Guided with an integrated theoretical framework of textbook and ideology, this study compares two versions of Chinese history textbooks published by one publisher in two different publication systems which were enacted immediately before and soon after President Xi Jinping's 2012 ascendancy. Critical discourse analysis shows that, despite seeking to balance differ groups' histories, sharing a desire of consolidating the Communist Party of China's (CPC's) domination, and supposedly following curriculum standards made before 2012, the new version of textbooks greatly differed from the old version, reflected Xi's formal ideology and authority, and updated his informal ideology while following established guidelines for conveying historical materialism. This study concludes that knowledge in Chinese history textbooks serves the CPC's political needs, and especially reflects the-then top leader's efforts at consolidating Party dominance, signifying his power, and cultivating nationalism.
[Copyright of Compare-a Journal of Comparative and International Education is the property of Routledge.]

This study forms part of a wider comparative research project investigating the mechanisms and outcomes of school-based curriculum (SBC) development in kindergartens between the two neighbouring cities of Hong Kong and Shenzhen, under the umbrella of ‘one country, two systems’. This comparison will help to clarify how sociocultural contexts may affect early childhood curriculum (ECC) innovations by comparing the kindergartens of socialist and capitalist China. Data are presented from qualitative case studies of four kindergartens—two in each city—corresponding to the three levels of curriculum analysis and comparison: intended curriculum, implemented curriculum and curriculum ideology. Comparative analyses revealed that the SBCs of the four cases were different but all tended to balance and integrate diverse approaches in terms of curricular and pedagogical practices. The commonalities of SBCs in Hong Kong and Shenzhen kindergartens were due to shared cultural values, propelled by both ‘modernization’ and Chinese traditions, while the unique characteristics of SBC practices in each society were shaped by different social contexts. The educational philosophy of progressivism has greatly influenced ECC innovations in the Chinese kindergartens to varying degrees and in different ways. Implications of this comparative study are also presented for future research and practice.
[Copyright of Journal of Curriculum Studies is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1428367]

Studies of language issues in postcolonial Hong Kong are abundant. While the majority is concerned with the language policy and medium of instruction, there seems to be insufficient discussion on the subject matter of our English lessons, which, this paper argues, are ideology-ridden. Following the tradition of critical discourse analysis and ideological studies (see van Dijk, 2005; Luke, 1994), this study attempted to explore how a habitual form of communication, teacher talk in this case, was utilized as a vehicle for young children to "[learn] the taken-for-granted aspects of lived reality" (Hasan, 1996, p. 137), and what attributed to the creation, transmission and maintenance of this dominant culture/ideology in the society, resulting in narrowly-defined subject matter for the young children in the classrooms observed. The study started with a description of lexicosyntactic items in the teacher talk via a corpus approach, and moved to an interpretation/explanation of the linguistic texts in the light of the overall sociopolitical and cultural context in Hong Kong where the teacher talk was situated.
[Copyright of Critical Inquiry in Language Studies is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15427587clis032&3_6]

This paper examines the links between linguistic capital, cultural capital, linguistic imperialism and the use of English as the medium of instruction (MOI) in Hong Kong. It suggests that the notion of linguistic imperialism in Hong Kong, whilst useful for analysing practices in the early days of the colonial period, is superseded by the notion of linguistic capital, though neither presents a complete analysis of the MOI issue in Hong Kong. The paper suggests that a new version of linguistic imperialism in Hong Kong may be evidenced in examining the rise of Chinese-medium education and the spread of Putonghua in Hong Kong schools.
[Copyright of Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434630008666418]

The present study is an analysis of curriculum-related papers in primary education published by the education departments of New South Wales, Australia, and Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The aim is to unravel and contrast the ideological positions adopted by the two communities in their approaches to first language education so that common-sense beliefs and practices may be challenged. Analysis shows that the Australian school discourse system exhibits characteristics of progressivism, utilitarianism and reconstructionism whereas the Chinese system in Hong Kong displays combined elements of European classical humanism and Confucianism. It appears that the Australian system prefers flexibility, free choice, individual autonomy, student-centredness, and exploratory spirit, whereas the latter inclines towards uniformity, orderliness, harmony, language-centredness and discipline. The Australian emphasis in language education is social, functional and communicative, while the Chinese focus is on formal correctness and integration of language, morality and aesthetics. These different ideological inclinations are suggestive of similar orientations at the societal level and affect the discourse practices at the situational level of the classroom.
[Copyright of Language and Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500780208666832]