Worlds Apart on Common Ground: Parent-Educator Perceptions of National Identity, Technology, and Collaboration in Hong Kong Kindergartens

Abstract

Amid a policy mandate to foster national identity in Hong Kong’s early childhood education sector, this study explores the complex intersection of pedagogy, home–school collaboration, and technology integration. Navigating this value-laden topic depends fundamentally on a strong partnership between parents and educators, yet the rapid push for artificial intelligence (AI) creates additional pressures. This qualitative study investigates the shared and conflicting perspectives of these key stakeholders. Eight focus groups were conducted with 21 parents and 26 educators from four diverse Hong Kong kindergartens. Data were analyzed using a novel human–AI collaborative thematic analysis to ensure analytical depth and reliability. The findings reveal a paradoxical consensus: while parents and educators agree on an experiential, play-based pedagogy, they hold divergent views on the division of responsibility. A further misalignment exists in communication ideals, with parents prioritizing efficiency and educators prioritizing relational nuance. Critically, a technology paradox emerges, pitting parents’ aspirational hopes for AI against educators’ pragmatic concerns over inadequate resources, training, and pedagogical suitability. The study concludes that a significant perception gap strains the home–school partnership. Simply introducing technology without first addressing these foundational human and resource-based misalignments risks widening, rather than bridging, the divide, offering important lessons for education systems globally.

1. Introduction

In an era of increasing globalization and migration, fostering national identity has become an issue of growing global significance, prompting nations to re-examine how to cultivate a sense of belonging and cultural understanding from the earliest years of education (Almagro & Andrés-Cerezo, 2020; Rusciano, 2003). This educational imperative is not confined to the classroom; it fundamentally relies on a strong partnership between families and schools, a collaboration widely recognized as a cornerstone for holistic child development, especially when navigating complex and value-laden topics such as national identity (Deslandes, 2019).

Adding another layer of complexity to this dynamic is the rapid integration of emerging technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) into early childhood education (ECE). Proponents highlight the potential of AI to create personalized, engaging, and inclusive learning experiences (LeMoine, 2024; Li & Wong, 2023; Tang & Zhang, 2025; Yi et al., 2024). However, educators remain ambivalent, recognizing the potential benefits while also expressing significant concerns about the lack of training, resources, and the risk of displacing essential sensory-based learning experiences (Wong et al., 2025a). This creates a critical tension: how can technology be harnessed to support the delicate work of national identity formation without undermining established pedagogical principles or the vital home–school relationship?

This complex interplay of national identity education, home–school collaboration, and technology integration is particularly salient in Hong Kong. The city is currently navigating a dual mandate: a pedagogical shift toward strengthening national values and a technological push to become a leading “Smart City” (Innovation and Technology Bureau, 2020; Lee, 2025). Following the city’s return to Chinese sovereignty, fostering national identity has become a key educational priority. The issue gained prominence following the government’s unsuccessful attempt to introduce a “Moral and National Education” curriculum in 2012, which was withdrawn after public protest (Morris & Vickers, 2015). More recently, in 2022, the Hong Kong government explicitly mandated that kindergartens should foster a sense of national identity, defined within the local educational context as an appreciation of Chinese culture, heritage, and a sense of Chinese citizenship (Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 2022; Lee, 2022). Simultaneously, the Education Bureau has aggressively promoted “STEAM” education and digital literacy, encouraging schools to adopt AI and EdTech solutions (Lee, 2025). This places educators in a unique bind: they are expected to teach traditional cultural values using futuristic tools, all while managing the expectations of parents who are highly attuned to both political sensitivities and academic competitiveness (Lam & Wong, 2020).

While research has separately explored national identity in ECE (Wong & Wong, 2024), the dynamics of home–school collaboration (Lau & Ng, 2019), and educators’ attitudes toward AI (Wong et al., 2025a), there is a significant gap in understanding how these three domains intersect. Specifically, little empirical work has examined the perspectives of both parents and educators on their respective roles and the potential of technology within this unique nexus. This study aims to address this gap by exploring the perspectives of Hong Kong kindergarten educators and parents on national identity education, the current state of their collaboration, and the perceived role of AI and emerging technologies. Guided by this aim, the study addresses the following research questions:

RQ 1.

