a reflective account of a preservice teacher’s effort to implement a progressive curriculum in...

A Reflective Account of a Preservice Teacher’s Effort to Implement a Progressive Curriculumin Field PracticeAuthor(s): Bick Har LamSource: Schools: Studies in Education, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Spring 2011), pp. 22-39Published by: The University of Chicago Press in association with the Francis W. Parker SchoolStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/659419 .

Accessed: 15/05/2014 02:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Francis W. Parker School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Schools: Studies in Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.124 on Thu, 15 May 2014 02:49:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=parkerschool

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/659419?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


22

A Reflective Account of a PreserviceTeacher’s Effort to Implement aProgressive Curriculum in Field Practice

LAM BICK HARHong Kong Institute of Education

Progressive Education and Curriculum Reform in Hong Kong

Progressive education is a unique stream of educational ideas that emergedin the nineteenth century, at the time when American education was de-scribed as “little more than indoctrination” and “practically irrelevant”(Dewey [1916] 2004). In the twenty-first century in Hong Kong, pro-gressive education is reengineered into the curriculum reform project inHong Kong. The reasons are not difficult to understand, and we start bytracing the ideas of this stream of education belief.

While education has often been seen as a tool for personal success andeconomic gain, progressive educators reject this utilitarian view of education:they take a humanitarian view and focus on the use of education to drawforth latent potentials for human development and to cultivate social, in-tellectual, constructive, and expressive instincts vital for human living. Also,many progressive educators emphasize the value of learning through reallife experience in a social community. For example, John Dewey, an earlychampion of progressive education whose educational philosophy has hada profound influence on educational discourse today, developed the fol-lowing curriculum in his laboratory school:

The youngest children in Dewey’s school, who were four and fiveyears old, engaged in activities familiar to them from their homesand neighbourhood: cooking, sewing, and carpentry. The six-year-olds built a farm out of blocks, planted wheat and cotton, and pro-cessed and transported their crop to market. The seven-year-olds

Schools: Studies in Education, vol. 8, no. 1 (Spring 2011).� 2011 Francis W. Parker School, Chicago. All rights reserved. 1550-1175/2011/0801-0003$10.00



Lam Bick Har 23

studied prehistoric life in caves of their own devising, while theireight-year-old neighbours focused their attention on the work of thesea-faring Phoenicians and subsequent adventurers like Marco Polo,Magellan, Columbus, and Robinson Crusoe. Local history and ge-ography occupied the attention of the nine-year-olds, while those whowere ten studied colonial history, constructing a replica of a room inan early American house. The older groups of children . . . [focusedon] scientific experiments in anatomy, electromagnetism, politicaleconomy, and photography. The search of the debating club formedby the thirteen-year-old students for a place to meet resulted in thebuilding of a substantial clubhouse, which enlisted children of all agesin a cooperative project. (Westbrook 1991, 101–2)

Dewey’s experimental school set the example of a child-centered curric-ulum that emphasizes activity, problem solving, and authentic thinking(Pring 2007). The project method (project learning), a widely adoptededucational tool today, can be seen as originating from Dewey’s pedagogy(Dewey [1916] 2004). Project learning typically involves a process of inquirythrough gathering and evaluating data, putting forward and testing hy-potheses, reaching appropriate conclusions, and presenting findings effec-tively. The spirit behind project learning corresponds closely with the ed-ucational aim of the twenty-first century, which stresses the importance of“learning how to learn” (Motschnig-Pitrik and Holzinger 2002). Genericskills development is identified as a tool for inquiry in subject disciplinesthat are supposed to change from time to time.

While discipline, authority, regimentation, and didactic teaching tech-niques are typical elements in the traditional classroom, progressive edu-cation emphasizes warmth, spontaneity, and the joy of learning (Connell1980). It seeks to cultivate democratic relationships in classrooms throughcooperative communication, discussions between teachers and students, andgroup work, which are common means of learning (Kliebard 1986). There-fore, progressive education removes learners from the traditional test-instruc-tion pedagogy that traps them in a confined mode of passive and inactivelearning; instead, it helps learners to experience meaningful learning.

Progressive Pedagogy in the Hong Kong Curriculum—Can It BeFaithfully Implemented?

Hong Kong’s education system has been criticized as placing too muchemphasis on test scores and selection of students, depriving students of



24 Schools, Spring 2011

their interest in learning, and leaving them unfit for the rapidly developingworld (Biggs and Watkins 2001; Lam 2008; Lam and Phillipson 2009).Hence, conversion to child-centered, progressive educational practices seemsto be the right direction (Biggs and Tang 2007; Brophy and Good 1986;Brown and Campione 1996). The official curriculum reform document(Curriculum Development Council 2000) highlights a range of child-cen-tered pedagogies. The reformed curriculum expressly “emphasises enquirylearning, enhances learning skills, encourages knowledge construction, anddevelops positive life values” (Curriculum Development Council 2002, 10).It recommends that teachers be “encouraged to use varieties of student-focused learning strategies” (Curriculum Development Council 2000, 90),including group work, that can enhance learning motivation. A learner-oriented curriculum is recommended, instead of the content-based, context-free, outdated textbook-oriented teaching that ignores the genuine needsof students. In particular, “project learning,” a learning method closelyconnected with progressive pedagogy, has been identified as a key task forimplementation, especially in the English-language curriculum.

