Inclusive Teaching Strategies Book

Hing Wa (Helena) Sit
Inclusive Teaching
Strategies for
Discipline-based
English Studies
Enhancing Language Attainment and
Classroom Interaction in a Multicultural
Learning Environment
Inclusive Teaching Strategies for Discipline-based
English Studies
Inclusive Teaching Strategies

for Discipline-based English
Studies
Enhancing Language Attainment
and Classroom Interaction in a Multicultural
Learning Environment
123
School of Education
The University of Newcastle
Callaghan Campus, Newcastle, NSW
Australia
ISBN 978-981-10-4707-7 ISBN 978-981-10-4708-4 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-4708-4
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017941489
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore
Acknowledgements
Looking back on my research journey during the past 10 years, I feel it has been
challenging but very fulfilling. The 10 year journey has marked a milestone of my
life, through hard work, patience, persistence and perseverance. I hereby would like
to express my sincere and deep gratitude to those nice people around me.
Many heartfelt thanks go to my colleagues and former Ph.D. supervisors,
Associate Professor Shen Chen and Dr. Jennifer Archer, for their detailed review,
valuable insight and constructive criticism on my draft book. I am also greatly
indebted to the School of Education at the University of Newcastle for the direct
financial aid made available through various awards and grants to support my
research. Special thanks are conveyed to all those who kindly participated in my
research fieldwork in Hong Kong. My sincere gratitude extends also to the friendly
and supportive staff at Springer for their efficient help in preparing the manuscript
for publication.
Last but not least, my thanks and gratitude to my beloved parents, especially my
great mother, Mrs. Fung Yat Ping, for her invaluable love and constant support.
Special thanks to my respectful grandparents, Mr. Feng Wanrong and Mrs. Hu
Xianhui, whose unfailing care and encouragement can never be repaid. My affec-
tionate thanks to my lovely daughter Elaine (Zining) for her great company. This
book is particularly dedicated to the memory of my grandfather (1930–2010) who
always encouraged me to succeed in achieving academic excellence and striving for
the best in my life.
v
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 The Higher Education Context of Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Questions to Discuss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 The Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Tertiary English Language Teaching and Learning
in Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 General Review on the Higher Education of Hong Kong . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 English Language Education in Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 English Language Teaching in Hong Kong’s Universities . . . . . . . 20
2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3 Research Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 Theoretical Framework for Teaching Strategies Investigation . . . . . 29
3.3 Context of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4 Methodological Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4.1 Quantitative Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4.2 Qualitative Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.5 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4 Findings from Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2 Results from Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2.1 The Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2.2 Surveys Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3 Discussions of Survey Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
vii
viii Contents
5 Findings from Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2 Results from Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2.1 Observed Lessons and Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2.2 Classroom Observations Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3 Discussions of Findings from Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6 Findings from Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.2 Results from Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.2.1 The Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.2.2 Interview Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.3 Discussions from Interview Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7 Developing Inclusive Teaching Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.2 The Taxonomy of Teaching Strategies and Its Use in Practice
in Discipline-based English Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
7.3 Classroom Interaction Influenced by Cultural Factors . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.4 Inclusive Teaching Strategies to Enhance Language
Attainment and Class Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.5 Implications for the Higher Educational Institutions
in Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
7.6 General Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Appendix A: Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Appendix B: Clasroom Observation Maunal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Appendix C: Interview Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
List of Figures
Fig. 7.1 Killen’s (1998) effective teaching strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Fig. 7.2 The overlapping use of teaching strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Fig. 7.3 Classroom interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Fig. 7.4 The “3-I” module of teaching strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
ix
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Language enhancement courses offered by each institution

in Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 4.1 University A teachers surveyed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 4.2 University B teachers surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 4.3 Use of teaching strategies at University A and University B . . . 46
Table 4.4 Preferences to use teaching strategies
at the two Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47
Table 4.5 Differences between mainland and Hong Kong students . . . . . .. 49
Table 4.6 Classroom interaction between mainland
and Hong Kong students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50
Table 4.7 Effective strategies to promote interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51
Table 5.1 Summary of lesson observations and courses
at University A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60
Table 5.2 Summary of lesson observations and courses
at University B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60
Table 5.3 Means and standard deviations for the frequency
of using each teaching strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61
Table 5.4 Means and standard deviations for student engagement
during each teaching strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64
Table 5.5 Means and standard deviations of students’ engagement
with various teaching-learning strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
Table 5.6 Means and standard deviations of classroom
interaction data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68
Table 6.1 Hong Kong students interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79
Table 6.2 Mainland students interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80
xi
Abstract
The rapid growth of economic globalisation has resulted in a fastening pace of

internationalisation of higher education in Hong Kong. Since the handover in 1997,
Hong Kong’s universities have been attracting an increasing number of Mainland
students to undertake English studies. In spite of a remarkable social change and
close connections to the Chinese education system, Hong Kong has still maintained
a British-style higher education system which is reflected in the fact that
English-medium education and Western-oriented pedagogy are widely accepted.
Research has been conducted on both local Hong Kong and Mainland students’
strategies for learning English, but limited research is concerned with lecturers’
pedagogical practices in teaching disciplinary studies of English, although language
teaching methods for Special Purposes in Hong Kong have long been discussed.
This book attempts to identify teaching strategies commonly used in the English
Department in Hong Kong’s higher education institutions.
The empirical findings reveal various teaching strategies and elicit responses
from the two sub-cultural groups of students in their English studies. A constructive
model for innovation of teaching strategies is recommended in order to enhance
students’ language attainment and classroom interaction in a multicultural learning
environment in Hong Kong. Inclusive teaching strategies with instructional,
inspirational and interactional dimensions are discussed to accommodate diverse
learners. The book makes a contribution to the innovation of higher education in
Hong Kong and has a universal significance to discipline-based English teaching
and education reform in the world. It is also of significance to quality learning and
teaching in universities other than those in Hong Kong in the context of
internationalisation.
The book will be most valuable to undergraduate students in ESL teacher
training programs, post-graduate research students in applied linguistics, language
education and second language teacher education. It is also a valuable reference
book for university lectures of teacher education, researchers in higher education in
China as well as teachers of TESOL in English-speaking countries.
xiii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Improving the teaching of discipline-based English study at tertiary level is a