What are the shared and conflicting perspectives of Hong Kong kindergarten educators and parents regarding the pedagogy, roles, and responsibilities involved in cultivating national identity in young children?

RQ 2.

How do educators and parents perceive the current state and ideal model of home–school collaboration for national identity education, and what specific challenges impede this partnership?

RQ 3.

What are the perceived potentials and barriers for integrating AI and other emerging technologies to enhance national identity pedagogy and bridge the identified gaps in home–school collaboration?

1.1. Conceptual Framework: An Ecological Systems Perspective

To understand the complex, multi-layered interactions central to this study, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecological Systems Theory is used as the study’s conceptual framework. This theory posits that a child’s development is shaped by a series of nested environmental systems, ranging from immediate settings to broader societal influences. This framework is exceptionally well-suited for examining home–school collaboration, as it provides a language to analyze the relationships within and between different contexts of a child’s life (Daniel et al., 2016).

In this study, the framework is operationalized to explicitly link the three core variables of inquiry:

• The macrosystem (national identity): The mandate to foster national identity represents the overarching societal values and cultural ideologies that filter down into the child’s daily life.
• The exosystem (technology/AI): The rapid emergence of AI acts as an external force (or an exosystemic pressure) that alters the tools and environments available for education, even if the child does not interact with the technology directly.
• The mesosystem (collaboration): The home–school partnership serves as the critical interface where the values of the macrosystem and the tools of the exosystem are negotiated.

Within this model, the child’s learning is situated first in their immediate microsystems, primarily the family and the kindergarten. It is in these settings that foundational beliefs and attitudes about national identity are first formed and transmitted by parents and educators, respectively. The quality of the mesosystem is, therefore, the central arena where consistent or conflicting messages about national identity are managed. Finally, influencing these direct interactions is the exosystem, composed of external settings that indirectly affect the child. In this study, the rapid emergence and integration of educational technologies and AI represent a powerful exosystemic influence that shapes the pedagogical tools, communication methods, and resources available within the microsystem and mesosystem. Applying this framework allows for a holistic analysis of the tensions and synergies between parental perspectives, educator practices, and the overarching influence of technology on the collaborative effort to cultivate national identity.

1.2. National Identity Formation in the Microsystem and Mesosystem

National identity refers to a citizen’s sense of identification with a sovereign nation, encompassing its history, culture, traditions, and values (Liu & Turner, 2018). In the family microsystem, parents act as primary socializers, transmitting beliefs, attitudes, and practices related to national identity through daily interactions, family traditions, and storytelling (Hughes et al., 2006; Priest et al., 2014). Recent research in Hong Kong has confirmed that parents actively use art forms, particularly literature such as books and photographs, to introduce national identity concepts to their children at home (Wong et al., 2025b).

Simultaneously, the kindergarten microsystem plays a formal role in this process. However, the appropriateness of teaching abstract concepts like national identity to young children has been debated. Some scholars and pre-service teachers raise concerns about the cognitive readiness of young learners and the potential for indoctrination (Wong & Wong, 2024; Zheng & Guo, 2024). Despite these concerns, other research suggests that ethnic and national identity can be formed during early childhood and that play-based assessments can be effective tools for measuring it (Hong & Liu, 2022).

The effectiveness of these efforts is heavily dependent on the mesosystem: the quality of the home–school partnership. When family and school provide consistent and reinforcing messages, the cultivation of national identity is likely to be more successful (McNamara et al., 2000). Therefore, understanding the dynamics of this collaboration is essential.

1.3. Navigating the Mesosystem: The Dynamics of Home–School Collaboration

Home–school collaboration involves shared responsibility between families and schools for a child’s education (Deslandes, 2019). However, research shows that parents and teachers often have different understandings of their respective roles and children’s needs (Paula & Valaine-Rohnana, 2021). For instance, while educators may desire active parental participation in school activities and reinforcement of learning at home, some parents may view their role differently, especially within specific cultural contexts. Studies on Chinese families, for example, indicate a deep respect for teachers and a belief that the parental role should focus more on character development than direct academic intervention (Yamamoto et al., 2022). While Parent–Teacher Associations are less developed in Hong Kong’s ECE sector, many other forms of home–school collaboration are actively implemented (Lau & Ng, 2019). The challenge lies in aligning expectations and fostering a truly collaborative partnership, especially for a new and potentially sensitive topic like national identity.