However, our Hong Kong society also reflects a pattern of Chinese valuesin education characterized by overcontrol and harsh discipline, absoluteteacher authority, book knowledge, and rote learning (Biggs and Watkins2001; Lau and Yeung 1996; Salili et al. 2001). These features run counterto progressive ideals. Classroom studies by Tse et al. (2005) showed thatmost Hong Kong Chinese language teachers still employ teacher-centeredapproaches. Specific to the relatively new idea of project learning, Leung(2008) surveyed a sample of 15 teachers in three primary schools and foundthat, among other concerns, teachers wish they could perform well in theirannual appraisal and would take advantage of professional training to guar-antee good performance in the new method. Teachers reflect the concernfor high-stakes accountability in the educational system that constrains theircreative potential for more innovative practices. Furthermore, an obser-vational study in mathematics teaching in Hong Kong in three preprimaryand three primary schools suggested the same situation: child-centeredpedagogy is rejected by teachers who adhere to traditional Chinese culturalvalues characterized by discipline, diligence, and academic success (Ng andRao 2008). The authors also addressed bigger problems: a pedagogical gap,involving two contrasting teaching values, experienced by teachers and thepolitical dilemma created by the expectations of other stakeholders whohold an elitist view of education.

The enduring presence of teacher-centered methods is not exclusive to



Lam Bick Har 25

Chinese societies. There are numerous studies in the West that point toteacher insistence on content-based, teacher-centered delivery for variousreasons (Ball 2000; Cronin-Jones 1991; Mintrop 2001; Wood et al. 1991).Windschitl (2002) outlined four “dilemmas” behind the difficulty in chang-ing classroom pedagogies that can summarize the situation. First, conceptualdilemmas refer to struggles in understanding new pedagogies to make themappropriate in teaching. Second, pedagogical dilemmas pertain to demands,in terms of knowledge, created by the need to carry out unfamiliar ped-agogies. Third, cultural dilemmas appear when a redefinition of roles andexpectations is anticipated from new methods that challenge traditionalvalues persisting in schools. Fourth, political dilemmas are associated withresistance from various stakeholders who question institutional norms androutines. As Franklin and Johnson (2008) have noted, curriculum reform,as implemented in schools, is often a conflicted and messy process. Cur-riculum implementation reflects how stakeholders interpret meanings inrelation to their history, experiences, skills, resources, and contexts, andreform is seen as a process of change that entails struggles, compromises,authoritative public interpretation, and reinterpretations.

A Reflective Account of a Preservice Teacher

This essay presents a reflective professional dialogue between me, a professorin an education institute, and a preservice teacher, who was finishing herone-year teacher accreditation program in the education institute. As partof the program, Alice had to undergo a two-month fieldwork practice (BlockPractice). This essay documents Alice’s authentic experience, concerns, andquestions in her fieldwork, as well as the author’s and Alice’s reflectionson Alice’s experience.

Key themes discussed in this essay include

• how a preservice teacher decodes the reformed education curriculumin her attempt to implement project learning;

• the differences in the way preservice teachers and in-service teachersunderstand project learning pedagogy;

• how this individual accounts sheds light on problems with thecurrent educational reform in Hong Kong.

Alice was one of the students in my teachers’ professional study class.Spending most of her formative years outside of Hong Kong, she lookedinto the local education culture with the discerning eyes of a foreigner. Shealways participated actively in class and showed a strong interest in child-




centered pedagogy. While I was impressed by her enthusiasm, her thinkingwas a little one-sided, and I had doubts whether her enthusiasm could besustained in the face of obstacles that every teacher joining the field mustface in ample measure. These challenges serve as nutrients for professionalgrowth if teachers have the capability to reflect on their teaching practice.

I was delighted to meet Alice when she came to see me as she beganher fieldwork practice. She was assigned to teach English in a primaryschool, with students of average abilities. She expressed to me her expec-tation on making use of this practicum to implement child-centered ped-agogy. She planned to design experiential learning activities for students butwas concerned that the team of in-service teachers she worked with may notsupport her: The teachers had presented to her the teaching and learningactivities in their school’s curriculum. They were mostly traditional and in theteacher-centered model. However, Alice was optimistic and confident that shecould execute her own plan even though there may be some restrictions.