common problem in both English speaking and non-English speaking countries.
The problem is closely related with the pedagogical and cultural issues such as
“What is the pedagogical approach to teach discipline-based English in that
country?” and “What is the response from students with various cultural back-
grounds?” A successful interaction of teaching and learning depends on appropriate
teaching strategies used in the classroom. In the social and cultural context of Hong
Kong today, establishing a set of effective teaching strategies to enhance teaching
and learning is becoming an increasingly urgent and arduous task for university
teaching staff.
This introductory chapter defines three fundamental elements related to the
research questions as a starting point for this book. First, the context and back-
ground of the study will be explained through a brief overview of relevant research
in Hong Kong. Second, an interpretation of the current social changes in Hong
Kong will provide some context to this study’s key research question regarding the
teaching of discipline-based English in Hong Kong’s universities. The key question
for this study will be identified with a further elaboration of related sub-questions
which this book attempts to address. Third, the significance of the research and
implications for the practice of teaching is discussed.
1.1 The Higher Education Context of Hong Kong
Hong Kong, a blend of Western and Oriental traditions and institutions, has been a
Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) since its handover from the United Kingdom on 1 July, 1997. Under the
policy of “One Country, Two Systems”, the Mainland, continuing its socialist
system, maintains Hong Kong’s capitalist system which enjoys a high degree of
autonomy (Basic Law of Hong Kong Government 2015; Zhu 2012). Hong Kong
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 1
H.H.W. Sit, Inclusive Teaching Strategies for Discipline-based
English Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-4708-4_1
2 1 Introduction
has been well-known as one of the “Asian Tigers” because of its strong economic
growth since 1980s and ideal location which serves as a world-leading integrated
logistics hub into and out of South China and East Asia (Barro 1998; Shirley 2014).
Since 1997, the links between Hong Kong and the Mainland has been
remarkably strengthened. In particular, the Higher Education Review (HER) report
has set up a broad strategic direction for the development of higher education in
Hong Kong. According to the HER, the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement
(CEPA) which was signed and brought into force in 2003 aims to broaden and
deepen collaboration with the Mainland across all fronts including education. Such
a systematic collaboration not only enables the Hong Kong government to establish
a steering committee to promote the city as a regional education hub, but it also
calls for a sector that produces graduates who are highly employable, mobile and
versatile and who are keen to continue learning (Education Bureau of Hong Kong–
EDB 2007; University Grants Committee–UGC 2004a).
In general, Hong Kong has been maintaining a British-style higher education. Its
English education system is internationally competitive (Altbach and Postiglione
2006). Currently Hong Kong has eleven degree-awarding institutions of higher
education, among which eight are funded by the University Grants Committee
(UGC). Postiglione (1998) points out that among the academics holding doctorate
degrees, approximately 90% earned their qualifications overseas, mainly in Europe,
North America and Australia. In respect to the medium of instruction used in these
universities, there is a policy of using English for most institutions, as is the case,
for instance, at the University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology. Some universities, such as the Hong Kong Chinese
University, use a mix-code (English-Chinese) and offer a number of courses in both
languages. Whilst Cantonese, the local Chinese dialect, is widely used as
the Chinese-medium instruction, Putonghua (Mandarin) is also used in limited
courses (Jackson 2005; Li and Bray 2007).
In the decade since the sovereign, both the Mainland and Hong Kong have
witnessed the major trend of educational internationalisation and economic glob-
alisation. The internationalisation of higher education has been leading an educa-
tional industry globally since 1995 (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development–OECD 2015). As a result of the growth of internationalisation in
higher education and rapid economic development, the Mainland has become one
of the largest exporters of international students (OECD 2015). The latest figures
show that more than half a million (523,700) Chinese students studied abroad in
2015, representing a new record in outgoing student numbers. The most popular
destinations for international students from China, India and some other Asian
countries are the USA, the UK, and Australia (Australian Government 2016;
Chinese Ministry of Education—MoE 2016). Surfing the wave of educational
internationalisation, Hong Kong as one of the world-leading education hubs has
also emerged to attract a steadily increasing number of international or non-local
students (Yu and Zhang 2016). At present, Mainland Chinese students have become
the majority of non-local students in higher education in Hong Kong (EDB 2007;
Zou 2006). Other non-local students receiving higher education in Hong Kong are
1.1 The Higher Education Context of Hong Kong 3
mainly from South-Asian countries (including Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia),

