Kagitcibasi (1996, 1999—see footnote 1) suggests there are two independent dimensions involved: interpersonal distance (a separateness-relatedness continuum) and agency (an autonomy-heteronomy continuum). Psychology as we know it, reflecting its American cultural values, confounds the two in positing separateness and autonomy as a single universal direction for child development. But it is possible and desirable, she argues, to foster the autonomy needed to become competent in school (and in later life in a contemporary urban setting) without imposing separateness as a value on children whose parental culture favors interpersonal relatedness. She illustrated this with the preschool program she devised for poor children in Istanbul, Turkey, demonstrating a long-term improvement in assessed academic proficiency from a program modeled on the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY; Baker and Piotrowski, 1995) that adds the instruction of mothers to the teaching of preschool children in centers. (In evaluating the generalizability of this program, it is important to bear in mind that the Turkish mothers had an average of only 5.36 years of schooling and the fathers 5.81. Thus the more modest gains for the HIPPY in the United States may have to do with the much greater school experience of the populations in the American studies.)

Kagitcibasi’s (1996, 1999—see footnote 1) claim that preschools can simultaneously promote a child’s academic competence and culturally preferred relatedness brings us back to the Japanese literature, particularly the synthesis by Catherine Lewis (1996). The model she describes for preschools is that of Holloway’s (1999—see footnote 1) “relational” centers, but it is also characteristic of Japanese pedagogy in many other settings throughout the lifespan, according to the ethnographic literature in English, and may be a foundational cultural schema for instruction. In this model, the assumption is that the first and most necessary step in instruction is to build a strong positive relationship between teacher and learner, with the teacher acting as an emotionally supportive coach, avoiding any expression of anger or confrontation that might threaten the relationship. Much time is spent in relationship-building, prior to the most important pedagogical content, in order to create a highly motivated learning relationship in which the pupil will eagerly engage the in-

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement