View
212
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Utah]On: 25 November 2014, At: 16:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Asia Pacific Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20
Different regions, diverse classrooms?A study of primary classrooms in ChinaCarmel McNaughta, Beatrice Loka, Hongbiao Yinb, John Chi-KinLeec & Huan Songd
a Centre for Learning Enhancement and Research, The ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong, Shatin, Chinab Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong, Shatin, Chinac Vice-President (Academic) Office, Hong Kong Institute ofEducation, Tai Po, Chinad Beijing Normal University, Beijing, ChinaPublished online: 17 Dec 2013.
To cite this article: Carmel McNaught, Beatrice Lok, Hongbiao Yin, John Chi-Kin Lee & Huan Song(2014) Different regions, diverse classrooms? A study of primary classrooms in China, Asia PacificJournal of Education, 34:3, 319-336, DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2013.860005
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.860005
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Different regions, diverse classrooms? A study of primary classroomsin China
Carmel McNaughta*, Beatrice Loka, Hongbiao Yinb, John Chi-Kin Leec and Huan Songd
aCentre for Learning Enhancement and Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin,China; bDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin,China; cVice-President (Academic) Office, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, China;dBeijing Normal University, Beijing, China
(Received 9 February 2011; final version received 14 March 2013)
Classroom experience is shaped by a number of factors. In this paper, we report aclassroom observation study in China, illustrating regional variation in students’classroom learning experiences. Through comparing and contrasting observedclassroom practices in three different regions in China (Chongqing, Hong Kong andShanghai), the paper provides an analysis of the variation in classroom learningexperiences of primary school students in China. Our empirical classroom observationdata illustrates some key differences in the pedagogy, the use of classroom activities,and the implementation of the curriculum between individual schools. More substantialdifferences in classroom practices are found when comparing schools from differentregions than those within a given city, leading us to conclude that regional impacts onstudent experience appear to be more important than within-city factors such as thelocation of a school or its level of facilities.
Keywords: primary classrooms; China; classroom experience; interactivity; regionaldifferences
Introduction
Classroom experience is a matrix of social and academic interaction. It varies from city to
city and country to country. China is a country with significant variations in its educational
systems between different cities and regions. Based on classroom observation data
collected in Chongqing, Hong Kong and Shanghai, this paper compares and contrasts
classroom experiences between various areas in China, examining differences and
similarities of pedagogical practices in three elementary lessons at senior primary level
(Chinese, English and Mathematics); these subjects are seen as central to the curriculum in
all three cities. The study’s research questions are:
1. How does the classroom experience of students vary within schools in different
settings – urban (downtown), suburban and peri-urban (village) in the same city in
China?
2. What variations in classroom experience of students can be found between three
major cities in China – Chongqing, Hong Kong and Shanghai?
The structure of the paper is as follows: first, the choice of China and the three chosen
regions will be justified, and linked to the study’s research purposes. The description of the
research design and findings leads to a discussion about possible factors that have
q 2013 National Institute of Education, Singapore
*Corresponding author. Email: carmel.mcnaught@cuhk.edu.hk
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 2014
Vol. 34, No. 3, 319–336, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.860005
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
influenced and shaped the classroom experiences between different provinces and local
contexts.
Chinese setting for this study
Well-organized, systematic classroom observation can highlight important implications for
teacher education as well as classroom research (Croll, 1986; Flanders, 1970). In order to
analyse Chinese students’ differing classroom experiences, natural classroom interactions
were observed in a systematic but flexible manner. The choice of China for this
comparative study of different classroom experiences is educationally interesting. China is
one of the largest countries in the world. It is a culturally diverse context with 55 ethnic
groups and over 70 different spoken languages. As most comparative education research
tends to contrast different curriculum and pedagogical practices across different countries,
it is interesting to examine the internal differences within the same national context.
Weisner and Gallimore (1988) noted that it is a mistake to over-generalize the cultural
experiences of individual students from similar national or ethnic backgrounds. Indeed, it
is important to refine the level of our cultural analysis to examine the ways in which
sociocultural contexts shape the learning experiences of students.
China, the largest country in East Asia, has experienced significant changes and growth
over the past two decades. Since its national establishment in 1949, China has evolved from
an agricultural country into a commercial and industrial country. Politically, a relatively
stable, unique, Chinese-style of communism has evolved. Following different purposes and
geographical characteristics, different provinces in China have developed their unique
functions and roles to fulfil the national development plan of the country as a whole. Among
the 34 provincial administrative units in China, Chongqing, Hong Kong and Shanghai were
chosen as three individual cases in this present study in order to provide studies in cities of key
importance in China, that are also known to be different in history and character (Figure 1).
The structures for primary education policy in Hong Kong and in Mainland China
(Chongqing and Shanghai) are different. Education in Chongqing and Shanghai is under
a state-run system – the Commission of Education of the People’s of Republic China –
though there is more flexibility in the curriculum in Shanghai than in many other parts of
Mainland China. In Hong Kong, the education policy is run by the Education Bureau with
Figure 1. A map of the three cities in China involved in the study.
320 C. McNaught et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
less direct government influence. There is also a wider variety of school types in Hong
Kong than in Mainland China, and this enhances the flexibility of curriculum design
among various schools in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong primary education generally aims to provide foundation training to
students in order to support their transition to secondary education. It emphasizes a
balanced education for students with a particular focus on pragmatic Chinese and English
language training, spoken and written (Education Bureau, 2010). On the contrary, the
focus of primary education in Mainland China is related to China’s national economic
development through science and technology (Mok, 1997). Thus, the curriculum in Hong
Kong and Mainland China are based on two separate sets of primary education objectives
as well as distinctive curriculum designs and classroom strategies.
Chongqing province is located in central-western China. In 2005, its registered
population was over 30 million. The capital city of the province, also named Chongqing,
has a population of ,3.1 million. Although Putonghua is the official spoken language in
Chongqing, the Sichuan dialect is commonly used.With its rich natural resources, the pillar
industries of Chongqing include chemistry, manufacturing and agriculture. Chongqing is
thus a developed province with agricultural, industrial and commercial sectors.
