Bridging scholarly habitus and lifeworlds: Insights into educational structures and children’s experiences

Abstract

This article explores factors in children’s lifeworlds that influence academic success, focussing on schooling structures and policies in Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong. It provides context on early childhood education sectors in each location, highlighting formal learning experiences prior to primary school. By examining diverse educational policies and systems, the article fosters a deeper understanding of how children’s attitudes, dispositions, sense of belonging and educational success vary according to their scholarly habitus. It emphasises the range and variances within these systems and their potential impact on children’s academic engagement through the theoretical lens of Bourdieu. The findings contribute to childhood studies, shedding light on why students in different regions perform differently in high-stakes assessments. It underscores the connections between location, extracurricular activities, school engagement and scholarly habitus in shaping educational outcomes.

Introduction

It might be claimed that international assessments aim to provide insights into how students have reached their potential at a particular point in time and have achieved specific indicators of success within their educational system. However, the performance or academic outcomes of students’ global assessment results are not always critically examined. They are often taken most seriously by systems and governments to provide policymakers and educators with a way to determine if changes need to be made in the provision of education. It has also been noted that with increased global attention regarding students’ achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields, this emphasis has also resulted in efforts to close the academic gap between the high achievement and the lower performing countries (Geesa, Izci, Song & Chen, 2019).

To date, students’ differences in academic achievement across countries have been attributed to various factors, including the structure and content (curriculum) of the schooling system, the quality of teaching (Pak Tee; Ng, 2008), the availability of home resources (Smees and Sammons, 2017) and family and societal attitudes towards schooling (Bandura et al., 2001). This literature review aims to look beyond academic success as defined in high-stakes assessment, to present and discuss data which delves into children’s lifeworlds from their educational experience. It is contended that educational success cannot just be determined or viewed by academic performance in three curriculum areas in high-stakes assessment on a few days in selected years. Rather, it is imperative to consider children’s well-being, their sense of belonging and engagement with ideas and knowledge building and how they spend time with their families and community. Gaining information about these dimensions of children’s lifeworlds, including their performance in school, provides us with important information about how successful we are as a society in encouraging and supporting all children in realising their full potential.

An analysis of lifeworlds through the theoretical lens of Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus provides a deeper understanding of how children’s lived experiences shape their engagement with education. Bourdieu’s scholarly habitus refers to the dispositions, habits and ways of thinking that individuals develop through their social and cultural environments, which in turn influence their actions and perceptions (Bourdieu, 1990). This concept is particularly useful in understanding how children’s experiences within their family, community and broader social contexts shape their engagement with educational practices. By linking lifeworlds to habitus, one can examine how children’s subjective experiences – rooted in their social and cultural backgrounds – interact with the norms and expectations of formal education. Children from different socio-cultural backgrounds bring distinct sets of expectations, behaviours and ways of knowing to the classroom, which may either align with or challenge the dominant educational practices, potentially leading to diverse educational outcomes (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990). Contemporary childhood studies further support this perspective, highlighting the active role children play in their learning, shaped by both individual agency and the structural forces within their environment (Wood, 2013). For instance, research has demonstrated that children’s lifeworlds are significantly influenced by their cultural capital – such as language, values and social practices – which shapes their access to and interaction with educational content. Integrating Bourdieu’s scholarly habitus with lifeworlds thus offers a framework for understanding how children’s social and cultural contexts influence their learning and how educational systems may either support or marginalise their development. This theoretical integration underscores the importance of educational environments that recognise and accommodate the diverse lifeworlds that children bring, fostering more inclusive and equitable learning experiences (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990).

Part of the process in achieving this includes an interrogation and discussion of the systems in Australia (Melbourne) as compared with the systems in Singapore and Hong Kong. Accordingly, this article will outline the early childhood and schooling systems in each location.

