillips, 2011). Notably, Phillips (2011) argues that international mindedness and intercultural awareness should have greater prominence in the MYP given that they are core features of the programme. More recently, research has identified that many IB schools, especially in Asia-Pacific, operate in the private international schooling sector and charge high tuition fees relative to median income levels. As a result, IB schools are often restricted to students from high socio-economic backgrounds and provide limited opportunities to engage with people from other sociocultural backgrounds, which is crucial to a ‘holistic’ education (Wright and Lee, 2014a). In a similarly critical vein, it has been argued that ‘internationalist’ and ‘globalist’ values espoused by international education organisations, including the IB, are not universally held and tend to be fundamentally about Westernisation (Heyward, 2002; James, 2005; Rizvi, 2000).

A further criticism is that academic aspects of the MYP may be given relatively less weight, relative to the more progressive features of the programme. Following this, a concern is that the MYP may not provide students with a sufficient knowledge of core academic content. For example, research has found that International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) students obtained higher assessments scores relative to MYP students in core academic disciplines such as Mathematics and Science, therefore laying stronger foundations for further studies (Corlu, 2014). While other studies have found higher academic performance among MYP students compared with non-MYP students (see Wade and Wolanin, 2013), these findings reinforce reports by MYP teachers about a lack of academic recognition of the programme (Sizmur and Cunningham, 2012).

Pedagogy and curriculum

It has been contended that the educational philosophy of the IB is manifested in its curriculum and pedagogy that has reflective inquiry, conceptual understanding, and connected learning embedded into content (Behrenbruch and Harrison, 2013). The MYP curriculum aims to provide a breadth of understanding through at least 50 hours of teaching time across eight subject groups for each year of the programme, including Language acquisition, Language and literature, Individuals and societies, Sciences, Mathematics, Arts, Physical and health education, and Design. Moreover, there is an emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches to learning, with students participating in an interdisciplinary unit that blends two or more disciplines and a long-term project (IB, 2016b).

In particular, through interdisciplinary learning, the MYP has been argued to utilise various forms of knowledge to solve complex problems which cannot be dealt with adequately by a single discipline (Boix Mansilla, 2010; Daly et al., 2012; Godinho and Shrimpton, 2008; Harrison, 2015). Indeed, building an understanding of relationships between knowledge and disciplines is viewed as crucial by the IB to prepare students for higher levels of education (Harrison, 2015 p. 52). Wade (2011) found that according to school principals interdisciplinary learning has been a key factor in creating the MYP’s reputation for a progressive pedagogical approach. In addition, students may not only blend different sources of information but also play an active role in learning across subjects and from different subject groups, such as History and Physical Education (Daly et al., 2012 p. 5). Furthermore, it has been contended that the MYP promotes awareness of the relevance of content to real-world problems and the interrelation among knowledge, theories, approaches and skills (Lugt and Oosterhoff, 2009 p. 4–5).

The MYP also purports to provide opportunities for teachers’ professional development. For example, Sperandio (2010) points out that alongside certificate requirements, teachers who teach the IB must receive specific and tailored training by the IB. They are also encouraged to attend annual conferences and workshops and to participate in programme development. Furthermore, to foster a common understanding of the MYP across different participating schools, teachers are invited to engage in the assessment of the work of students from other schools. Nevertheless, other studies have noted a lack of clarity and a degree of confusion among teachers about how the programme should be implemented day-to-day in the classroom (for example, Bunnell, 2011 p. 207). Indeed, the consistency of standards has been questioned since there is limited monitoring of whether the objectives of the programme are effectively realised in school contexts (Crippen, 2008 p. 387).

Assessment

It is indispensable for every educational curriculum to have a system of assessment to evaluate student performance of the learning process. One distinctive feature of the MYP is that its assessment has to date been carried out internally and moderated externally with sample works chosen for inspection (IB, 2014). The absence of external examination may be appealing to some, but without examination, which acts as a benchmark for categorising students, the MYP may lose objectivity in its marking scheme to evaluating the performance of students (Hayden and Thompson, 2011 p. 17). To date, although work is ongoing into the development of optional external assessments, no exit examinations have been required for the MYP Certificate, while students who do not earn the MYP Certificate receive the Record of Achievement with Distinction or the Record of Achievement. It is noteworthy that external examinations can serve as a uniform assessment of students’ ability and provide externally recognised outcomes, without which the quality of pedagogy may be doubted by stakeholders including parents and students. In addition, it has been argued that assessments in the MYP remain unclear and ambiguous due to the holistic approach and external-examination-free curriculum (Bunnell, 2011).

A further issue is a lack of alignment between assessments of the MYP and other IB programmes. Specifically, Hallinger et al. (2011) express concern over the inconsistency of MYP assessment with the DP since the latter is designed towards a more examination-oriented approach. While the DP is the final programme of the IB continuum and closest to higher education, the absence of external examinations in the MYP may discourage parents and students from supporting the programme, especially when they value the importance of successful results in university admission examinations. This issue is part of wider confusion about whether the MYP should operate as a ‘stand-alone’ programme or as a precursor to the DP, given that the programmes were not designed for intentional alignment (Walker et al., 2014).