I felt that it would be highly valuable for Alice to make use of consciousreflection during her experience, so I suggested that she keep a detailedfield diary (Fetterman 1989) and keep a good record of her experience,including her own views, the school teachers’ views and comments, andher own observations and reflections. I encouraged her to reflect activelyon the issue whenever she had doubts or disagreements during her inter-action with the teachers and the students and try to justify her own practice.My suggestions were underpinned by Schon’s (1983) idea of a reflectivepractitioner, Elliott’s (2008) idea of action research as a means of systematicreflection for improving teaching, and Hargreaves and Fullan’s (2000) ideaof developing thinking teachers for preparing effective agents for educationalchange. Teacher-training courses are often criticized as being too theoreticaland that a large gap exists between what is taught in the courses andclassroom practice. The reflective model of learning plays an essential rolein bridging this gap.

Alice showed great interest in the suggestion and asked me whether shecould share the diary with me. I was more than happy to have this pro-fessional dialogue with her. Instead of seeing myself as her teacher, I saidto her that I would like to play the role of a “critical friend” (Stenhouse1980), that is, to help trigger reflection (Kember et al. 2000) by offeringprobing questions and perspective, so that she would not be alone in makingreflections (Lam 2007). I hoped that her reflections would have the potentialto lead to “deep understanding of the obscure aspects that lie behind one’sown worldview” (Alasuutari 1998) and help to clarify her ideas of child-



Lam Bick Har 27

centered education. I promised to meet with her weekly or biweekly andheld informal conversations with her through e-mails and telephone calls.

Five teachers in the school’s primary 5 English teaching team representedthe context of reflection for Alice. Here, I will refer to them as Sally, Eva,Jenny, Ms. Yuen, and Mr. Lo. Alice met with them in collaborative planningmeetings, English subject panel meetings, other informal meetings, andlesson observations with each other in an intense period of about twomonths. At the end of the teaching practice, Alice had developed a diaryof more than 100 pages: some were handwritten, some were excerpts frome-mails, and so forth. These writings tell the story of the values conflictsbetween her and the teaching team and the dilemmas of teachers.

Decoding the Curriculum: The Context

Alice was assigned to teach English to two primary 5 classes on a unitentitled “Festivals.” Alice participated fully in the teaching team. In theinitial coplanning meetings, Alice contributed ideas on how the themecould be organized and delivered to students. Believing in progressive ed-ucational ideas, Alice was eager to adopt “project learning” in teaching theunit. This was met with resistance because most teachers on the team hadreservations about changing from traditional methods of the didactic modeof teaching to project learning. They did not perceive the need to change,although they knew that project learning is a recommended approach inthe English-language curriculum (Curriculum Development Council2000). Alice found herself obliged to adopt teaching methods that benefitstudents. Alice reflected on her clear goal in applying project learning:

There is co-planning meeting every week in which teachers are freeto present their ideas on classroom teaching. As a student teacher, Iwas invited to participate in discussions on the improvement of teach-ing skills. I presented some of the ideas I learned from the PGDE(Post-Graduate Diploma in Education) Programme, including projectwork. As I was teaching the unit entitled “Festivals” to primary 5 classes,I suggested that students prepare a booklet, poster, or PowerPoint pre-sentation on their favourite festival. They can search the Internet, readbooks or newspapers, and interview others to complete the project. Theycan also draw and use pictures to support their ideas. Other teammembersliked my idea; however, they were reluctant to apply this activity in theirown class. Because I was new in the school, I hardly understood the




reasons for their hesitation to apply project work. Therefore, I directlyasked them to explain the reasons.

Although the teaching team resisted her proposal on project learning, Alicewas determined to carry out her ideas. The autonomy given to her was animportant condition in making changes in classroom teaching. Alice men-tioned, “I am a new teacher (a placement teacher) in this school, but theschool provides me with opportunities to apply the teaching strategies Iprefer, which I learned from professors in PGDE. My mentor teacher, Ms.Yuen, believes that new teachers have innovative ideas and are more familiarwith new curriculum reforms. She always encourages me to use my ownteaching approaches, such as group work and pair work, to develop students’generic skills.” The views of the in-service teachers did not prevent Alicefrom introducing project learning. On the contrary, her experience of ed-ucation overseas trained her to introduce new ideas creatively.

Dilemmas of In-service Teachers versus Alice’s Commitment

Alice’s recommendation on project learning challenged other teachers in theteaching team, much like the scenario during Dewey’s time. There were twosets of contrasting worldviews demonstrated toward project learning, as foundfrom Alice’s note. They resembled closely Windschitl’s idea of conceptual,pedagogical, cultural, and political dilemmas (Windschitl 2002), and thesedilemmas contradicted Alice’s progressive education beliefs.