Hong Kong is located at the mouth of the Pearl River Delta; with a population of
7 million, it is the smallest among the three regions. Because of its colonial historical
influence, traditional Chinese (Cantonese) and English are the official languages in this
Special Administrative Region. British influence can be seen in many aspects of Hong
Kong’s political and educational systems. Due to its limited land area and the lack of
natural resources, the major sources of income in Hong Kong come from finance, real
estate and tourism. In terms of its political status, Hong Kong is very different from
Chongqing and Shanghai. Hong Kong, with its special administrative regional identity,
has a separate legal system. According to the Basic Law, Hong Kong enjoys its own
autonomy to rule its society. Thus, the social and legal systems in Hong Kong are very
different from Chongqing and Shanghai.
Shanghai, located at the mouth of Yangtze River, is the largest city in China with a
population of 19.2 million. Shanghainese is commonly used as the main social dialect.
Shanghai is the largest port in the world and its major industries include trading, iron and steel,
real estate and finance. Although Shanghai shares a similar legal system to Chongqing, it is a
cosmopolitan city quite like Hong Kong. With increasing foreign investment in Shanghai, the
population of Shanghai has become increasingly diverse. Considering its commercial
development and its geographic location, the context of Shanghai is similar to Hong Kong in
many ways. However, its social and political systems are more aligned to that in Chongqing.
A school system is a mirror of society, which can clearly reflect sociocultural change in
terms of curriculum design, parental expectations, community values and employer
requirements (Brady, 1992). Classroom experiences vary according to locale and are
important indicators of the quality of education. A comparative study of the three
classroom learning environments could assist in understanding educational development
in China, and also in understanding how these sociocultural contextual influences might
impact on student learning.
Teacher–student classroom interaction studies
The role of teacher–student classroom interactions has been an enduring focus of
educational research. Flanders (1970) developed interaction analysis as a systematic
observation framework for the study of teachers’ classroom behaviour and the nature of
Asia Pacific Journal of Education 321
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
interactions occurring inside the classroom. The importance of research on teacher–
student interaction was further strengthened by other scholars such as Good and Brophy
(2003) and Wragg (1999). Today, the area is a salient topic in the field of learning
environments research (den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004; den Brok, Fisher, &
Scott, 2005; Fisher, Waldrip, & den Brok, 2005).
The reason for the long-standing interest in teacher–student interaction is obvious.
Most educational activities take place through interactions between the teacher and the
students in class. However, in such an exceptionally busy, fast-moving and complicated
social setting, many teachers are not aware of the extent and frequency of the contacts they
initiate with students. This lack of teacher awareness may cause problems in student
learning as well as classroom management (Good & Brophy, 2003; Wragg, 1999). Studies
on learning environments have repeatedly shown that teacher–student classroom
interactions impact on students’ learning process and outcomes. Teacher behaviours, such
as encouraging students to make choices, empowering them to take control of challenges,
and asking them to evaluate themselves and others, can have strong and positive effects on
students’ enjoyment of, and attitude towards, science and mathematics classes (den Brok
et al., 2005; Goh & Fraser, 1998; Khine & Fisher, 2004; Lang, Wong, & Fraser, 2005); on
student outcomes in language learning (den Brok et al., 2004; Hall & Walsh, 2002; Wu,
1993); the development of students’ self-regulated motivation and learning strategies
(Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer, & Norby, 2002); and, for students with various learning
difficulties, impact on students’ self-concept, academic engagement, and satisfaction with
school (Baker, 1999; Jordan & Stanovich, 2001; Thompson, White, & Morgan, 1982; Vile
Junod, DuPaul, Jitendra, Volpe, & Cleary, 2006).
A number of teacher characteristics influence classroom interactions, including
experience, personality, beliefs, and communication style. In one observation study,
classrooms of experienced teachers were found to have significantly higher levels of
classroom communication and flexibility that those of novice teachers (O’Connor, Fish, &
Yasik, 2004). Fisher, Kent, and Fraser’s (1998) study found that teachers’ personality
appeared to be consistently associated with their self-perception of how they interacted
with students. Moreover, teachers’ beliefs and communication style have also been found
to reinforce or sustain the nature of teacher–student interaction (Ilatov, Shamai, Hertz-
Lazarovitz, & Mayer-Young, 1998; She, 2000). While teacher characteristics need to be
recognized and are clearly important, in this study, nine schools were involved and, with
this limited number, variation in teacher characteristics is not controlled.
Many researchers (e.g., Nelson & Roberts, 2000; Skinner & Belmont, 1993) have
noted that the relationship between teacher–student interactions and student engagement
and behaviour is not one-way, but is reciprocal. Students’ race, gender and grade
characteristics may be associated with their interaction with teachers in classrooms,
though most of the reported studies are not based in a Chinese context, and thus are of
limited relevance to this study.
As Myers (2008) suggested, teacher–student classroom interaction is influenced
strongly by the teaching beliefs held by the teacher. Mottet and Beebe (2006) defined two
perspectives on instructional communication: the rhetorical perspective and the relational
perspective. In the rhetorical perspective, teachers consider their interaction with students
as a means to influence or persuade them; they concentrate on clarity of explanations,
making course content relevant, and acting in an assertive manner. In the relational
perspective, teachers interact with their students as a means of developing a relationship
with communication being mutually created and shared between students and teachers.
322 C. McNaught et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
In Mainland China, most studies on teacher–student classroom interactions are
theoretical analyses, focusing on the nature of interaction (Ye & Pang, 2001); the
strategies teachers use in classroom interactions (Cheng, 2001); and factors such as
teachers’ gender, competence, and instructional models (Han, Zhou, & Hu, 2008).
However, there are also some empirical studies in this field. For example, the
questionnaire on teacher interaction (QTI) developed by Wubbels, Brekelmans, and
Hooymayers (1999) has been adapted to a Chinese setting (Xin, Lin, & Yu, 2000), and was
applied in an exploration of the relationship between teachers’ adult attachment
relationships and their interaction style (Liu, Wei, & Jiang, 2009).
The most systematic empirical Chinese research on teacher–student classroom
interaction was conducted by Wu and his colleagues in the mid-1990s. Using a method of
classroom observation, they recorded 28 classes of mathematics and Chinese language.
