My Visits to Early Childhood Centres – 16 May 2008

My Visits to Early Childhood Centres – 16 May 2008

I am still somewhat hesitant to write about my experiences of visiting early childhood centres here in Binh Dinh because I feel so aware of the limitations of my knowledge and the impediments (internal and external) to my perceptions. I have now visited seven services, one in the city and the rest in the countryside including some in remote hill areas. The majority of these have been half day kindergartens with 15 – 25 children and one teacher. All have been state run services. There are also private kindergartens and preschools in Viet Nam.

Each visit has been a formal, pre-arranged occasion that includes not only me and my interpreter Binh but also a significant number of early childhood and local commune officials. I am very aware of the pressure that this puts on the teachers being observed. Each time I stay for approximately an hour watching either a formal teaching period or a pre-planned activity period followed by a discussion with the teacher, local principal and the officials. The teachers provide me with an advance copy of their lesson plan, which I make notes about while Binh orally translates it.

The lessons are based on a topic and subject that is directed centrally. During the lessons that I have observed the plan is strictly followed so, although I am unable to understand the words, I can follow exactly what is being covered at any time. The current topic being taught is “The Primary School” in preparation for the transition of the older children to school following their summer break from June to September. The subjects have varied a little but usually include recognition of the teachings of Uncle Ho, reading, writing skills, maths and/or social expectations at kindergarten and school. These are taught through a range of methods described as “integrated”.

In the formal teaching periods the children the session begins with the children sitting on the floor or chairs while the teacher, at the front leads them through a series of songs and activities. This usually involves the teacher a using a pointer to draw the children’s attention to posters or charts.

When focused on literacy the children, collectively, in small groups and singularly, rhythmically chant a poem or sing a song, often while the teacher points at the words on the chart. The same poem or song may be repeated a dozen times or more during this time. During this time the teacher pauses to ask the children preplanned questions about the content of the song or poem. The questions are invariably closed and designed to illicit correct answers. Included in the session are exhortations from the teacher about socially appropriate behavior in the kindergarten and school. Some teachers change methods, including some physical movement, during the period, while others are quite static. In most of my visits the children appear to be already very familiar with the chosen song or poem and are able to repeat it in its entirety (approximately 12 lines) perfectly. In some centres the period concludes with a well rehearsed, choreographed performance. The sessions focused on mathematics follow a similar format. Many of the children are able to demonstrate familiarity with numerals and can do calculations more complex than those normally seen in New Zealand. Prior to singing together at the conclusion of the teaching period the teacher identifies the children who have been particularly good.

The activity periods that I have observed are also preplanned. They also begin with a formal mat period before the children move to a play area. They appear to be able to chose between the activities available but having chosen, they are usually given a number to wear around their necks and are expected to stay in that area for the remainder if the activity period. When they first arrive in the area they may be expected to select a child to be the leader. There are usually three or four areas. Each of the areas is “integrated” with the current topic. Commonly these areas during my observations have been:

Construction – using fences, small trees, flowers, people and buildings, (usually made of foam plastic or sometimes cardboard), the children construct a model of the school grounds. The teacher joins them, often correcting misplaced items, and later using a pointer, she, or one of the children explain the layout to other children. The construction activity is almost always done by boys.

Role Play – there are usually two areas set up. In one, a primary school class, the child who is the leader plays the role of teacher, imitating the actions of the kindergarten teacher with a group of children. The second area is set up as a shop selling school equipment such as pencils and books.

Art – the children partake in a structured art activity such as coloring in or gluing. The subject of the coloring in is related to the topic – eg a lotus, symbol of Uncle Ho, or an illustration of a school. The children are usually required to use designated colors and are expected to complete their work neatly. When gluing the children use precut materials and are required to follow a specific pattern.

One kindergarten had a small sand tray, some have had a few children’s books and there are usually one or two dolls and a plastic truck.

After working at the play activity for approximately 30 minutes the children participate in packing the equipment away before returning to the group for a finishing song. I have not seen teachers participating in play with the children or children engaged in any form of “free” play during my observation periods.

The physical environment has varied considerably between the different centres I have visited. Some are very old buildings with very little equipment while others are more modern, have slightly more equipment and sometimes an outside play area.

The centres in the remote areas are servicing families and communities with very few financial resources. The children are from ethnic communities where their mother tongue is not Vietnamese.

Reflecting on what I have seen during these visits is challenging. I want to avoid taking a position that focuses on difference and deficits. I want to focus on commonalities, strengths and the cultural relevance of the programmes but this position is difficult to maintain. Clearly I understand the importance of the ece programme responding to the cultures, aspirations and needs of the families. Intellectually I understand some of the reasons why preparation for academic success is considered so vitally important but I find it difficult to appreciate an approach that seems to offer very few, if any, opportunities to learn through child initiated play, creativity, exploration and problem solving. I have also been made aware that, while I have been distressed by what I have seen as extreme poverty in one or two of the centres, others, including Binh, see a great deal of progress from earlier years.

The majority of teachers here, just like ece teachers in NZ, appear to genuinely care about the work they are doing with children. In their presentations in the teacher competitions I attended they spoke of things such as the importance of learning through play and the value of balancing child initiated play with adult directed activities but this has not been reflected in the practice that I have observed so far. It seems to me that while we sue some similar terms to describe our pedagogical positions (child initiated, imagination, play) the perceived or intended meaning of these words may be very different. It is very difficult to discuss given that they do not know me and we need to work through an interpreter. The discussions that I have attempted to have at the end of each visit have not yet been successful in gaining any real insight into the teachers’ philosophies or professional development needs.

I still do not have a clear perception of my role here. I am engaged to support the development of quality in the teaching but I am not at all sure how I will contribute to this. At this stage it seems that the underlying philosophy about the process of teaching and learning with young children is fundamentally different from the one that I have been enculturated into in New Zealand. I am not sure how to draw from my knowledge and beliefs to work with the local early childhood specialists to support the development of teachers in this setting. I am not even sure if it is appropriate to try to! I have so much more that I need to learn before I can even begin to make any decisions or recommendations. I do hope that during my year here I am able to contribute something that is worthwhile.

I am going to Hanoi tomorrow for a week to meet people in the early Childhood Department in Ministry of Education, NZAID and people who work for other NGO’s (Unicef, Save the Children etc) that are involved in early childhood education in other parts of Viet Nam. The process of putting together this week has been a huge learning experience in itself. At this stage I am not at all certain that I will have an interpreter for the meetings with people who speak only Vietnamese. Given that my skills are still limited to a few pathetic phrases, (hello, thank you and I’m sorry etc), they could be pretty short meetings! The frustration of trying to negotiate unfamiliar systems to develop a worthwhile week of meetings has almost got the better of me at times but I am trying hard to “go with the flow”.

I anticipated before I came that I would learn far more than I would teach during this year – after 3 weeks I am even more certain that this is true.