Project Learning as an Embedded Teaching Approach

Sally and Mr. Lo saw project learning not as an integral part of learningbut as an “extra” assignment on top of the normal teaching schedule. Forexample, Sally remarked: “The teaching schedule is very tight, we have tocover the content set for each week; it does not allow us to do this (projectlearning) extra activity.” Conceptually, teachers did not accept project learn-ing as a method of learning English. They thought that project learningendangered academic performance. Mr. Lo, an experienced teacher withover 10 years of experience, expressed his worry about how project planningadversely affects students: “It can be stressful for them (students) becausethey also get many assignments in other subjects. Students cannot givemuch time to a project and enjoy it; it could be time consuming for them.”In contrast, Alice believed in the efficacy of the project learning methodand employed this method of teaching and learning extensively. Alice re-flected: “Project work is not an extra activity; instead, teachers can make



Lam Bick Har 29

it part of their daily lesson plans. For example, if the topic is ‘seasons,’then teachers can ask students to collect information on their favorite season,such as what they like about it and what kind of activities they like to do.They can broaden their discussion by adding the special food they eat andclothes they wear during that season. By adapting the subject matter tothe interests of students, I believe they can learn faster with better results.”Alice found learning through project learning more effective than traditionalmethods of teacher-directed talk accompanying by seat work. Alice observedthat “In Sally and Jenny’s lesson, their students work very hard and verysilently. When I compared the result of their performance with that of mystudents (although not in a systematic way), I found that my students coulddo the same vocabulary exercise, but they did it more actively and happily.”

Children’s Interest as a Primary Concern

Alice discussed with me how teachers approach teaching. We talked aboutthe syllabus, standards and ability of students, textbooks, and so forth. Weagreed that maintaining student interest should be our prime concern.However, Alice found that in-service teachers ignored this vital concern,and they relied on repeated drilling to help students learn grammar. Thecurrent teachers found their traditional methods effective and did not feelthat there was a need to change their practice. However, Alice objected tothe use of grammar drills, as they harm students’ interest. Alice wrote:

Local teachers focus on grammar drills in English teaching, but theydo it in a way that demoralizes students—they present a formula tostudents, who just get to learn by rote without understanding; youngchildren find no fun in this because they cannot make sense of whatthey learn. In Mr. Lo’s lesson, I was fascinated with the high levelof control he maintained. However, I observed the tension of students;to my understanding, some students missed all the lessons. If we canbegin grammar teaching with conversations and make it task based,such as learning from a field trip or a daily event, then students willlearn vocabulary. They naturally learn and develop interest in English.

I was very pleased to recollect from Alice’s diary about a consistent set ofbeliefs that guided her teaching. Among them, I found that student re-sponses, as well as student learning outcomes, supported her commitmentto plan lessons with “interest” and “authentic activity” in mind. As Alicewrote in her journal, “It was my decision to carry out project work withmy students. My students support this method of learning. If they are not




interested in project work, there is no point in forcing them. I believestudents will perform better if they are interested in the tasks I give them.I keep this in mind.” While the other teachers thought project learning istoo playful and does not assure learning, Alice noted in her diary that“interest” does not make lessons trivial; instead, it helps students achieve:“Teachers should not only make lessons interesting; they should also thinkabout the starting point of what they like students to achieve and how thatcan be achieved. Teachers should make learning interesting and centeredon students’ interests, styles, and needs. The curriculum should cover awide range of interests that serve the different needs of children. Somestudents are good at writing, whereas others are not. We should help themdiscover their interests so that they can gain satisfaction from learning.”Conversely, teachers had a rigid rule on teaching: to present to studentsthe content on which they are tested. For example, after a class observation,Eva explained to Alice her teaching objective: “It’s important for studentsto learn the content of different units. We cover the syllabus according toschedule, and we help prepare them for the term examinations.”

Catering to Diversities, Learning Preferences, and Styles

In-service teachers are worried that project learning is not appropriate forlow-achieving students, as they are not able to perform data search andreading on their own. For example, Mr. Lo was concerned that “My studentsdon’t even understand very simple content knowledge. I doubt their abilityto understand the complexity of projects, to handle enquiries, and to gatherinformation to give solutions for a presentation.” To this, Alice retorted,“All learners have different abilities—they learn different things at differentpaces. In this situation, project work is the best solution because it provideslearners with a chance to choose the content that they are interested in, aswell as the method of carrying out a project that suits them.” Alice’s thinkingis in line with Dewey’s position on appreciating student diversities students:“One who recognises the importance of interest will not assume that allminds work in the same way because they happen to have the same teacherand textbook” (Dewey [1916] 2004, 109).