1.4. The Influence of the Exosystem: Integrating Technology and AI

The integration of technology and AI represents an exosystem force that is reshaping educational practices (Chan, 2025a, 2025b). Digital tools, such as well-designed educational applications, can provide dynamic, multimodal experiences that help children explore their cultural heritage and national identity (Almohaimeed & Amzah, 2024; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015). These technologies can also support the mesosystem by providing new channels for home–school communication, enabling rapid information exchange about children’s learning (Gonzalez-DeHass et al., 2022; Virkus et al., 2023).

However, the integration of these advanced technologies in Hong Kong kindergartens remains nascent. One recent study found that while educators recognize the potential of AI, its use is low, primarily due to a lack of training, resources, and time (Wong et al., 2025a). Over 77% of educators reported receiving no relevant training, and they expressed a need to balance digital tools with the sensory-based, hands-on learning that is fundamental to early childhood development. This highlights a critical disconnect: while technology offers potential solutions for enhancing pedagogy and communication, the substantial practical barriers to its effective and ethical implementation create a significant risk. Specifically, when educators lack the training and time to integrate technology in creative ways, they are more likely to adopt the easiest-to-implement tools—those that function as digital flashcards or worksheets (Cuban, 2001; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015). This default to drill-and-practice software directly accelerates the prioritization of narrow academic skills over holistic, play-based growth, a trend widely identified as the “push-down” curriculum (Bassok et al., 2016). This study, therefore, explores how both parents and educators perceive the potential of these tools to bridge or further complicate the challenges in home–school collaboration for national identity education.

2. Methods

This study employed a qualitative research design. Focus groups were chosen as the primary data collection method due to their particular suitability for exploratory research. As noted by Krueger and Casey (2014), the dynamic interaction within a group setting encourages participants to share, compare, and elaborate on their experiences and perspectives. This interactive process is particularly effective for uncovering shared social norms, collective understandings, and points of divergence on complex topics such as national identity education and home–school collaboration.

2.1. Participants

Participants were recruited through purposive sampling from four kindergartens. These kindergartens were selected to ensure socio-economic and geographical diversity, representing different sponsoring bodies and located in various districts of Hong Kong, including Kwun Tong, Sha Tin, and Tsuen Wan. The research team established a close partnership with the administration of each kindergarten. Kindergarten staff assisted in the recruitment process by first identifying a pool of parents and educators who met the study’s inclusion criteria. The kindergartens then distributed a detailed information brief about the study to these potential participants and, with their consent, helped to arrange suitable times for the focus group sessions. Inclusion criteria required participants to be the primary caregiver of at least one child enrolled in K1–K3 (ages 3–6), an ethnic Chinese permanent resident of Hong Kong, and fluent in Cantonese. This ensured that participants had relevant, direct experience with the kindergarten system and could engage fully in the Cantonese-language discussions.

The final sample comprised 47 participants: 21 parents (20 female, 1 male) and 26 educators (23 female, 3 male). The demographic profile of the participants reflected a range of backgrounds. A total of eight focus groups were conducted, with parent groups consisting of four to six individuals and educator groups having six or seven. The final sample size was determined by the point of thematic saturation, which was reached when subsequent focus groups began to yield redundant information and no new major themes emerged. As a token of appreciation for their time and contribution, each participant received supermarket vouchers valued at HK$200 (approximately US$25.60, based on an exchange rate of US$1 = HK$7.8).

2.2. Data Collection

Data collection took place in June and July 2025. All eight semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted by the same focus group facilitator, who was fluent in Cantonese and held a Bachelor of Education in Early Childhood Education and a Master of Education. A semi-structured interview guide, developed based on the research questions, was used to ensure consistency across groups while allowing flexibility to probe emergent themes. Table 1 outlines the core guiding questions used to facilitate the discussions.