Rationale for study

The current literature on the MYP is useful in terms of shedding light on the attractions of the MYP as well as tensions in implementing the programme in various contexts. However, there is a lack of large-scale, multi-country empirical studies of the motivations of IB Coordinators for choosing to offer the MYP. Specifically, as far as we are aware, Sperandio’s (2010) study is the only peer-reviewed article with empirical data, which investigated why 366 schools around the world applied to adopt the MYP during the period between 1993 and 2007. Responding to this research gap, this article will reveal the results of a survey of IB Coordinators from 175 schools across 54 countries. In particular, it will outline the views of IB Coordinators about what the most important aspects of the programme are and how this varies in schools around the world. The responses will illuminate drivers of the expansion of the MYP and also why the programme has been relatively less successful in Asia-Pacific compared to other IB programmes. Above all, this article will seek to answer the following research questions:

What factors influence the decision to adopt the IB MYP in schools around the world?

What are the most important factors in that decision process?

Are there any differentiated factors influencing the adoption of the IB MYP in schools between Asia-Pacific and other regions? If so, why?

Methods

This study employed secondary data offered from the IB Global Centre in the United States. The IB Global Centre developed an MYP transition project questionnaire and distributed it to 177 schools offering both the MYP and the DP around the world in 2008 and 2009. The data collection focused on the 177 schools in order to reflect key issues occurring in schools offering multiple IB programmes with a focus on challenges facing MYP–DP transitions and differences between the MYP and the DP in terms of teaching and learning. The survey questionnaire also included question items about the reasons for offering the MYP, which were used for the analysis of this study. The final analysis in this study utilised valid survey questionnaires returned from 228 IB Coordinators working in 175 schools from 54 countries (approximately half of the Coordinators in the 175 schools returned valid responses).

We focused on IB Coordinators as the unit of analysis. There are several reasons for using IB Coordinators instead of schools as the unit of analysis. First, although the dataset contained school identification numbers, some of the IB schools included responses from at least two IB Coordinators. Furthermore, there were inconsistent responses between two or three IB Coordinators responding within the same schools. Therefore, schools do not represent a consistent unit of analysis. Second, it was not feasible to construct a composite variable by combining the responses of multiple IB Coordinators within one school because the data consisted largely of categorical or binary variables, which do not lend themselves to averaged responses. Since the survey dataset included largely binary or ordered categorical variables, we mainly used a series of chi-square tests to analyse the data.

Results

The results of the survey provide an insight into the motivations of IB Coordinators for choosing to offer the MYP. Table 1 outlines the factors that were highlighted by more than 70% of respondents on a global basis. The results show that pedagogy (88%), holistic approach (88%) and the general MYP philosophy (83%) were the three dominant reasons for selecting the programme. In addition, the perceived quality of the education which the MYP provides constituted another set of reasons that influence the selection of its programme. As is also shown in Table 1, four-fifths of the respondents reported that academic rigour (80%), interdisciplinary teaching (79%) and quality assurance (79%) were important in justifying their adoption of the MYP. Another important factor was the potential that the MYP offered for the professional development of teachers. Table 1 demonstrates that three-quarters (76%) of the IB Coordinators expressed the view that an opportunity for professional development and growth was an important factor in offering the programme. Following this, being part of an international education organisation, the ability and flexibility to develop course content and a desire to promote a smooth transition to the DP were also highlighted by more than 70% of IB Coordinators.

Table 1.

Important factors that influence MYP selection.

	Important	Neither important nor unimportant	Unimportant	Total
Factors influencing MYP selection indicated by more than 80% of IB Coordinators
Pedagogy^a	198 (88.4%)	22 (9.8%)	4 (1.8%)	225
Holistic learning^b	197 (88.0%)	23 (10.0%)	5 (2.0%)	225
MYP philosophy	185 (83.0%)	34 (15.2)	4 (1.8%)	223
Global citizenship	185 (82.2%)	36 (16%)	4 (1.8%)	224
Factors influencing MYP selection indicated by 70%–80% of IB Coordinators
Academic rigour	180 (79.6%)	35 (15.5%)	11 (4.9%)	226
Interdisciplinary teaching ^c	177 (79.0%)	37 (17%)	9 (4.0%)	223
Quality assurance – programme standards and practices	176 (78.6%)	41 (18.3%)	7 (3.1%)	224
Opportunities for teachers’ professional development and growth	171 (76.3%)	46 (20.5%)	7 (3.1%)	224
Being part of an international education organisation	163 (73.1%)	53 (23.8%)	7 (3.1%)	223
Ability and flexibility to develop course content using MYP framework	161 (71.2%)	54 (23.9%)	11 (4.9%)	226
Desire to provide a smooth transition between 11–16 learning and DP	158 (70.2%)	51(22.7%)	16 (7.1%)	225

MYP: Middle Years Programme; IB: International Baccalaureate; DP: Diploma Programme.