Authenticity

Alice believed that students learn best by engaging in meaningful tasks.Although most of the teachers in the school teach with textbooks, Alicethought that the textbooks failed to arouse students’ interest. This was



Lam Bick Har 31

another reason for her to support project learning, as it does away withthe need for textbooks. Alice’s belief in the innate interest of students tolearn is evident in her reflective notes: “The topic ‘Festival’ is interesting tostudents because they have the inner resources to recall their own experiences.They can also search for more information on festivals, do their own analysis,or make an in-depth study on some. This way, students can learn better thanthrough repetition or memorisation. It is also suggested by new curriculumreforms: ‘reduce rote learning, ask why things are as they are, and reflect onthe answers’” (Curriculum Development Council 2000, 114).

Challenges to Teachers in Curriculum Planning and Assessment

Alice saw that experienced teachers were not confident in implementingproject learning. Planning and implementing project learning remained adaunting challenge to them. For example, Alice noted this in her journal:“After observing my class last Tuesday, Sally had a discussion with me. Shementioned that in project learning, numerous activities are organised anda lot of group work and presentations are required, and that makes teachersbusy. She wondered if students would have time for studying the contentof the subject, such as grammar, and for doing homework and individualexercises.” Other experienced teachers have also made similar comments.For example, Mr. Lo questioned Alice: “Students can learn the contentsthrough constant practice of different exercises listed in textbooks. Whydo we need to carry out the project method, which is a complicated andtime-consuming task?” Aside from seeing project learning as time consum-ing and complicated, the teachers also worried about the issue of account-ability. Teachers felt that they have too little control over what studentsgain through project learning. Alice recorded in her journal that both Evaand Jenny expressed doubts on whether students can effectively learn subjectcontents through project learning. They also find it difficult to assess stu-dents’ learning outcomes. Thus, although the curriculum documents pro-moted “self-directed, self-regulated, and self-reflecting learning” and suggestedthat teachers reduce rote learning through project learning (Curriculum De-velopment Council 2000, 114), in reality many teachers were suspicious ofthis learning method and thought that students may waste time on projectsat the expense of “getting down to do homework.” To teachers, meeting theteaching schedule linked to the examination syllabus is most important. Whilethe teachers allowed Alice to use project learning in her class, the experiencedteachers preferred not to do it themselves.




Cultural and Political Environments Strongly Resist Project Learning

Teachers’ opinions about project learning reflected the cultural and politicalinfluences that oppose project learning. First, learning is essentially con-ceived as a competition within the social context of Hong Kong. Mr. Loargued: “You emphasize that through project work, students learn coop-eration and collaboration. However, some smart students habitually actalone and don’t want others to interrupt their work because they thinkthey are the best. This creates unfairness to students as they compete withone another to do the best.” The traditional scene in a Chinese classroom—with teachers as the authority to deliver knowledge and students as passiveand obedient receivers of knowledge—is disturbed by project learning.Thus, teachers were worried about classroom control in doing project work.As Jenny and Mr. Lo stated,

JENNY: While carrying out project work, students are very excitedand like to talk and show their work to each other, which could creatediscipline problems.

MR. LO: This method of learning may turn the class into chaosand become unmanageable. As you are new to students, they mightinitially give you some respect; later on, you may find that you’reunable to cope with discipline problems.

However, Alice realized the importance of peer learning in group work anddid not attach too much significance to classroom control. She establisheda strong ground on cooperative learning as a useful pedagogy: “Youngchildren should learn together and create a good atmosphere of learningas a community. They have personal achievements and sense of ownershipof their performance, but they also contribute as a group and value eachother as learning peers. I like to set group tasks because this helps them learnto support each other and identify one another’s strengths and weaknesses.This is not contradictory to classroom discipline, if discipline is defined asthe way to help them manage learning and develop learning skills.”

The condition of a democratic learning environment supported by Alicealso recalls what the curriculum reform documents suggested in helpingstudents remove feelings of failure and in providing emotional support toboost motivation and learning. As said in Dewey’s time, a safe and respectfulenvironment can set the foundation for high-performance learning, whichis the ideal of a democratic learning environment (Connell 1980; Dewey1956)—one that stresses team work and community. In Alice’s reflection



Lam Bick Har 33

on the nature of the job of teaching, she presented her view of educationclearly: that education is to help students to learn and that academic dis-cipline is a means of learning instead of the ultimate aim. In Alice’s view,learning is a process of socialization and realization of life but not a hardjob for learners. Alice saw project learning as a method that can promotejoyful learning for young learners, “The job of teaching should be mean-ingful to identify ways to build a strong network of learning and a co-operative environment for learning. It should help learners develop aninterest in learning and develop skills and methods to learn. We may findlearning approaches unsuitable or outdated, and they should be updatedfor the benefit of students. I believe project learning can establish a betterplace for learning if it can be formalized in schools.”