Teacher–student interaction occupied 75% of classroom time (Wu, Wu, Cheng, & Liu,
1995). The lack of student–student interaction was a salient feature of this classroom
research in Mainland China, reflecting that strong control was prevalent in these primary
classrooms – an indication of the rhetorical perspective noted above.
The interactive behaviour of students in classes in China is influenced by their roles
and status. Students who are in charge of some “formal” responsibility in class are more
willing to answer teachers’ questions, and they can also get more encouragement from
teachers. In Mathematics classes, students with higher achievement are given more
opportunities to answer questions than students with lower achievement; however, this
difference is not seen in Chinese language classes (Cheng, Wu, Wu, & Liu, 1995a, 1995b).
Gender differences are not marked; boys are usually more active in asking and responding
to teachers’ questions but there is no evidence that teachers seek responses on a gendered
basis (Cheng et al., 1995a, 1995b).
Methodology
Comparative curriculum research often focuses on examining documentary data (i.e.,
textbooks, timetables, official policy documents) in order to show differences and
similarities in the curriculum content and design across countries. However, classroom
interactions, student responses in classrooms and classroom instructional practices are
alternative important sources of data than can reveal factors that affect students’ classroom
learning experiences. Indeed, classroom observation data is significant in analysing
students’ classroom learning experiences, and more comparative studies that include
classroom observation are needed (Eisner, 1985; Leung, 1995).
Shadowing
“Shadowing” or “whole-day observation” was adopted in the present study. Because of the
authority structures that operate in education in China (including Hong Kong), interviews
with young children are often not reliable because young (and often not-so-young)
students tell the interviewer what they believe the interviewer wants to hear. This is seen as
a form of respect. So, while the significant body of research on classroom interactions
includes student perception findings, it was our decision that classroom observation would
be preferable in this study.
As described by Wilson and Corbett (1999), “shadowing” is “the process of following
a student and systematically recording that student’s instructional experiences” (p. 47).
This technique, while labour-intensive, has at least two merits. First, it can make
Asia Pacific Journal of Education 323
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
individual students stand out as a whole rather than just a member of the student body
(Powell & Roberson, 1967). Second, it can provide “a rich display of what happens in the
classroom and provides a deeper understanding of the connection between pedagogy and
student performance” (Wilson & Corbett, 1999, p. 47).
Shadowing has been used in educational research on students’ school life for a long
time. Whole-day observations have been common (e.g., in the UK, Landowska, Hlosek,
Garriock, Mathys, & Greenhalgh, 2003; Mills, 1980). Recently, this technique was used to
obtain a geo-ethnographic look at a day in the life of US students from diverse cultures
(Biffle, 2006), and to examine emphasis on globalization in a school day in different
Chinese cities (Lee, McNaught, Yin, & Song, 2008). Furthermore, it has also been
suggested that shadowing can be used to evaluate the quality of some educational
programmes (Desjean-Perrotta, 1998) and the process of school restructuring (Herman &
Datnow, 1997).
In the present study, information was mainly collected through a whole-day classroom
observation. While a particular student was kept in mind during the observation as a
strategy for maintaining focus on student experience, much of the coding and the field
notes took into consideration the whole class.
Cases selected
The study adopted a case-study approach of three schools in each of the cities of
Chongqing, Hong Kong and Shanghai. In each city, one urban school, one suburban school
and one peri-urban school were selected; this was done in order to provide some similar
structure to the selection of schools in the three regions. The selection of the schools was
done by three of the researchers; each of these three is very familiar with schools in one of
the three cities and well connected with school principals. The definition of what
constitutes urban, suburban and peri-urban is quite complex in these three large cities;
however, in each city the “urban” school was very centrally located in a “downtown” area,
and there was some increase in rural character in terms of more open space and lower ease
of access for the peri-urban schools.
A complete school day of a Grade-five student was observed and audio-recorded in
each school. Semi-structured interviews with teachers and students were also conducted.
All main school subjects (Chinese, English and Mathematics) were observed in each
school, as well as other lessons that were scheduled on the observed school day. The
interview data collected from the teachers and students at six of the participant schools
were discussed in Lee et al. (2008). This paper will focus on examining the data collected
from classroom observations and on analysing the different classroom learning
experiences that students had in the various school settings. The intention is to add to
our understanding of possible variation in students’ classroom experience in a number of
different types of school in China.
Coding system
During the observation period, a well-defined coding system was used to record the
frequency of occurrence of different types of classroom interaction every 10 minutes. The
coding system was consolidated during the Hong Kong observations where four observers
attended each lesson. At the end of each day, detailed discussions enabled small
refinements to be made. The observations and codings in Chongqing and Shanghai were
made by two of these observers, one in each city. There were therefore some differences in
324 C. McNaught et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
the processes adopted in Hong Kong from that in the Mainland China schools. However,
the overall process that was adopted enabled clear agreement about the coding protocol
across all nine schools.
The coding framework (Table 1) used includes different types of teacher pedagogical
practice, and different types of classroom activity and social interaction, such as
questioning, non-academic interactions, individual student activity, and so on. Our coding
system was based on that of Flanders (1970). In the Flanders system, classroom activity is
broken down into teacher talk, student talk, and silence or confusion (Aspry & Roebuck,
1977). Teacher talk and student talk is subdivided. There is almost never silence in a
Chinese classroom and so this category was removed. We then subdivided teacher talk and
student talk into the categories shown in Table 1 based on the combined experience of the
four researchers who have, collectively, spent several decades in classrooms in China and
elsewhere.
The final codes for data collected in the Chinese, English and Mathematics classes in
the three Hong Kong schools are in Table 2, as an illustration of the data set.
Field notes were also taken in order to provide supplementary information about the
classroom interaction for further analysis. These field notes were extensive and an integral
part of the data. Examples of two extracts are in Table 3.
The classroom observations of nine schools within these three cities were done over a
two-month time-frame. At the data-analysis stage, all field notes were first translated into
English in order to allow all researchers to access the data. Working in a bilingual
environment – both in the classrooms studied and within the research team – brings
methodological challenges. Care was taken to ensure accuracy of recording data and
clarity of interpretation.
