IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD and KWI-OK NAH
A COMPARISON OF THE PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATHEMATICS EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN IN ENGLAND AND SOUTH KOREA Received: 20 July 2012; Accepted: 25 February 2013
ABSTRACT. The pedagogical practices of mathematics education for young children in English and Korean pre-schools were compared through analyses of interviews with practitioners, observations of classroom activities and an examination of documents related to the planning and implementation of mathematics education. Practitioners in both countries used integrated activities to teach mathematics, although they used such activities more frequently in nurseries than in reception classes in England and more frequently in state settings than in independent settings in Korea. Furthermore, mathematics education was more structured, more likely to be led by an adult and less holistic in reception classes than in nurseries in England, whereas it was more structured and didactic in independent than in state settings in Korea. However, mathematics education in England was more systematic, used a more individualised approach and incorporated a variety of hands-on materials and rigorous outdoor activities, whereas it was more group-oriented and utilised limited materials and fewer outdoor activities in Korea. KEY WORDS: England, Korea, mathematics education, pedagogical approach, pre-school
INTRODUCTION This study investigates the pedagogical practices of mathematics education for young children in two countries, England and South Korea. In this study, the term ‘pedagogy’ is defined as ‘the full set of instructional techniques and strategies that enabled learning to take place in early childhood settings, which provided opportunities for the acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes and dispositions’ (Siraj-Blatchford, 2008 p. 7). Thus, this term incorporates a wide range of direct and indirect teaching behaviours including the provision of a learning environment and parental behaviours and support within the home. Context and Pedagogy in England In 2008, the National Curriculum for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS; birth to five age group) implemented a new play-based approach in England, which initiated a balance of adult-led and child-initiated activities (Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), 2008, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2014) 12: 145Y165 # National Science Council, Taiwan 2013
146
IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD AND KWI-OK NAH
2009). The EYFS framework regards play as ‘a planned and purposeful activity’ with valuable and educational outcomes. It also suggests that individualized learning and integrated activities should be a leading pedagogy in early education practices. Considering these play-based and integrated approaches to learning and teaching, the pedagogy in English pre-schools1 is based on child-centred and constructivist perspectives. In addition, the notion of sustained shared thinking, which means ‘working together in an intellectual way to solve a problem, clarifying concepts, evaluating activities or extending a narrative’ (Siraj-Blatchford & Manni, 2008 p. 7) is encouraged as an effective pedagogic interaction in the early years in the English curriculum. The strategy of sustained shared thinking and emphasis on more adult-led activity reflect Vygotsky’s sociocultural constructivism. Furthermore, the notion of scaffolding as a pedagogical intervention with instructive play that encourages the child’s coconstruction in learning and teaching is also considered important. Thus, ‘there is no one effective pedagogy’, but different pedagogical practices which are sensitive to the curriculum concept being discussed (Vygotsky, 1978). Recently, studies carrying out thematic reviews in early childhood education and care have examined ‘the social pedagogic approach’ and ‘the pre-primary approach’, in 20 OECD countries (Bennett, 2005). According to these reviews, the prevalent pedagogy in English preschools is categorized as a pre-primary approach and is due to the governmental policy for raising academic standards. The focus is on teaching and child outcomes with the achievement and performance of children often being benchmarked and assessed. This has become increasingly so as children approach school entry age. A balanced mix of instruction, child-initiated activities and thematic work is encouraged, and groups are created along age cohort lines. Thus teaching practice is often practitioner-led and with a more structured approach. However, researchers have questioned the evidence as it relates to early education in England as to there being merely a pre-primary and formal approach as asserted by Bennett (2005), Apple (2006) and Alexander (2010). Siraj-Blatchford (2008) states that the EYFS framework (DCSF, 2008) was organised around four broad principles: the unique child, positive relationships, enabling environments and learning and development with a focus on ‘the developing child’ at the centre of these relationships. She also asserted that only 10 % of learning goals are concretely specified, the rest being very general in nature. Therefore, the learning goals may be seen as more similar to the objectives identified by Bennett in the Norwegian national curriculum and Danish 2004
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATH EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
147
curriculum. Thus, enhancing children’s development by providing opportunities for free play and contexts for purposeful play is an important aspect across the EYFS domains. According to findings from the Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years (REPEY) study (Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004), children’s cognitive outcomes appear to be directly related to the quantity and quality of teacher/adult-planned-and-initiated focussed small group work, in addition to the notion of play for educational purposes. This study also reported that children in reception classes (a pre-primary year in the UK) experienced a greater proportion of staff-initiated episodes and spent most of their time in small groups. Context and Pedagogy in Korea There are two kinds of pre-schools for young children in Korea: kindergartens (regulated and supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology) and childcare centres (regulated and supported by the Ministry of Health and Welfare). Kindergartens enrol children aged from 3 to 6 years old with a focus on education and follow the Kindergarten Curriculum, whilst childcare centres which enrol children from birth to 6 years old, focus on care and follow the Child Care Curriculum. Since March 2013, all 3- to 5-year-old children attending either kind of institution have been provided with subsidies for free education and have followed the Nuri Curriculum. In the current Korean Kindergarten Curriculum, the child’s initiative, creativity, interests, developmental level (Ministry of Education (MOE), 2001; Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MOE), 2007) and diversity in the new curriculum (MOE, 2007) are the main focus. These principles are similar to a constructivist and child-centred play oriented approach which originated from the West. In terms of learning and teaching, the main emphasis is on a play-oriented approach, integrated teaching, learning through practical daily experience and individualized instruction appropriate for the developmental level of the children aged between 3 and 6 (MOE, 2007). The principles of the Standard Child Care Curriculum and the Nuri Curriculum are similar to the Kindergarten Curriculum. Like other Asian countries, Korean culture has a long tradition of direct and teacher-dominated pedagogy and large group-oriented teaching styles for school age children, which could filter down into practices in early childhood education. Thus, there are likely to be discrepancies between the national curriculum and the practices in early childhood settings.