Table 1. Sample guiding questions for focus groups.

Theme	Questions for Educators	Questions for Parents
National identity pedagogy	How do you currently introduce concepts of national identity to young children?	How do you perceive the kindergarten’s role in teaching your child about being Chinese/Hong Kong citizens?
	What challenges do you face in teaching these concepts?	Do you discuss these topics at home? If so, how?
Home–school collaboration	What are your expectations of parents regarding national identity education?	How would you like the school to communicate with you regarding cultural or national education topics?
	How do you currently communicate with parents about these topics?	Do you feel you have enough information to support your child’s learning in this area?
Technology and AI	Have you used any digital tools or AI to support this teaching? Why or why not?	How do you feel about the use of AI or apps in your child’s kindergarten education?
	What support would you need to integrate AI effectively?	Do you think technology can help you better understand what your child learns at school?

Each focus group was conducted in a private room within the respective kindergarten to create a comfortable and confidential environment. With participants’ consent, all discussions were audio-recorded for subsequent analysis.

2.3. Data Analysis

All Cantonese audio recordings were first transcribed verbatim using the Subanana Plus (https://subanana.com/en) paid subscription. This AI transcription service is marketed as “the most selected AI subtitling and meeting transcription tool in Hong Kong,” specializing in Cantonese transcription with a reported accuracy of 98% (Datax AI Solutions, n.d.). Following the automated transcription, a technical assistant fluent in Cantonese, who had accompanied the facilitator and observed the focus group discussions, meticulously reviewed and corrected the generated transcripts against the original audio clips to ensure final accuracy. All subsequent analysis was performed on the original Chinese text to preserve the nuances of the original language.

To ensure the reliability and validity of the findings, this study adopted a novel dual-coder strategy for thematic analysis, a method similar to that used by Wong (2026) to mitigate single-coder bias. The process, guided by the principles of Braun and Clarke (2006), unfolded in three stages:

• Human-led analysis: A trained human research assistant, holding a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology and with relevant experience on research projects related to ECE, parenting, and technology in education, first immersed herself in the entire dataset. She conducted an initial round of open coding to identify emergent patterns and concepts. Specific codes generated during this phase included descriptive labels such as “festivals as pedagogy,” “reactive parenting role,” “fear of political error,” “Wi-Fi infrastructure deficits,” and “preference for face-to-face updates.” A key feature of this stage was the separate coding of parent and educator data, allowing for the development of distinct preliminary thematic maps for each stakeholder group.
• Independent LLM-powered analysis: To enhance inter-coder reliability, the same anonymized textual dataset was then analyzed by a second coder: Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro, a large language model (LLM). This model was chosen for its state-of-the-art capabilities, particularly its large context window, which allows it to process and reason over the entire data corpus in a single, coherent pass (Doshi, 2025). The LLM was provided with a specific system prompt: “Act as an expert qualitative researcher in early childhood education. Analyze the provided focus group transcripts to identify core themes regarding national identity, technology, and home–school collaboration. Provide a definition for each theme and cite specific evidence from the text. Do not use outside knowledge; rely only on the provided data.” The LLM analysis yielded higher-level semantic codes and clusters, identifying categories such as “pedagogical consensus (experiential),” “resource-based resistance,” “digital literacy gap,” and “efficiency-driven communication.”
• Triangulation and thematic refinement: The principal investigator performed a triangulation process, comparing the thematic maps generated by the human research assistant and the LLM. Instances of divergence were not treated as errors but as areas requiring deeper interpretive analysis. Decisions were made by prioritizing human contextual understanding over AI frequency counting. For example, the LLM excelled at identifying the frequency and co-occurrence of concepts across the dataset (e.g., clustering mentions of “apps” and “updates” under a code of “communication tools”). At the same time, the human coder was more adept at capturing subtle, context-dependent nuances in tone (e.g., distinguishing that parents’ desire for “apps” was actually a code for “surveillance of curriculum,” whereas teachers’ resistance was coded as “relational safety” instead of simple “technophobia”). In these instances, the human coder’s interpretation was retained to capture the emotional weight of the data. The principal investigator returned to the original data in these specific areas to critically examine the nuances of the text and make the final determination of the thematic structure, ensuring a human-in-the-loop approach to the analysis.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

Before conducting the study, ethical approval was obtained from the university’s research ethics committee. All individuals were provided with detailed information about the research purpose, procedures, and their right to withdraw at any time. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before the focus groups began. The provision of a modest token of appreciation was reviewed by the ethics committee and deemed appropriate to thank participants for their time without constituting undue inducement. To protect confidentiality, all data were anonymized during the transcription and analysis process before being processed by either the human researcher or the LLM.