The data set was complex and dense, and interpretation required extensive cross-
referencing of the codes with the detailed field notes. Indeed, it should be emphasized that
the coding data alone was insufficient. For example, in deciding whether a teacher adopted
an authoritative or a facilitative role (in line with the earlier discussion on rhetorical and
Table 1. Coding framework.
Item Sub-item
Categories A. Individual student activity A1. academicA2. non-academic
(General code foreach 10min.)
B. Teacher–student interaction
C. Student–student interactionFiner coding as appropriateTeacher pedagogicalpractice for category B
a. questioning a1. academic
a2. non-academicb. lecturingc. other interactive activities;
such as instructions, brieffollow-up explanations
Student–student interactionfor category C
a. social non-academic interactions,e.g., chatting, playing, smiling, etc.
b. academic interactions b1. discussionb2. working on a taskb3. note takingb4. presenting in the group/
to the teacher
Asia Pacific Journal of Education 325
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
relational perspectives), information about the nature of the questions asked in the
question–answer (Q&A) lesson segments and the nature of the tasks set for individual or
group-work was needed. This critical information was in the field notes. So, a facilitative
teacher is one who asks more open-ended questions, who designs interactive activities for
students, who appears to focus on developing specific relationships with students (in line
with a relational perspective). An authoritative teacher is one who focuses on clarity of
explanation – often through a lecturing style (in line with a rhetorical perspective).
To avoid any possible research interference that our study may have caused in the
participant schools, video data was not collected. However, it is believed that the well-
defined coding system and the use of detailed field notes were comprehensive enough to
reveal key events and incidents in the observed lessons.
Table 2. Summary of coding data for Chinese, English and Mathematics classes in three HongKong schools.
Chinese: Urban HK X;Suburban HK O;Peri-urban HK #
Time (10min. slot) A1 A2 Ba1 Ba2 Bb Bc Ca Cb1 Cb2 Cb3 Cb41. # XO# O O2. # XO# O3. # XO# O# O O4. O O # XO5. O O O X O X6. X O O7. XO XO X8. XO O X9. O O O O10. O O O11. O O O O12. OEnglish: Urban HK X;Suburban HK O; Peri-urbanHK # Note: variable lessonlengths between schoolsTime (10min. slots) A1 A2 Ba1 Ba2 Bb Bc Ca Cb1 Cb2 Cb3 Cb41. X O #2. XO# O3. XO XO# O4. # XO XO X5. # XO XO6. # X7. X X X# X X8. # #9. # # # #Maths: Urban HK X;Suburban HK O;Peri-urban HK #Time (10min. slot) A1 A2 Ba1 Ba2 Bb Bc Ca Cb1 Cb2 Cb3 Cb41. O# X# XO O2. O X XO# O3. O O # XO4. # O # XO# O
326 C. McNaught et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Findings
The time-tables in these nine schools in Chongqing, Hong Kong and Shanghai were
similar in their structure, though lesson lengths varied; however, classroom facilities,
Table 3. Two excerpts from field notes from the English-language classes in the urban and peri-urban schools in Hong Kong.
Excerpt 1: Urban school
Activities Time
† English lesson begins. Two English female teachers.Original textbooks which were also used in Australianprimary schools.
8:20–8:30am
† Teachers and students’ discussion about the observers asguests. They spoke naturally and fluently. A student said,“I will have eyes in the back of my head.”
† Teacher initiated a group competition among six groupsabout what they learned before. Students replied ingood English.
† Teacher asked students to move onto chapter 5, and said,“would you like to read this text for us?” Severalstudents replied.
† Teacher made meta-cognitive statement: “Skim through andcheck the meaning. You need to do this by yourself”,followed by a section of Q&A which was about the storythey learned in the previous chapter.
8:30–8:40am
† Teacher said, “I want people who don’t know the answers.”A prompting statement.
† Teacher asks open-ended questions, and encouraged studentsto think more on the problems. She said, “If you were the boy,what will you do?”
Excerpt 2: Peri-urban school
Activities Time
† English class begins. A female teacher. The book they usedwas “Magic (student’s book)” published by Oxford which wasadopted by many primary schools in Hong Kong.
8:35–8:45am
† Class began with exchange of “Good morning” betweenteacher and students.
† Teacher handed out the exercise book, but said, “Listen tome first. I will give you time to fill in the worksheet.”
† A low-level Q&A section began. The questions were all“standard” textbook questions, such as “what is theweather today?”, “what is this in the picture?”, etc.
† Low-level questions continued. For example, “What is hedoing in this picture?”
8:45–8:55am
† The teacher asked students to do a sentence-making exercise.The students’ English was very limited. When the teacherasked a question, students often answered in Cantonese.A student could not spell “country” when the teacherasked them to write down “country park”.
† Then, the teacher told the students, “you may fill in yourwriting sheet.” Students began to copy the answers intotheir exercise book.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education 327
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
interaction patterns and classroom atmosphere varied from school to school. This section
aims to compare the similarities and differences of the nine schools in two ways: (1) inter-
regional differences in classroom experiences between Chongqing, Hong Kong and
Shanghai; (2) within each region, differences in classroom experiences between urban,
suburban and peri-urban schools.
In the comments below, it is important to bear in mind that this small sample of schools
cannot be considered to be general cases. Each school is one instantiation of schools of that
geographical and national type.
The observed classroom experience in Chongqing schools
The three participant schools in Chongqing had the same traditional classroom layout with
students arranged in rows facing a blackboard. The school located at the city centre was
better equipped than the other two schools in suburban and peri-urban areas. Besides basic
teaching equipment such as blackboards, other modern equipment such as visualizers, TV
sets and projectors were found in the downtown classroom. The class size in the three
participant schools in Chongqing ranged from 33 to 53 students. Although the class sizes
in two schools were large (49 and 53 students per class respectively), none of the observed
lessons in Chongqing used co-teaching.
Within the three participant schools in Chongqing, the classroom observation data
indicated that the teaching methods and classroom practices in English and Mathematics
classes were similar and quite formal; teachers adopted the role of an authoritative expert.
The better standard of classroom equipment and resources in the urban school did not
result in noticeable changes in students’ experiences.