Alice remarked in her reflection that teachers’ resistance to change wasto the disadvantage of students. She regarded their resistance as resultingfrom their inadequate knowledge and understanding. Alice remarked: “Ex-perienced teachers are not very familiar with it (project learning). Theythink it is complicated and time consuming, so it is easy for them to followtheir pre-planned lessons that do not require any additional work or in-structions.” Alice and I discussed the educational ideals of education reform.The policy documents clearly state that teachers’ roles must change from“transmitters of knowledge to resource persons, facilitators, consultants,counsellors, and assessors” (Sec. 4.2.6, Curriculum Development Council2002). However, Alice doubted whether teachers can fulfil these roles: “Isense that teachers in schools have much to do to fulfill their assigned jobs.They have tight schedules and are under pressure from school authoritiesand parents to show good academic and non-academic results. What shouldI expect from them in this project learning activity if they already allowedme to do it? I am starting to understand the school culture, and I am moreconvinced that what I am striving to give my students in this school isimportant for teachers to think about at this time.”

Conclusion

Alice’s experience demonstrates the importance of learning through activereflection. As Alice’s teacher, I accompanied her through the whole processof her practicum. We initiated interesting discussions and debates on thefundamental questions on the aims of education and other questions relatedto the political environment of school education.

Like Alice, every beginning teacher is bound to face numerous problemsin teaching. While some of them are merely technical and amenable to




quick solutions, often the professional problems are more philosophical innature and challenge the fundamental beliefs of a teacher. In Alice’s case,her belief in progressive pedagogies was challenged by in-service teachers’opposition. It would have been easier for Alice to “do what she is told”;however, she would then have experienced no personal growth but suffereda professional setback instead. However, through the practice of detailedjournal writing and reflection-on-action, and with the help of a criticalfriend, Alice managed to obtain substantial professional gain through thechallenge. The active reflection on her own experience and on others’viewpoints provided her with ample materials to deepen her understandingof different teaching philosophies. Her understandings, formed throughcareful deliberations and reflections, will enable her to make informedprofessional decisions throughout the course of her professional life andguide her development. Thus, Alice’s account is a good example of howSchon’s (1983) idea of a reflective practitioner still usefully informs teacherpractice in the twenty-first century.

The reflective account of Alice contrasts a preservice teacher’s view onproject learning with the views of five in-service teachers in the context ofa primary 5 English teaching team. Experienced teachers in the schoolshowed a lack of understanding of progressive, child-centered educationalideas. Their persistence in employing the old practice of teaching for theexamination may result in the failure of reform pedagogies leading towardchild-centered education, which the official curriculum guide promotes. Ingeneral, experienced teachers in the school think that project learning (a)allows too much freedom and gives too much time to play, (b) does nothave a well-defined structure, (c) does not guarantee learning outcomes,(d ) creates classroom discipline problems, and (e) may cause declines instudent learning outcomes. Strong emphasis on the transmission of knowl-edge, textbook-governed teaching, rote learning, and discipline control,which are common in Chinese teaching methodologies, still dominate thethinking of teachers (Biggs and Watkins 2001; Watkins and Biggs 1996).

Alice’s reflections reveal the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and po-litical dilemmas in carrying out new learning and teaching initiatives ashave also been mentioned in other empirical studies across countries of theEast and West (cf. Leung 2008; Ng and Rao 2008; Windschitl 2002).Although student-centered, progressive pedagogies are promoted by edu-cation reform, in-service teachers were reluctant to employ them. Many ofthe teachers were unconvinced of their efficacy. Moreover, the educationenvironment remained pressure-filled, and teachers felt a need to “cover



Lam Bick Har 35

content” to enable students to do well in assessments. This utilitarian,competitive notion of education is fundamentally at odds with progressiveeducational ideals. We therefore cannot blame the teachers overmuch inrejecting progressive pedagogies: they were merely using time-tested meth-ods to help students to perform well according to the demands of thesystem. While the performance-oriented education culture still in place, itis little wonder that teachers reject the new themes of catering to individualdifferences and diversities, enabling authentic learning and promoting co-operative learning in the curriculum.

If the education system is to achieve the aim of the holistic developmentof individuals, which is the progressive educationists’ ideal, the fundamentalorganization of the schools must change. Enlightened teachers, while nec-essary, are not enough to effect these changes, for they are often powerlessin the education system (Fox 1992; Freidus 1991; Rogers 1999). We haveclearly seen from this personal reflective account that the organizationalstructure of schools and classrooms has changed little over time. The schoolin this study typifies a standard government-funded school in Hong Kong,where administration is hierarchical, activities are based on a rigid timetable,class size is large (35–37 students), and the physical setting is enclosed,with the teacher’s desk set in front of rows and columns of desks and chairsfor children who fill up the classroom space. These school settings continueto reinforce traditional didactic modes of teaching.