3. Findings

The thematic analysis of the eight focus groups reveals a complex landscape of shared goals, divergent expectations, and practical tensions between kindergarten educators and parents in the specific domain of national identity education. Three core themes emerge: (1) a paradoxical consensus on pedagogy coupled with conflicting expectations of responsibility for fostering national identity; (2) mismatched ideals in the mode and purpose of home–school communication surrounding national identity topics; and (3) a clearly contrasting view of technology, pitting aspirational hopes for its use in national identity education against implementation realities.

3.1. Theme 1: Converging on Pedagogy, Diverging on Responsibility

The data reveal a paradoxical consensus: while parents and educators strongly agree on an experiential, play-based pedagogy for national identity education, they hold fundamentally different views on the division of labor between home and school in cultivating this identity.

3.1.1. Shared Endorsement of Experiential Pedagogy

A striking consensus emerges around the pedagogical approach. Both groups championed an immersive, activity-based model that eschews rote memorization in favor of tangible, enjoyable experiences to teach national and cultural concepts. Educators consistently described their strategy as embedding cultural elements within the natural context of festivals, art projects, and school-wide events. One teacher described a flagship cultural fair:

We set up a whole event where every classroom, the hall, and even the outdoor area had activities with Chinese cultural elements for the children to participate in. For example, outside, we had ding ding candy and sticky rice balls for children and parents to eat. Inside the classrooms, we had a “Miniature Ancient Village” photo booth, shadow puppetry, oil-paper umbrella making, and Chinese flour-dough figurine making for them to experience. The children were incredibly happy.

(KD-Educator 5)

Parents, in turn, expressed deep appreciation for this approach, valuing the hands-on activities that made abstract cultural concepts concrete and engaging for their children. They saw this as the most effective way for young learners to develop a positive and lasting connection to their national heritage. One mother enthusiastically recalled how a school-arranged movie outing captivated her daughter:

I think it’s really great! My child is in K2 this year, and the kindergarten invited us to watch a national-themed movie, Nezha. I think it’s wonderful, we even got to charter a whole cinema! My daughter came home holding the little weapon, pretending to be Nezha… I think it’s really fun.

(KA-Parent 4)

3.1.2. Conflicting Expectations of Roles and Responsibilities

Despite this pedagogical harmony, a significant rift appeared concerning the roles of home and school. Educators articulated a clear expectation for an active partnership, viewing parents as co-educators responsible for reinforcing cultural and national concepts at home. Their frustration with a lack of parental support was palpable, with one teacher describing a common mentality:

Sometimes we hope parents can support us, but some parents have the mindset of, “It’s okay, the kindergarten will provide it,” and they don’t bring the materials back. Actually, we want to use this process to give them more opportunities to learn and share with others.

(KB-Educator 5)

Parents, however, essentially positioned the kindergarten as the primary agent for formal national identity education. Their role was often framed as reactive rather than proactive, responding to prompts about national symbols or history that originated from the classroom. Many parents admitted they did not initiate such conversations, effectively delegating the core responsibility to the educators.

We don‘t discuss it specifically, but at home, my child will tell me, “I am a Chinese person.” Or when she hears the national anthem, she’ll say, “Mummy, the teacher says when the national anthem plays, we have to stand still and look at the flag.” … She brought it up, not me.

(KD-Parent 2)

This sense of delegation was often rooted in the belief that the kindergarten was already fulfilling its duty effectively. As another parent noted:

What do I care about most? I care most that she doesn’t know who she is… The kindergarten has already handled this well. My child is now in K3 and preparing for interviews, and we have taught her to introduce herself by first stating her name, her age, and then saying, “I am a Chinese person.” The kindergarten has already taught her this.