Educational systems

Australia

Teacher quality

Discussions of teacher quality seem to permeate educational discourse on a regular basis. Educational success is viewed as being publicly desirable, and teachers are often held accountable for high-stakes assessment results that are viewed as a measure of the quality and effectiveness of their teaching. There seems to be a continued need for improvement and effectiveness in students’ engagements with schooling systems. In Australia, this accountability for teachers has increased since the introduction of the national curriculum, the implementation of the national assessment program for literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN) and the national accreditation process and prescription of teachers’ and principals’ standards (Thorpe and Lamb, 2019). The National Professional Standard has been created to guide principals in ‘raising student achievement at all levels and all stages’ (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited, 2017, p. 4). There are expectations that teachers and educators will undertake high-quality teaching that supports the individual needs of all children through a range of pedagogical approaches. The Education Declaration (Australian Government Department of Education, 2020) outlines two goals for young learners. These are as follows:

1) ‘The Australian education system promotes excellence and equity and;

2) All young Australians become confident and creative individuals, successful lifelong learners and actively informed members of the community’ (Australian Government Department of Education, 2020: p.4).

Early Childhood Education and Care

Australia’s early years education system strongly focuses on a play-based curriculum, which is highlighted in the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (Australian Government Department of Education for the Ministerial Council [DEMC], 2022). Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) is defined as a period from birth to 8 years of age. Play within these early years is considered central to, and highly valued in, quality pedagogical practice. To support children’s learning outcomes, play is considered one of the highest forms of learning in which a child can participate. The EYLF includes reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations General Assembly, 1989), that recognises a child’s right to play and be active in all matters that directly affect their lives. The EYLF further highlights that children’s learning is dynamic, complex and holistic and that play-based learning capitalises on children’s natural inclination to be curious, explore and learn. Children naturally draw on their emotions, critical thinking and motivations through their interactions during play, which strengthens their brain functioning (DEMC, 2022). While the EYLF does have a practice that encourages intentionality, this is regarded as being considerably different to the approach in Hong Kong and Singapore preschools. Within Australian preschools, intentional teaching is encouraged. The EYLF defines intentional teaching as when educators ‘are intentional in their roles they take in children’s play and the way they intentionally plan the environment and curriculum experiences’ (DEMC, 2022: p. 66). It is viewed as a way for educators to encourage opportunities for children to learn as they investigate, construct, invent and imagine. Further, it encourages educators to ‘plan and create indoor and outdoor environments that promote and support different types of play for children’s active engagement, agency, problem-solving, curiosity, creativity and exploration’ (DEMC, 2022: p.22).

Primary schooling and curriculum

Once children reach formal schooling in Australia, they enter what is referred to as a 7-6 system, which includes 7 years of primary school from foundation to year 6 and 6 years of secondary education from year 7 to year 12. The Department of Education and Training (DET) provides funding for the educational needs of students in Australia. The Federal Government devolved funding to states who share responsibility for school operations. This means that state and territory governments are individually responsible for providing school education. Students aged 5 (on average) to 16 years access compulsory education in primary and secondary school settings. The Department of Education has stated that the ‘Australian Government is committed to ensuring that all Australian students have high-quality school education’ (ACARA, 2015, np) and highlights that its purpose is ‘to help all young Australians to become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens’ (ACARA, 2015, np). The Australian Curriculum does not focus on individual years to provide inclusive education for all children and their abilities; instead, it is a progression of learning from Foundation to Year 10 and separate for Years 11–12. Therefore, the emphasis is not on students’ year level but on their individual ability to function across levels that are banded together. This makes it clear and concise to teachers, parents, students and the broader community what is being taught, and the quality of learning that young children will be engaged in as they move through school (ACARA, 2015).

The National Australian Curriculum has a three-dimensional design that recognises the ‘importance of disciplinary knowledge, skills and understanding, while also incorporating general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities’ (ACARA, 2015, np).

Curriculum learning areas

The disciplinary knowledge, skills and understanding are described in eight learning areas within the Australian Curriculum (English, Mathematics, Science, Health and Physical Education, Humanities and Social Science, The Arts, Technologies and Languages) (ACARA, 2015).