Pedagogy refers to a constructivist approach, including student inquiry into significant content in real-world contexts.

Holistic learning is the idea that all knowledge is interrelated in a curriculum that develops the whole person.

Interdisciplinary teaching is the process by which students come to understand bodies of knowledge from two or more disciplines and integrate them to create a new understanding.

Table 2 provides details on the various factors which IB Coordinators deemed to be relatively less important in the decision to offer the MYP. As Table 2 shows, factors such as recognition of the IB brand (68%), breadth of study (67%) and inclusive nature (67%) were all reported by 65%–70% of respondents. Table 2 also illustrates that the least important factors were marketing, wanting to move away from an external-examination-oriented curriculum and linkages with other schools. Notably, only 27% of respondents indicated that the ‘MYP certificate’ was an important reason for choosing the programme, with 30% reporting this to be unimportant (43% noted that the ‘MYP certificate’ was neither important nor unimportant).

Table 2.

Less important factors that influence MYP selection.

	Important	Neither important nor unimportant	Unimportant	Total
Factors influencing MYP selection indicated by more than 50%–70% of IB Coordinators
Assessment – ability to use a range of tools	154 (69.1%)	54 (24.2%)	15 (6.7%)	223
Recognition of IB brand	154 (68.4%)	65 (28.9%)	6 (2.7%)	225
Breadth^a	150 (67.0%)	66 (29.5%)	8 (3.6%)	224
Inclusive nature (caters for students of all abilities)	149 (66.8%)	61 (27.4%)	13 (5.8%)	223
Having readily available curriculum support	112 (55.2%)	76 (34.4%)	23 (10.4%)	221
External validation of school-based assessment^b	120 (54.5%)	79 (35.9%)	21 (9.5%)	220
Factors influencing MYP selection indicated by less than 50% of IB Coordinators
Marketing	102 (45.5%)	93 (41.5%)	29 (12.9%)	224
The need to move away from an external-examination-oriented curriculum	74 (33.8%)	93 (42.5%)	52 (23.7%)	219
Links to other schools	73 (32.9%)	115 (51.8%)	34 (15.3%)	222
MYP Certificate	59 (26.7%)	96 (43.4%)	66 (29.9%)	221

MYP: Middle Years Programme; IB: International Baccalaureate.

Breadth means that all students must study from all eight subject areas.

External validation here includes procedures of moderation and monitoring of school-based assessment.

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the responses from IB Coordinators in schools in Asia-Pacific and other regions. This is based on three important differences with regard to the relative weight they put on various factors in terms of selecting the MYP. Across most of the factors influencing the selection of the MYP in their schools, there were no statistically significant group differences between IB Coordinators in Asia-Pacific and their counterparts in other regions (see Appendix 1 for details). However, as can be identified in Table 4, IB Coordinators in Asia-Pacific were more likely to view the following three factors as important reasons for offering the MYP:

Enhancing marketing through the MYP;

Providing MYP Certificates;

External validation of school-based assessment through the implementation of the MYP.

Table 3.

Different factors influencing selection of the MYP: coordinators in Asia-Pacific versus coordinators in other regions.

		Important	Neither important nor unimportant	Unimportant	Total	Mantel–Haenszel χ² tests
Desire to provide a smooth transition between 11–16 learning and DP	Asia-Pacific	29 (56.9%)	15 (29.4%)	7 (13.7%)	51	χ²(1) = 7.45 p = .006
	Other regions	127 (74.3%)	36 (21.1%)	8 (4.7%)	171	χ²(1) = 7.45 p = .006
Academic rigour	Asia-Pacific	36 (69.2%)	10 (19.2%)	6 (11.5%)	52	χ² (1) = 6.55 p = .010
Academic rigour	Other regions	141 (82.5%)	25 (14.6%)	5 (2.9%)	171	χ² (1) = 6.55 p = .010
Marketing	Asia-Pacific	31 (59.6%)	18 (34.6%)	3 (5.8%)	52	χ² (1) = 6.94 p = .008
Marketing	Other regions	68 (40.2%)	75 (44.4%)	26 (15.4%)	169	χ² (1) = 6.94 p = .008
MYP Certificate	Asia-Pacific	20 (39.2%)	24 (47.1%)	7 (13.7%)	51	χ² (1) = 9.45 p = .002
MYP Certificate	Other regions	38 (22.8%)	72 (43.1%)	57 (34.1%)	167	χ² (1) = 9.45 p = .002
External validation of school-based assessment	Asia-Pacific	37 (71.2%)	15 (28.8%)	0 (0.0%)	52	χ² (1) = 10.6 p = .001
External validation of school-based assessment	Other regions	81 (49.1%)	64 (38.8%)	20 (12.1%)	165	χ² (1) = 10.6 p = .001

MYP: Middle Years Programme; DP: Diploma Programme.