(KA-Parent 4)

3.2. Theme 2: Efficiency Versus Nuance in Home–School Collaboration

A clear disconnect emerge regarding the ideal mode and purpose of communication, a gap that becomes particularly pronounced when navigating the sensitive topic of national identity. This reveals different underlying philosophies about what effective home–school collaboration on national identity education entails.

3.2.1. The Parental Quest for Efficient and Transparent Communication

Parents’ desire for efficient communication was often linked to a need for transparency about what their children were learning, including the specifics of the national identity education curriculum. Driven by busy schedules, they preferred immediate and direct channels. They celebrated face-to-face interactions at pickup, which allowed for quick updates on their child’s learning and behavior.

I really appreciate this year’s arrangement… I can react to any problems immediately with the teacher. I find it very good. Before, it was like playing hide-and-seek with the teacher over the phone. I’m not free, so I call back, but then the teacher is busy… so face-to-face is the most direct method.

(KB-Parent 7)

This desire for efficiency extended to a call for robust digital platforms, not just for logistics, but to stay informed about curriculum content, ensuring they were aware of how topics like national identity were being presented in the classroom.

3.2.2. The Educator’s Prioritization of Nuance and Relational Safety

In sharp contrast, educators’ skepticism toward technology for communication was rooted in the unique challenges of discussing national identity in the Hong Kong context. They described a careful, human-centric process for handling sensitive topics. This strategy involves maintaining a neutral stance and offering flexibility to accommodate diverse family backgrounds.

When we design the curriculum, our teachers maintain a neutral position to explain the content. Even with flag-raising, we let the children know the reason behind it. We give parents a choice; if they know about these activities and feel uncomfortable, they are welcome to tell the kindergarten, and we can arrange for the child to leave for that period.

(KC-Educator 2)

They argued that the topic requires a level of cultural and political nuance that automated systems cannot possess. Their concerns were highly specific to the subject matter.

I don’t think it can be done. AI from other countries won’t understand Chinese culture well, or it won’t have the skills to communicate with Hong Kong parents. As for Mainland AI, there are many sensitive words that we can’t use. So there are definite limitations.

(KB-Educator 3)

This quote illustrates that for teachers, communication about national identity education is not a simple information transfer. It is a delicate process requiring professional judgment, cultural awareness, and a trusted human relationship to navigate potential sensitivities. This reveals a critical difference in priorities: parents seek logistical efficiency in communication, while educators prioritize relational safety and pedagogical precision, especially when handling the delicate subject of national identity.

3.3. Theme 3: The Technology Paradox: Aspirational Hopes vs. Practical Hurdles

The data reveal a profound paradox in perceptions of technology as a tool for national identity education. Parents largely embraced an optimistic vision of AI as a transformative educational medium, whereas educators offered a pragmatic and sobering perspective grounded in resource scarcity and pedagogical unsuitability.

3.3.1. Parental Optimism: AI as a Modern Tool for Cultural Education

From the parents’ perspective, integrating AI was a necessity for future-proofing their children’s education. They saw technology as a powerful medium to make national and cultural education more dynamic and appealing to a digital-native generation. Their discourse was framed around progress and the need to keep pace with a changing world.

I think it’s good. For AI creation, we have to keep up with the times… The future of the world, whether in China, Hong Kong, or globally, will be an AI world. If they don’t get exposed to it and learn about it from a young age, they will fall behind.

(KA-Parent 4)

For them, AI was not just a general tool but a specific solution to make potentially dry topics like history and culture more interactive and engaging for young children. However, this optimism was sometimes tempered by security concerns, with a few parents mentioning the use of AI in scams and the need for kindergartens to carefully vet any programs used (KB-Parent 5).

3.3.2. Educator Pragmatism: Technology as an Ill-Fitting and Under-Resourced Tool

On the contrary, educators viewed the prospect of using AI for national identity education through a lens of practical constraints and pedagogical unsuitability. Their response was immediate, focusing on the foundational barriers of funding, training, and time.