The documentation states that the study of English is vital to the education of all young Australians. It is contended that the teaching of English supports children to be confident communicators throughout their lives, to become imaginative thinkers and informed citizens. It is noted that through the study of English, students become more confident in their ability to analyse, understand, communicate and build a relationship with their peers, families and the wider community. Further, being confident and competent in English enables students to develop their ‘reading and literacy skills to support students in enhancing their knowledge and skills required throughout their education, training, and future workplaces. It helps them become ethical, thoughtful, and informed active members of society’ (ACARA, 2015, np). As highlighted by Lowien (2022), it is imperative that teachers are confident with teaching the English curriculum and they continue to develop their capacity to teach the curriculum.

In the Australian Curriculum, it is stated that mathematics enables students to engage with essential mathematical skills and knowledge required for lifelong learning. These conceptual areas include Number, Algebra, Measurement and Geometry, and Statistics and Probability. They are regarded as supporting children to develop the numeracy capabilities that students will require through their personal, work and civic life (ACARA, 2015).

The learning area of science is said to enable students to encounter a range of opportunities to develop their knowledge of science concepts and learn specific skills and processes inherent to the discipline. Studying science is said to allow students to build a range of scientific knowledge and come to understand how science contributes to our culture, the wider community and the applications within our lives (ACARA, 2015). It is noted that science encourages students to develop a range of scientific inquiry methods, improve their ability to convey scientific knowledge, use evidence to decipher problems and make evidence-based decisions. The Australian Curriculum states that science supports students in developing the scientific understanding, knowledge and skills to make informed decisions about local, national and global issues (ACARA, 2015).

ACARA (2015) also recognises seven general capabilities: literacy, numeracy, information and communication technology, critical and creative thinking, ethical understanding and intercultural understanding. In the curriculum, these general capabilities are addressed in each learning area. Teachers can further support students’ education by identifying sections within the learning areas that offer opportunities to add depth and richness to students’ learning. This means that teachers can recognise that children learn at their own pace and that external factors may influence development. By having a continual map of common pathways, children can learn along a sequence of learning independent of their age (ACARA, 2015). Lowien (2022) affirms that the middle years of primary school are where children build the foundations of important skills and knowledge which ultimately helps them to consolidate concepts.

Singapore

Teaching quality

Teaching quality has been a popular variable in Singapore that is considered when looking at differences in success in high-stakes assessment environments (Ng, 2008). This author draws on Prime Minister Lee’s vision of providing a total learning environment for students in Singapore to support his argument that the quality of teachers is of paramount importance for educational success. He called on all stakeholders in children’s education to consider the desired educational outcomes of children. He called on teachers to ‘teach less’ so that students might ‘learn more’ (Ng, 2008) to focus more on teaching and the ways in which focused interactions between teachers and children could be more productive. His views reflect the Singapore national vision as summarised by ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’, a policy initiative that began in 2004 and was set to change the fundamental nature of education in Singapore. The idea behind ‘Thinking Schools’ was of a schooling system that could develop creative thinking skills, lifelong passion for learning and nationalistic commitment in the children (Ng, 2008).

Singapore has consistently achieved enviable results in high-stakes assessments, which seem to correlate with the government making quite dramatic changes to the educational system, including school administration criteria, with the introduction of Information Technology (IT) (Ng, 2008). The basis of ‘Thinking Schools’ is that there is a stronger focus on the quality of teaching rather than quantity.

Within Singapore’s educational system, students are required to take responsibility for their learning. It is demonstrated within their classwork that students define their own learning goals, making them accountable for their outcomes. Students work collaboratively together, applying and transferring knowledge amongst themselves. This builds on their creative abilities and offers a range of views amongst students to enrich their learning (Ng, 2008). Ng (2008) further highlighted that students should demonstrate a level of enthusiasm towards their learning, which is reflected in energy and intellect. Intuitively, it is maintained that quality increases with their intense level of engagement. Teachers are regarded as co-learners with their students instead of being the providers of solutions. The focus is on empowering students to engage in many skills including ‘dialogue, brainstorming, categorising, debriefing, problem-solving and even peer teaching’ (Ng 2008: p. 9).