Table 4.

Asia-Pacific = 55 coordinators versus others = 177 coordinators.

Region	Private/national	Private/international	State/public	Other	Total	χ² test
Asia-Pacific	10 (18.2%)	38 (69.1%)	4 (7.3%)	3 (5.5%)	55 (100%)	χ² (3) = 31.80 p = .000.
Others	13 (7.4%)	72 (41.1%)	86 (49.1%)	4 (2.3%)	175 (100%)	χ² (3) = 31.80 p = .000.

Cramer’s V = .372; p = .000 also suggests that the strength of the association between region and school type is a medium association (i.e. the maximum value = 1.0).

These findings suggest that the perceptions of the IB Coordinators are influenced by their regional and school contexts. That is, given that a majority of IB schools in Asia-Pacific are private schools (see Table 4), especially private international schools, the focus on competition in the international education market in Asia-Pacific seems to shape the perceptions of IB Coordinators in this region. Indeed, as we mentioned, Asia-Pacific has evidenced a rapid growth of IB schools around the world over the last decade. Given this context, marketing seems to be an important factor for IB Coordinators in this region in terms of promoting their school through the introduction of the MYP. According to the Mantel–Haenszel chi-square tests conducted by this empirical study, marketing is a significant factor that affects the selection of the MYP as perceived by the coordinators in Asia-Pacific (p value of .008 and chi-square value of 6.94). Similarly, an emphasis on ‘external validation of school-based curriculum and assessment’ and the ‘MYP Certificate’ is likely to stem from market pressures. This argument is buttressed by our Mantel–Haenszel chi-square tests which show that external validation of school-based curriculum and assessment (p value of .001 and chi-square value of 10.6) and the MYP Certificate (p value of .002 and chi-square value of 9.45) are more significant determinants that influence the selection of the MYP by Coordinators in Asia-Pacific.

The implications of these findings signify that the market environment may be important in terms of choosing or implementing new IB programmes, as suggested by our chi-square data of 31.80 (p value of .000; see Table 4). In other words, the MYP is regarded as providing a competitive edge for some IB schools in Asia-Pacific where private international schools compete to attract prospective students. As will be argued in more detail below, some international educators in Asia-Pacific may be sensitive to external market conditions when they make educational decisions in general and curriculum decisions in particular, which are likely to be core selling points in the context of increasingly competitive international schooling markets.

Discussion

The results of the survey revealed that pedagogy, holistic approach and by and large the MYP educational philosophy were the core reasons for the selection of the MYP globally. This reinforces an extensive body of prior research celebrating the ‘progressive’ philosophy of the programme based on communication, intercultural awareness and holistic learning (Behrenbruch and Harrison, 2013; Hare, 2010; Stevenson et al., 2014; Wade and Wolanin, 2013). In particular, the findings imply a concurrence of our respondents with the stated ambitions of the IB of developing their students into responsible global citizens of the future (see IB, 2016e). The perceived quality of education in the MYP constitutes another set of reasons for the selection of the programme. Nearly 80% of the respondents expressed that academic rigour, interdisciplinary teaching and quality assurance were important in justifying their adoption of the MYP. The findings echo previous studies that the MYP has a strong reputation for delivering on high academic standards (Hallinger, et al., 2011; Tan and Bibby, 2010; Wade and Wolanin, 2011) and interdisciplinary learning, in which students are encouraged to integrate bodies of knowledge from two or more disciplines to create new understandings (Boix Mansilla, 2010; Daly et al., 2012; Godinho and Shrimpton, 2008; Harrison, 2015).

An additional important finding was that, with regard to the teaching profession for MYP teachers, the respondents revealed the importance of professional development. Approximately, three-quarters of respondents noted that opportunities for teachers’ professional development and growth and being part of an international organisation were reasons to choose the MYP. For example, IB teachers are regularly invited to attend programme development workshops, annual conferences and assess the work of students from other schools (Sperandio, 2010) so as to promote a common understanding of the IB educational philosophy. However, approximately one-quarter of our respondents did not consider professional development to be an important reason. This indicates a certain unwillingness or scepticism about the capabilities of the IB to promote teachers’ professional development and growth.

The consistency of MYP standards has been questioned, especially in terms of a lack of monitoring over whether objectives of the programme are realised in school contexts (Crippen, 2008 p. 387). Despite this, some respondents (71%) stated that they appreciate the flexibility to develop course content using the MYP framework. Interestingly, the desire to provide a smooth transition between 11–16 learning and the DP was not among the top 10 most important reasons that influence the selection of the MYP (70% of our respondents report that as an important reason). This finding is especially noteworthy when we compare the figure of Asia-Pacific (57%) and other regions (74%).