European countries (including UK, Italy, Spain), North America and Australia.
Mainland Chinese students are attracted to Hong Kong and its higher educa-
tion for a variety of reasons: good worldwide academic rankings, efficient educa-
tional administration and international vision, offers of scholarships, a place where
the East meets the West, the city’s multicultural and multilingual environment,
geographic proximity, and the bridge it provides between Mainland China and
outside (Zou 2006). According to the official report of UGC (2008), Hong Kong has
raised the non-local student quota for publicly-funded programs from 10 to 20%.
For example, in a set of data compiled by UGC in its latest report in 2016, 15, 730
non-local students were enrolled in Hong Kong’s eight publicly-funded universities
in the academic year of 2015/16 and accounted for 16% of the total student pop-
ulation. This represents a 56% growth from 10,074 in 2010/11 (Cheng 2016; UGC
2016). In this period, 11,894 full-time Mainland students comprised of the bulk of
the recruits and accounted for 76% of the total non-local student enrolment.
Non-local students other than Mainland students accounted only for 3.9% of the
total student enrolment. The non-local student enrolment number is set to increase
because the government is making efforts to stimulate economic growth through
increased exports of its higher education brand. ‘Non-local student by place of
origin’ in the UGC report refers to those who are from Mainland China, other
places in Asia, and the rest of the world (UGC 2016). This term is considered as a
politically correct term that refers to both foreign students outside of Hong Kong
and Mainland students from China (Bodycott and Lai 2012; Yu and Zhang 2016).
Although numerous studies have examined Chinese-background students in
Western educational settings and their approaches to learning (e.g., Gieve and Clark
2005; Stafford 2004; Skyme 2007; Zhang 2005), few studies have made substantial
progress on identifying differences in learning between Chinese-background students
of different nationalities or ethnicities (Sit 2013b; Thao and Li 2006). For instance,
Snider (2005) allocated various Chinese-background students from the People’s
Republic of China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and Indonesia in the
same group without considering specific features of these sub-cultures. In contrast,
Smith (2001) explored differences in learning approaches among Chinese sub-groups
from Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. Some studies have provided evidence
that conceptions of learning and knowing are derived from a specific cultural context.
Gao and Watkins (2002), for instance, have argued that conceptions of learning are
context-dependent and related to the social cultural context. Different approaches to
teaching and learning in different learning contexts come from different assumptions
and beliefs. In other words, learning conceptions among the sub-groups of
Chinese-background students may be consistent across contexts. It will be helpful to
explore students’ conceptions of learning from diverse cultural and educational
backgrounds.
Within Hong Kong’s Western-style educational setting, many studies regarding
cross-cultural teaching and learning have been conducted, focusing on Chinese
students (Watkins and Biggs 2001; Dahlin and Watkins 2001; Chan and Rao 2009).
It has been argued that Chinese-background students’ learning relies heavily on
4 1 Introduction
repetitive rote-learning and memorisation, categorised as surface learning (Ballard

