Adapting Western Pedagogies into Chinese Literacy Instruction: Case Studies of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Singapore Preschools There is a trend around the world to emulate American culture and quality

Research Findings: Western ideas and progressive pedagogies have been introduced to China (including Shenzhen), Hong Kong, and Singapore to replace Chinese traditional pedagogy. But these “imported” ideas are not congruent with traditional Chinese culture thus have encountered resistance from Chinese teachers. The present study observed and analyzed 18 early childhood classrooms in the three localities and questioned the class teachers about their respective teaching practices, to see how those ideas were actually turned into practice. Whole-class direct instruction was found to be the predominant Chinese pedagogical mode. It indicated that Chinese traditional pedagogy was still dominating those Chinese preschool classrooms. Slight societal differences in classroom practice were also found, reflecting the spectrum of openness and “westernization” of the three cities. Practice or Policy: The findings reflect that we should adapt rather than adopt those pedagogical innovations developed in other sociocultural milieu, as different societies have different social, cultural, and educational traditions. Cultural appropriateness should be seriously considered when choosing the pedagogies to be adapted. And the influences from the culture, language, teachers, parents, resources available, and the prevailing education system should also be taken into consideration when planning for pedagogical reforms. Adapting Western Pedagogies into Teaching Chinese 2 Adapting Western Pedagogies into Chinese Literacy Instruction: Case Studies of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Singapore Preschools There is a trend around the world to emulate American culture and quality standards in many respects including early childhood education (Perry, 2001; Rogoff, 2003; Tobin, 2007). Some of these adoptions are constructive, whereas others are needless or even inappropriate, as the pedagogies or programs favoured in one context might not be suitable in others (Tobin, 2007). It is not rare that these “imported” ideas and practices might be in conflict with those indigenous cultures, beliefs, education systems and languages (Rogoff, 2003; Tobin, 2007). For example, Chinese parents with a Confucian heritage highly value discipline, self-control, hardworking, early learning and academic achievement and Chinese language has a very demanding orthography to learn (Li, Corrie & Wong, 2008; Li & Rao, 2000, 2005). These differences are so prominent that demand a very careful consideration of local culture and tradition when incorporating western pedagogies into Chinese classrooms. Further, cultural differences have been found very vital in shaping the norms of teaching and learning (Tobin, 2007) as well as the trajectories of literacy development in the early years (Aram & Korat, 2010). All these new understandings urged systematic reviews and empirical studies of the phenomenon of adopting or adapting western pedagogies into Chinese societies. The present study, thus, sets out to investigate how western pedagogies are adopted or adapted and how early literacy is actually taught in three Chinese cities: monolingual Shenzhen, trilingual Hong Kong, and multilingual Singapore. We specifically examined pedagogical practices of early literacy in a number of carefully selected classrooms. As the first endeavour to compare a range of Chinese classrooms with contrasting socio-lingual environments, this study will provide empirical evidence to reflect on the importation of educational Adapting Western Pedagogies into Teaching Chinese 3 ideas from one context into another, which is likely to become even more pronounced in this global era. Traditional Chinese Pedagogy versus Western Pedagogy Pedagogy is the method and practice of teaching (New Oxford English Dictionary, 2009), which generally refers to the strategies or style of instruction. There is no uniformed western pedagogy in the literature. Western pedagogy in this paper refers to those developed and used widely in ‘western’ countries (relative to China and Asia) that emphasizes children’s individuality and initiated activities, and learning through play. It prefers child-centered approach (teaching philosophy), integrated teaching (teaching strategy), inquiry-based learning and learning through play (learning approach), small class or group learning (classroom organization), child-initiated and process-oriented activities (teaching activities), and so on. The Project Approach, Reggio Emilia, High/Scope, and emergent literacy are a few wellknown examples of this kind of pedagogy/program. Contrary to them, traditional Chinese pedagogy in ECE often emphasizes conformity, discipline, behavioural control and academic achievement (Rao, Ng, & Pearson, 2010). It features teacherdirected approach (teaching philosophy), direct instruction and subject teaching (teaching strategy), content-based learning and learning through exercising (learning approach), whole class teaching (classroom organization), achievement-oriented and teacher-directed activities (teaching