In terms of the flexibility of assessment, fewer respondents considered this to be a major strength. The absence of external examinations may result in the MYP being viewed as not having objectivity in its marking scheme and benchmarks to categorise the performance of students (Hayden and Thompson, 2011 p. 17). Less than 70% of our respondents reported the ability to use a range of assessment tools as a reason for selecting the MYP. An objective of the MYP is to facilitate breadth of understanding through studying across eight different subject groups. Breadth was cited by 67% of IB Coordinators as an important factor for offering the programme. The inclusiveness of the MYP was also noted by 67% of IB Coordinators. Why this reason was not cited by more respondents can perhaps be explained by the critique of the MYP education for global citizenship in the academic literature. That is, it has been argued that the ‘global citizenship’ discourse in IB programmes are Westernised, rather than truly universal (Heyward, 2002; James, 2005; Rizvi, 2000).

Despite evidence that the IB has developed a strong reputation in educational markets globally in recent years (see Doherty, 2009), recognition of the IB brand was not one of the most common reasons for selecting the MYP, being noted by 68% of respondents. Put another way, the branding effect seems not to be valid across a large audience but only to some segments of the MYP community. This may indicate that the strong reputation of IB stems in large part from the IB’s other programmes, especially the DP. Indeed, prior research has illuminated concern among MYP teachers that the programme is not widely recognised (Sizmur and Cunningham, 2012). A possible explanation for this may stem from concern about the academic content of the MYP compared to other programmes. As noted, prior research has found that IGCSE may provide students with a stronger foundation in core knowledge in Mathematics and Science relative to the MYP (Corlu, 2014; cf. Wade and Wolanin, 2013).

Related to the above, a further important finding was that nearly half of the respondents reported external validation of school-based assessment, including moderation and monitoring of assessment, to be not important in influencing their selection of the MYP. Bunnell (2011) explains that owing to the holistic approach and external-examination-free curriculum, assessment in the MYP can appear unclear and ambiguous. Moreover, this resonates with concern over the inconsistency in aligning MYP assessment to the DP, given that the DP is designed towards a more examination-oriented approach for university admissions (Hallinger et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2014).

It is noteworthy that only 49% of the non-Asia-Pacific respondents reported external validation of school-based assessment to be important, as compared with 71% of their counterparts in Asia-Pacific. As will be argued further in the concluding remarks, this may reflect the high proportion of MYP schools in Asia-Pacific operating in the private international schooling sector. In other words, IB Coordinators at such schools are likely to value the validation of assessments to appeal to fee-paying students (or their families) seeking to guarantee a high-quality education and associated credentials.

Following this latter point, marketing was reported by less than half (45%) of respondents to be an important factor in the decision to offer the MYP. Among IB Coordinators in Asia-Pacific, this figure increased to three-fifths (60%), compared to their counterparts in other regions (40%). Similarly to external validation of school-based assessment, the greater importance of the role of marketing in Asia-Pacific may reflect the high proportion of MYP schools in the international private schooling sector. As a result, IB Coordinators may place greater emphasis on appealing to prospective students and their families in order to compete in schooling markets (Lee et al., 2015).

Finally, the MYP Certificate was considered by only one-quarter of our respondents (26%) as an important reason for adopting the programme. No exit examinations are currently required for the MYP Certificate. Yet, the IB Coordinators in Asia-Pacific (39%) were more likely than their counterparts in other regions (23%) to treat the MYP Certificate as an important reason to offer the MYP. To explain the overall lack of emphasis put on the MYP Certificate by our respondents, the external-examination-free arrangement is likely to be an important factor. External recognition may be difficult to achieve without external examinations, with stakeholders perhaps doubting the quality of pedagogy when the MYP Certificate can be attained without the assessment process of external/exit examinations.

Concluding remarks on the MYP in Asia-Pacific

Societies across the Asia-Pacific region have demonstrated repeated success in international educational assessments. Most markedly, the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results revealed that the top 7 performers for 15-year-olds with regard to mean scores for Mathematics, Reading and Science were all located in East Asia (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2014). This is an impressive accomplishment. Nevertheless, there has been growing concern that many students across education systems in the region have a relative weakness when it comes to the so-called 21st century skills such as adaptability, communication, creativity, critical thinking, global mindedness, and leadership (Zhao, 2014). Such skills may not necessarily be measured in assessments such as PISA but are likely to be highly important for further studies, careers and the personal lives of students. The progressive educational philosophy of the IB has been touted as a potential way to facilitate the development of 21st century skills, while also giving sufficient weight to the learning of core academic content (Wright and Lee, 2014b).