and Clanchy 1991; Samuelowicz 1987). However, studies also lend weight to the
assertion that there is a trend for Hong Kong students to adopt deep and achieving
approaches to learning rather than surface approaches (Kember and Gow 1991;
Watkins and Biggs 2001). Few studies to date have paid attention to the learning
process of Mainland Chinese students in the Hong Kong higher education sector.
There have been Mainland Chinese scholars investigating Mainland Chinese
students’ learning experiences in Hong Kong’s universities. For instance, one study
has explored the motivations of Mainland Chinese students for pursuing higher
education in Hong Kong and Macau and the factors relating to this (Li 2006).
Research reveals the learning difficulties of Mainland Chinese research postgrad-
uates and their cultural adaptation to the universities of Hong Kong (Yu and Zhang
2016; Zeng 2006). Another study has examined shifts in Mainland Chinese stu-
dents’ English learning strategy use within the host context (Gao 2007). These
studies have contributed to the firsthand literature of Mainland Chinese students’
performance in Hong Kong’s universities.
When Lam (2006) explored the adjustment experience of a group of Mainland
undergraduate students who commenced their university studies in Hong Kong in
1999, she found evidence that the adjustment of the host group to this sojourning
group from the Mainland was as difficult as that of the sojourning group. She
examined the reciprocal adjustment by the host group of Hong Kong students and
sojourning group of Mainland Chinese students by analysing their different social
and cultural perspectives and different perceptions of identity. However, there are at
least three questions which were not fully investigated in Lam’s study:
First, whilst Lam’s study revealed that there was a gap in understanding between
the two groups of students, both groups had to make an adjustment in interaction.
Lam did not identify the causes behind the difficulties in adjustment, in particular,
for the host group. In addition to different conceptions of learning, did language
background and language proficiency contribute to problems with interaction? The
linguistic facility of the host group and the sojourning group needed further
exploration. The previous high school education they received under the language
policies put forward by their respective governments should have been taken into
consideration. Their levels of proficiency in both English and Chinese could have
been analysed in relation to communication and classroom interaction.
Second, although Lam conducted her research in the tertiary sector in Hong
Kong, her study was virtually based on a case study at Hong Kong Baptist
University where both groups received a semester of foundation courses including
English before entering their major studies. In general, English language teaching in
Hong Kong’s universities can be divided into two phases: pre-disciplinary English
proficiency taught by language teachers and disciplinary-based study in English
during the senior levels of undergraduate education. A single university-focused
case study is not sufficient to represent the typical circumstances in Hong Kong’s
universities. More case studies in various types of universities should occur if a
clearer picture is to be obtained about the interaction between the advanced learners
of English from both groups.
1.1 The Higher Education Context of Hong Kong 5
Third, Lam placed herself with both groups of students to observe the interac-
tional behaviors, but she did not examine the role of a teacher who would normally
facilitate interaction. In addition to cultural and linguistic influences on learning,
pedagogy is another significant contributor to students’ interaction. If appropriate
teaching strategies had been used, the difficulties in interaction revealed by Lam
might have been reduced. An effective teacher should provide solutions to over-
come the difficulties in order to promote student learning.
Apart from Lam’s investigation, it is noteworthy that much of the research that
has been conducted has challenged the stereotypes around the ways in which Hong
Kong students engage with learning (Watkins and Biggs 1996, 2001; McKay and
Kember 1997; Ellis 1997). Kember (2001) has examined the process of teaching
and learning as a factor in Hong Kong students’ adjustment when commencing
their studies in higher education. Miller (2007) has explored lecturers’ behaviours
and students’ perceptions of the teacher in a second language in Hong Kong.
Research has been conducted on Mainland Chinese students’ motivations, their
learning experiences, and shifts in English learning strategy use when studying in
Hong Kong (Gao 2007; Li and Bray 2007; Zeng 2006). Only a few studies have
focused on both groups of students. Leung et al. (2006) compared learning
approach use between Hong Kong and Mainland Construction Engineering stu-
dents in Hong Kong and Mainland China, but they did not discuss these in the same
context of Hong Kong. Wong (2007) has compared motivation and English
attainment between two groups of students with different cultural backgrounds, but
she investigated secondary school students. In spite of this research, there has been
little attention on the ways in which the interaction between local Hong Kong
students and Mainland sojourners might be enhanced. The intention of the current
study is to add to the literature in this area and to examine the role of teaching in
promoting the effective interaction between these two groups of students.
If effective teaching strategies can be employed to enhance students’ interaction
in the classroom the result should increase rapport and better mutual adjustment. To
date, there is a small body of research which deals with teaching strategies for
advanced learners of English in Hong Kong’s universities although methods of
teaching English have been repeatedly discussed in language centers in Hong
Kong’s universities. The current research will focus on teaching strategies that
promote interactions between Mainland Chinese students and local Hong Kong
students at the senior level of learning disciplines in English.
1.2 Questions to Discuss
To explore how teachers play an active role in promoting students’ interaction in

the process of learning English, this study attempted to investigate students’
responses to teaching strategies in advanced English learning. The key question of
this study was concerned with:
6 1 Introduction
How might one construct a series of inclusive teaching strategies to promote