148
IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD AND KWI-OK NAH
Recently, a comparative research study reported that practitioners in Korean kindergartens used approaches including whole class instruction, practitioners’ authority, extrinsic motivation, worksheets and a separation of play time from work time (Kwon, 2003), even though a play-based approach is suggested as an ideal model in the national curricula. The study reported that Korean pre-school educators emphasised more adultdirected activities compared to English pre-schools, and many special programmes such as music, physical education, Korean language, science experiments and English were taught as separate subjects, even though they claimed to support integrated teaching. These differences might be caused by the sampling techniques within the study such that the kindergartens in Korea generally take on children aged 3 to 6 years old, whilst English nurseries and play groups take on children under the age of 4. In addition, the traditional value of academic achievement, competitive atmosphere and parents’ enthusiasm for their children’s academic success in Korean society has also influenced preschool education. Furthermore, practitioners in Korean pre-schools might have difficulty adopting a child-centred approach due to structural issues such as high child/adult ratios. In both countries, the emphasis of the national curricula for young children is on child-centred, integrated and play-based approaches. However, the learning and teaching in pre-schools might be practised differently considering recent social and political features in England and Korea. Particularly, mathematics teaching practices are likely to be implemented differently in each country. Researchers have shown that the teaching style of mathematics education in the Asian countries such as China, Korea and Japan tends to be quite formal, teacher-dominated, content-oriented and usually conducted in a whole class setting generally with larger classes (Brimer & Griffin, 1985; Biggs, 1996; Leung, 1995; Wong & Cheung, 1997). However, other researchers have asserted that mathematics teaching in East Asia is no longer teacher-dominated and traditional. Recent education practices in China have been guided more by a child-centred approach that is teacher-led and a ‘constructivist’ approach which encourages children to be active mathematics learners (Wang & Paine, 2001). The focus is less on teacher-dominated classes and more on teacher-guided maths communities which provide children with an atmosphere that is not only challenging but also encourages exploration and creativity (Moy & Peverly, 2005). Therefore, this study highlights how mathematics education practices in pre-school settings could be implemented differently between the two countries due to several reasons such as the cultural individualism versus
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATH EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
149
collectivism traditions of the country and the degree of governmental pressures on the attainment of high standards in schools. Such social and cultural differences would lead to variations in measurement outcomes and social and parental pressures for academic achievement. By investigating teaching practices in English and Korean pre-schools, the evidence from the study examines effective pedagogy for mathematical education in pre-schools in the different cultures. The specific research problem is as follows: What are the similarities and differences in the mathematical teaching practices for early childhood education and care in England and South Korea?
RESEARCH DESIGN The data for this study were obtained from a larger comparative study that was carried out from 2008 to 2010. This study, in particular, incorporates a teaching practice part pertaining to learning and teaching, materials and the environment for mathematics education practices. Targets Maximal variation sampling was employed to represent pre-school settings in each country in a small sample (Creswell, 2008). A range of English pre-school settings—including three reception classes and two nursery classes that were hosted by primary schools funded by local authorities, a stand-alone nursery school funded by a local authority, three independent day nurseries and three combined children centres—was used in the study. Playgroups and childminding were excluded as they typically served children younger than 3 years of age, or met irregularly. In Korea, three stand-alone state kindergartens, two kindergarten classes annexed to state primary schools, three independent kindergartens as well as a state childcare centre and three independent childcare centres were sampled. Family childcare was excluded as this setting is typically informal and intended for children younger than 3 years of age. In total, 12 settings each, in England and Korea, were sampled as shown in Table 1. The sampled classes were for 3- to 4- and 4- to 5-yearolds, as those ages are common in the pre-school settings of both countries. All the sampled settings were located in London or Seoul or in suburban areas within a 1-hour drive from London or Seoul. As the samples were from the two capital cities and their suburban areas, there is a limitation to the statement that the pedagogical practices of mathematics
150
IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD AND KWI-OK NAH
TABLE 1 Sampled settings
England
Korea
Type of setting
Practitioner
State reception class
E1, E2, E3
State nursery class State nursery school Independent day nursery
E4, E5 E6 E7, E8, E9,
Combined children centre State kindergarten/ stand alone State kindergarten/ annexed Independent kindergarten
E10, E11, E12 K1, K2, K3
State childcare centre Independent childcare centre
K4, K5 K6, K7, K8 K9 K10, K11, K12
Child/adult ratio 25/2.5, 26/2.5, 30/2 28/3, 26/3 39/5 21/3, 18/3, 24/3 24/3, 35/6, 24/3 24/1, 26/1.5, 13/1 28/1, 15/1.5 26/1.5, 28/2, 26/1 26/2 16/1, 16/1, 30/2
Age 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4
– – – – – – – – – – –
