Abstract
In the globalized age, Chinese kindergartens are exposed to numerous western curriculum perspectives and practices. To construct a kindergarten-based curriculum (KBC), Chinese kindergartens tend to borrow western ideas. Using the Reggio Emilia approach (REA) as an example, this focused ethnographic study conducts an empirical investigation into such a borrowing process. The sample included 15 kindergartens located in seven cities in Jiangsu Province, China. Data were collected through interviews, site visit, and pedagogical documentation, and were analyzed using a combination of thematic and content analyses. The study found that the process of borrowing the REA constituted the glocalization of the kindergarten curriculum, which included four phases. Specifically, the kindergarten was attracted by a certain practice of the REA (Phase 1), decided to borrow a preferred practice of the REA (Phase 2), implemented the selected practice (Phase 3), and internalized the implemented practice (Phase 4). Instead of copying or imitating, Chinese kindergartens integrated the REA into their KBCs by experimenting, recontextualizing, and hybridizing with varying proportions. Further, the glocalization of the early childhood curriculum in China was greatly influenced by the social, political, and cultural contexts in China’s new era. In particular, the major melody of being confident in the Chinese path and culture effectively prevented any importation of a western curriculum model as a whole. Lastly, the study discussed the implications of the findings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bautista, A., Bull, R., Ng, E. L., & Lee, K. (2021). “That’s just impossible in my kindergarten.” Advocating for “glocal” early childhood curriculum frameworks. Policy Futures in Education, 19(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320956500
Boer, R. (2021). Conclusion: On the socialist system and cultural confidence. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics (pp. 309–316). Springer.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Broadfoot, P. (1999). Stones from other hills may serve to polish the jade of this one: Towards a neo-comparative “learnology” of education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 29(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305792990290303
Connolly, J. H. (2014). Recontextualization, resemiotization and their analysis in terms of an FDG-based framework. Pragmatics, 24(2), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.2.09con
Dvir, Y., Maxwell, C., & Yemini, M. (2019). “Glocalization” doctrine in the Israeli public education system: A contextual analysis of a policy-making process. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(124), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4274
Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography step by step (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Grimsæth, G., & Hallås, B. O. (2015). Lesson study model: The challenge of transforming a global idea into local practice. Policy Futures in Education, 14(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103156126
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Ho, W. C. (2013). Globalization and localization in music education in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Comparative Education, 49(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.686678
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Knoblauch, H. (2005). Focused ethnography. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3), 44.
Li, H., & Chen, J. J. (2017). Evolution of the early childhood curriculum in China: The impact of social and cultural factors on revolution and innovation. Early Child Development and Care, 187(10), 1471–1483. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1220373
Li, H., Rao, N., & Tse, S. K. (2012). Adapting Western pedagogies for Chinese literacy instruction: Case studies of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore preschools. Early Education & Development, 23(4), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.536441
Li, P. H., & Chen, J. J. (2023a). The glocalization of early childhood curriculum: Global childhoods, local curricula. Taylor & Francis.
Li, P. H., & Chen, J. J. (2023b). The glocalization of early childhood curriculum. The glocalization of early childhood curriculum: Global childhoods, local curricula (pp. 1–23). Taylor & Francis.
Maria, L. L. W., & Sanly, T. K. S. W. (2005). Reggio experiences in Hong Kong—A touch of Chinese culture: The Sheung Wan story and Chinese opera project. International Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03165745
Ministry of Education. (2012). Early learning and development guidelines for children aged 3 to 6 years. UNICEF.
Ministry of Education of China. (2001). Guidelines for kindergarten education (Trial Version). Ministry of Education of China.
Mizrahi-Shtelman, R., & Drori, G. S. (2016). “Taking root and growing wings”: On the concept of glocality from the perspectives of school principals in Israel. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 3(2–3), 306–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2016.1210527
Muecke, M. A. (1994). On the evaluation of ethnographies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 187–209). Sage Publications.