To promote child-centered, progressive education, a thorough transfor-mation of space and the use of time, authority relationships, curriculumand assessment practices, and instructional areas should be considered.Although individuals can undertake efforts to actualize progressive educa-tional ideas, as in the case of Alice, individual efforts cannot be sustainedbecause the environment limits what teachers can do. A recent study byLam and Yan (n.d.) has shown that highly motivated new teachers expe-rience great tension in schools where they face the foregoing constraints.The political dilemma that teachers experience in schools alerts us to onething: the importance of school leaders. It has previously been found thatsenior staff members often dominate decision making in Hong Kongschools. Often, school leaders do not provide sufficient support in imple-menting reform initiatives (Yu 2002, 2005). Without the leadership’s sup-port, it will be futile for junior teachers to present new ideas and pedagogy.In addition, the appraisal system should be changed to include innovativepractices and action research. This will recognize the importance of pro-fessionalism in teaching and establish consistent values for reform projects.




Another major problem in making reforms possible is insufficient govern-ment support. Hong Kong education seems to repeat what was mentionedby Darling-Harmmond (1996) in the last century: while policy makersurge teachers to teach in ways that promote deeper understanding, au-thorities often discourage teachers from spending time inquiring about theirown practices and adapting instruction to individual learners. The HongKong government should honestly face the problems caused by the men-tality of following old practices in contemporary schools, with both short-and long-term planning on teacher development, teacher training, lead-ership training, and the school environment. The debate about what shouldbe the knowledge base for professional teachers has been raging for a numberof decades because the very nature of belief, which is shaped by traditionalschool culture, is believed to be relatively unchanging (Cronin-Jones 1991;Wood et al. 1991). This study further proves the importance of givingfoundational knowledge on education and philosophy a more prominentplace in teacher training to prepare teachers for their new roles in furtherpedagogical innovations. With a strengthened background on education,teachers can better realize problems in the classroom and be willing tochange for the welfare of students.

Alice’s story is based on the situation of a country in the East. As thestory unfolds, frustrations are found for new and old teachers in schoolsat a time when new proposals in curriculum documents are put up by thegovernment. Teachers who are experienced in the old school organizationalstructure may act as powerful models to beginning teachers, and newteachers are powerless to make the change: this counteracts reform effortsat other levels. The constrained conditions are also responsible for a decreasein teaching commitment in Hong Kong (Choi and Tang 2009). Theenhancement of the professionalism of teachers and their professionalknowledge, as well as the establishment of an organizational environmentconducive to change, are suggested as the necessary conditions for reform.

References

Alasuutari, Pertti. 1998. An Invitation to Social Research. London: Sage.Ball, Arnetha. 2000. “Empowering Pedagogies That Enhance the Learning

of Multicultural Students.”Teachers College Record 102:1006–34.Biggs, John, and Catherine Tang. 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning at

University: What the Student Does. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.Biggs, John, and David Watkins. 2001. “Insights into Teaching the Chinese



Lam Bick Har 37

Learner.” In Teaching the Chinese Learner, ed. D. Watkins and J. Biggs.Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University ofHong Kong.

Brophy, Jere, and Thomas L. Good. 1986. “Teacher Behavior and StudentAchievement.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. M. Wittrock.New York: Macmillan.

Brown, Ann L., and Joe C. Campione. 1996. “Psychological Theory andthe Design of Innovative Learning Environments: On Procedures, Prin-ciples, and Systems.” In Innovations in Learning: New Environments forEducation, ed. L. Schauble and R. Glaser. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Choi, Pik Lin, and Sylvia Yee Fan Tang. 2009. “Teacher CommitmentTrends: Cases of Hong Kong Teachers from 1997 to 2007.” Teachingand Teacher Education 25:767–77.

Connell, William F. 1980. A History of Education in the Twentieth CenturyWorld. Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre.

Cronin-Jones, Linda L. 1991. “Science Teacher Beliefs and Their Influenceon Curriculum Implementation: Two Case Studies.” Journal of Researchin Science Teaching 28 (3): 235–50.

Curriculum Development Council. 2000. Learning to Learn: The Way For-ward in Curriculum Development. Hong Kong: Government PrintingOffice.

Curriculum Development Council. 2002. Basic Education CurriculumGuide. Hong Kong: Government Printing Office.

Darling-Hammond, Linda. 1996. “The Right to Learn and the Advance-ment of Teaching: Research, Policy and Practice for Democratic Edu-cation.” Educational Researcher 25 (6): 5–17.

Dewey, John. (1916) 2004. Democracy and Education. New York: Dover.Dewey, John. 1956. The Child and the Curriculum (1902) and The School

and Society (1899). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Elliott, J. 2008. “Constructing a Professional Knowledge-Base for Teacher

Education through Action Research.” In Improving Teacher Educationthrough Action Research, ed. M. F. Hui and D. L. Grossman. New York:Routledge.

