Guide to Pre-primary Curriculum and the Child-centred Practice

In the mid-1990s, the HK government issued to all kindergartens the Guide (CDI, 1996), which suggested that the early childhood curriculum should assist children’s all- round development. It recommended that teachers adopt a thematic approach. According to Shoemaker (1989), a thematic approach views “learning and teaching in a holistic way and reflects the real world, which is interactive” (p. 5). The second edition of the Guide

(CDC, 2006), published ten years after the first, strongly emphasised the use of child-

centred learning strategies, reflecting a global and local transformation of pre-primary

education policies. Against this backdrop, the Guide (CDC, 2006) recommended teachers

should:

i) be caring, accepting, and display open manners toward children, encourage

children to express their views, ask questions when in doubt and express

their feelings when needed;

ii) ask open-ended questions and provide clear instructions to help children

understand the learning activities. Teachers may use different types of

body language such as smiles, nods and eye contact to communicate with

children;

iii) prepare rich and relevant teaching materials and environments for the

children to explore and use them as a catalyst for children to interact with

each other;

iv) have an optimistic attitude and relaxed manner so as to create an enjoyable

and stress-free learning atmosphere for the children; and

v) maintain motivation for the children to learn by changing classroom

(CDC, 2006, p. 44-51).

These prescriptive details about teachers’ dispositions towards children, and toward

learning and teaching, seem to have resulted in many kindergartens in HK starting to

adopt more child-centred curricula and teaching methods (Pearson & Rao, 2006). Child-

centred curricula and teaching methods are characteristic of both thematic and project

approaches.

In terms of prevalence, a thematic approach is the major teaching approach used in

HK kindergartens, whilst some kindergartens use a project approach as their main

teaching approach (Cheng, 2008). Interestingly, as Ma (2001) found, some kindergartens

claim that they adopt the project approach inconsistently, using it only at specific times or

months during the year. There are two possible reasons for this, one being that teachers

are not familiar with the established principles for applying the project approach (Li, 2005;

Ma, 2001). Another possibility is that teachers cannot afford the large amount of time

necessary for the project approach, especially when they are under pressure to cover

academic aspects of the curriculum (Ma, 2001).

Generally speaking, most kindergartens in HK are academically oriented (Chan,

2012; Chan & Chan, 2003; Ho, 2006; Li, 2004; Opper, 1992; Rao & Li, 2009), teaching

Chinese, English, and numeracy as part of the core curriculum. The curriculum focuses

young as four years of age are required to do homework, and in most cases take dictation

and examinations to measure their learning. In his landmark text on the topic of education

in HK, Sweeting (2004) suggested that HK kindergartens offered young children “a curriculum that is too advanced for their age” (p. 606). Along similar lines, Opper (1996) previously offered serious criticism of pedagogical practices in HK kindergartens by stating “if one of the aims of ECE is to promote the healthy, all-round development of young children, then HK kindergartens are not altogether successful” (p. 138). It seems

that kindergarten teachers are falling behind the vision of contemporary ECE. In their

defences, Ho (2010) argued, teachers have received minimal and inappropriate professional training and that this lack may affect teachers’ practices and their use of teaching strategies. By the same token, Li (2004) wondered why “kindergarten teachers in

HK are frequently blamed for not putting ECE theories into practice, though they are regularly exposed to them when they go through teacher education course(s)” (p. 24).

In response to these assertions, many kindergarten teachers vigorously defend what

and how they teach. How they teach is strongly affected by parents, who influence school

management and policy-making processes by choosing particular types of kindergartens

for their children, thereby expressing their consumer preferences for particular types of

curriculum (Ho, 2008; Rao et al., 2010). Indeed, research suggests that kindergarten

desired by parents (Li, 2005; Li & Rao, 2005; Rao & Li, 2009), whose “expectations are largely oriented towards academic achievement” (Li, 2004, p. 335). Most Chinese parents have high expectations of their children (Chan, 2012; Opper, 1992; Sweeting, 2004).

According to educators and researchers Rao and colleagues (2003), in HK “education is regarded as the path to success and financial gain” (p. 334). The popular assumption is that the early years are the time to train young children, and that the earlier the child goes

to school the sooner he or she will be better at reading and writing (Rao et al., 2010).

Kindergartens are expected to equip young children for primary schooling in an exam-

oriented educational system (Ho, 2006; Rao et al., 2010). Adding to the complexity of the

situation, Chan and Chan (2002) argued that kindergarten practitioners in HK are in

search of a unique pedagogy that best fits in the local context in HK.

According to Jacobson (2003), kindergartens are like a bridge between pre-schools

and formal education. Although pre-schools do not fit into primary schooling, they act as

a bridge between the two stages of learning for many children, who have diverse

experiences. Simply put, preschools are a point of transition. In Western contexts,

Alexander and Entwisle (1988) suggested that a successful transition from kindergarten to primary school might improve children’s levels of social competency and academic achievement in primary school. This was echoed by Chan (2012), in an Eastern context

and that this transactional process “involves interaction with children’s peer groups, families, teachers and schools, and even with the community as a whole” (p. 640).

Early relationships are essential for young children as these set the stage for

upcoming relationships in school (Howes & Sanders, 2006). In fact, teacher-child

relationships and interactions have been recognised by some researchers as vital supports for children’s social and cognitive development in classrooms (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Lambert, Bbott-Shim, & Sibley, 2006; O’Connor & McCartney, 2007). Apart from

teacher-child interactions, which are an important aspect in defining the value of a

program, Howes and Sanders (2006) explain that child-child interactions are equally

important as children can learn from their peers by observing and modelling their

behaviours and, above all, responding to their expressions. Nevertheless, children might

have different responses when interacting and building relationships with other people

(Howes & Sanders, 2006). While some children may feel relaxed, others may feel tense

when communicating with teachers and peers. In order to support children’s learning and

development, teachers have the responsibility to create a positive and supportive

classroom environment (Pianta & Walsh, 1996).

Pre-primary education in HK has been discussed in broad terms, concentrating on

the curriculum, teacher qualification, current pedagogical practices and possible reasons

general picture of the field of ECE in HK given; and next the focus is narrower on three

approaches– traditional, thematic, and project approaches.