activities) and so on. Most classroom activities are carried out in whole class, with all children involved in the same activity (Pearson & Rao, 2003). The central difference between these two approaches lies in the emphasis that each philosophy places on the children’s freedom with respect to their learning initiatives, and the nature of the teacher’s control over them (Tzuo, 2007). The childAdapting Western Pedagogies into Teaching Chinese 4 centered western pedagogy focuses more on the importance of children’s individual interests and their freedom to create their own learning through choosing from various classroom activities. In contrast, teacher-directed Chinese pedagogy places more stress on the teacher’s control over children’s exploration of learning. Pedagogical reforms have recently been conducted in many Chinese societies to incorporate the child-centred western pedagogy into early childhood classrooms. Among these societies, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore are comparable in sociolinguistic and economic-geographic aspects (please refer to Li & Rao, 2000, 2005, for more details). Since the turn of the new millennium, similar reforms have been conducted in all three societies (Li & Rao, 2005; Liu & Feng, 2005; Rao & Li, 2009). In China, reforms of early childhood pedagogy and curriculum have been facilitated through issuing the Guidance for Kindergarten Education (GOC, 2001). In order to bridge the gap between borrowed Western ideas and traditional Chinese practice in preschools, the document provides detailed suggestions about the content of five learning domains (health, language, society, science and art) and advocates integrated theme-based teaching. Various imported pedagogies and programs, including the Montessori Method, project approach, Reggio Emilia, and High/Scope have been highly promoted in China. Kindergarten teachers are, thus, in a transitional period of implementing Western pedagogies and amending current approaches to accommodate new innovations in curriculum (Liu & Feng, 2005). Early childhood education in Shenzhen, a city in mainland China neighbouring Hong Kong, is going through such a transitional period. In Hong Kong, child-centred approach, integrated curriculum, and all-round development have been advocated since the 1990s. To stop teachers from overusing ‘inappropriate’ teaching skills (judged based on the favoured European-American Adapting Western Pedagogies into Teaching Chinese 5 pedagogies) in Chinese classrooms, the educational authorities issued a list of “Do’s and Don’ts” (Education Department, 1999). The list reflects the Hong Kong context: don’t ask children in nursery class (aged three to four years) to write; don’t ask children to do mechanical copying exercises; and don’t adopt a one-way, lecturing form of teaching. Later, the Guide to the Pre-Primary Curriculum (Education Department, 2006) was issued to incorporate the best Western pedagogies into practices (i.e. child-centred approach, project approach, whole language approach). Singapore launched a new round of educational reforms at the turn of the millennium targeting teaching literacy as a vehicle for learning in the everyday classroom (Luke, Freebody, Shun, & Gopinathan, 2005). Guidelines on pre-school English and Chinese curricula were issued in 2005 to establish the six ‘iTeach’ principles for early childhood education: (i) integrated learning; (T) teachers as supporters of learning; (e) engaging children in learning through play; (a) ample opportunities for interaction; (c) children as active learners; and (h) holistic development. Accordingly, some Western pedagogical approaches such as whole language approach, project approach, and Reggio Emilia have been advocated in Singapore. Western Pedagogies in Chinese Classrooms As shown in the above review, a remarkable paradigm shift from traditional Chinese pedagogy to Western pedagogy has occurred in the ECE reforms in China, Hong Kong, and Singapore (Ng & Rao, 2008; Rao & Li, 2009; Zhu & Zhang, 2008). Most of the recommended practices are rooted in Western views of early pedagogy and many are not congruent with traditional Chinese beliefs about early learning. With little guidance about how to best incorporate Western ideas into their daily teaching practices, Chinese teachers found many challenges and difficulties in directly Adapting Western Pedagogies into Teaching Chinese 6 adopting these borrowed approaches (Cheng, 2001; Li, 2002; Li & Li, 2003; Liu & Feng, 2005; Zhu & Zhang, 2008). Cheng (2006) interviewed three Hong Kong kindergarten teachers who had tried adopting High/Scope and project approaches and found that their school-based pedagogical reforms were not successful. She highlighted the difficulties of making pedagogical shifts and took stock of local contextual constraints: the examinationoriented education system, parental expectation of academic achievement, the tradition of direct instruction and rote learning, and the overloaded curriculum. These constraints are difficult—if not impossible—to eliminate in Hong Kong just by using pedagogical alterations (Cheng, 2006). Thus, researchers urge reflection on how to incorporate the ‘new’ approaches into Chinese societies (Li, 2002) and what are the factors