IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v93y2018icp365-377.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is whole-day kindergarten better than half-day kindergarten? A mixed methods study of Chinese educators' perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Lau, Michelle Marie
  • Li, Hui

Abstract

Decades of research in the West cannot determine whether the whole-day or half-day kindergarten program is more beneficial to children's development. In Hong Kong, despite strong public demand for the whole-day program, mixed research findings have led the government to support the half-day program only. As a supplement to a large-scale 2-year longitudinal study, this mixed methods study adopted Donabedian's (2003) approach to explore this complex social-educational issue with reference to Hong Kong-Chinese educators' perceptions of the whole-day kindergarten program. The authors surveyed 180 kindergarten educators from 15 randomly sampled kindergartens and conducted interviews with 30 of these educators one year later. The results showed that the whole-day program allowed for structural, curricular, and pedagogical improvement, enhanced children's development, and eased families' childcare concerns. The disadvantages, however, were reduced parent–child time and heavier tuition fees. The findings imply that no “best” program exists, only a better program “fit.” Program selection should reflect family preferences and needs while ensuring high-quality learning opportunities and active parental involvement. The whole-day program is recommended for families that lack a stimulating home environment and childcare resources; the half-day program might be a better fit for financially able families with adequate childcare resources. The authors argue that the supply and affordability of the free whole-day program should better match the needs of families.

Suggested Citation

  • Lau, Michelle Marie & Li, Hui, 2018. "Is whole-day kindergarten better than half-day kindergarten? A mixed methods study of Chinese educators' perceptions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 365-377.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:93:y:2018:i:c:p:365-377
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740918302172
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:mpr:mprres:4675 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Elliott, Leanne & Bachman, Heather J., 2018. "Parents' educational beliefs and children's early academics: Examining the role of SES," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 11-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lau, Michelle Marie & Li, Hui, 2019. "Whole-day or half-day kindergarten? Chinese parents' perceptions, needs, and decisions in a privatised marketplace," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Xie, Sha & Li, Hui, 2018. "Perspectives on readiness for preschool: A mixed-methods study of Chinese parents, teachers, and principals," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 19-31.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pan, Yuejuan & Yang, Qingqing & Li, Yanfang & Liu, Lisha & Liu, Shanshan, 2018. "Effects of family socioeconomic status on home math activities in urban China: The role of parental beliefs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 60-68.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:93:y:2018:i:c:p:365-377. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.