5, 5 4, 4 4, 4 4, 4 5, 4 5,
4 – 5, 3–4 3 – 4, 3 – 4, mixeda, mixed
Mixed, 3 – 4, 4–5 3–4 3 – 4, 3 – 4, 4–5
Most classes for “mixed” ages provided childcare for additional hours and thus required more staff members
a
education for young children found in this study represent the national practices of the two countries. Procedure Development of Interview Questions and Pilot Study. The National Curricula in Korea and England, as well as the research literature about pre-school mathematics education, were analysed. Based on this analysis, 17 interview questions were developed and reviewed by a professional and an early childhood education practitioner in each country. For the pilot study, the researcher analysed curriculum plan samples, interviewed practitioners and observed classrooms in three English settings: reception classes, nursery classes and a children centre. At the Korean site, the researcher analysed curriculum plans and video clips of mathematics-related activities in classes of 3- to 4- and 4- to 5-year-olds. Following the pilot study, the 17 semi-structured interview questions were refined into 11 questions. This resulted in the omission of some
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATH EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
151
questions, including those pertaining to parental cooperation and the practitioner’s personal preferences and mathematics confidence, as the preliminary results were similar in both countries. The interview and documentary data from the samples for the pilot study were used for the analyses. All of the 11 interview questions were first presented as very general inquiries and were then followed by detailed sub-questions (i.e. a semi-structured interview process). Of the 11 questions, the following six in Table 2 were used in this study. Data Collection. Three data sources were used to analyse practices related to mathematics education in each country: interviews with practitioners, nonparticipant observations of classroom practices and documents related to mathematics education planning and implementation. Data about practices related to mathematics education in English preschools were gathered via interviews with practitioners conducted by the researcher at each of the English settings. Semi-structured interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. To gain a better understanding of the practices related to mathematics education in England, the researcher and a research assistant attended two practitioner workshop sessions on the new curriculum and informally discussed the mathematics education format with staff members from diverse settings. Two kinds of observations were used for this study. First, classroom activities related to mathematics were observed at the time of the interviews to provide a clearer idea of the mathematics education at each sampled setting. Second, the researcher and the assistant TABLE 2 Interview questions Questions (detailed sub-questions) How do you structure and plan the maths learning activities? (Regular sessions for maths? Activities calibrated to the level of individuals or those designed for the entire group’s developmental level?) How do you teach maths in your classroom? (Through integrated activities, play, games, songs, or daily experiences? Adult-led or child-initiated play/activities? Whole-class or small-group activities?) How do you organise your maths activities? (Organise activities at three stages? Formal or informal lessons?) How do you group children when teaching maths? (By age or by ability?) What kinds of resources or materials do you use to teach maths? (Equipment used for maths activities? Hands-on material, workbooks, story books?) How do you prepare the environment for maths education? (Maths area or tables? Use of outdoor areas?)
152
IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD AND KWI-OK NAH
revisited and observed one classroom in each type of English setting for a full day and recorded observational journals. Documentary data on curriculum guidelines, medium-term plans and weekly plans for the academic year in each setting were gathered at the time of the practitioner’s interview. Additional curriculum-planning guidelines suggested by the advisory team of the local authority were also collected from the practitioner workshops. Data on the practices related to mathematics education in Korean preschools were obtained from practitioner interviews conducted in each of the Korean settings by the research assistant. Semi-structured interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. The research assistant observed classrooms that were characteristic of each Korean setting. Observational journals were maintained, photographs were taken and video clips of mathematics-related activities were recorded at each setting. Documentary data about the respective curriculum guidelines and monthly and weekly plans for the academic year were gathered at the time of the practitioner’s interview. All data from the Korean settings were sent to the researcher. Data Analysis. Data collection and analysis were simultaneous and iterative. Data were reviewed after each taped interview was transcribed and documents were gathered. At the same time, additional information was gathered via e-mail or face-to-face questions to fill in gaps (Creswell, 2008). The interview data and observational journals were compiled, segmented, coded with meaningful labels, organised into 13 categories describing similarities and differences between the two countries and then summarised into three themes (Creswell, 2008; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Data that could not be categorised or related to the themes were discarded during coding. Medium-term plans, weekly plans and other documents from both countries were analysed to triangulate, confirm and clarify the interview and observational data. The researcher and the research assistant coded the data independently and discussed their work at three stages of the data-reduction procedure to reach agreement.
