Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited
Preschool
in Three Cultures Revisited by Tobin, J. et al. (2009) is a landmark in the
history of early childhood education. It is a study on childhood education of China,
Japan, and the USA. It explored what changed and what remained unchanged in
teaching modes within the span of twenty years. While China emphasized control,
discipline, and didactic mode of teaching in early 1980s, it now paid stress on
child-centered approach, child’s creativity, and independence with socialist values
being unchanged. Compared to China, the preschools in Japan did not change so
much. On the other hand, the mode of teaching in the USA was interactional. I
think the aim of preschool education in those countries is same (imparting
education) but their modes teaching are different.
The mode of teaching
in China through sociodramatic play has really impressed me. The children play
different roles – roles of patients, doctors, grocers, hairdressers, and
clients. This is a rehearsal of the drama intended for children to stage later
in their real life. Teachers are also seen to participate in their drama as
guest, and behave like children. In this regard, teachers produce a new
identity: identity of children, deleting their identity as instructors. No
teachers can teach well without lowering themselves to the level of children.
Perhaps the teachers participating in this drama evaluate this idea. They
apply, and comply with this idea in preschool education.
The non-interventional
role of Morita-sensei in children fighting has also impressed me. It is an
approach or art that teaches students to solve their problems by themselves.
This is one kind of training of how to address problems in real life. The
sociodramatic play in Chinese preschool education and teacher’s
non-interventional role in students’ fight are both equally significant. Both
intend to train children how to overcome problems in real life.
One
of the key themes of this study is indigenization
or localization. It is a process through which an exoteric culture merges into
native culture. In other words, it is a process of borrowing things to be
planted in native culture. Negativists label this process as a cultural aggression.
However, indigenization is associated with the notion of hybridization which
results from the process of globalization accelerated by an overwhelming
advancement of science, technology, and information. The use of videotapes might
accelerate the process of hybridization in pedagogical practices and procedures
that helped teachers and policymakers to adopt the good aspects of pedagogical
approaches of the exoteric
culture to reconstruct the native mode of their teaching in education system –
a hybrid method which belongs to all, and in this way, this method might be
universal in appeal. This method has left an ample space for self-correction,
self-criticism, and self-development. It works for the principle of taking and
giving labeled as key to hybridization resulting from the process of
globalization.
Another theme that I
would like to discuss here is “the relativity of time and space in the workings
of educational reform – 2004 in Kunming, China, is not quite the same time as
2004 in Shanghai.” It is true in the context of China, if not fully convincing
in the case of developed countries like the USA, Canada, and Germany which
ensure equal development in all their provinces or territories. But the
economic development in the developing countries in most cases center around
the largest cities. This economic growth and development impact on education.
Kunming’s rapid economic development helped it to be more advanced than
Shanghai. Though these two cities belonged to China, they could not equally
pace with time: Kunming advanced, but Shanghai lagged behind in pedagogical
reforms. The local factors had immense contribution to this relativity of time
and space in the workings of education reform.
The strength of the method in this
study known as video cued multi-vocal
diachronic ethnography consists in the synthetization of ethnography,
historiography, and tape recording. This method included the following steps:
videotaping a day at a preschool, editing the tape, and reducing it to 20
minutes; showing the tape to the teacher whose class was recorded; showing the
tape to the teachers of the same school; showing the tape to preschool
educators in the same country, and finally to the preschool educators of the
two other countries. It is the strength of the method that interlaces the
voices of participants to create an orchestral collection of cultural
approaches to preschool education. In other words, this method has juxtaposed
the past and present of the pedagogical practices of three cultures. It helps
the instructors and policymakers rethink about their education system and mode
of teaching. This method ensured the
engagement of all parties: students, teachers, educators, directors, and
policymakers.
In this study the authors
have used videotapes which “are not the data; rather, they are cues, stimuli,
topics for discussion, interviewing.” It is convincing because videotapes are
devices that record pictures and sounds of this study. They are devices through
which the authors recorded the pedagogical practices of this study with an aim
to watch events later. May be, the authors did not view videotapes as data, but
they (videotapes) got some aspects of data that one could use if needed.
The strength of this
method surpasses its weakness. However, lengthy process of showing the
videotapes to varied individuals and institutions of the three cultures
concerned in pedagogical practices is a bit time consuming as well as
expensive. This study was conducted on a
limited number of preschools which cannot reflect the overall preschool
education system in China. Besides, the authors took around twenty years to
complete this study. It is, indeed, a long time, during which there might be a
sea change in the realm of pedagogy. The preschool education systems followed
20 years ago might naturally seem outdated, irrational, and awkward 20 years
later. However, despite these weaknesses, the method applied in this study is
novel, that deserves credit.
References
Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M.
(2009). Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. University of Chicago Press.