Similar frequencies of lecture-type activities and individual student activity were
observed in all three English classes. Also, the teachers mainly used questioning methods
as an instructional strategy during the observed Mathematics lessons, and most of the
questions posed only required concrete responses. These low-level Q&A sessions were
interspersed with teacher-given explanations or “lecturing” segments. The role of such
Q&A segments appears to be to keep students attentive, rather than to facilitate personal
knowledge construction. It was therefore often difficult to separate coding for questioning
(Ba) and lecturing (Bb). The student–student interactions in Chongqing classrooms were
mainly discussion and completion of textbook-based exercises.
Although the three schools in Chongqing shared similar classroom practices in the
English and Mathematics classrooms, one obvious difference was that the suburban school
tended to have more non-academic individual student activity, such as chatting, than the
other two schools in both English and Mathematics lessons.
However, the Chinese language classes showed more variation between them, with the
students in the central downtown school being engaged in writing on their own and the
teacher adopting a much less formal and more facilitative role.
The observed classroom experience in Shanghai schools
The three participant schools in Shanghai were located in a central downtown area, an
inner suburb and an outlying village. The class sizes in these three schools ranged from 29
to 36 students per class. The teacher–student ratio was about 1:11 in the three schools.
In Shanghai, several similarities in classroom practices were identified among the
three participant schools. In the English classes, the data illustrated a focus on formal
teacher–student interaction. Similar to the English classes in Chongqing, English teachers
328 C. McNaught et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
in these Shanghai schools also used low-level Q&A as one of the main teaching strategies
in the observed classrooms. However, Shanghainese students in the three schools
generally exhibited hardworking learning attitudes during the English lessons. For
instance, they answered the teacher’s questions actively in the English class; they read
aloud the factual knowledge they had learnt in class several times, and they also followed
the teacher’s instructions closely.
A similar frequency of teacher–student activities and similar amount of formal Q&A/
lecturing time was observed in all three Mathematics classrooms in Shanghai; there was
limited student–student interaction as essentially all the time was teacher-dominated. As
Table 3 shows, there was some individual student work on exercises in the suburban class,
and one short episode of discussion in the peri-urban class.
The observation data also indicated that the time spent on lecturing in Chinese lessons
was similar among the three participant schools in Shanghai. However, the Q&A segments
contained slightly more reflective and probing questions, such as “What is the most
impressive paragraph or sentences in the text for you?” were asked during the Chinese
classrooms, which was very different from the type of factual and close-ended questions
asked in the English lessons.
Although more non-academic student–student interactions occurred in the peri-urban
English and Mathematics classrooms than the other two schools, overall the methods used
for handling classroom discipline and management were quite similar in the three schools.
The observed classroom experience in Hong Kong schools
Similar to the schools chosen in Shanghai and Chongqing, one central downtown school,
one suburban school (this time in a public estate) and one village school were selected for
the study. The physical environments of the three schools were pleasant with some sport
facilities, playgrounds and some green areas. The size of the classes in the three schools
varied from 26 to 36 students per class. Two schools had single teachers in the observed
classrooms, while one school (urban) used co-teaching in the observed lessons, and, in
addition, the classroom facilities were quite advanced.
Among the observed English classes in Hong Kong, the amount of time assigned to
individual learning activities was similar in the three participant schools. Compared to the
English lessons observed in Chongqing and Shanghai, all three schools in Hong Kong had
more interactive learning activities in their English lessons. For instance, teachers used
pictures and written words on the blackboard to encourage students to verbally participate
in the English classes. They also tended to limit the proportion of individual activities for
English learning, as most of the activities were organized in pairs or in groups. However,
the levels of proficiency in English varied between the students in the downtown school
and the students in other two schools, with the downtown students being much more
proficient and confident.
In addition, the three schools in Hong Kong had more group activities for Mathematics
learning when comparing to the observed Mathematics classes in Chongqing and
Shanghai. Two of the Hong Kong classrooms had the desks arranged for group-work. The
observation data collected in Hong Kong showed that no individual learning activities
were observed during the Mathematics lessons.
It is important to note that the general classroom experience at the Hong Kong urban
school was noticeably different from the schools located in the public estate and village
areas. For instance, there was a relatively lower frequency of lecturing and more active
student work. The urban school in Hong Kong was more affluent than the other two
Asia Pacific Journal of Education 329
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Table
4.
Summaryoftheschoolprofilesofthenineprimaryschoolsin
Chongqing,HongKongandShanghai
(based
oncodes
andfieldnotes).
Chongqing
HongKong
Shanghai
Location
Urban
(Downtown)
Suburban
Peri-urban
(Village)
Urban
(Downtown)
Suburban
Peri-urban
(Village)
Urban
(Downtown)
Suburban
Peri-urban
(Village)
Yearfounded
1933
1958
1946
1915
1982
1954
1902
1994
1905
School
population
2000þ
students
1400þ
students
390þ
students
750students
585students
200students
995students
420students
672students
Class
size
(av.)
53
32
49
36
32
26
29
32
36
Classroom
layout
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional
Group
Group
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional
Level
of
facilities
Advanced
Standard
Sub-standard
Advanced
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Sub-standard
Mainteaching
style
inChi-
neseclasses
Facilitator
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Facilitator
Facilitator
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthoritative
expert
Studentactivity
inChinese
classes
Composition
Reading
literature
Reading
literature
Q&A;Class
discussion;
Writing
Discussion;
Listening;
Reading
Q&A;Listening
Q&A;Reciting
Reciting;Listen-
ing;Reading;
Q&A
Reading
literature;
Reciting;Q&A
Mainteaching
style
inEng-
lish
classes
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Facilitator
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Facilitator
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Studentactivity
inEnglish
classes
SingingEnglish
songs;Gram-
mar
exercise
SingingEnglish
songs;
Grammar
exer-
cise
SingingEnglish
songs;Gram-
mar
exercise
Q&A;Listening;
Group-w
ork
Listening;Q&A;
Comprehen-
sionexercise
Q&A
Reciting;Group
discussion;
Q&A
Listening;Voca-
bulary;Q&A;
Reciting
Q&A;Reading;
Reciting
Mainteaching
style
inMaths
classes
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Facilitator
Facilitator
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Form
alauthori-
tativeexpert
Studentactivity
inMaths
classes
Mathsexercise
Mathsexercise
Mathsexercise
Problem-based
materials;
Group
discussion
Problem-based
materials;
Group-w
ork;
Q&A
Q&A;Maths
exercise
Lecture;Q&A
Lecture;Q&A;
Mathsexercise
Lecture;Q&A;
Discussion
Majority
ofnon-
academ
icinter-
actionin
the
region
XX
X
330 C. McNaught et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
schools and students at the urban school behaved in a more mature fashion and
demonstrated a stronger learning interest than in the other two schools in Hong Kong. For
instance, students at the urban school were able to ask questions in English and reply in
comprehensive sentences. Indeed, some of them seemed especially confident in that they
were able to use interjections to increase their classroom participation during the lessons;
while the classroom participation of students in the other two Hong Kong schools was
mainly only as a response to teachers’ questions.