Therefore, ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ focuses more on students’ engagement in learning through problem-solving, discovery and learning life skills, and requires less dependence on rote learning and repetitive assessments. It is also asserted that this will then correlate to students understanding the information presented within the classroom rather than memorising facts (Ng, 2008).

To continue to support students within their educational system, Singapore moved on to the next phase in its ‘Learn for Life’ movement. This new system further supports educators in nurturing students in this increasingly complex tech-driven world. The Ministry of Education (MOE) rolled out this new framework in 2021 to support students for future success (Ministry of Education, 2021). It is evident through their ongoing adaptions to their educational curriculum from 1998 to the present that the MOE is moving away from rote learning and focussing on the quality of their curriculum by enhancing students’ knowledge, values and skills (Ministry of Education, 2018). This has been a major challenge to teachers as they reflect on the quality of their teaching.

Early Childhood Education and Care

The MOE (2010) in Singapore developed a kindergarten curriculum framework to support and guide early childhood professionals to meet contemporary teaching and learning strategies. Over the last 20 years (1999 to 2019), Singapore’s early childhood landscape has had significant modifications and changes to its current framework and legislative policies (Phillipson et al., 2019).

In 2003, the MOE launched a national kindergarten curriculum framework, ‘Nurturing Early Learners: A Framework in Singapore (NEL) Framework’, which has since been modified in 2012 and 2013 (Ministry of Education (MOE), 2008; 2012a, 2013). The outline of the NEL Framework was to move towards more holistic development and play-based methods instead of the traditional didactic role (Phillipson et al., 2019). The MOE highlights three areas in which they believe children learn best, supported by the NEL Framework. These include ‘Nurture their curiosity, encourage active learning and foster their competence’ (MOE 2012b: p. 12).

Primary school

Singapore’s formal educational structure is 6-6, including 6 years of primary school (Years 1 to 6) and 6 years of secondary school (Years 7 to 12). The MOE sets the curriculum framework for students in Singapore. The primary school curriculum’s objective is to provide children with learning opportunities that recognise their strengths and develop their full potential (MOE, 2020).

A significant reform in Singapore’s Curriculum occurred in 1997, with a move towards more holistic development and education for children in Singapore. Senior Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong introduced this development within the curriculum and educational policy as ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ (TSLN) in what year? (Phillipson et al., 2019). Following this, ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ (TTLM) was raised in 2004, by the nation’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in his National Day Rally Speech:

I think we should cut down on some of this syllabus. It would mean less pressure on the kids, a bit less rote learning, more space for them to explore and discover their talents and also more space for the teachers to think, to reflect, to find ways of bringing out the best in their students and to deliver quality results. We've got to teach less to our students so that they will learn more. Grades are important – don't forget to pass your exams – but grades are not the only thing in life, and there are other things in life which we want to learn in school (Teo et al., 2013, np).

As previously highlighted, since the 1990s nationally schools have had greater responsibility and input into their curriculum decisions; however, according to Dimmock and Tan (2016), when comparing Singapore with other developed educational systems, the MOE has continued to control the process of limiting autonomy to the school principals. This is further supported by what school principals reported about Singapore’s autonomy levels within PISA 2015. Overall, the results highlighted that within PISA (OECD, 2016) allocation of school resources and school characteristics in relation to autonomy, Singapore’s autonomy aligns with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 75% (OECD, 2016: p. 119). More specifically, teachers lack flexibility with their pedagogical decisions, as their curricula are largely predetermined by the centralised Singapore education system. Likewise, MOE recognises that the existing national curriculum is already meeting the current educational needs of students, and any additional implementation that teachers undertake is thought to be complementary rather than a substitute (Dimmock and Tan, 2016; Fruzsina Gyor, 2017; Riviera, 2010). It is further highlighted that school principals have to regularly report back to the MOE on how their schools contribute to the larger vision instilled by the MOE (Dimmock and Tan, 2016).

