Chinese scholars reveal the “glocalization” mechanism in early childhood curriculum: A 2022 study cited by UNESCO policy reports

Amid the global convergence of education systems, how can early childhood curricula strike a balance between “internationalization” and “localization”? A 2022 article published in Volume 5, Issue 2 of the journal ECNU Review of Education, titled “Curriculum Hybridization and Cultural Glocalization: A Scoping Review of International Research on Early Childhood Curriculum in China and Singapore,” offers a new theoretical lens to address this question.

Authored by Dr. Weipeng Yang from The Education University of Hong Kong and Professor Hui Li from Shanghai Normal University, the study synthesizes 42 international research articles published between 2000 and 2020 on early childhood curriculum reforms in China and Singapore. It introduces two key concepts—“curriculum hybridization” and “cultural glocalization”—to illuminate the interaction between global educational ideas and local cultural practices in curriculum reform.

Drawing on Goodlad et al.’s three-level curriculum framework—formal curriculum, perceived curriculum, and operational curriculum—the study analyzes the gaps between policy texts, teacher beliefs, and classroom practices. For instance, since 2001, China has promoted a “de-schoolification” policy banning academic instruction, such as literacy and math, in kindergartens, and emphasizing play-based and integrated learning. However, classroom observations reveal that many teachers still adopt a “theme-based & whole-group” teaching model, focusing on discipline and knowledge transmission, which diverges from the child-centered approach advocated in policy.

Similarly, Singapore’s Nurturing Early Learners (NEL) framework, introduced in 2003 and updated in 2012, promotes “purposeful play” and inquiry-based learning. Yet, due to parental expectations for academic achievement, limited instructional time, and resource constraints, teachers often revert to traditional “drill-and-practice” methods using worksheets and teacher-directed instruction.

The study further argues that curriculum reforms in both countries are heavily influenced by Western constructivist theories but manifest in a hybrid form in practice. While teachers generally endorse child-centered developmental principles, they also retain cultural values emphasizing collectivity, order, and knowledge inheritance. This misalignment between intended, interpreted, and implemented curricula exemplifies the phenomenon of curriculum hybridization.

To address this, the authors propose the 3CAPs framework, which calls for the curriculum to be:

• Culturally Appropriate Practice: Sensitive to the child’s environment and local cultural values;
• Contextually Appropriate Practice: Aligned with regional educational policies and school resources;
• Child-Individually Appropriate Practice: Responsive to children’s experiences and individual differences.

The study emphasizes that no “global best practice” can be directly transplanted without considering cultural and contextual realities. Curriculum policymaking and implementation must navigate the tensions among national cultural traditions, regional educational ecosystems, and children’s diverse needs.

This research fills a gap in comparative studies of early childhood curriculum in East Asia and provides a theoretical tool for understanding “glocalization” in education. Following its publication, the article has been cited by two UNESCO policy reports: 

• Towards a Typology of Curriculum Policy Approaches by UNESCO’s International Bureau of Education (IBE); 
• A Review of Challenges and Opportunities in Inclusive Leadership in Central and Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia by the Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report team.

As the authors note in the article: “However, the perceived curriculum has been heavily influenced by indigenous values and contextual realities.”

This study offers a cultural lens to understand the complexity of curriculum reform and positions Chinese scholarship as a contributor to global educational governance.

Reference
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311221092036