Different regions, diverse classrooms? A study of primary classrooms in China

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 &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02188791.2013.860005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.860005

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

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: [email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.860005

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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 1

6:16

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=396&langno=1

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.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 1

6:16

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/urban_area_defn.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/22oyf9r

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).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 1

6:16

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Different regions, diverse classrooms? A study of primary classrooms in China