There is a strong focus on subject-based learning within the curriculum, including languages, mathematics, science, art, music and social studies. Knowledge and skills are embedded through subject-based learning and project work, and Character and Citizenship Education (MOE, 2020). The Singapore Curriculum has nine core subjects: English Language, Mother Tongue Language, Mathematics, Science, Art, Music, Physical Education, Social Studies and Character and Citizenship Education. Education is compulsory for children from 6 years old to 15. If parents do not comply with sending their children to school, they face a $5000 fine (Singapore dollars) or up to 12 months imprisonment (MOE, 2020). To support children with their goal of holistic education and prepare them with twenty-first century competencies, a framework was developed that outlines core values that underpin their educational system. These core values include Respect, Responsibility, Integrity, Care, Resilience and Harmony (MOE, 2020).

Singapore has defined specific and desirable learning outcomes, related to personal characteristics, in which students will be regarded as being competent when finishing primary school. These include being able to distinguish between right and wrong, knowing their strengths and areas for further growth, being able to cooperate, sharing and caring for each other, having a lively curiosity about their surroundings, being able to think for and express themselves confidently, taking pride in their work, having healthy habits and an awareness of the arts and knowing and loving Singapore (MOE, 2020).

For students, the goals and aims of their mathematical knowledge are to ensure they will achieve a level of mastery that will support them throughout their life. The broad objectives for students in Singapore include the ‘ability to acquire and apply mathematical concepts and skills, develop cognitive and metacognitive skills through a mathematical approach to problem-solving, and develop positive attitudes towards mathematics’ (ACARA, 2015, np).

In Singapore, students are required to take classes in Mother Tongue Language (MTL), either Chinese, Malay or Tamil. For students who do not have one of these languages as their mother tongue, they are encouraged to undertake one. It is thought that by engaging with these subjects’ students will be encouraged to communicate more confidently and effectively in their MTL while also developing an appreciation for their cultural heritage. It also provides students with a gateway to connect with the broader communities across Asia and globally (MOE, 2020).

The aim of the science syllabus within the curriculum is to prepare students for an increasingly technologically driven world. Three integral domains of inquiry are focused on, including: (1) Knowledge, Understanding and Application, (2) Skills and Processes and (3) Ethics and Attitudes (Ministry of Education (Singapore), 2021). These areas of inquiry are essential for encouraging students to view science as meaningful and valuable. Students are required to think critically about how science relates to their daily life, society and the environment (Ministry of Education (Singapore), 2012)

Concerning assessment, students in Singapore are exposed to a range of assessments at specific stages in their primary school years to determine the avenue that their schooling will take. These examinations include the Gifted Education Program screening, which is implemented in Primary 4, and the Primary School Leaving Examination in Primary 6 (Dimmock and Tan, 2016).

Hong Kong

Teaching quality

The Hong Kong government developed a range of policy objectives to make sure that students are receiving adequate teaching within the public schooling system. These objectives outlined that they would provide a balanced and diverse program that meets the individual needs of all learners to support them to develop a range of knowledge, construct critical thinking skills and foster positive values and attitudes, to support their lifelong learning capabilities and to facilitate a healthy growth and whole person development (Education Bureau, 2020). The initiative was designed to provide continual renewal of the school curriculum and maintain teacher quality, which would be updated as necessary. They endeavour to improve the learning and teaching environment, while enhancing teaching quality and effectiveness within the classroom (Education Bureau, 2020).

Since 2003, all kindergarten teachers were required to possess a Qualified Kindergarten Teacher qualification (or its equivalent) to ensure that they were appropriately qualified to support children’s learning. A Quality Assurance Framework was also implemented, starting from the 2018 to 2019 school year. This was to ensure that the quality of education is maintained within kindergartens in Hong Kong (Education Bureau, 2020).

