返校读书的原因，过去这一年主要在以英文写作，公号这边就被严重搁置了，很惭愧。
还是简单汇报下近况哈。
首先是工作方面的新变动。今年5月份我接了母校奥克兰大学的offer，开始在Epsom校区教育学院边工作边读硕；很喜欢这个校区的大环境，有归属感，让人内心清净。暂停了Rootsculture的新项目，因为想要利用博士阶段进行一些数据采集，所以会结合拿到的一手数据重新做一波计划。
再来是读书。10月份刚刚结束了硕士阶段的理论课程部分，成绩我想应该可以够日后申请奖学金。目前就只剩下研究论文，计划拆分成硕士和博士两个阶段，这个心路，我以journal entry的形式写在了下面。
个人方面，10月底在大雨和生理期的二重奏中完成了人生的第一个全马，4小时17分，虽然手表显示累计爬升了290米，但幸运全程没有撞墙感，没有抽筋，还是相对轻松和享受的。照片和当天的战略记录我分享在了小红书账号(SophieJing)。冲过终点时，真的很想抱一抱自己，感谢过往坚持来的每日10公里，让今天的Sophie站在这里。
另外，开始准备薇儿6岁的信。
以下，是这篇公号的正体部分，也是我的第一篇英文学术笔记。没有华丽的用词。它们忠实记录了这半年来我在学术路上的疑问、反思和思考方向的变化。放在这里留给自己，也留给未来的薇儿。相信会是有意义的记录。
What can a mother do if she is not satisfied with the overseas Chinese heritage educational environment? She could - relocate back to campus as a master then doctoral student, with a determined but open mind to learn, explore and conduct research, and eventually down to earth with findings to change that environment. It's not an easy journey, but it will be even more difficult if doesn't do.
I am that mum. Below are my four journal-type entries that address 'why', 'how', and where I am now. I like to use writing to record my thinking, not because of the habit developed as a book writer, but also because I want them as a record for my little girl, telling her - one day, if you are disappointed with your micro-ecosystem, instead of anxiety, you always have a choice to do something different. Once you kick off your journey, it is always fascinating to see how your thoughts are unpacked, developed, and re-packed. During this wonderful but boring time, you question the world and even yourself. Your brain criticizes but your heart encourages you to follow the flow. Whatever you experienced, in the end, you will be led to the truth, and find you are always enjoying this journey.
Journal Entry 1 - two WHYs drive me to my research. August 2022
The first why happened at 5 am, 7 July 2021, when my alarm clock woke me up, and I sat in bed with an interesting idea: “Why can’t we introduce project-based learning (PBL) into a Chinese heritage classroom?” I can’t stop thinking of this question from that day. It is the first idea that drove me into the education field, not only as a mum of 5 years old schoolgirl but also as a Chinese immigrant from who project-based learning benefited during my bachelor time.
As a Chinese mum living in New Zealand, it’s easy to feel anxiety when chatting with other mums about children’s Chinese heritage learning topics. A familiar feeling was like, “it is hard to find a qualified heritage institution!” or “it is hard to maintain their interest in it.” I had similar anxiety as those mums then, but when I asked myself, “is there anything I can do about it?” I started a different journey.
My first time trying something different was last year. I designed a project to support my four years old daughter Hathaway in getting insights on Chinese color-related words and poetry. To make the project more interesting, I set up an entry question like this: if you were a young poet from China, what kind of color would you like to use in your poetry for describing our community? She was excited about how she could express her emotion by using different colors, and she also felt joy when she was successfully creating and naming a color on her own. During this learning, I also provided her with two Chinese color-related poetries which she was able to connect her emotion with the poet across time and space. That project achieved a high quality from a mother’s eye as Hathaway not only captured the target words correctly (both in speaking and writing) but also built entry knowledge about the basic structure and spiritual meaning poetry carries. The best evidence was that she could use her knowledge to create her own poetry to describe the community we lived with.
That experience showed me the possibility of changing traditional heritage teaching into a more proactive form. I searched relevant literature on google, trying to find some clues about the learning model I used for Hathaway. From that search, I entered the world of PBL - “an active student-centred form of instruction which is characterised by students’ autonomy, constructive investigations, goal-setting, collaboration, communication and reflection within real-world practices,” as summarized by Kokotsaki et al. (2016), and after a long night of brain-burning, I woke up with that WHY. It drove me into Education, where I found there was a research gap about implementing PBL in a heritage language classroom in New Zealand. I expected to conduct this research and collect first-hand social scientific data to fill this gap. Although the study had not started, the overall direction was clear - I needed to unpack the massive goal into several small steps or, say, a more focused field.
