Cultural Diversity Literature week 3 (Early childhood education and care), Universiteit Utrecht

Hoe je dit kan lezen:
Zwart: informatie of vragen vanuit de 'reading guide'
Blauw: mijn uitwerkingen op de vragen
Rood: aanvullingen op mijn uitwerkingen n.a.v. de werkgroep

Reading guide Cultural diversity 2021, week 3.
These week’s readings are about goals, practices and resources of parents and professionals from different cultural communities.

Huijbregts, S. J., Leseman, P. P. M., & Tavecchio, L.W.C. (2008). Cultural diversity in center-based childcare: Childrearing beliefs of professional caregivers from different cultural communities in the Netherlands. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 233-244. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.10.001

Huijbregts. The authors focus on the ideas of professional caregivers in daycare centers. Again, a standard summery is advised. The authors compare caregivers of different cultural communities in the Netherlands. How do the beliefs of caregivers relate to differences mentioned in the I-C model? And how do their beliefs relate to daily practices and goals of the center?

1. What is the main question?

First we investigate whether there are cultural differences in professional caregivers’ childrearing beliefs. Second, we investigate if caregivers’ childrearing beliefs are a typical ethnic/cultural phenomenon, or whether their beliefs are also determined by professional training and by the context of the daycare center, including years of experience and colleagues’ beliefs

2. In what way is the question answered?

The present study investigated the cultural childrearing beliefs of 116 caregivers from different cultural communities in the Netherlands (Dutch, Caribbean-Dutch, and Mediterranean-Dutch), working with 2–4-year-olds in daycare centers.

Cultural childrearing beliefs were assessed with standard questionnaires, focusing on general and daycare-specific individualistic and collectivistic childrearing beliefs

3. Which theories and key concepts are described?

Keywords: Daycare; Childrearing beliefs; Cultural differences; Individualism; Collectivism

Cultural belief systems on childrearing can be defined as a set of cognitions that parents and other caregivers personally hold about the nature of children and their development, and about their functioning in social groups, such as the peer group, the family, the community, and society at large. Belief systems include values and norms regarding children’s personal and social development, and specify appropriate strategies to socialize these values and norms (Harkness & Super, 1999; McGillicuddy-DeLisi & Subramanian, 1996). Following Harkness and Super (1999), we propose that the personal childrearing beliefs of caregivers basically stem from two sources: everyday personal experiences with childrearing in particular contexts, and socially shared cultural beliefs on childrearing within particular communities. Furthermore, we propose that these sources are dynamically interrelated

4. What are the main results and or conclusions?

Cultural differences were evident regarding general individualistic and collectivistic beliefs. Both immigrant groups agreed more with collectivistic ideas and less with individualistic ideas than Dutch caregivers. Regarding caregivers’ daycare-specific beliefs, much smaller cultural differences were found. This indicates consensus among caregivers from different ethnic/cultural backgrounds on core issues of childrearing in daycare settings. Results further showed that caregivers’ individualistic ideas were best predicted by their cultural community, whereas collectivistic ideas were also predicted by the diversity of caregivers’ close colleagues and their years of experience. These findings demonstrate that caregivers’ childrearing belief systems are in part determined through a prolonged socialization process by the belief systems of their cultural and religious communities, and in part by their professional experience and their colleagues. Discussing childrearing beliefs should therefore become customary both in daycare centers as in caregivers’ professional preparation, to make caregivers more aware of their own and their colleagues’ cultural beliefs. Once aware of their childrearing beliefs, caregivers can make a start in actively discussing pedagogical guidelines, in order to reach a shared approach to childrearing.

5. How is the article related to the theme of the week? The theme of the course? To lectures and other articles?

The theme of this week is early childhood education and care. This article relates to that as it investigates diversity in child rearing beliefs (based on cultural differences) in childcare centres. It relates tot he theme of the course because diversity is seen here as a kind of cause for different beliefs in child rearing and what the best way is to deal with that (met elkaar erover praten). 

Prevoo, M. J. L., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2017). Parenting and globalization in western countries: explaining differences in parent–child interactions. Current Opinion in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.003

Prevoo. The authors focus on parenting goals and practices of parents in different cultural communities. A standard summery as presented in the reading guide week 1 will cover most of the important aspects. Interesting is what the authors say about within group variation and what this means for the focus of their study. Furthermore, students should understand figure 3 and the components of the figure.

1. What is the main question?

Here, we illustrate how and why ethnic-minority parents might differ from majority parents in their interactions with young children.

2. In what way is the question answered?

We first consider cultural differences in parenting values, childrearing goals and availability of resources and then examine how these affect parental sensitivity, control and discipline, communication and engagement in learning activities. For each topic we provide examples from select ethnic-minority groups.