At a primary school level, since the 2009–2010 school year, principals needed to have a degree in ECE [Bed (ECE)], 1-year post-qualification experience whilst also completing a recognised course on principalship within their first year of attainment.

Early Childhood Education and Care

Like Singapore, Hong Kong has attempted to shift away from a structured curriculum that focuses on preparing children for primary school through formality and routine. The reforms in both locations aimed to provide a more substantial play curriculum while also improving teaching and learning for educators. However, early childhood staff still feel under pressure. They are governed by parents’ expectations, who are worried that without a strong focus on literacy and numeracy skills, their children will not succeed academically later in life (Ng, 2011; Pearson and Rao, 2006).

Early childhood education and care for children in Hong Kong range from ages 2 years to 6-year-olds. It consists of pre-nursery, nursery, junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten levels. While it is not mandatory for children in Hong Kong to attend ECEC, it has been reported since 2019 that virtually all children are enrolled in ECEC (Education Bureau, 2020, np).

The Kindergarten Education Curriculum Guide (2017) outlines a strong focus on ‘child-centredness’ which emphasises the importance of recognising individual children and their abilities. The Kindergarten Education Curriculum covers developmental objectives, namely, ‘Moral Development, cognitive and language development, physical development, affective and social development and aesthetic development’ (Education Bureau, 2020). Regardless of the curriculum and policy reforms in 2000, Ho (2020) reported that the competition for academic greatness in Hong Kong starts when children are born. She noted that children in Hong Kong, as young as 6 months, are put in tutoring classes to start recognising colours. With the recognition that children who attend the ‘best’ kindergartens are more likely to get into the best primary then secondary schools and ultimately have a successful career, the pressure on children is significant.

While academic success alone is not sufficient to gain entry to a prestigious school, it is generally thought that students should enrol in extra-curricular activities to ensure educational success. This means that students might attend a significant number of activities after school to increase their chances of achieving a place in a top-level primary school. Ho (2020) highlights that in some cases, children are attending at least five extracurricular activities per week.

Primary school

In 2009, Hong Kong changed the structure of their educational system by combining the lower and upper secondary school, resulting in 6 years of school for all secondary students. Therefore, they have a 6-6 system, which comprises 6 years of primary school years (1–6) and 6 years of high school years (7–12). Children of the age of six are entitled to 12 years of free public primary and secondary school, nine of which are compulsory (National Centre on Education and the Economy [NCEE], 2020). The Education Bureau (EDB) sets the framework for the school curriculum in Hong Kong; however, schools have broad latitude to adapt and adjust the framework to correlate with their specific local needs. The current framework has been in place since 2002 (Curriculum Development Council, 2014). This followed the release of two significant reports – Learning Through Life (2000) and Learning to Learn (2001). These were focused on shifting Hong Kong’s education system away from an emphasis on rote learning to correlate more strongly with the twenty-first-century skills approach (Curriculum Development Council, 2006). Hong Kong’s framework is centred around eight Key Learning Areas (KLAs): Chinese language education, English language education, mathematics education, science education, technology, personal, social and humanities, arts education and physical education. The framework recognises a set of generic skills embedded into the curriculum, including collaboration and problem-solving, and values and attitudes such as perseverance and responsibility (Curriculum Development Council, 2014).

The main aim of Hong Kong’s curriculum, as outlined in the Reform Proposal for the Education System in Hong Kong, is as follows:

To enable every person to attain all-round development in the domains of ethics, intellect, physique, social skills and aesthetics according to his/her own attributes so that he/she is capable of life-long learning, critical and exploratory thinking, innovating and adapting to change; filled with self-confidence and a team spirit; willing to put forward continuing effort for the prosperity, progress, freedom and democracy of their society, and contribute to the future wellbeing of the nation and the world at large (Curriculum Development Council, 2006).