The results of the survey outlined in this article revealed that IB Coordinators deemed IB pedagogy, holistic approach, general philosophy and global citizenship to be the four most important reasons for offering the MYP. This signifies confidence about the broad educational approach of the programme. However, the educational aspirations of IB Coordinators and students in Asia-Pacific are likely to vary from that of their peers in other parts of the world. In particular, within Asia-Pacific factors such as external validation of school-based assessments, the MYP Certificate and marketing were given more priority relative to other regions. These findings suggest a relatively greater weight among Asia-Pacific IB Coordinators on more instrumentalist functions of the MYP, especially in terms of a concern about the reputation of the programme and its credentials. This may in part stem from the high proportion of MYP schools in Asia-Pacific operating in an increasingly competitive private international schooling sector and the corresponding need to provide evidence of academic success and rigour to attract fee-paying students. These factors may also explain the relatively slower growth of the MYP relative to the DP in the region, which has arguably developed a stronger reputation for academic rigour among stakeholders (see Lee et al., 2014). Indeed, the IB will likely need to identify effective means to respond to these concerns, without undermining the educational philosophy of the programme, to facilitate future growth of the MYP in the Asia-Pacific region. As a potential step in the right direction, the IB will implement a new assessment model for the MYP in 2016. This includes optional external assessments (eAssessments) as well as mandatory moderation of the MYP personal project (IB, 2016a). Further studies are recommended to track how such reforms may change perceptions of the MYP and their influence on the growth of the programme across Asia-Pacific.

Finally, as noted earlier, the global survey of IB schools in this study was conducted between 2008 and 2009. Despite this, we contend that the findings remain of significant interest given that (1) the MYP has continued to expand steadily in subsequent years on a global basis; (2) the vast majority of the schools in this study are still in operation, with stated reasons for implementing the programme therefore remaining valid; and (3) there has been no updated research on this issue with empirical data. To our knowledge, Sperandio’s (2010) study is the only peer-reviewed article with empirical data, which investigated why 366 schools around the world applied to adopt the IB MYP during the period between 1993 and 2007. Given this dearth of research on this issue, to date our study provides the most updated findings on the issue. We accept, however, the possibility that the same study conducted in 2016 may yield alternative results. We await further research in this regard.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Factors influencing selection of the MYP: Asia-Pacific versus others (no significant difference).

		Important	Neither important nor unimportant	Unimportant	Mantel–Haenszel χ² tests
Interdisciplinary teaching	Asia-Pacific	39 (76%)	10 (20%)	2 (4%)	χ²(1) = .28 p = .59
Interdisciplinary teaching	Other regions	137 (81%)	25 (15%)	7 (4%)	χ²(1) = .28 p = .59
Holistic approach	Asia-Pacific	48 (94%)	2 (4%)	1 (2%)	χ² (1) = 1.58 p = .20
Holistic approach	Other regions	147 (86%)	21 (12%)	3 (2%)	χ² (1) = 1.58 p = .20
MYP philosophy	Asia-Pacific	45 (88%)	4 (8%)	2 (4%)	χ² (1) = .23 p = .62
MYP philosophy	Other regions	138 (82%)	30 (18%)	1 (1%)	χ² (1) = .23 p = .62
Links to other schools	Asia-Pacific	14 (28%)	27 (54%)	9 (18%)	χ² (1) = .97 p = .32
Links to other schools	Other regions	59 (35%)	86 (51%)	24 (14%)	χ² (1) = .97 p = .32
Recognition of IB brand	Asia-Pacific	39 (75%)	13 (25%)	0 (0%)	χ² (1) = 2.25 p = .13
Recognition of IB brand	Other regions	112 (66%)	52 (31%)	6 (4%)	χ² (1) = 2.25 p = .13
Being part of an international education organisation	Asia-Pacific	41 (79%)	8 (15%)	3 (6%)	χ²(1) = .23 p = .62
Being part of an international education organisation	Other regions	120 (71%)	44 (26%)	4 (2%)	χ²(1) = .23 p = .62
Having readily available curriculum support	Asia-Pacific	25 (48%)	19 (37%)	8 (15%)	χ² (1) = 2.22 p = .13
Having readily available curriculum support	Other regions	96 (58%)	55 (33%)	15 (9%)	χ² (1) = 2.22 p = .13
Assessment – ability to use a range of tools	Asia-Pacific	37 (74%)	12 (24%)	1 (2%)	χ² (1) = 1.15 p = .28
Assessment – ability to use a range of tools	Other regions	117 (69%)	41 (24%)	12 (7%)	χ² (1) = 1.15 p = .28
Inclusive nature	Asia-Pacific	29 (57%)	20 (39%)	2 (4%)	χ² (1) = 1.89 p = .16
Inclusive nature	Other regions	120 (71%)	40 (24%)	9 (5%)	χ² (1) = 1.89 p = .16
Breadth	Asia-Pacific	34 (67%)	15 (29%)	2 (4%)	χ² (1) = .02 p = .87
Breadth	Other regions	115 (68%)	49 (29%)	6 (4%)	χ² (1) = .02 p = .87
Quality assurance – programme standards and practices	Asia-Pacific	36 (71%)	11 (22%)	4 (8%)	χ² (1) = .36 p = .54
Quality assurance – programme standards and practices	Other regions	137 (81%)	30 (18%)	3 (2%)	χ² (1) = .36 p = .54
Global citizenship	Asia-Pacific	44 (86%)	6 (12%)	1 (2%)	χ² (1) = .57 p = .44
Global citizenship	Other regions	138 (81%)	30 (18%)	3 (2%)	χ² (1) = .57 p = .44
Pedagogy	Asia-Pacific	45 (88%)	5 (10%)	1 (2%)	χ² (1) = .19 p = .65
Pedagogy	Other regions	153 (90%)	15 (9%)	2 (1%)	χ² (1) = .19 p = .65
Opportunities for teachers’ professional development and growth	Asia-Pacific	39 (76%)	11 (22%)	1 (2%)	χ² (1) = .001 p = .98
	Other regions	132 (78%)	33 (19%)	5 (3%)	χ² (1) = .001 p = .98
The need to move away from an external-examination-oriented curriculum	Asia-Pacific	21 (41%)	22 (43%)	8 (16%)	χ² (1) = 2.31 p = .13
	Other regions	53 (32%)	71 (43%)	41 (25%)	χ² (1) = 2.31 p = .13
Ability and flexibility to develop course content using MYP framework	Asia-Pacific	42 (82%)	7 (14%)	2 (4%)	χ² (1) = 2.33 p = .12
	Other regions	119 (69%)	46 (27%)	7 (4%)	χ² (1) = 2.33 p = .12

