Learner‐centred pedagogy in Tibet: International education reform in a local context

Abstract

The paper explores the introduction in Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) of the new Chinese curriculum for basic education. In contrast to many previous initiatives since 1949 the present reform attempts to change not only what is taught, and by whom, but fundamental notions of how learning is best facilitated. The paper considers the connections between the reform and current directions in international education policy, and seeks to explore the ways in which the values inherent within this approach to teaching and learning relate to the practices that characterise Chinese/Tibetan classrooms. It is suggested that the meaning attributed to education at the local level shapes profoundly the types of cultural production that can emerge from it. International and national reform efforts must be and are always mediated through such understandings. In the case of Tibet, where often incompatible interests are at play, the impact of national level reform is unpredictable and uneven.

Acknowledgements

This paper has emerged from my ongoing development work in TAR aimed at supporting teacher development within the educational sector. The project is supported by the Danish Agency for Development Assistance (Danida) and has benefited enormously from the professional guidance and support of Dr. Jieying Xu from China North‐West Normal University. I am especially indebted to her for providing a working translation of the guidelines for the reform of the basic education curriculum as well as for numerous discussions about education policy and schooling in China.

Notes

1. This paper uses the term ‘Tibet’ interchangeably with its official designation of ‘Tibet Autonomous Region’. It is recognised that educational institutions in ‘Greater Tibet’ (i.e. which includes those areas of inland China with significant populations of ethnic Tibetans) are dealing with the same demands for reform but no attempt is made here to relate to these.

2. I am indebted to my colleague Ulla Ambrosius Madsen for our many discussions about the nature of the data presented here.