With that demand, I chose Educational Psychology as my first postgraduate course and obtained excellent knowledge about the term Intrinsic Motivation and Global Childhood. I did some fantastic literature reviews on the historical view of childhood and the Anji Play in China, an interesting student-centered real-world practice. After those readings, I chose intrinsic motivation as my assessment tool in the research. I believe the research methodology course will further develop my critical thinking ability on this topic.
The second WHY happened on the 6 August, Elizabeth Rata’s second lecture – thinking about your research, EDPROFST754. This lecture helped since it reminded me to consider a more critical but essential question - what if I found the research finding is against my personal belief? And again, this challengeable question, as a drive, sharply pointed back to the very origin- why do I want to conduct this research?
In Lecture 1 – Introduction to the research, I corrected my understanding of the meaning of hypothesis – hypothesis of the problem, not the study –and used this knowledge to update the working title, problem and hypothesis accordingly as below:
Work topic: implementing project-based learning in Chinese heritage language class.
Problem: young Chinese immigrants who attend heritage language classes show low intrinsic motivation for their heritage language in New Zealand
Hypothesis: The learning pedagogies used by heritage language teachers are limited by traditional thinking
I also gained insights on how to connect the topic, aim, and research questions, and tried to identity them as below:
Aim of study: The aim is to examine the impact of project-based learning on Chinese heritage education.
Research question: Can project-based learning foster the intrinsic motivation of young Chinese immigrants in their heritage language study?
So far, I have started my research and look forward to gaining more insights on what method I can use to collect the data. With that curiosity, a question came to me from Lecture 2: Are you prepared for findings that are the opposite of what you believe?
It was the moment I started a refreshment. A mini-me sat on my shoulder and chatted to myself: “I believe PBL can promote Chinese learning motivation. However, I never think of ‘what if’ – if the finding is the opposite, how will you deal with that? Will you lose your interest in this field?”
My answer is no. I won’t lose interest. On the one hand, those uncertainties make my topic worth researching. On the other hand, it can provide evidence to researchers and teachers who are interested in the heritage language topic by indicating which part works and which doesn’t. It will call for heritage educators to conduct in-depth research in the future. From this perspective, I found my passion for conducting this research is not only because it benefits Chinese immigrants but also because it can provide empirical support for immigrants from other cultures in New Zealand.
After sorting these concerns, my next step is to find evidence to support my problem and hypothesis about the problem.
Reference
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving schools, 19(3), 267-277.
Journal Entry 2 – category literature by purpose and link theory to data,September 2022
Before starting my in-depth literature review, I decided to categorize the literature by purpose. The category helped me build a mind map on which literature can contribute to which research component, for example, is it the evidence to support my research problem? Or is it the hypothesis of the problem? I believe those categories will link the literature into a logical pattern and make my research rationale valid and solid. Below is the initial list of how I categorized my literature, followed by the potential data/sources in support of this category:
In the context of discovery
-images of Chinese immigrants and Chinese language education in New Zealand – general trends of the Chinese population from post-1980s to 2022 and the number of primary school-aged immigrants who registered Chinese as their first identity.
-the history, development, and aims of Chinese heritage language education over time in New Zealand – historical reviews.
-views from Chinese parents who want to maintain their children’s heritage language and culture – way of maintenance, for instance, heritage language school or family language policy.
-the attitudes of young Chinese immigrants towards the heritage language study if they enroll in heritage language class – draw on studies/surveys that other researchers have done.
In the context of justification
-empirical data support for the ‘unfit’ learning approach used by current heritage language class – literature focused on the school setup, management, teaching approach they used, and theorizing Self-Determination Theory (SDT), micro and macro learning approach.
-theoretical and empirical support of Project-based learning – focus on the implementation in the field of language and heritage language class, and its achievements and limitations/requirements.
-assessment method used in examining learning engagement and sustainable interest -literature about Intrinsic Motivation (IM)
This list helped me quickly source my target literature and guided a focused reading on the most relevant components within each selected literature. When finishing my first-round reading, I realized I needed to get the below questions re-thought:
How do I identify young Chinese immigrants in New Zealand?