MYP: Middle Years Programme; IB: International Baccalaureate.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the valuable comments of the anonymous reviewers and editors of the Journal of Research in International Education. We also thank the IB Global Centre in the United States for enabling us to access secondary data used in this study.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Ewan Wright is engaged in doctoral research in the Faculty of Education at The University of Hong Kong, where he holds a research Fellowship. Prior to joining The University of Hong Kong, he worked with various think tanks in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong including Centre for Cities, Demos and Civic Exchange. His core research interests are based around inequality in education, 21st century skills and emerging forms of educational distinction.

Moosung Lee holds one of the University of Canberra’s prestigious Centenary Professor appointments. Having been appointed full professor within 4.5 years of completing his PhD, he is currently the University’s youngest Centenary Professor. Prior to joining the University of Canberra, he held appointments as Associate Professor and founding Deputy Director of the Education Policy Unit at the University of Hong Kong. His current research interests are elite schooling, IB schools and social capital.

Hayes Tang is Assistant Professor of Education Policy at the Education University of Hong Kong. A sociologist, he is interested in the fields of academic profession, academic entrepreneurialism, democratisation in education and youth studies. He is committed to create new knowledge in application for enhancing the alignment between education and the world of work/professions in East Asian entrepreneurial economies and for better education governance in the age of citizen activism.

Gordon Chak Pong Tsui is a Research Assistant in the Faculty of Education at The University of Hong Kong. His research interests include internationalisation of higher education, global citizenship, service learning and Africa. As a Hong Kong citizen, he is enthusiastic about taking Hong Kong university students to explore African cultures by conducting Hong Kong–African service-learning trips in African contexts.

References

Behrenbruch

Harrison

(2013) Reflection on theory: investigating the ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ of an internationally minded education. IB Journal of Teaching Practice 1(2): 1–9.

Boix Mansilla

(2010) Guide to MYP Interdisciplinary Learning. Cardiff: International Baccalaureate.

Bunnell

(2011) The International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme after 30 years: a critical inquiry. Journal of Research in International Education 10(3): 261–274.

Corlu

(2014) Which preparatory curriculum for the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme is best? The challenge for international schools with regard to mathematics and science. International Review of Education 60(6): 793–801.

Crippen

(2008) Internationalism in education: making it a reality in International Schools through standards. In: Ross

Cunningham

(eds) Reflecting on Identities: Research, Practice and Innovation. London: CiCe, pp. 385–396.

Daly

Brown

McGowan

(2012) Curriculum Integration in the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme: Literature Review. International Baccalaureate Organization. Available at: http://www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/curriculumintegrationinthemypeng.pdf (accessed 9 January 2016).

Doherty

(2009) The appeal of the International Baccalaureate in Australia’s educational market: a curriculum of choice for mobile futures. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 30(1): 73–89.

Ellwood

(1999) IGCSE and IB Middle Years Programme: how compatible are they? International Schools Journal 19(1): 35–44.

Godinho

Shrimpton

(2008) Interdisciplinary curriculum: a sustainable future or an unattainable vision in a changing educational climate? In: AARE annual conference. Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Australian Association for Research in Education. Available at: http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2008/god08708.pdf (accessed 9 January 2016).

10.

Hallinger

Lee

Walker

(2011) Programme transition challenges in International Baccalaureate schools. Journal of Research in International Education 10(2): 123–136.

11.

Hallinger

Walker

Lee

(2010) A Study of Successful Practices in the IB Program Continuum. Hong Kong: Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change, The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

12.

Hare

(2010) Holistic education: an interpretation for teachers in the IB programmes. Journal of Research in International Education 9: 141–152.

13.

Harrison

(2015) Evolving the IB Middle Years Programme: curriculum. The International Schools Journal 34(2): 45.