Literacy development within Hong Kong’s curriculum is said to be achieved through the implementation of Chinese and English languages to promote bilingualism (Chinese and English) and trilingualism (Cantonese, Putonghua and English) among students. All students across Hong Kong are recommended to learn the Cantonese language to build a solid language foundation and enhance and develop their learning and competitiveness. As an enabling tool, Cantonese is fundamental in Key Learning Areas, facilitating the learning of other knowledge disciplines (Curriculum Development Council, 2006). The key aim of Chinese Language Education is to provide students with enhanced language abilities through their schooling. This will enable students to master the norms of written Chinese, speak fluent Cantonese and Putonghua and appreciate and reflect on the different languages. Students will hope to develop higher order thinking skills and competence and develop cultural competencies to build their personability (Curriculum Development Council, 2006).

In the Hong Kong curriculum, mathematics is regarded as a solid focal point for providing students with the skills and knowledge that could help them to meet the dynamic challenges within the 21^st century. The aim is to encourage children to develop various abilities in a technology-oriented and information-rich society while also being a powerful way to communicate (Curriculum Development Council, 2006). Students are encouraged to use mathematics across a range of different disciplines. This can also enhance their ability to appreciate the beauty of nature, manage uncertainty and make sound judgements. Utilising these skills, the desire is to improve and develop their mode of thinking. Mathematics plays a significant role in the Hong Kong school curriculum through strengthening the development of students’ generic skills, positive values and attitudes in an integrative manner (Curriculum Development Council, 2006).

The purpose of science education within the Hong Kong context is to encourage students’ scientific literacy skills to investigate activities involving planning, measuring, observing, analysing data, designing, evaluating procedures and examining evidence (Curriculum Development Council, 2006). Students will develop a deeper understanding of how the world works through their science engagement, enhance their independence and problem-solving skills and make informed decisions. The Hong Kong Curriculum also provides students with the ability to learn about Science, Technology, Society and Environment (STSE) and strengthen their ability to integrate and apply knowledge and skills across different disciplines (Curriculum Development Council, 2006).

Discussion

Contexts of early childhood education, primary schooling and home environments can be regarded as factors influencing the formation of scholarly habitus across the different locations considered in this study. Children in Hong Kong and Singapore would seem to be building towards academic learning outcomes in a more focused way than children in Australia. This occurs not only via the learning of specific skills but also in the embodied sociocultural practices in early childhood education and care relating to learning, before compulsory education in primary school years.

Examining the schooling systems in Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong enables the exploration of students’ academic achievement, how it connects with curriculum and with the structure of schooling systems, policies and the quality of teaching. In addition to these factors, it is imperative to consider children’s lifeworlds, that is, their outside of the classroom, their home life, including extra-curricular activities, as well as their performance in school to understand features that might influence attitudes and approach to learning at school, learning outcomes and ideas of educational success.

Australian early childhood education policies place a strong emphasis on play-based learning, acknowledging that play fosters cognitive, social and emotional skills essential for growth in their academic success (Wood, 2013). Research indicates that academic readiness can be effectively integrated into this play-based approach by designing learning experiences that are both engaging and educational. For instance, literacy, numeracy, science, art and social skills can be introduced through playful activities like storytelling, puzzles and games, allowing children to develop these skills naturally (Pyle and Biggs, 2014). This is supported by the Australian Curriculum’s early years guidelines, which aims to balance educational goals with the developmental needs of children (ACARA, 2019).

By incorporating playful learning that stimulates dispositions for learning, curiosity and problem-solving, educators can foster skills that prepare children for formal learning without undermining the play-based philosophy. Play is not only crucial for academic readiness but also for establishing emotional well-being, which is vital to enabling children to approach academic challenges with confidence and resilience (Ginsburg, 2007).