RESULTS The findings from this study are presented in terms of three themes: (a) the pedagogical frame, (b) methods of teaching mathematics and (c) the materials and environment for mathematics education. Pedagogical Frame The analyses of interviews and observations of classes revealed that maths education is implemented through a mixture of adult-led activities,
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATH EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
153
child-initiated activities, daily routines and free play, songs and games in both England and Korea. Classroom Adult-Led Activities. Classroom adult-led activities for mathematics are performed during circle time both in England and in Korea. These activities include discussions about various topics such as mathematics concepts, solving practical problems and accomplishing activities. For example, in a Korean kindergarten class (4- to 5-year-olds), the teacher read a book ‘Dr. De Soto’; children talked about the day-to-day experiences such as visiting the dentist, and then they talked about what happened at Dr. De Soto’s dental clinic on each day of the week. During this activity, children tried to deduce the mathematical concept, ‘a sequence of the days of week’. It was observed that mathematics was taught through adult-led activities in the classroom where mathematical concepts were embedded in both countries. Adult-Led Activities in a Small Group in England. Adult-led activities in England are performed not only for the whole class but also in small groups, which have come to be called ‘a focus group activity’, whilst in Korea, most of the teacher-led activities are implemented with an entire class. For a focus group activity, children were arranged in a small group with discussions around specific concepts of mathematics, as shown in the following statement that ‘…What was our key group activities is now an adult-led activity, so one adult, for example, might be responsible for the maths activity for the whole week now, so she would make sure all the children in the room have come over and experienced the adult-led activity’ (E8). Mathematics was taught systematically by organizing all the children learning the mathematical knowledge and skills through this small group adult-led activity in England. There was no teacher-led small group session for mathematics in most Korean settings. It is very hard to implement an adult-led activity in a small group which focuses on mathematics in the settings where only one adult works as shown in the interview statement ‘…We do most of the activities at the whole class level because we have no assistant staff’ (K6). Child-Initiated Activities in the Mathematics Area as a Main Focus in Korea. Children in both countries learn mathematics through adult-framed, child-initiated activities at a mathematics table or in a mathematics area. Interview analysis and observation of classrooms showed that in England, after new mathematics concepts and knowledge were taught or introduced to a whole class, each child chooses and works at a mathematics table on their own. The materials are laid out on a mathematics table for children to use on their own for elaboration or confirmation. However, in Korea, practitioners
154
IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD AND KWI-OK NAH
responded that children learn mathematics mainly through child-initiated activities in the mathematics area, as shown in the interview statement ‘For maths, materials for maths activities for each theme are provided in the maths area. These are for individual work. … Children are allowed to play games or to play with hands-on materials on their own instead of lessons or adult-led activities. This is all we do for maths generally in kindergarten’ (K5). In some cases, practitioners lead the activity in the mathematics area whilst other children are working in other areas on their own in Korean settings. This kind of adult-guided activity in the mathematics area is similar to the focus activities in England. Considering adult-led small group activities in England and child-initiated activities on their own in the mathematics area in Korea, the activities for mathematics in Korean settings are less structured compared to those in English settings. Daily Experiences for 3- to 4- Versus 3- to 5-Year-Olds. In both England and Korea, mathematics is learnt informally through daily routines such as snack and meal times, and registration. Practitioners of both countries showed that number concepts, adding and subtracting, shapes, measuring and data gathering and displaying were covered through these practical daily routines. Learning through daily routines was a large part of mathematics learning at nurseries for 3- to 4-year-olds in England, whilst in Korea, this is mainly at kindergarten and childcare centres for 3- to 5-year-olds. Open-Ended Activities (Free Play), Games and Songs for 3- to 4- Versus 3- to 5-Year-Olds. Mathematics is also learnt through songs, games and open-ended activities such as construction, sand play, water play and outdoor play where there is the least adult intervention. The interview analyses and observation of classrooms showed that in England, practitioners for 3- to 4-year-olds adopted this approach more often than those for 4- to 5-year-olds. However, in Korea, practitioners for both 3- to 4- and 4- to 5-year-olds adopted these play-based activities frequently in state settings where the national curriculum is implemented more rigidly. In some independent settings in Korea, academic-oriented and structured works on mathematics were seen being performed more frequently instead of this kind of play-based approach. Methods of Teaching Mathematics Integrated Activities for 3- to 4- Versus 3- to 5-Year-Olds. Mathematics is taught through integrated activities such as cooking, dramatic play or project work both in England and Korea as shown in this interview statement ‘Maths is taught through integrated activities. For example,
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATH EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
155
numbers are learnt informally through activities such as dramatic play where a cat ate one fish at one time: the five fish disappear one by one. They learn numbers naturally through this kind of activity’ (K3). Mathematics education through integrated activities was more emphasized at nursery settings for 3- to 4-year-olds than reception for 4- to 5year-olds in England, but in Korea, it was emphasized equally for both age bands, although this method was more frequently employed at kindergarten and state childcare centres than in independent childcare centres. Mathematics was also integrated in the activities of other learning areas in both countries because all the knowledge of the six areas is interwoven, as shown in the following statement ‘… in the different areas, you saw the areas, the sand, the water, there’s creative, there’s graphics area. There’s the math corner but haven’t I said that we take maths from every corner in the room’ (E12). Problem Solving Versus Games. Mathematics is taught through problem solving in a significant context to children in English settings in general and in state settings in Korea. Problem solving was emphasized more in England, whilst games were more frequently used in Korea. The activities in the maths area, or adult-led activities for mathematics, were mostly games in Korean settings as shown in the statement ‘We usually make materials for games and lay them out in the maths area for mathematics education’ (K4). Mathematics teaching through problem solving in English reception classes was structural, which was supported by the observation of classroom activities as shown in ‘The classroom activity, Seagulls standing on the sand castles was for mathematics. It was organised well and to be quite structural to teach mathematics straight’ (J0809, R2). Rudimentarily Formal Versus Workbook and Special Programmes. The mathematics activities in English reception classes were rudimentarily formal even though they were basically practical or involved problem solving. Practitioners of classes for 4- to 5-year-olds sometimes did direct teaching in a small group for mathematics as shown in interview statements ‘Yes, I do formal lessons. I introduce the topic as a whole class. … We teach very formal lessons, sometimes (E1)’, ‘… the most formal we will get is, it’s just very, very beginning. They don’t have to do it at reception. These are all practical. They will start actually to do it with the ones who are confident (E3)’. On the other hand, mathematics was taught using commercial workbooks in most independent settings or in the home in Korea as shown in ‘I know that they teach children using workbooks in private childcare because both parents of children at childcare centres work and