3. Which theories and key concepts are described?

Parenting values are the qualities that parents consider important to childrearing

Cultural context

Globalization

Parent-child interactions

Socialisation

4. What are the main results and or conclusions?

In times of growing globalization, many parents in Western countries face the challenge of raising their children in a cultural context that differs from the one they grew up in themselves. Figure 3 summarizes the processes we discussed as influencing parent–child interactions in ethnicminority families. Parents from different cultural backgrounds differ in their parenting values and childrearing goals and in their SES. These differences affect parenting practices and, in turn, child development. Most associations between parental sensitivity, control and discipline, communication and engagement in learning activities and children’s cognitive and social-emotional development generalize across cultures, although the type of parenting behavior or child outcomes for which a certain association is found may be culture-specific. Moreover, different parenting practices can sometimes result in the same child outcomes. In the context of between-group differences, there exists wide within-group variation that can partly be explained by stressors associated with low SES, acculturation and discrimination, and trauma. Future research could benefit from attention to within-group variation and factors such as individual characteristics of parents and children or involvement in parenting interventions that may explain this variation. The mechanisms that underlie parenting variations can serve as entry points for interventions to improve child development across cultures.

5. How is the article related to the theme of the week? The theme of the course? To lectures and other articles?

The theme of this week is early childhood education and care. This article relates to that as it focusses on the diffulties of child rearing in a globalized multicultural world. It is illustrated how and why ethnic-minority parents might differ from majority parents in their interactions with young children. This relates tot he theme of the course, as child rearing could be a consequence as well as cause of diversity.

Communicatiestijl. P. 35 parent child communication. In individualistische culturen wordt met kind gesproken terwijl in collectivistische culturen tegen kind spreken (dus kind niet zien als communicatieve partner op niveau). Voorbeeldje van communicatie verschillen.

Laat met name zien hoeveel within group variation die tabel. En wees bewust van verschillen binnen groepen. En 3 laat zien wat andere factoren zijn die kunnen bijdragen aan bijv. parent child interactions.

Rosenthal, M.K (2003). Quality in childhood education and care: a cultural context. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,11, 101-116 . doi: 10.1080/133502930385209191

Rosenthal uses the I-C model to describe differences in goals and practices of Early Child Education and Care. She criticizes the model, and values it because of it’s heuristic power. What does she mean by that? She presents in table 1 and table 2 valued educational beliefs and practices in relation to the I-C model. Students should try to understand them, not learn all of the differences by heart. It’s important to know the main conclusion. She presents interesting suggestions of how parents and professionals could reach an agreement on goals and practices.

1. What is the main question?

The paper examines valued educational goals (self-identity and motivation, social and emotional behavior and cognitive processes) and valued educational practices (children's learning environments, learning activities and educato~child interaction) in the context of "individualist" and "collectivist" cultural scripts. In conclusion the implications of this analysis for variations in the understanding of "quality" of ECEC in multi-cultural and rapidly changing societies are discussed
The main tenet of this paper is that our understanding of quality in ECEC, our valued educational goals and practices, are derived from the culturally-based developmental scripts characteristic of our cultural community. The paper discusses valued educational goals, as well as valued educational practices derived from the attributes associated with individualistic/independent and collectivist/interdependent cultural orientations.

1. • • How do individualist and collectivist cultural people value quality in ECEC differently?
2. In what way is the question answered?

-

3. Which theories and key concepts are described?

Keywords: Early childhood; Quality care and culture; Educational goals and practices; Individualism-collectivism.

Individualism, as well as the value of independence, is based on "rationality and reason" with a social structure anchored in "principles, rules and laws". Cultural communities with individualistic orientation stress values such as personal freedom, autonomy, privacy, curiosity, creativity and critical thinking, as well as self-determination, self fulfillment, personal happiness and uniqueness. They are founded on the assumption that unrelated individuals interact with one another through rational principles of equality, separateness and non-interference, and sharp boundaries are set between one individual and his or her fellow.

Collectivism, as well as the value of inter-dependence, refers to cultures with clear group identity and distinct boundaries between the in-group and others. Emphasis is placed on group affiliation and on "we-they" relations. In collectivist cultures, great import is placed on group harmony, solidarity, conformity, interdependence, sharing and concern for communal welfare, and less on the individual's self-fulfillment. Participation in group life and social knowledge (based on communal norms related to duties and one's role in the group) are considered more important than critical thinking or technological knowledge, which are at times considered a threat to traditional authority (Kim et al., 1994; Tobin, Wu, & Davidson, 1989).