interaction between Mainland Chinese undergraduates and Hong Kong under-
graduates in the advanced level of learning English in Hong Kong’s universities?
In order to find a comprehensive answer to this question, four sub-questions were
proposed:
(1) Why should teaching strategies be a major concern for advanced English
learners in Hong Kong’s universities?
(2) What existing teaching strategies are commonly used in the contemporary
context of Hong Kong’s universities?
(3) What are the responses of both groups of undergraduates towards these
teaching strategies used in the universities of Hong Kong?
(4) For both groups of students, how do their English proficiency and cultural
background affect their pedagogical preference for various teaching
strategies?
For the first sub-question, teaching strategies were the major concern of this
study rather than the well-defined area of language teaching methods, although they
are inter-related. Teaching strategies refer to teachers’ activities that aim to facilitate
learning. “The contemporary approaches give additional meanings to this concept
broadening its content namely the planning of educational activities, their imple-
mentation, the assessment and control of the process and its results” (Peytcheva
2000, p. 1). In other words, it is a generic pedagogical notion that can be related to
any disciplinary area. The latter is a well-established notion of “method” which
consists of three levels of relationship focusing on language teaching exclusively:
“a method is theoretically related to an approach, is organisationally determined by
a design, and is practically realised in procedure” (Richards and Rodgers 2001,
p. 20). The distinction between the teaching strategies and language teaching
method will be discussed in the following chapters.
The second sub-question was associated with an investigation of existing
teaching strategies used in Hong Kong’s universities. In order to establish a
benchmark for observation and discussion, the current research employed the
taxonomy of teaching strategies developed by Killen (1998). The research design
was based on Killen’s original classification of seven teaching strategies, noting that
other types of teaching strategies have since been identified (Killen 2003, 2007).
When teachers use teaching strategies, it is common for various types of strategies
to overlap and there is no clear-cut margin for each teaching strategy. Therefore, it
is not necessary to label teachers’ activities in a rigid manner with a specific name
of a teaching strategy. Practically, Killen’s seven main types of teaching strategies
were sufficient and manageable for a field investigation. Answering the second
sub-question required a research design that included both quantitative and quali-
tative research methods. Triangulation through the use of mixed methods was used
to increase the reliability and validity of the research.
The third sub-question involved fieldwork which was conducted in the
Departments of English at two publicly funded tertiary institutions in Hong Kong.
1.2 Questions to Discuss 7
University A is a prestigious comprehensive university while University B is a

teacher education institute. The student composition of the host group of Hong
Kong students and the sojourning group of Mainland students is different in these
institutions, namely, the host group is in the majority and the sojourning group is in
the minority in University A while the reverse holds true at University B. It was
hypothesised that this difference would have an effect on interaction. In addition,
since the students’ perspectives on teaching and learning are also different in the
two institutions, a comparison of students’ interaction processes and teachers’
preference for various teaching strategies would provide rich information about the
teachers’ preferred strategies, the host groups’ response to their strategies, and the
sojourning group’s response to these strategies. The data about teachers’ preferred
strategies was gathered through a survey while students’ reactions to these strate-
gies were obtained by semi-structured interviews. Data about the interaction process
was observed during classroom visits.
The fourth sub-question was concerned with the analysis of the empirical data
collected from the fieldwork. As students’ language proficiency in English and cultural
background may be contributing factors to their pedagogical preference, comparative
analysis of the two groups at the two institutions was undertaken. Data analysis pro-
cedures are described in further detail in Chapter Three, Research Development.
Overall, the main question depends on a synthesis and evaluation of the
advantages and disadvantages of each teaching strategy. Empirical evidence was
used to construct a series of inclusive teaching strategies. The intention was to
propose a model combining the strategies that enhance students’ language attain-
ment and class interaction in a multicultural learning environment.
1.3 The Significance of the Study
The research was conducted in light of the climate in which students from diverse
cultural backgrounds (mostly Mainland Chinese) are seeking higher education in Hong
Kong’s universities where English is used as the medium of instruction. Because there
have been problems identified in previous research with the interaction between the
host group of Hong Kong students and the sojourning group of students from Mainland
China, the research places its emphasis on the enhancement of classroom interaction
between the two groups of students by constructing a set of inclusive teaching
strategies. It was anticipated that the research findings would make not only recom-
mendations for curriculum design and teaching practices, but also a substantial con-
tribution to the strategic development of higher education in Hong Kong.
Second, this research sought to identify the responses of two groups of students
towards teaching strategies commonly used in Hong Kong’s universities. This
should provide an in-depth understanding of both groups of Chinese-background
students’ approaches to teaching and learning perspectives in Hong Kong’s higher
education institutions. The research findings should contribute insights into the
learning styles of Chinese students from various sub-cultures and shed light on
8 1 Introduction
shaping teaching methods to accommodate students from different cultural and