14.

Hayden

Thompson

(eds) (2011) Taking the MYP Forward. Woodbridge, UK: John Catt Educational.

15.

Heyward

(2002) From international to intercultural: redefining the international school for a globalized world. Journal of Research in International Education 1(1): 9–32.

16.

Hill

Saxton

(2014) The International Baccalaureate (IB) Programme: an international gateway to higher education and beyond. Higher Learning Research Communications 4(3): 42–52.

17.

International Baccalaureate (IB) (2014) The Middle Years Programme: Guide to assessment. Available at: http://www.ibo.org/globalassets/digital-tookit/flyers-and-artworks/myp-eassessment-factsheet-en.pdf (accessed 19 February 2016).

18.

International Baccalaureate (IB) (2016a) Assessment and exams. Available at: http://www.ibo.org/en/programmes/middle-years-programme/assessment-and-exams/ (accessed 9 January 2016).

19.

International Baccalaureate (IB) (2016b) Curriculum. Available at: http://www.ibo.org/programmes/middle-years-programme/curriculum/ (accessed 19 February 2016).

20.

International Baccalaureate (IB) (2016c) Facts and figures. Available at: http://www.ibo.org/en/about-the-ib/facts-and-figures/ (accessed 9 January 2016).

21.

International Baccalaureate (IB) (2016d) Find an IB World School. Available at: http://www.ibo.org/en/programmes/find-an-ib-school/ (accessed 9 January 2016).

22.

International Baccalaureate (IB) (2016e) Key facts about the MYP. Available at: http://www.ibo.org/en/programmes/middle-years-programme/what-is-the-myp1/key-facts-about-the-myp/ (accessed 9 January 2016).

23.

James

(2005) International education: the concept, and its relationship to intercultural education. Journal of Research in International Education 4(3): 313–332.

24.

Lee

Hallinger

Walker

(2012a) Leadership challenges in international schools in the Asia Pacific region: evidence from programme implementation of the International Baccalaureate. International Journal of Leadership in Education 15(3): 289–310.

25.

Lee

Hallinger

Walker

(2012b) A distributed perspective on instructional leadership in International Baccalaureate (IB) schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 48: 664–698.

26.

Lee

Leung

Wright

. (2014) A Study of the International Baccalaureate Diploma in China: Program’s Impact on Student Preparation for University Studies Abroad. Hong Kong: Education Policy Unit, The University of Hong Kong.

27.

Lee

Wright

Walker

. (2015) Leading International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme schools in developing countries: a review of issues and challenges. In: Jean-Marie

Sider

Desir

(eds) Comparative International Perspectives on Education and Social Change in Developing Countries and Indigenous Peoples in Developed Countries. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

28.

Lugt

Oosterhoff

(2009) The Middle Years Programme’s areas of interaction: from theory to practice. Available at: http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/35845 (accessed 9 January 2016).

29.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2014) Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds Know and What They Can Do with What They Know. Paris: OECD.

30.

Phillips

(2011) International mindedness and intercultural awareness in the MYP: a relationship reviewed. In: Hayden

Thompson

(eds) Taking the MYP Forward. Woodbridge: John Catt Educational, pp. 33–45.

31.

Rizvi

(2000) International education and the production of global imagination. In: Burbules

Torres

(eds) Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 205–225.

32.

Sizmur

Cunningham

(2012) International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme (MYP) in the UK. Berkshire: National Foundation for Educational Research.

33.

Sperandio

(2010) School programme selection: why schools worldwide choose the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme. Journal of School Choice 4: 137–148.

34.

Stevenson

Thomson

Fox

(2014) IB Middle Years Programme in the UK: implementation practices and student outcomes associated with the learner profile attribute ‘open-minded’. Available at: http://www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/myp/openminded-report-en.pdf (accessed 9 January 2016).

35.

Tan

Bibby

(2010) PYP and MYP student performance on the International Schools’ Assessment (ISA). Available at: http://research.acer.edu.au/monitoring_learning/14/ (accessed 9 January 2016).

36.

Tarc

(2009) Global Dreams, Enduring Tensions: International Baccalaureate in a Changing World. New York: Peter Lang.

37.

Wade

Wolanin

(2013) Continuation Study of Student Performance and Engagement in the Middle Years Programme. Bethesda, MD: International Baccalaureate Organization.

38.

Walker

Bryant

Lee

(2014) The International Baccalaureate Continuum: Student, Teacher and School Outcomes. Hong Kong: Asia Pacific Center for Leadership and Change, The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

39.

Wright

Lee

(2014a) Elite International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme schools and inter-cultural understanding in China. British Journal of Educational Studies 62(2): 149–169.

40.

Wright

Lee

(2014b) Developing skills for youth in the 21st century: the role of elite International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme schools in China. International Review of Education 60(2): 199–216.

41.

Zhao

(2014) Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon: Why China Has the Best (and Worst) Education System in the World. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.