impeding the process (Hu, 2002). In Hong Kong, for example, Western pedagogical models such as High/Scope, Project Approach and Reggio Emilia have been adopted with great passion by local preschools (Rao, Ng, & Pearson, 2010). However, classroom observations found that the Project Approach was transformed into a kind of teacher-directed “project work” rather than a child-centered exploration (Li, 2002; Rao, Ng, & Pearson, 2010). This finding suggests that as long as there is a discrepancy between the tenets of these Western pedagogies and those of traditional Chinese pedagogy, the efforts of transplanting or direct adopting will not be successful; instead, adapting or localized implementation might be more workable. In fact, there are many discrepancies between Western and Chinese pedagogies regarding their ideas about teaching philosophy, teacher-student relationships, the learning strategies, good student characteristics, and teacher qualities (Hu, 2002; Wong, 2008; Zhu & Zhang, 2008). And these pedagogical differences have been Adapting Western Pedagogies into Teaching Chinese 7 shaped by the distinct cultural values and social beliefs which might have their own definitions of the best teaching practice (Wong, 2008). And the socio-contextual factors have further constrained the adaption of Western practices: overcrowded and cramped classrooms, very large class sizes, untrained teachers, unrealistic parental expectations (of early trilingual education) , exam-oriented systems, and social competition for survival arising from commercialization pressures (Hu, 2002; Li et al., 2008; Tang & Maxwell, 2007). All these influences have made the introduction of Western methods not as straightforward in Chinese societies as many reformers presumed (Li, 2007a; Rao et al., 2009; Zhu & Zhang, 2008). Thus, a number of researchers have called for thorough examination of the ‘westernized reforms’ in Chinese societies (Lee & Tseng, 2008; Li, 2002; Tobin, 2007; Zhu & Zhang, 2008). Meanwhile, many Western educators have also begun to rethink their pedagogies and to ponder the value of direct instruction in early literacy learning (Evans, Shaw, & Bell, 2000; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002; Whitehurst, 2001). The most effective early pedagogy is now defined as a blend of direct instruction and a holistic, independent learning approach (Siraj-Blatchford, Sylva, Muttock, Gilden, & Bell, 2002). This is especially true in Chinese contexts (Li et al., 2008; Tan, Spinks, Eden, Perfetti, & Siok, 2005) where classroom practice is intensely influenced by Chinese traditions alongside distinctive features of Chinese language learning. McBride-Chang (2004) found that children’s learning of reading skills was more rapid when they received direct instruction; and, Tan et al., (2005) found that Chinese reading development profited from writing skills training, rote learning, and copying exercises. However, McBride-Chang (2004) concluded that it is hard to draw general conclusions about the effectiveness of different Chinese literacy pedagogies as language, character script, and teaching systems vary across Chinese societal groups. It is suggested that Adapting Western Pedagogies into Teaching Chinese 8 classroom-based studies of varying Chinese contexts are urgently needed if the relative effectiveness of different pedagogies are to be evaluated. Therefore, the present study sets out to investigate actual practices in three Chinese societies that have different socio-lingual and educational contexts. These three cities form a spectrum of cultural openness and ‘westernization’ (from the most open Singapore to the least Shenzhen), although they share the same ‘westernized reform’ in early childhood education (Li, 2007a). The case study of these three societies provides an ideal opportunity for understanding the complicated dynamics involved in assimilating or adapting Western ideas into traditional Chinese classrooms. Our specific research questions for this study were: (1) how is Chinese literacy taught in early childhood classrooms in Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Singapore? And (2) how were Western pedagogies that have been promoted through curriculum reform in all three cities actually turned into practice? Method Sample Stratified random sampling was applied to recruit three kindergartens catering to middle-class families located in three representative communities in Hong Kong (Lam Tin, Sheung Shui, and Tsueng Kwan O); Shenzhen (Futian, Luohu, and Nanshan); and Singapore (Tampines, Jurang West and Woodlands). One kindergarten class of 4-yearolds (K2) and one of 5-year-olds (K3) were randomly selected from each participating school so that 6 classes were selected in each society, resulting in 18 classes in all. The 18 Chinese teachers of the participating classes were interviewed individually after their teaching practice were observed and videotaped for a full week, with the focus being on literacy teaching and teacher-child interactions. The Hong Kong teachers had completed Year 11; the Shenzhen teacher had completed Year 15; and the Adapting Western Pedagogies into Teaching Chinese 9 Singapore teachers had completed Year 13 of formal education. This difference in educational level is