Teacher 1: Money! And training. This is necessary.

(KC-Educator 2)

Teacher 2: That’s right, money and knowledge.

(KC-Educator 4)

Beyond abstract calls for funding, teachers pointed to glaring infrastructural deficits that make discussions of advanced AI seem premature. One principal highlighted a fundamental barrier:

Right now, even this classroom has no Wi-Fi. Because kindergartens have always been self-financing, if you want to install Wi-Fi on another floor, it costs over ten thousand dollars… So when it comes to these small details, even if we really want teachers to use new technology, we can’t even provide them with Wi-Fi.

(KC-Educator 3)

Educators also questioned the very suitability of current AI tools for their specific purpose. They pointed out that most AI tools are not designed for young children, nor are they culturally or pedagogically aligned with the specific goals of national identity education in the local kindergarten context. The ultimate reality check was the existing digital divide among parents, which posed a barrier to implementing any new technology. One teacher’s observation captured this sentiment:

Some parents still don’t know how to sign an e-notice. We have to constantly teach them… so it’s hard to even consider using AI.

(KD-Educator 2)

This clash highlights a fundamental disconnect: while parents envision a technologically advanced future for national identity education, educators are anchored in the present-day realities of inadequate resources, a lack of relevant tools, and a foundational digital skills gap that must be addressed first.

4. Discussion

This study sought to unravel the complex dynamics of home–school collaboration for national identity education in Hong Kong kindergartens, a nexus where pedagogical goals, parental expectations, and technological integration intersect. The findings reveal a landscape defined not by outright opposition but by a profound misalignment of expectations and priorities between educators and parents. The consensus on an experiential pedagogy masks a deeper divergence in perceived roles, communication needs, and the practical realities of technology adoption. Interpreted through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecological Systems Theory, these tensions highlight a fragile mesosystem, where differing assumptions and the disruptive influence of the technological exosystem strain the crucial link between the home and school microsystems.

4.1. Interpreting the Perception Gap in the Mesosystem

The first major finding, the paradoxical consensus on pedagogy coupled with divergent views on responsibility, extends existing literature on cultural parenting styles. The shared endorsement of experiential, play-based learning aligns with established principles of effective ECE, which prioritize active, hands-on engagement over didactic instruction (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2022). This shared ground represents a significant strength. However, the conflict over roles reveals a critical disconnect. Parents’ delegation of formal national identity education to the kindergarten, framing their own role as reactive, resonates with research highlighting Chinese parents’ deference to teachers as educational experts (Yamamoto et al., 2022). While prior research has established that parents prefer using art forms when they do engage with this topic (Wong et al., 2025b), our findings add crucial context, suggesting that such engagement is often reactive and infrequent. This creates a weak mesosystem where the two primary microsystems, home and school, operate on parallel tracks rather than in a reinforcing partnership.

The second theme, the conflict between parents’ desire for efficiency and educators’ emphasis on nuance in communication, reveals the unique pressures on the mesosystem when discussing national identity. Parents’ demand for instant, transparent, and often digital communication reflects practical needs of modern life and a wish to oversee curriculum content. Conversely, educators’ cautious approach and preference for human-mediated communication stem from the politically and culturally sensitive nature of national identity in Hong Kong (Morris & Vickers, 2015; Wong & Wong, 2024). Their skepticism toward AI here is not mere resistance to technology; it is a professional judgment that such a delicate topic requires relational safety, cultural awareness, and pedagogical accuracy that current automated systems do not provide. This highlights an important point: effective home–school collaboration on sensitive issues requires more than quick information sharing; it depends on trust and a shared understanding of the communication context, which educators believe technology cannot yet ensure.

The third theme, the technology paradox, most clearly illustrates the powerful and often problematic influence of the exosystem on ECE. Parents’ optimism reflects a societal narrative of technological solutionism, where AI is seen as an inevitable and desirable tool for future-proofing education. Educators, however, are grounded in the reality of their microsystem. Their pragmatic concerns about a lack of funding, training, and even basic infrastructure like Wi-Fi are not merely complaints; they are a direct reflection of the systemic under-resourcing of the ECE sector in Hong Kong. This connects directly to the well-documented risk that, without adequate support, educators default to using technology in the most simplistic, drill-and-practice ways, effectively creating digital worksheets that undermine the very play-based pedagogy they endorse (Cuban, 2001; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015). The educators’ resistance is therefore not to technology itself, but to the prospect of its poor implementation, which they rightly fear will accelerate the “push-down” of a narrow, academic curriculum at the expense of holistic development.