To summarize the similarities and differences in the classroom experience among the
schools in Chongqing, Hong Kong and Shanghai, an overall picture of the school profiles
in the three different cities, based on codes and field notes, is in Table 4.
Discussion
In this study we examined classroom learning experiences in three diverse regions of
China and examined the influence of only a few of the many possible contextual variables
that might determine the classroom environment. It is clear that a plethora of issues
intersect in trying to understand complex multi-faceted learning environments.
Our data showed that the style of teaching in the Hong Kong schools generally seemed
to be more facilitative in character than in the other two regions. Overall, Shanghai and
Chongqing schools showed less variation in instructional practice within their own regions
than the schools in Hong Kong. A number of possible intersecting factors are discussed
below, with some key words in the discussion being in bold italics.A national curriculum provides a developmental framework for individual schools
within the education system. It provides guidance to individual schools for teaching
content and strategies; however, it also controls the variation of schooling quality between
different schools. This central control may explain why the observed schooling
experiences in Shanghai and Chongqing schools were quite similar. The differences in the
school curriculum between Hong Kong and Mainland China (explained in the section
“Chinese setting for this study”) can partially explain the differences in the classroom
observations.
Lee et al. (2008), in analysing the interview data from this study, noted that students’
exposure to globalization influences among Chongqing, Hong Kong and Shanghai varies
with students in Hong Kong reflecting a relatively higher exposure to globalization than
the students in the other two regions. There is a similar variation in socioeconomicbackground of students across the three regions (Lee et al., 2008) and this diversity in
socioeconomic background of students between Hong Kong and Mainland China might
align with the learning needs of students and justify different social expectations for
primary education in the two contexts. The balance between curriculum as a support for
individual opportunity and maintenance of a societal status quo is an ongoing debate in
many nations, and so it is not surprising to see education as a key factor in the relationship
between Hong Kong and Mainland China.
In addition, the relatively similar teaching strategies in Chongqing and Shanghai
classrooms might be a result of the highly centralized control of teacher preparation in
Mainland China (Hawkins, 2000; Shen, 1994). Unlike the diverse opportunities for
professional teacher training in Hong Kong, studying at “normal” universities
(shifandaxue in Mandarin) is the only opportunity for teachers to gain a professional
qualification in Mainland China. Training for teachers is thus more centralized, resulting
in some standardization of the nature of classroom instruction.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education 331
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
It is important to note the difference in educational resources between the urban,
suburban and peri-urban schools as found in this study. This phenomenon was reflected in
all the three regions. In the case of Chongqing and Shanghai, it is argued that the
decentralization policy in Mainland China has dissipated the power (including handling
financial affairs) to village schools and such decentralization has widened the gap in
education resources between its urban and peri-urban/ rural schools across the country.
However, while there is diversity in resourcing, the nature of students’ experience did not
seem to vary very much between Chongqing and Shanghai. In the case of Hong Kong, the
policy of the direct subsidy scheme has also enhanced the quality of local private schools,
intensifying the unequal distribution of education funds, including donated funds (Chiu &
Walker, 2007).
Class size might be a factor in why the observed Hong Kong schools had more
interactive classrooms than the schools in Chongqing and Shanghai. Among all the
participant schools in this study, schools in Hong Kong had the smallest class sizes.
The average class size in the observed Hong Kong classrooms was 27 students per class,
while the average class size was 43 in Chongqing schools and 32 in Shanghai. Many
studies have indicated that small classes allow more learning and teaching interactions
between teachers and students (Biggs, 1998; Blatchford, 2003). A smaller class size with a
lower teacher–student ratio supports teachers in interacting with students during the
lessons.
Classroom arrangements are another factor in understanding the more active
interactions in Hong Kong classrooms. Schools in Chongqing and Shanghai both adopted
traditional classroom seating arrangements with rows of desks facing a blackboard.
However, two classrooms observed in Hong Kong arranged desks in cooperative groups of
six. A group-seating arrangement enables students to communicate with each other
efficiently, both verbally and non-verbally. Further, a group-seating arrangement
symbolically represents an interactive learning atmosphere that indicates an exemption
from a Chinese traditional classroom rule of “No talking”. This encourages students to
speak out in class, and it also gives students a message that they are expected to participate
in lessons. In addition, one Hong Kong classroom had background music during the lesson
to cultivate a relaxing learning atmosphere.
However, probably of more interest is the wider range of instructional practices among
the three participant schools in Hong Kong than in the Shanghai and Chongqing schools.
This may be due to the more flexible curriculum and teacher-education arrangementsthat exist in Hong Kong which were noted earlier in the paper.
While we have noted differences between classes in different subject areas, it is not
possible to do more than note that students in China appear to experience a range of
teaching styles and hence have variety in their classroom experiences. In our small sample,
we can only note that this area deserves more focused attention. It is of interest that the
facilitative nature of the teaching we observed in our three Hong Kong schools
corresponds with previous findings for Hong Kong Mathematics classrooms (e.g., Leung,
1995) that Hong Kong teachers tend to spend more time on class-work and focus on the
mathematical practices for individual students in class.