156
IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD AND KWI-OK NAH
they want their children to study numbers and the Korean language in the setting.’ (K6), ‘Some children know the numbers but they don’t differentiate the numerals. Thus, I do maths using a workbook in the class.’ (K10) In addition, special programmes such as Gabe, Montessori, Orda, Phytagoras and Morphun which include mathematics were provided in independent settings. Individualized Versus Average Level of Children. Practitioners from English settings answered that they prepared activities at an individual level based on observation of each child. After observing children at the beginning of the school year, they use the information from these observations to set activities as shown in the interview statements ‘At the beginning of the year … we observe the children, and we will make observational notes … to give us some ideas about where children are at with mathematical knowledge. Then, we set activities around the individual children, because children are at very different levels’ (E7). However, in Korean settings, the levels of specific activities are set approximately to the average level of children, based on the practitioner’s observation and judgment as stated ‘We usually set the level of activities to the average of children in the class’ (K2). No Plenary Versus Three-Stage Lesson. The analyses of the interviews and class observations in England showed that practitioners introduced new concepts and knowledge to a whole class and then children work individually or in a small group which is led by an adult. A reception teacher answered that she did not need to have a formal plenary gathering at the end of an activity due to this kind of adult-led focused group activities through which she observes each child individually as stated in the interview ‘We may not always do the plenary for follow-up where we have already observed and assessed the children when they were working (in a small group or individually)’ (E1). In contrast, most of the lessons in Korean settings have three stages: an introduction to a whole class, small group or individual activities and finally sharing the results with the whole class as stated “For example, the practitioner introduces the new concepts and the methods of group painting or ‘floating objects’ and then the small group of children (two to three) go to their table and work together and then they come back to the whole group and present their work” (K3). Afterwards, the practitioners introduce new knowledge and skills to the whole class, and children work with peers in a small group or work individually. During the small group or individual work session, children are leading the activities whilst the practitioner observes and assists if necessary. After the small group activity, all the children come
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATH EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
157
together and share the results with the whole class. This type of lesson was prevalent in most pre-school settings in Korea. Ability Grouping Versus Mixed Ability Grouping. In England, children were grouped by ability for their academic work such as literacy and numeracy, although not generally with younger children, according to the observations and interviews. Children in reception classes and 3- to 4year-old children in independent day nurseries and children centres were grouped by their abilities and concentrated on differentiated tasks for mathematics, as shown in the statement ‘I group children by abilities and give them differentiated tasks according to their abilities. Children don’t realize their ability groups but I have all the information in my head, of those who are above average and who are below average (E1)’. In the weekly plan of a reception class (E1), the differentiated tasks given to children by their abilities are described as follows: ‘(1) AA/A counting on, BA counting objects. (2) BA 0–10, A 0–20, AA 0–50. … (AA means above average, A means average, BA means below average)’. In Korea, children were not grouped by ability generally except in mixed age classes. Most practitioners responded that children helped each other with their work in mixed ability groups, as stated ‘There is no ability grouping, because children help and learn from each other when the more able children and the less able children are mixed in the group (K6)’. In some cases in Korea, children were grouped by their abilities for mathematics activities, but they were given the same tasks: Children in the high ability group solve the problems on their own, whilst children in a low ability group are helped by an adult. In addition, the practitioners commented on the difficulties in grouping children by ability due to parental concerns. Materials and the Environment Various Hands-on Materials Versus Commercial Materials and Workbooks. According to the observations and interviews, hands-on objects for mathematics education were generally used in pre-school settings in both countries, although these were more readily found in English settings than in Korean settings. Each classroom was equipped with both everyday play materials such as dice, games, puzzles, dominoes, plastic miniatures and specific mathematics materials such as counters, number lines (only in England), number cards, sorting items, 2D/3-D shapes and patterns, but expensive subject-based equipment such as weighing scales, measuring equipment, big money and clocks was
158
IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD AND KWI-OK NAH
shared with other classes. There were more materials for outdoor play such as beanbags, big number lines, numbered bicycles and cars in English settings and more materials for games in Korean settings. In English settings, materials for more open-ended and everyday activities such as construction toys, bricks, unit-fix cubes, games, sand play, water play, play dough, song books and miniature objects were used in nursery settings as nursery children learn mathematics through more open-ended activities and everyday experiences than children in reception classes. Gender-relevant materials such as dinosaur miniatures were also provided for boys. In Korea, practitioners used commercial materials, such as Gabe, Montessori, Pythagoras or Orda in most independent settings. They perceived that they do not have enough materials for mathematics education and wanted more concrete materials for mathematics activities. Moreover, they used workbooks for mathematics education in most of the independent child care centres. Incorporating Diverse Indoor and Outdoor Environments in English Settings. A mathematics table or a mathematics area with materials for mathematics activities was arranged in both countries, although, in Korea, the mathematics and science were provided together in the same area because they are presented in the same part of the national curriculum. However, practitioners in England considered incorporating mathematics activities in all other areas as important, especially in nurseries as stated in ‘… we don’t just do maths there (maths table). We might have shape moulds in the sand, or capacity containers in the water, that sort of thing…’ (E8). In England, the outdoor environment is more frequently used for mathematics education in order to make learning physical and to motivate boys, as indicated by ‘… Again, the same outside, we try and incorporate the mathematics outside as well in a bigger way or throwing beanbags, that sort of thing. …’ (E12). Thus, practitioners seem to incorporate diverse indoor and outdoor environments for mathematics education in England.