4.2. Global Implications for Early Childhood Education

While situated in Hong Kong, these findings offer significant implications for the quality of ECE globally. The “technology paradox” identified here is not unique to this context. It reflects a worldwide challenge where the “digital veneer” of education often outpaces the structural support required to implement it meaningfully (Wong & Wong, 2026). This study suggests that for any education system attempting to integrate technology into value-laden curricula (whether national identity, sustainability, or social-emotional learning), the prerequisite is not software, but relational trust. If the mesosystem (home–school partnership) is weak, technology is likely to become a wedge that exacerbates misunderstandings rather than a bridge. Therefore, improving ECE quality globally requires shifting focus from simply acquiring tools to building the human infrastructure, including training, time, and communication channels, to allow those tools to be used in developmentally appropriate ways.

Collectively, these findings have significant implications. For policymakers, this study serves as a caution that top-down mandates for both national identity education and technology integration are destined to falter without addressing the foundational needs of the ECE sector. The call from educators is not for more advanced AI, but for basic resources: funding, professional development, and curriculum support. For kindergarten leaders and educators, the findings highlight an urgent need to move beyond simply organizing activities and to engage in explicit, proactive communication with parents about pedagogical philosophies and the specific, crucial role of home reinforcement in making school-based learning meaningful.

4.3. Limitations and Future Directions

This study is not without its limitations. As a qualitative inquiry, its findings offer depth and nuance but are not statistically generalizable. The participant pool, while diverse in socio-economic background, was predominantly female, reflecting the demographics of both the ECE profession and primary caregivers in Hong Kong. Future research could employ quantitative methods to assess the prevalence of the identified perception gaps across a larger population. Furthermore, a design-based research project that co-develops and pilots a communication tool with both educators and parents could offer valuable insights into whether technology can be thoughtfully designed to bridge, instead of widen, the divide in expectations.

5. Conclusions

The challenge of integrating new, value-laden curriculum mandates into ECE is a global phenomenon, whether the topic is national identity, digital citizenship, or sustainability. This study, situated in the complex educational landscape of Hong Kong, reveals that the most significant barrier is often not pedagogical but relational. It demonstrates that a fundamental perception gap exists between parents and educators, two groups who are essential partners in a child’s development. While these key stakeholders may agree on the “how” of teaching through rich, experiential activities, they can remain worlds apart on the “who” of responsibility, the “what” of effective communication, and the “when” of technological integration. This dynamic, where parents look to a technologically advanced future while educators are anchored in a present defined by resource scarcity and pedagogical integrity, is a tension felt in school systems worldwide.

A central conclusion of this research, with clear international implications, is that technology is not the panacea that policymakers and many parents hope it will be. Introducing sophisticated tools like AI into an educational system already strained by misaligned expectations and a lack of foundational support risks exacerbating existing problems. This study serves as a cautionary tale for education systems globally: rushing to adopt technology without first addressing the human and systemic infrastructure can lead to the deployment of poor-quality tools that undermine professional pedagogy and widen, rather than bridge, communication divides. The path to a stronger partnership does not begin with a software subscription; it begins with a conversation.

The shared belief in an immersive, activity-based pedagogy, a principle that resonates with best practices in ECE globally, is the vital common ground upon which a more robust collaboration can be built. This consensus provides a universal starting point for schools to articulate their vision and for parents to understand that their role extends beyond being mere spectators of their child’s education. Fostering any complex competency in a young child, be it a sense of identity or a love of learning, is a delicate, collaborative process. The true task ahead, in Hong Kong and beyond, is not simply to implement new policies or technologies, but to cultivate a shared understanding and a collective commitment between home and school, ensuring both are working in concert to support every child’s holistic development.