4. What are the main results and or conclusions?

Conclusion All societies strive to educate their young towards adaptive and successful membership in their cultural communities. Given that human existence is essentially social in nature, all societies have to define their goal of successful membership in the community in reference to the relationship between the individual and the social group. This relationship may be characterised by various "modes" of social relations, some are more individualist and others more collectivist oriented (Kim, 1994). The culturally valued relationship between the individual and the social group is reflected in the valued educational goals and practices of any given cultural community. It, therefore, determines the definition of "quality" of ECEC by parents and educators in any given cultural community. Studies carried out in recent years indicate that the search for a universal model of quality Early Childhood Education and Care is both untenable and unhelpful. Yet one must also take care to avoid assuming an extreme position of cultural relativism. For although the concept of quality is related to culturally valued educational goals and practices, its definition is certainly not arbitrary. The real challenge of any discussion of quality in Early Childhood Education and Care lies in the exploration of that which is universal, common to all cultural communities, and that which is culture specific. Toward this end this paper proposes viewing valued educational goals and practices in ECEC in the context of the cultural scripts of a given society and its main cultural communities. It has been suggested that these scripts and their derivative valued educational goals and practices vary along the continuum ranging from Individualist, or Independence, oriented to Collectivist, or Interdependence, oriented. Most societies are comprised of a number of cultural communities that differ in religion, ethnicity, education, or social class. Each of these communities may have its own definition of valued educational goals and practices reflecting values closer to one end or another, one "mode" or another, of the Individualist-Collectivist dichotomy. Policy makers and designers of ECEC systems in any given society have to take these variations in valued goals and practices into consideration when designing educational policy rather than embrace, or enforce, a policy based on the values of a dominant cultural community in the society. Furthermore, as has been noted, societies and cultures are not static entities, but are continuously undergoing change over time. Regardless of whether this change is due to modernisation, political changes (e.g., Glasnost), economic changes (e.g., globalisation) or demographic changes (e.g., immigration or military strife), it is likely to lead to shifts in the society's value system. These shifts then lead to changes in society's valued educational goals and practices, which in turn affect one's understanding of what is "quality ECEC". Quality ECEC is a major concern to anyone involved in designing, or providing, educational services and programs for young children. It is also a major concern to parents. The different stakeholders in multicultural societies and in those undergoing eco-cultural changes are likely hold onto different cultural scripts and therefore, to differ in the educational goals and practices they value. It is therefore imperative that policy makers, early childhood professional s, and parents all articulate their valued educational goals and practices. Furthermore, the designers of ECEC systems must be aware of these changes and reconsider, or re-evaluate, their educational goals and valued practices accordingly. In cases where mutual agreement cannot be reached among the different stakeholders, one should consider the implications for children's development, and for society at large, of the conflicts that inevitably arise from discontinuity between the valued goals and practices of the education system and that of parents. For children to benefit from ECEC, such differences and disagreements should be openly discussed with the mutual intent of providing "quality ECE" which meets most of the values of most of the ECEC stakeholders. Alternatively, when a society can tolerate a pluralistic approach, educational policy makers and other stakeholders may decide to provide different ECEC settings designed to achieve different educational goals, using different educational practices for each of the cultural communities coexisting within a society. The ideas presented in this paper are proposed as a basis for discussion among the different stakeholders concerned with ECEC in any given society, but especially in multicultural societies and in those undergoing rapid socio-economic or cultural changes. It is especially meant as a basis for discussion among parents, educators, education system officials and policy makers. Such a discussion should acknowledge the fact that changes in valued educational goals and practices occur much slower than political and socio-economic changes (Hol[oway, 2000; Ispa, [994; RoerStrier & Rosenthal, 2001). Socio-cultural diversity and change have implications to variations in the understanding of "quality" of ECEC settings in the various cultural communities comprising any given society. These ought to be reflected in the way educational systems and organisations utilise their power in designing educational programs and services for young children and their families.

5. How is the article related to the theme of the week? The theme of the course? To lectures and other articles?

The theme of this week is early childhood education and care. This article relates to that as it talks about the cultural beliefs that shape goals for early choldhood education.

The article is related tot he article of Kagitcibasi as it uses the continuum ranging between dichotomous extremes, such as "collectivism" and "individualism", as a heuristic value in clarifying the thinking about "quality" in ECEC in different cultural contexts.

Alle drie de artikelen benadrukken dat IC model gebruikt kan worden om naar culturen te kijken, maar meer ook niet. Is glijdende schaal namelijk, I en C zijn opposities/uiteinden, maar daartussenin kan je heel veel variatie vinden. Op p105 heeft Rosenthal ook over co-existence. Veel meer kans dat je van beide perspectieven wat tegen komt.

Conclusie is interessant want daar geeft ze aanbevelingen als toch clasht qua opvattingen. Daar aandacht aan besteden!! Maar omwille tijd gaan we verder.