DISCUSSION This article considers three key pieces of research to discuss the similarities and differences between mathematics education practices in pre-school settings in the two countries, including in (a) the integrated teaching approach, (b) the degree of pedagogic structure and (c) the degree of individuality and diversity.
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATH EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
159
Integrated Teaching Approach The practitioners in both countries implemented mathematics teaching through integrated activities such as talking at circle time, cooking, dramatic play, games and projects, where mathematical concepts, knowledge and skills are embedded. However, this kind of mathematical teaching was performed more frequently in nursery classes for 3- to 4year-olds than in reception classes for 4- to 5-year-olds in England, whilst in Korea, more frequently in state kindergartens than in independent settings (kindergartens and childcare centres). Comparing the same age groups of 4- to 5-year-olds, less holistic teaching through integrated activities was performed in English reception classes than in Korean settings, although in some Korean-independent settings, they performed a low proportion of integrated activities. In traditional English nurseries, the integrated approach has been an essential characteristic of teaching (Curtis, 2002; Hurst, 1997) and is where content areas are blended into thematic or problem-focused units (Kwon, 2002; New, 1992). Similarly in Korean pre-schools, the national curriculum emphasizes the use of the integrated approach to educate young children of all ages. Furthermore, practitioners in state settings who follow the national curriculum also adopt this approach. This is in line with the previous research investigating nursery and playgroups (Kwon, 2003) which asserted that practitioners in both English and Korean pre-schools agreed on the integrated teaching approach although there was a discrepancy between the perceptions and practices, that is, they performed separate mathematics times in a small focused-group in English pre-schools, and special programmes for mathematics using commercial workbooks and/or worksheets were against their integrated and holistic pedagogic beliefs. Pedagogic Structure There were differences in the degree of structural framing in teaching mathematics between the two countries. The mathematics education was more strongly framed by employing adult-led small group activities which are tightly structured in England than in Korea, where there were few adult-led focused group activities. In addition, mathematics education through daily experience and open-ended activities such as sand and water play, and songs, where there is less adult control, was implemented mainly for 3- to 4-year-olds in England whilst in Korea, it occurs for 3- to 6-year-olds in state settings, although in some independent settings, structured teaching using workbooks was implemented.
160
IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD AND KWI-OK NAH
The mathematics teaching in the English pre-school is systematic by arranging every child in adult-led small group activities in order to experience all the planned curriculum, especially in classes for 4- to 5year-olds, whilst in Korea, most of adult-led activities which are implemented as a whole class are planned in relation to the life themes provided in the national curricula; therefore, all the content of the mathematics could not be dealt with evenly. Therefore, mathematics teaching is more structured and systematic in reception classes in England, whilst it is more structured and didactic in independent settings in Korea. This result is not consistent with the previous research in concluding that the teaching style in East Asian countries is more directed, teacherdominated and systematic (Aunio, Aubrey, Godfrey, Pan & Liu, 2008; Geary, Bow-Thomas, Fan & Siegler, 1993; Leung, 2006). However, this result supports Wood’s research (2004) which asserted that mathematics education in the reception year takes a more structured and formal approach and the REPEY study (Siraj-Blatchford, Sylva, Muttock, Gilden & Bell, 2002) which reported that children in reception classes experienced a higher proportion of staff-initiated episodes and spent most of their time in small groups. Currently, there are concerns with the structured approach practised in English pre-schools. Duncan & Lockwood (2008) reported that practitioners in English settings sometimes engage in direct interventions such as focused teaching, which is the most structured form, instead of implementing indirect interventions such as providing opportunities for peer interaction and setting up play environments with embedded learning opportunities. The dangers of over-teaching in a formal manner too early were well articulated by professionals in England (Claxton, 2008; Howard, 2010). Researchers claimed that too formal a learning experience for young children may prevent them from achieving their full potential in later years. The result of less systematic teaching in Korean settings than in English pre-schools is compatible with the research conducted in Japan (Sakakibara, 2006) which found that mathematics teaching was implemented without relying on systematic teaching; for example, there were very few activities with the objective of teaching mathematics to children, and teachers’ encouragement of mathematical development was more explicit in a variety of activities where the goal was other than teaching mathematics, such as singing. This practice could come from the different government policies and societal values and their allied pedagogy in both countries. In English reception classes, the government’s policy of raising standards and
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATH EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
161