The two schools in Hong Kong (urban and suburban) tended to engage students in
multiple activities during one lesson; while teachers in the peri-urban school mainly
focused on a single teaching activity in each lesson. Both the intensity and frequency oflearning activities in class can influence the interaction between students and teachers.
Some teachers may introduce a range of activities to their students in one lesson in order to
widen their learning opportunities but others might focus on one single activity and
332 C. McNaught et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
facilitate student participation by extending its depth. In most of the observed Chinese
lessons across different regions, there was a reliance on the traditional Q&A activity.
Although the student participation may be limited by low-level Q&A activity, some
teachers did achieve student participation by asking higher-level exploratory questions
and by addressing questions to particular passive learners.
This style of classroom interactivity needs to be interpreted in terms of the pedagogical
principles that operate in Chinese classrooms. One strategy, common to classrooms in all
three regions of this study is “understanding through memorization” (e.g., Chan & Rao,
2009). What to western observers appears to be a controlled classroom environment can be
a search for meaning through thinking about the patterns and form of the dialogue
(McNaught, 2004).
The studies by Wu and his colleagues (Wu et al., 1995) in the mid-1990s in Mainland
China are, to some extent, replicated by this study where most classes in Chongqing and
Shanghai were conducted with the teacher adopting a formal authoritative style. More
facilitative teaching appears to exist in Hong Kong, though this is a tentative conclusion in
such a complex educational context.
Limitations to the study
The small number of schools studied is an obvious limitation but the detailed nature of
the data precluded a more comprehensive study. One consequence of this is that difference
between teachers is not controlled and hence little meaningful commentary can be
made about classroom experience in different subject areas. What can be said is that
Chinese students do have variation in their classroom experiences. As noted in the early
literature section, a more complete picture of classroom interactions requires examination
of factors such as students’ gender, ethnicity and class differences, as well as teachers’
pedagogical beliefs.
The main limitation of the study is in the area of the defining level of urban
development. Regional differences appear to be constituted by the regional culture, state
government planning, curriculum design and social values. According to the traditional
definition of urban area (General Register Office (GRO), 2001), a city/town refers to a
separated area with clusters of buildings including a range of shops and services that has
been historically well-established. However, the differences among the level of urban
development are not clear-cut. The terms urban, suburban and peri-urban do not have any
absolute meaning. The terminology has evolved over time and varies with context. For
instance, an area which was regarded as a peri-urban area in the early 1950s might
be perceived as urban now. In addition, the notion of urban city in Chongqing may not be
equivalent to the notion of urban city in Hong Kong due to different administrative
structures and different pace of economic development. Our analysis indicates that
classroom characteristics vary more between regions than between the level of urban
development. In some ways, this reflects the pragmatic difficulties we encountered in
categorizing and describing the different classroom experience among urban, suburban
and peri-urban schools. Although there are a few US studies (Randhawa & Michayluk,
1975; Weisner & Gallimore, 1988) which examined the effect of urban and rural learning
environments on students’ classroom experience, all of these comparative studies were
conducted within the same state or province where there was likely to be consensus
definitions of urban, suburban and rural areas. It is suggested that more consideration
needs to be taken in the categorization process when examining different classroom
experiences based on urban development level.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education 333
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Conclusion
There is a general perception that the classroom experience in urban classrooms is more
vital than the experience students encountered in peri-urban or rural classrooms. However,
our findings indicate that the students’ classroom experiences in urban, suburban and peri-
urban classes in Chongqing, Shanghai and Hong Kong are rather similar. Cross-cultural
analysis at the level of urban development is hampered by a lack of clear definition of
urban, suburban and peri-urban across different contexts. Even though the urban schools
were slightly superior in personnel resources and teaching facilities to the suburban and
rural schools, the type of pedagogical practices and instructional activities among the
urban, rural and suburban schools in Chongqing and Shanghai shared many similarities.
However, our study did highlight regional differences in students’ classroom
experience in terms of teacher–student interactions in China across Chongqing, Hong
Kong and Shanghai with Hong Kong schools having a quite different profile to the schools
in the other two regions. These different classroom experiences reflect different
curriculum designs, administration arrangements at government level and schooling
culture in the three contexts.
References
Aspry, D. N., & Roebuck, F. D. (1977). Kids don’t learn from people they don’t like. Amherst, MA:Human Development Press.
Baker, J. A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior,relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. The Elementary School Journal, 100,57–70.
Biffle, R. (2006). A geoethnographic look at a day in the life of a student of color. Curriculum andTeaching Dialogue, 8, 193–208.
Biggs, J. (1998). Learning from the Confucian heritage: So size doesn’t matter?. Special EditionInternational Journal of Educational Research, 29, 723–738.
Blatchford, P. (2003). The class size debate: Is small better? Maidenhead: Open University Press.Brady, L. (1992). Curriculum development (4th ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.Chan, C. K. K., & Rao, N. (2009). The paradoxes revisited: The Chinese learner in changing
educational contexts. In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting the Chinese learner:Changing contexts, changing education (pp. 315–349). Hong Kong: Comparative EducationResearch Centre/Springer.
Cheng, X. (2001). Teachers’ strategies in classroom interaction. Educational Review, 4–7,(in Chinese).
Cheng, X., Wu, K., Wu, Y., & Liu, Y. (1995a). The differentiation of teachers’ selection of targetstudent in classroom interaction. Educational Review, 11–13, (in Chinese).
Cheng, X., Wu, K., Wu, Y., & Liu, Y. (1995b). The subject of students’ classroom interactionbehaviour. Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Social Science), 74–79, (in Chinese).
Chiu, M. M., & Walker, A. D. (2007). Leadership for social justice in Hong Kong schools:Addressing mechanisms of inequality. Journal of Educational Administration, 45, 724–739.
Croll, P. (1986). Systematic classroom observation. London: Falmer Press.den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and student
outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 407–442.den Brok, P., Fisher, D., & Scott, R. (2005). The importance of teacher interpersonal behaviour for
student attitudes in Brunei primary science classes. International Journal of Science Education,27, 765–779.
Desjean-Perrotta, B. (1998). Through children’s eyes: Using the shadow study technique forprogram evaluation. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25, 259–263.