There is no quantitative research on how many Chinese immigrants hold a negative attitude towards their heritage language class in New Zealand. The only literature I can find is in the context of the US. Can I use this finding as evidence to support the research problem? If the answer is no, do I need to conduct a survey of these targeting students and get the ‘kick-off’ data before the research starts? Or can the survey be seen as part of my formal research?
Louise Zame has challenged inquiring learning because one of her findings suggests that “The conceptual knowledge must be taught through explicit instruction.” As inquiring learning is one of the main features in PBL and conceptual knowledge also takes a dominant role in Chinese language learning, I start to think about how I should prepare for that. Should I keep conducting a pure PBL approach in my research, or should I use a collaborative learning approach, say traditional learning, as an occasional assist? If so, do I need to change my research topic from PBL to a mixed project-based learning framework?
For question 1, I started considering how I would identify Chinese students, mainly if they report multiple ethnic identities. As Callister, P. (2011) pointed out: “Some Chinese have been in New Zealand for multiple generations. Others, over the course of an extensive Chinese diaspora, have migrated here from a variety of countries, including Malaysia and Botswana…. They may also identify with ‘hybrid’ categories such as Chinese-Māori.”
The clarification of Chinese is essential as it affects the consistency of narratives and the accuracy of data collection. So far, I have put the students who registered Chinese as their first ethnic identity in New Zealand primary schools as my target participants. I will consult this screening further with my supervisor in the next couple of weeks.
For question 2, I decided to do more readings on Chinese heritage education in New Zealand. This time, I will focus on relevant news articles published in recent years to discuss the young Chinese immigrants’ attitudes toward their heritage learning. These data can be used as evidence to support the research problem.
For question 3, I firmly intend to use a mixed project-based learning approach, where mix means that teachers can provide on-time instruction or explanation to their students whenever the conceptional knowledge occurs during teaching. I will continue to read literature on both instructional and project-based learning approaches and investigate how those two approaches could be balanced and combined into my research.
The self-dialogues are helpful as they gave me a second chance to narrow down my massive thinking further and point out the critical area I should pay attention. So far, my next step reading will focus on:
Evidence from news/reports shows young Chinese immigrants’ attitudes toward heritage learning.
The research investigated the development of Chinese heritage education in New Zealand over the past 50-80 years, especially the present patterns. For instance, how many New Zealand Chinese institutions teach heritage language and culture? How do these institutions set up their aims? What kind of teaching styles do they have?
The research examined the instructional learning approach.
I look forward to spending some quality time on above next week.
Reference
Callister, P. (2011). The construction of ethnicity and 'belonging' in New Zealand: Where we have come from and where we might be going. Journal of New Zealand Studies, (10), 115-137.
Journal entry 3 – a research gap that pushes me to re-build my master research, September 2022
This week I have found one markable literature, seventy years of Chinese language education in New Zealand. It was written by Dr. Danping Wang, a present lecturer in Asian Studies from the faculty of arts, University of Auckland. In her research, a transdisciplinary perspective on Chinese language teaching and learning in New Zealand is first time presented.
Undoubtedly, this literature helps me understand how Chinese heritage education maps out its teaching purpose and learning objectives over the past decades. When working on the news articles to collect the young immigrants' attitudes towards their heritage study, those historical views provide me solid standing points to better understand different perspectives held by young immigrants in this time and this space.
In Wang's study, key milestones and multilevel factors that shaped the development of Chinese as both heritage and additional language in New Zealand have been discussed. Overall, she used the transdisciplinary framework (Douglas Fir Group, 2016) as the theory support to demonstrate how macro and meso factors, such as immigration policy, demographic shifts, eco-political backgrounds, school management, and funding, affected Chinese language education development. She also separated Chinese language teaching and learning into two parts- heritage and additional language.
In discussing Chinese as a heritage language, she reviewed the key millstones from 1950 to 2020 and roughly divided Chinese language education into three periods.
On October 1950, the New Zealand Chinese Growers Monthly Journal published the first Chinese lesson (Stanbridge, 1990), which marked the beginning of the first period (1950-1987). This lesson was designed to preserve Chinese literacy skills and identities for Chinese children in New Zealand, easing assimilation's impact on new immigrants (Fong, 1959). There has been fluctuating interest in preserving Chinese heritage in Chinese communities, and Chinese learning has waned over time.