combined government inspection might lead to an over-focus on structured teaching and upon the attainment of specific learning targets (Anning, 1998; Drury, Miller & Campbell, 2000; Smidt, 2002), whilst in Korea, the government does not require pre-school children to have acquired academic literacy and numeracy skills before starting compulsory schooling. However, the direct and teacher-dominated teaching in some Korean independent settings might be due to parents’ pressure to attain academic literacy and numeracy skills at early ages, and the traditional formalised teaching methods. Individuality and Diversity There were also differences in terms of the individualized teaching approach in the mathematics education practices. However, the national curricula of both countries emphasizes the importance of recognising the individual child’s needs and interests, and the acceptance of differences between individual children which could lead to individualized learning and teaching styles. Mathematics teaching practice in English pre-schools was primarily an individualized approach by planning mathematical activities at an individual child’s level based on observation and assessment, whilst in Korean settings, it was group-oriented by planning mathematical activities at an average level of children in a whole class and implementing mostly whole group adult-led activities. This practice was also evidenced by differentiated tasks given to adult-led small groups which are formed by ability grouping in English pre-schools. However, this was not practised in Korea as the same tasks were given to even the children who were split into ability groups. This result was concurrent with the research carried out in mathematics teaching within Japanese secondary schools (Whitburn, 1995) which reported a greater emphasis on the general class progress where there were mixed abilities compared to the individual child’s progress at their own pace in English schools. The result of individualized practices in English settings supports the traditional pedagogy of the Western culture of individualism, whilst a group-oriented approach in Korea supporting the traditional ‘collectivism’ perspective in Asian Confucian cultures (McLean, 1995; Tobin, Hsueh & Karasawa, 2009; Tobin, Wu & Davidson, 1989). There is also a practical matter related to the individualized teaching practices where there is only one adult in a classroom as is often found in Korean pre-school settings, which, in turn, makes for a group-oriented approach. There were also differences in the diversity of materials and environments for learning mathematics. In English pre-schools, more diverse gender-relevant materials for mathematics education could be
162
IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD AND KWI-OK NAH
found and were used in indoors and outdoors activities. In particular, the outdoor environment was incorporated more rigorously for children, who have learning styles involving bigger movements than in Korean settings. It is recommended using an outdoor environment where movement, exploration and action could take place in order to increase boys’ success in pre-school learning (Bilton, 2002; Millard, 1997; Noble, Brown & Murphy, 2001). Emphasis on the outdoors as ‘an enabling environment’ where learning takes place with a greater need to pursue diversity in materials and resources in English pre-schools than Korean pre-schools is compatible with the social pedagogical tradition in Europe. However, it can be argued that the pedagogical structure employed in English settings is often associated with being a feature of the pre-primary approach.
RECOMMENDATIONS This study compared the pedagogical practices related to mathematics education in English and Korean pre-schools via practitioner interviews, classroom observations and documents regarding the planning and implementation of mathematics education. The findings are summarised in what follows. Practitioners in both countries used integrated activities to teach mathematics; such activities were used more frequently in nurseries than in reception classes in England whereas such activities were used more frequently in state settings than in independent settings in Korea. Furthermore, mathematics education was more structured, more likely to be led by an adult and less holistic in reception classes than in nurseries in England, whereas it was more structured and didactic in independent than in state settings in Korea. However, mathematics education in England was more systematic, used a more individualised approach and incorporated a variety of hands-on materials and rigorous outdoor activities, whereas it was more group-oriented and utilised limited materials and fewer outdoor activities in Korea. In light of the above findings, we recommend that future research analyse adult-led activities to investigate whether these are ‘teacherdirected’ in contrast with ‘child-centred’. The most important element of effective pedagogy is not the person who initiates the activity, but the degree to which adults and children themselves engage in co-construction and high-quality interactions between adults and children, and amongst the children (Siraj-Blatchford, 2010). In the case of child-initiated activities, researchers need to investigate the role of the adult, i.e. whether
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATH EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
163
they support and encourage children effectively, extend child-initiated interactions and enhance children’s thinking. It is suggested that practitioners in both countries engage extensively in integrated and play-based learning and teaching when they are involved in mathematics education directed at young children. Mathematics education should be geared towards the individual to incorporate each child’s developmental level, needs and interests. Moreover, it is important that practitioners provide opportunities for children to actively engage in learning and that they help children expand their thinking via scaffolding, high-quality interactions and diverse hands-on materials and resources. NOTE 1 The term pre-schools refer to settings before year 1 in primary school (specifically from birth to 5 years old in England, birth to 6 years old in Korea).