It is recognised that Hong Kong and Singapore have highly competitive and academic-focused educational systems, which could potentially benefit from Australia’s emphasis on well-being and equity in early childhood education. DEMC (2022) emphasises the importance of both social-emotional development and academic learning. Bourke and Ryan (2016) highlight how inclusive educational practices in early childhood education can create supportive environments that make children feel valued and respected, which is essential for mental health and emotional development. These practices are particularly important in addressing mental health challenges which children face, as they help reduce stress and anxiety by ensuring equal access to opportunities for all children, regardless of their background. Therefore, the highly competitive educational systems, like those in Hong Kong and Singapore, can contribute to high levels of stress and mental health for students, which an inclusive and supportive approach can help mitigate (Sahlberg, 2011; Tan and Lim, 2022).

It is not only the competitive educational systems that cause undue stress on students but also the psychological impact of high-stakes testing in Hong Kong (Cheng and Tsui, 2011) and Singapore (Tan and Lim, 2022). Integrating Australia’s focus on emotional well-being – through play-based learning that nurtures resilience, creativity and self-regulation – potentially offers a valuable counterbalance to a more holistic development. Moreover, the psychological toll that high-stakes testing can have on students, suggesting that a holistic, well-being-focused approach to assessment – similar to Australia’s model – could help balance academic expectations with emotional and social development, providing a more rounded educational experience for children in Hong Kong and Singapore (Zhao et al., 2020).

It could be presumed that an ideal educational system that fully embraces the concept of lifeworlds would prioritise a student-centred approach, recognising and valuing the diverse social, cultural and emotional backgrounds of learners. Such a system would be flexible and responsive, offering a curriculum that connects learning to the lived experiences of students (Wood, 2013). This approach would foster not only academic development but also emotional intelligence, social skills and resilience. For example, in the early years, education could focus on play-based learning, as seen in Australia’s early childhood education system, where children learn through exploration, creativity and social interaction (Ginsburg, 2007). As children progress, structured academic learning could gradually be introduced, drawing from the academic rigour of systems like Singapore and Hong Kong. The integration of play combined with academic learning can support cognitive skills such as literacy and numeracy, as demonstrated by Pyle and Biggs (2014), while also maintaining a strong focus on emotional well-being. By prioritising well-being, educators can address the psychological impacts of high-stakes testing, which have been shown to negatively affect students’ mental health (Zhao et al., 2020). Furthermore, a hybrid model that combines Australia’s play-based learning with the structured academic environment of Singapore and Hong Kong could promote holistic development, ensuring that children not only achieve academically but also feel supported and valued. Such a model would emphasise inclusivity and cultural responsiveness, aligning with the principles of social justice in education (Bourke and Ryan, 2016). Ultimately, this approach would create an educational system where students are empowered to thrive academically, socially and emotionally, embracing their lifeworlds as integral to the learning process.

Having this hybrid education model which fully embraces the concept of lifeworlds would centre on the unique lived experiences of each child, acknowledging their social, cultural and emotional contexts in the learning process. This system would value the child’s entire experience, not just academic achievements, and recognise that learning is deeply interconnected with personal development, relationships and well-being.

This article has highlighted the ways in which early childhood education and care and Primary Schools are organised, their curricula and aspects of teacher quality across the three locations – Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong. It has shown that while Australia has a stronger focus on play within their early childhood settings, Singapore and Hong Kong, despite their reforms, continue to have a stronger emphasis on academic success at this level of education. This is also shown through cultural expectations that children obtaining a place at a ‘good’ kindergarten and primary school will be more successful in their schooling and later life.

Finally, the analysis of lifeworlds through Bourdieu’s concept of habitus provides valuable insights into how children’s social and cultural contexts shape their educational experiences. By linking habitus with lifeworlds, this framework highlights how children’s subjective dispositions – formed through their family, community and broader societal influences – interact with educational norms and expectations. This approach underscores the importance of recognising the diversity of children’s backgrounds and how these influence their engagement with learning. Contemporary childhood studies further support this view, emphasising that children are active participants in their education, shaped by both personal agency and structural forces. Integrating these perspectives offers a more comprehensive understanding of how educational systems can either support or hinder children’s development, reinforcing the need for inclusive practices that acknowledge the varied lifeworlds children bring to the classroom.