A new immigration policy introduced in New Zealand in 1987 resulted in the "Asian Influx" that accelerated the second stage (1987–2008). Children of immigrants are offered Chinese language and culture courses at many Chinese community schools (Lin, 1997). However, it appears that Chinese New Zealanders were less enthusiastic than anticipated about learning their heritage language during this period, as Sun (1999) demonstrated. Data from Roberts' (1991) survey also indicates that "resistance to learning Chinese was an existing issue within the Chinese community." Ngan (1987) explained that "Mandarin was seen as the language of the communists". This political image might have had a subtle but sophisticated effect on people's interest in learning Chinese.
In the third stage (2008–present), Chinese immigrants' attitudes toward heritage language learning and the language policies they follow regarding which language to learn and use on occasion are more individualized. As Chinese community schools flourished, their methods for engaging Chinese immigrants in Chinese learning were questioned. Therefore, Wang points out the current research gap at the end of the section:
"How many private Chinese language education providers are there in the community, how these community schools set their roles and goals in promoting Chinese learning in New Zealand, and how do they teach Chinese as a heritage language are all important research topics that require further investigation."
I felt a strong inner calling as I read this part. Some considerations came to my mind:
First, as Akoorie et al. (2011) claimed, there was unorganized management and operational style in Chinese community schools, as well as a lack of basic knowledge of the principles and concepts of effective administration. Compared to tutorial schools in China, these schools in New Zealand have similar educational goals and teaching approaches. I am keen to know how, with ten years passing by, Chinese heritage education has set its teaching goals in today's world. How do they understand heritage education? Is it a sore heritage language school or integrated with heritage culture? Which contributing factors affect most when they set up their goals? Is the goal from the Micro- (e.g., the literacy skills) or Macro- (e.g., social-political environment) level? How do Chinese institutions define the achievement in Chinese heritage learning? What management style do they have to achieve their goals?
Second, as Wang pointed out, Chinese parents seem to have different priorities and attitudes toward their children's heritage learning. However, no sufficient in-depth data shows how heritage education (from both language and cultural views) is understood, valued, and practiced by Chinese immigrant parents of primary school-aged children in New Zealand.
I have a strong desire to get the above questions answered. From one layer, this desire comes from my experience as an immigrant teenager in 2019. High-quality heritage learning to me at that time means to include both language and culture teaching. It also means going beyond micro-levels and reaching the self-being level, for instance, psychological well-being. At this level, I can feel a strong connection between myself and my cultural roots. I know who I am as both Chinese with historical views and a proactive global citizen with worldviews. On the other layer, as for my kid, I expect heritage learning could build up her world value and co-shape the way she thinks. I hope she can involve her heritage culture and New Zealand's culture. This integration will allow her to understand other's cultures and gain empathy. Help her think not only heretically but also creatively as she will bring her heritage knowledge to New Zealand school, practice its value, and adjust whenever she needs it.
I appreciate that I have had a chance to read Wang's study. Her unpacking analysis and discussion are hugely helpful since it gives me a second chance to re-think and redesign my current research plan in the Master phase. My next step is to do more readings on heritage education and consolidate my existing knowledge into a logical conclusion.
Reference
Akoorie, M. E., Ding, Q., & Li, Y. (2011). A passion for learning Chinese? Investigating a community‐based Chinese cultural education school in Hamilton, New Zealand. Chinese Management Studies.
Wang, D. (2021). Seventy years of Chinese language education in New Zealand: A transdisciplinary overview. Frontiers of L2 Chinese Language Education, 170-184.
Journal Entry 4 – research plan in long-term and short-term, October 2022
Another good literature I read this week is written by Yan al et. (2020), titled "cultural competence: part I of the 5Cs framework for twenty-first century key competences". As per the research, 5C stands for critical thinking, creativity, communication, collaboration, and cultural competence, and these 5Cs have been defined in 21st century skills. In the paper, an in-depth explanation of the definition of the fifth C - cultural competence was provided by splitting it into cultural understanding and inheritance competence. It points out that cultural understanding is the foundation, and culture can only be inherited, innovated, and developed through understanding. This paper also discusses cultural competence from systematic curriculum design, comprehensive integration into disciplines, carrying out activities in a rich context, and fostering cultural awareness.
I agree with the definition of 5C and how it unpacks cultural competence (from an understanding, inheritance, innovation to development). I think this concept and the way of leveling could also be the primary reference for my study when discussing the goals of heritage culture in Chinese heritage education.