Education Bureau. (2010). Kindergarten, primary and secondary education: Overview. Retrievedfrom http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID¼396&langno¼1
Eisner, E. W. (1985). The educational imagination. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers.
334 C. McNaught et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Fisher, D., Kent, H., & Fraser, B. (1998). Relationships between teacher-student interpersonalbehaviour and teacher personality. School Psychology International, 19, 99–119.
Fisher, D., Waldrip, B., & den Brok, P. (2005). Students’ perceptions of primary teachers’interpersonal behavior and of cultural dimensions in the classroom environment. InternationalJournal of Educational Research, 43, 25–38.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behaviour. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.General Register Office (GRO). (2001). Census 2001, England and Wales: General report. Retrieved
from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/urban_area_defn.pdfGoh, S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behavior, classroom environment and
student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environments Research,1, 199–229.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186–203.Han, Q., Zhou, Z., & Hu, W. (2008). The influential factor of classroom interaction and teaching
revelation. Theory and Practice of Education, 28, 42–45, (in Chinese).Hawkins, J. N. (2000). Centralization, decentralization, recentralization – educational reform in
China. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 442–455.Herman, R., & Datnow, A. (1997). Evaluating the restructuring process: Study design. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 36–44.Ilatov, Z. Z., Shamai, S., Hertz-Lazarovitz, R., & Mayer-Young, S. (1998). Teacher-student
classroom interactions: The influence of gender, academic dominance, and teachercommunication style. Adolescence, 33, 269–277.
Irvine, J. J. (1986). Teacher-student interactions: Effects of student race, sex, and grade level.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 14–21.
Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2001). Patterns of teacher-student interaction in inclusive elementaryclassrooms and correlates with student self-concept. International Journal of Disability,Development and Education, 48, 33–52.
Khine, M. S., & Fisher, D. L. (2004). Teacher interaction in psychosocial learning environments:Cultural differences and their implications in science instruction. Research in Science &Technological Education, 22, 99–111.
Landowska, K., Hlosek, S., Garriock, J., Mathys, H., & Greenhalgh, M. (2003). A life in the day ofthree students. In J. MacBeath & H. Sugimine (Eds.), Self-evaluation in the global classroom(pp. 161–174). London: Routledge Falmer.
Lang, Q. C., Wong, A. F. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Student perceptions of chemistry laboratorylearning environments, student-teacher interactions and attitudes in secondary school giftededucation classes in Singapore. Research in Science Education, 35, 299–321.
Lee, J. C. K., McNaught, C., Yin, H., & Song, H. (2008). A school day in the context ofglobalisation: Tales from three cities in China. Educational Practice and Theory, 30, 15–34.
Leung, F. K. S. (1995). The Mathematics classroom in Beijing, Hong Kong and London.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 297–325.
Liu, J., Wei, X., & Jiang, G. (2009). Relationship between teacher’s adult attachment and teacherinteraction style. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 17, 104–106.
McNaught, C. (2004). Bridging two worlds: Viewing Australian universities from an Asian location.Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 6, 111–127.
Mills, R. W. (1980). Classroom observation of primary school children: All in a day. London:George Allen & Unwin.
Mok, K. H. (1997). Retreat of the state: Marketization of education in the Pearl River Delta.Comparative Education Review, 41, 260–275.
Mottet, T. P., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Foundations of instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet,V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication:Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 3–32). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Myers, S. A. (2008). Classroom student–teacher interaction. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), Theinternational encyclopedia of communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Retrievedfrom http://tinyurl.com/22oyf9r
Nelson, J. R., & Roberts, M. L. (2000). Ongoing reciprocal teacher–student interactions involvingdisruptive behaviors in general education classrooms. Journal of Emotional and BehavioralDisorders, 8, 27–37.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education 335
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
O’Connor, E. A., Fish, M. C., & Yasik, A. E. (2004). The influence of teacher experience on theelementary classroom system: An observational study. Journal of Classroom Interaction,39, 11–18.
Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 5–15.
Powell, R. H., & Roberson, E. W. (1967). The junior high “school world”: A shadow study. NASSPBulletin, 51, 77–81.
Randhawa, B. S., & Michayluk, J. O. (1975). Learning environment in rural and urban classrooms.American Educational Research Journal, 12, 265–279.
She, H. -C. (2000). The interplay of a biology teacher’s beliefs, teaching practices and gender-basedstudent-teacher classroom interaction. Educational Research, 42, 100–111.
Shen, A. (1994). Teacher education and national development in China. Journal of Education, 176,57–71.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacherbehavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology,85, 571–581.
Thompson, R. H., White, K. R., & Morgan, D. P. (1982). Teacher–student interaction patterns inclassrooms with mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. American Educational ResearchJournal, 19, 220–236.
Vile Junod, R. E. V., DuPaul, G. J., Jitendra, A. K., Volpe, R. J., & Cleary, K. S. (2006). Classroomobservations of students with and without ADHD: Differences across types of engagement.Journal of School Psychology, 44, 87–104.
Weisner, T. S., Gallimore, R., & Jordan, C. (1988). Unpackaging cultural effects on classroomlearning: Native Hawaiian peer assistance and child-generated activity. Anthropology andEducation Quarterly, 19, 327–353.
Wilson, B., & Corbett, H. D. (1999). Shadowing students. Journal of Staff Development, 20, 47–48.Wragg, E. C. (1999). Introduction to classroom observation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Wu, K. Y. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC Journal, 24, 49–68.Wu, Y., Wu, K., Cheng, X., & Liu, Y. (1995). A sociological analysis of the time distribution of
classroom interaction in primary school in China. Shanghai Research on Education, 36–42,(in Chinese).
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., & Hooymayers, H. (1999). Interpersonal teacher behavior in theclassroom. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation,antecedents and consequences (pp. 141–160). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Xin, Z., Lin, C., & Yu, G. (2000). Preliminary revising and application of the questionnaire onteacher interaction. Psychological Science, 23, 404–407, (in Chinese).
Ye, Z., & Pang, L. (2001). The nature and features of teacher–student interaction. EducationalResearch, 30–34, (in Chinese).
336 C. McNaught et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
tah]
at 1
6:16
25
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Recommended