not associated with sampling bias but reflects societal differences in teacher qualifications in Chinese regions (Li & Rao, 2005). Statistically significant differences, F (1, 3) = 12.1, p < .01, were found in terms of years of teaching experience among the teachers from Hong Kong (range: 6-20 years; Mean = 12), Shenzhen (range: 1-15 years; Mean = 7.5), and Singapore (range: 1-15 years; Mean = 9.5). In effect, the Hong Kong teachers were less well educated but more experienced than their counterparts in Shenzhen and Singapore. Measures Videotaped classroom observations. Classroom observations were conducted in the participating classes for one week in the first semester. A familiarization period was scheduled before formal videotaping to enable the teacher and young children to adjust to the presence of the camera and observer. Each classroom was observed for a maximum of three hours over the course of the observation day, beginning at the start of the school day and focusing on instruction time. The entire observation lasted approximately 15 hours for each class, resulting in a total of 270 observation hours with an equal number from K2 (four-year-olds class) and K3 (five-year-olds class) classrooms. Surveys. All the participating teachers completed the Classroom Literacy Environment Index (CLEI) (Li & Rao, 2005) to report and summarize their beliefs and practices related to Chinese literacy pedagogy. The CLEI consists of 27 questions that ascertain teachers’ beliefs and practices about Chinese reading, classroom literacy activities, reading resources, and teaching strategies. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale, developed and modified for studying in Beijing, Hong Kong and Singapore (Li & Rao, 2005). Teachers completed the questionnaire after the videotaped lesson to Adapting Western Pedagogies into Teaching Chinese 10 help assemble information on lesson planning and to identify atypical events during videotaping. Interviews. All the Chinese teachers were interviewed individually after the 15hour videotaping of their classes. Semi-structured interview protocols were developed using responses to questionnaire items as prompts and the observational reports to elicit thinking and to focus on reflection. The interview data could provide insights into the relationship between teachers' thinking and their classroom practice and could help establish a triangulation of multiple data resources. The interviewer used the observational reports as stimuli for post hoc recall of associated feelings and thoughts because: (1) the report could show the whole picture of their teaching; (2) the limited interview time did not allow us to replay the videotapes; and, (3) it was technically difficult to use another digital video camera (DV) while replaying the videotapes with a DV. Data management Observational data. The videotaped observations were transcribed and analyzed using a coding scheme (see the appendix) based on the systems for Chinese literacy classroom observation developed by Liu, Kotov, Rahim, and Goh (2005) and Wu, Li, and Anderson (1999). The scheme is a comprehensive framework allowing researchers to analyze pedagogical practice in Chinese language classrooms. To evaluate whether the coding system was realistic and exhaustive, it was piloted with two cases and minor modifications were made. The research assistants responsible for data coding had majored in psychology and practiced using the coding system until an inter-observer agreement of 94% was obtained. The Observer XT (www.noldus.com) was used to note the time duration or occurring frequency of classroom activities such as classroom organization, teaching Adapting Western Pedagogies into Teaching Chinese 11 strategies, teacher talk, and teacher-students interactions. Survey and interview data. The survey data were analyzed using SPSS, and the recorded interviews were also transcribed and analyzed. NVivo 8 (http://www.qsrinternational.com) was used for data coding and codes for the CLEI were applied to the text. The findings generated from the interview data were used as a cross-check against the survey and observational data. Coherence and consistencies at a high level were present in the participants’ responses in the survey and interviews. Results Quantitative as well as qualitative anayses were conducted on the 270-hour observational data to understand how Chinese literacy was taught and how Western pedagogies were turned into pracice, respectively. The quantitative analysis could establish some broader patterns of the teaching approaches and curriculum models used in these classrooms. Qualitative analysis of the video data helps provide a more nuanced picture of these classroom practices. As shown in Table 1, Chi-square with Fisher’s exact tests found statistically significant societal differences on 17 classroom variables, whereas no significant differences were found on the other 31 variables. This comparison reveals more pedagogical similarities than differences in the three localities. The following section presents the common pattern found in the three societies, and a summary of the case studies of three selected classrooms. We will then discuss how the results answer each of our research questions in the Discussion