So far, I have decided to split my research into two parts and allocate each to my Master's and Doctoral programs. For my first part – Master research, I am willing to investigate how heritage education is understood, valued, and practiced by Chinese heritage institutions and Chinese immigrants parents of primary school-aged children in New Zealand.
As per the interview findings from Ng et al. in 2016, students decided to stop Chinese learning after Year 8 when taking the secondary curriculum options, current Chinese level, and NCEA requirements into account. It has been revealed that teachers, school directors, and parents complain about students' low motivation and inability to sustain learning. Some data from the 2013 New Zealand census support the low engagement as well - no more than 4000 students are learning Chinese through community schools or afterschool programs in Auckland, while 20,549 students under 15 live in Auckland. "…new immigrants' children would lose their mother tongue if their parents did not insist on sending them to community schools nor teach them Chinese at home. This inevitable reality had not only happened to Chinese migrants but also other ethnic groups," as pointed out by a school principal.
I agree above argument that children would lose their connection with heritage roots if they were not provided the opportunities to learn. However, I question that if parents and community heritage schools have a sore competency-driven instrumentalist view of Chinese heritage education and use a chaotic parenting or management approach, it will further decrease students' motivation in their heritage study. The concept of cultural competence in the 5Cs model suggests that the heritage education provider should open its vision and set up its goals that consider the immigrants' identity and long-term competence. They should shift their perspectives from a sore literacy service provider (e.g., listening, speaking, reading, and writing) to a heritage language and culture influencer to assist immigrants in recognizing the essential part of heritage language and culture. Moreover, heritage institutions could prepare for a change in educational practice, which enables heritage learners:
To use heritage view to observe the real world. To use heritage thinking to think of the real world. And to use heritage language to express the real world.
These core competencies value heritage education in a long-term vision. They will provide Chinese immigrants with a flourishing foundation to develop strategies that better integrate multi-cultures and identities in the future.
Therefore, it is essential to conduct an in-depth study about parents' and education providers' attitudes toward Chinese heritage education in New Zealand context at this time.
My Master's study will focus on parental and institutional views on language and culture in heritage education. As per Kramsch (2019), the goal of language teaching should be "bring about peace and mutual understanding rather than for enhancing one's status among the national elites or for gaining a competitive edge in the global market." I will use this idea and the concept of cultural competence – 5C model as my support. I hope it can provide valuable data for New Zealand parenting and curriculum and pedagogy research programs.
In the second part, I want to go further based on my previous study outcomes - introduce the integrated learning framework – a combination of instructional learning and project-based learning approach – into the heritage classroom in my doctoral research.
I will continually draw on cultural competency as it mentions that developing cultural understanding and inheritance competence is a systematic project. It relies on the top-down curriculum design at a macro level (e.g., nation) and educational practice at the meso level (e.g., school). Wu and So (2020) also pointed out that using regional curriculum resources, social practices, and project-based learning are effective ways to cultivate students' sense of belonging.
By piloting the efficiency of an integrated learning framework, I will find out to what extent this new learning approach could foster students' intrinsic motivation (Constructivist learning theory, self-determination theory) and enhance the heritage learning outcomes.
Back to the motivation for my first part, today's parental and institutional views on heritage learning goals will be one of my real-world standing points to discuss and kick off my doctoral research in the next phase. Considering the Master's timeline and thesis word limit, I will conduct a case study in Hobsonville, Auckland, by setting up serval interviews with Chinese parents who live in zoom. I will also interview the community heritage school's principal and teachers to get their opinions.
At this stage, I feel motivated and accomplished. I will continually work on the literature review and use the knowledge gained from Lecture 5 – connect theory to data, to make my argumentation more scientific.
Reference
Kramsch, C. (2019). Between globalization and decolonization: Foreign languages in the cross-fire. In Decolonizing foreign language education (pp. 50-72). Routledge.
Ng, P., Ho, W. C., Tsun, A., & Young, D. K. (2016). Coping with bereavement of widows in the Chinese cultural context of Hong Kong. International Social Work, 59(1), 115-128.
Wu, Z., & So, V. W. (2020). Ethnic and national sense of belonging in Canadian society. International Migration, 58(2), 233-254. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12650
Yan L., Xiaoying M., Jian L., Rui W., Lihong M., Guanxing X., Cuiping K., & Qiuling G. (2020). Cultural Competence: Part I of the 5Cs Framework for Twenty-first Century Key Competences[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 38(2): 29-44. https//doi.org/10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.02.004