Nyland, B., & Nyland, C. (2005). The distance travelled: The movement of an innovative early childhood approach from north Italy to China via the USA. Global Social Policy, 5(3), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468018105057413
O’Reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic methods (2nd ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Oanh, D. T. H. (2012). Global vs. glocal English: Attitudes and conceptions among educators, administrators and teachers in eight Asian countries. In A. Kirkpatrick & R. Sussex (Eds.), English as an international language in Asia: Implications for language education (pp. 107–135). Springer.
Ødegaard, E. E. (2015). “Glocality” in play: Efforts and dilemmas in changing the model of the teacher for the Norwegian national framework for kindergartens. Policy Futures in Education, 14(1), 42–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315612645
Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006032000162020
Pope, S., & Meyer, J. W. (2016). Local variation in world society: Six characteristics of global diffusion. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 3(2–3), 280–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2016.1211484
State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2017). Resolution of the 19th national congress of the communist party of China on the revised constitution of the communist party of china. http://english.www.gov.cn/news/top_news/2017/10/24/content_281475919837140.htm
Su, G., & Edwards, C. P. (2016). Reggio Emilia inspiration for early education in China: The case of Zhejiang Province. University of Nebraska.
Trippestad, T. A. (2015). The glocal teacher: The paradox agency of teaching in a glocalized world. Policy Futures in Education, 14(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315612643
Wang, N. (2015). globalization as glocalization in China: A new perspective. Third World Quarterly, 36(11), 2059–2074. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1068113
Yang, W., & Li, H. (2018). A school-based fusion of East and West: A case study of modern curriculum innovations in a Chinese kindergarten. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2017.1294710
Yang, W., & Li, H. (2022). Curriculum hybridization and cultural glocalization: A scoping review of international research on early childhood curriculum in China and Singapore. ECNU Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311221092036
Yang, W., Li, H., & Ang, L. (2021). Early childhood curriculum policies and practices in Singapore: The case of glocalization. Policy Futures in Education, 19(2), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320987689
Yang, W., Xu, P., Liu, H., & Li, H. (2022). Neoliberalism and sociocultural specificities: A discourse analysis of early childhood curriculum policies in Australia, China, New Zealand, and Singapore. Early Child Development and Care, 192(2), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1754210
Zhang, Q., Wu, W., & Jiang, K. (2022). Standardising professional standards: A self-assessment scale for Chinese kindergarten teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2022.2124913
Acknowledgements
The study is approved by the Human Subjects Ethics Panel of Jiangsu Second Normal University, China. The reference number is 2019006. The authors would like to thank all the kindergartens for their participation in this study and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.
Funding
This work was supported by the 13th Five-Year Plan for Education Sciences Fund of Jiangsu Province, China (B-b/2018/01/17).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest associated with this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Interview questions
-
1.
Do you still remember the moment or period when you decided to join Jiangsu Reggio Emilia Alliance? Why did you do it?
-
2.
Do you still remember some of the meaningful activities, if any, that you engaged in as a member of the Alliance? Why do you think these activities were meaningful?
-
3.
Which part of the Reggio Emilia approach do you think is most attractive to you and your kindergarten? Why?
-
4.
How is the Reggio approach different to the original curriculum of your kindergarten? How did you reconcile the difference?
-
5.
What changes, if any, do you perceive to have taken place to your curriculum since the introduction of the Reggio Emilia approach? What changes, if any, do you think are the most significant? Why?
-
6.
Apart from the activities organized by the Alliance, what other factors do you think have brought about the changes? Which factor is the most important?
-
7.
With regard to the Reggio Emilia Approach, do you have any other thoughts to share with me?
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, Q., Yin, J. & Jiang, K. Glocalization of early childhood curriculum: an ethnographic study on the integration of the Reggio Emilia approach into the Chinese Kindergarten curriculum. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09851-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09851-3