REFERENCES Alexander, R. (Ed.). (2010). Children, their world, their education: Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge primary review. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Aunio, P., Aubrey, C., Godfrey, R., Pan, Y. & Liu, Y. (2008). Children’s early numeracy in England, Finland and People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Early Years Education, 16(3), 203–221. Anning, A. (1998). Appropriateness or effectiveness in the early childhood curriculum in the UK: Some research evidence. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(3), 299–314. Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the “right” way. New York: Routledge. Bennett, J. (2005). Curriculum issues in national policy-making. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13(2), 5–24. Biggs, J. B. (1996). Western misconceptions of the Confucian- Heritage learning culture. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences (pp. 45–68). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre. Bilton, H. (2002). Outdoor play in the early years: Management and innovation. London: David Fulton. Brimer, A. & Griffin, P. (1985). Mathematics achievement in Hong Kong secondary schools. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong. Claxton, G. (2008). Too formal too soon. Speech at an Early Years conference in Northern Ireland 2008. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from http://www.early-years.org/ news/newsletters/issue_07.pdf. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Curtis, A. (2002). A curriculum for the pre-school child: Learning to learn (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis e-Library. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/nlebk_68716_AN?sid077ff6c48-53f6-4c23-ac312b1879223fda@sessionmgr15&vid02.
164
IRAM SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD AND KWI-OK NAH
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008). Practice guidance for the early years foundation stage. London: DCSF. Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2009). Learning, playing and interacting: Good practice in the early years foundation stage. Nottingham, UK: DCSF. Drury, R., Miller, L. & Campbell, R. (Eds.). (2000). Looking at early years education and care. London: David Fulton. Duncan, J. & Lockwood, M. (2008). Learning through play: A work based approach for the early years professional. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd. Geary, D. C., Bow-Thomas, C. C., Fan, L. & Siegler, R. S. (1993). Even before formal instruction, Chinese children outperform American children in mental addition. Child Development, 8, 517–529. Howard, S. (2010). Pedagogy in context. In I. Palaiologou (Ed.), The early years foundation stage: Theory and practice (pp. 38–52). London: SAGE. Hurst, V. (1997). Planning for early learning: Educating young children. London: Paul Chapman. Kwon, Y. I. (2002). Changing curriculum for early childhood education in England. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(2). Retrieved April 18, 2010, from http:// ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n2/kown.html. Kwon, Y. I. (2003). A comparative analysis of preschool education in Korea and England. Comparative Education, 39(4), 479–491. Leung, F. K. S. (1995). The mathematics classroom in Beijing, Hong Kong and London. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 197–325. Leung, F. K. S. (2006). Mathematics education in East Asia and the West: Does culture matter? In F. K. S. Leung, K.-D. Graf & F. J. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West (pp. 21–46). New York: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. McLean, M. (1995). Educational traditions compared. London: David Fulton. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Millard, E. (1997). Differently literate: Boys, girls, and the schooling of literacy. London: David Fulton. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2001). 6th kindergarten curriculum. Seoul, South Korea: MOE. in Korean. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MOE) (2007). 2007 revised kindergarten curriculum. Seoul, South Korea: MOE. in Korean. Moy, R. & Peverly, S. T. (2005). Perceptions of mathematics curricula and teaching in China. Psychology in the Schools, 42(3), 251–258. New, R. (1992). The integrated early childhood curriculum: New interpretations based on research and practice. In C. Seefeldt (Ed.), The early childhood curriculum: A review of current research (2nd ed., pp. 286–322). New York: Teachers College Press. Noble, C., Brown, J. & Murphy, J. (2001). How to raise boys’ achievement. London: David Fulton. Sakakibara, T. (2006). The role of Japanese preschool teachers’ support in young children’s mathematical development. The Japanese Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 50–61. in Japanese. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2008). Understanding the relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and progression in learning in early childhood. Hong Kong Journal of Early Childhood, 7(2), 6–13.
PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES OF MATH EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
165
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010). Learning in the home and in school: How working class children succeed against the odds. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 463–482. Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Manni, L. (2008). ‘Would you like to tidy up now?’ an analysis of adult questioning in the English Foundation Stage. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 28(1), 5–22. Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, R., Gilden, R. & Bell, D. (2002). Researching effective pedagogy in the early years. Research report 356. London: DfES. Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Sylva, K. (2004). Researching pedagogy in English pre-schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30(5), 713–730. Smidt, S. (2002). Early years practice. London: Routledge Falmer. Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y. & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan and the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Tobin, J., Wu, D. & Davidson, D. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China and United States. London: Yale University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, J. & Paine, L. W. (2001). Mentoring as assisted performance: A pair of Chinese teachers working together. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 157–181. Whitburn, J. (1995). The teaching of mathematics in Japan: An English perspective. Oxford Review of Education, 21(3), 347–360. Wong, K. M. & Cheung, W. W. (1997). A survey of the current status of primary mathematics teaching in Hong Kong. EduMath, 4, 3–15. Wood, E. (2004). A new paradigm war? the impact of national curriculum policies on early childhood teachers’ thinking and classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(4), 361–374.
Iram Siraj-Blatchford Institute of Education University of London London, UK Kwi-Ok Nah Department of Early Childhood Education Soonchunhyang University 646 Eapnairi Shinchangmyun, Asan, Chungnam, 336-745, South Korea E-mail:
[email protected]