Fetterman, D. M. 1989. Ethnography: Step by Step. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Fox, Dana. 1992. “The Influence of Context, Community, and Culture:

Contrasting Cases of Teacher Knowledge Development.” Paper pre-sented at the 42nd annual meeting of the National Reading Conference,San Antonio, TX.

Franklin, Barry M., and Carla C. Johnson. 2008. “What Schools Teach:




A Social History of the American Curriculum since 1950.” In The SAGEHandbook of Curriculum and Instruction, ed. F. M. Connelly, M. F. He,and J. I. Phillion. Los Angeles: Sage.

Freidus, Helen. 1991. “Critical Issues in the Curriculum of Teacher Ed-ucation Programs.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amer-ican Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Hargreaves, A., and M. Fullan. 2000. “Mentoring in the New Millennium.”Theory into Practice 39:49–56.

Kember, D., T. S. Ha, B.-H. Lam, A. Lee, S. Ng, L. Yan, and J. C. K.Yum. 2000. Action Learning and Action Research: Improving the Qualityof Teaching and Learning. London: Kogan Page.

Kliebard, H. M. 1986. The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893–1958. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Lam B.-H. 2007. “Linking Theory to Practice: Active Learning in MassLecture and Tutorial.” In Reflections on Applying Mass Lecture Plus TutorialApproach in Teacher Training Programme in Hong Kong, ed. Lam B.-H.,K. T. Tsui, and S. K. F. Hui. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute ofEducation.

Lam B.-H. 2008. “The Issue of Diversity in the Hong Kong School Cur-riculum: Student Communities in a Mainstream School.” Schools: Studiesin Education 5:118–40.

Lam B.-H., and H. F. Yan. Forthcoming. “Beginning Teachers’ Job Sat-isfaction—the Impact of School-Based Factors.” Teacher Development.

Lam Bick Har, and Shane N. Phillipson. 2009. “What Are the Affectiveand Social Outcomes for Low-Achieving Students within an InclusiveSchool in Hong Kong?” Educational Research for Policy and Practice 8(2): 135–50.

Lau, Sing, and Patricia P. W. Yeung. 1996. “Understanding Chinese ChildDevelopment.” In Growing Up the Chinese Way: Chinese Child and Ad-olescent Development, ed. S. Lau. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

Leung, Wai Lun Anthony. 2008. “Teacher Concerns about CurriculumReform: The Case of Project Learning.” Asia-Pacific Education Researcher17:75–97.

Mintrop, H. 2001. “Educating Students to Teach in a Constructivist Way:Can It All Be Done?” Teachers College Record 103:207–39.

Motschnig-Pitrik, R., and A. Holzinger. 2002. “Student-Centered TeachingMeets New Media: Concept and Case Study.” Educational Technologyand Society 5:160–72.

Ng, Sharon S. N., and Nirmala Rao. 2008. “Mathematics Teaching during



Lam Bick Har 39

the Early Years in Hong Kong: A Reflection of Constructivism withChinese Characteristics?” Early Years: Journal of International Researchand Development 28:159–72.

Pring, R. 2007. Continuum Library of Education Thought. New York: Con-tinuum International.

Rogers, B. 1999. “Conflicting Approaches to Curriculum: RecognizingHow Fundamental Beliefs Can Sustain or Sabotage School Reform.”Peabody Journal of Education 74:29–67.

Salili, F., C. Y. Chiu, and Y. Y. Hong, eds. 2001. Student Motivation: TheCulture and Context of Learning. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Schon, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think inAction. New York: Basic.

Stenhouse, L., ed. 1980. Curriculum Research and Development in Action.London: Heinemann Educational.

Tse, S. K., W. I. Lam, Y. H. Lam, and E. K. Y. Loh. 2005. Learn to Read:The Performance of Hong Kong Primary 4 Pupils in PIRLS 2001. HongKong: Hong Kong University Press.

Watkins, David A., and John B. Biggs. 1996. The Chinese Learner: Cultural,Psychological and Contextual Influences. Hong Kong: Comparative Ed-ucation Research Centre.

Westbrook, R. B. 1991. John Dewey and American Democracy. New YorkCornell University Press.

Windschitl, M. 2002. “Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Nego-tiation of Dilemmas: An Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cul-tural, and Political Challenges Facing Teachers.” Review of EducationResearch 72 (2): 131–75.

Wood, T., P. Cobb, and E. Yackel. 1991. “The Contextual Nature ofTeaching: Mathematics and Reading Instruction in One Second-GradeClassroom.” Elementary School Journal 90:497–514.

Yu, Huen. 2002. “A Shift in Hong Kong Principals’ Leadership Concep-tions.” Asia Pacific Education Review 3:37–47.

Yu, Huen. 2005. “Implementation of School-Based Management in HongKong: Recent Development and Future Challenges.” Journal of Edu-cational Change 6:253–75.



a reflective account of a preservice teacher’s effort to implement a progressive curriculum in...

Documents