educational backgrounds.
Third, both students’ language proficiency and cultural variation may affect
their pedagogical preference for different teaching strategies. Including both factors
in the study should help to tease out their relative successful learning. As the
research drew specifically on two groups of students undertaking an English major
at two institutions in Hong Kong, the findings should provide a deeper under-
standing of advanced English attainment by second language learners within
the Hong Kong context.
Finally, the study aimed to construct a set of inclusive teaching strategies that
can be recommended to educators in Hong Kong, as well as those in Western
countries, which would offer a better understanding of learning difficulties faced by
international students. Because of differences in cultural values, beliefs and edu-
cational philosophies, students experience a process of adjustment to teaching
strategies used in a new academic culture. The results of the study have implications
for pre-service and in-service teacher education and quality assurance of higher
education.
1.4 Summary
This chapter introduces background information of this research. It provides an

overview of the book and justifies the research aim. The next chapter focuses on the
research development in the areas of higher education, English language education
as well as English language teaching in Hong Kong’s universities.
Chapter 2
Tertiary English Language Teaching
and Learning in Hong Kong
2.1 Introduction
Hong Kong’s universities have an increasingly diverse student body. One result of
this trend is that universities now have to accommodate students with both lin-
guistic barriers and cultural conflicts between newly arrived Mainland students and
existing local students. This research, with a focus on teaching strategies in the
discipline-based English studies, should contribute to a broader understanding of
the current context of the tertiary education sector in Hong Kong where educators
are integrating Western and Eastern approaches to teaching and learning. This
chapter prepares the way for the empirical component of the research with a lit-
erature review that covers three key areas: the reform in higher education after the
handover in 1997; the change of language policy and its impact on English lan-
guage education; and English language teaching in Hong Kong’s universities.
2.2 General Review on the Higher Education

of Hong Kong
More than a decade has passed since the handover of Hong Kong from the United
Kingdom (UK) of the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Having
been under British colonial regime for over 150 years, Hong Kong was reunited with
the People’s Republic of China in 1997 under the “One Country, Two Systems”
framework. The framework gives Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy. For at least
50 years Hong Kong can maintain its capitalist principles, its own currency, and laws
and border controls (Petersen and Currie 2008; Shive 2005). However, changes are
inevitable. In reality, great changes have taken place in the last decade.
Hong Kong’s relations with the UK and PRC have changed since the handover.
As a special administrative region of the PRC, Hong Kong people ruling Hong

10 2 Tertiary English Language Teaching and Learning in Hong Kong
Kong people has replaced the British style of administration. As a result, its rela-
tionship to the PRC is much closer than that to the UK. However, despite its return
to China, the British style of administration and influence on political, economic,
social and cultural aspects of Hong Kong still remain.
On the other hand, the central government of the PRC takes every opportunity to
impose its influence on politics, economics and culture of this newly established
Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Whilst
Hong Kong’s distance from the UK continues to lengthen, the distance towards
Mainland China is shortening. These changes have resulted in challenges to the
HKSAR as a newly founded government of Hong Kong. How will this enhance the
city’s international reputation around the world as an international financial centre and
commercial hub while strengthening Hong Kong’s relations with Mainland China?
The relationship between Hong Kong and Mainland China is now closer.
The HKSAR government’s intervening policy of public services has also been
strengthened. In response to the government’s call for “quality culture and
cost-effectiveness to improve the provision of public and social services in Hong
Kong” (Mok and Lee 2000, p. 373), a set of public sector reform programs in health
care, social welfare and education have been conducted and reviewed. As an
international financial center and cosmopolitan city, Hong Kong is also challenged
by the growing impacts of globalisation with the emerging knowledge-driven
economy and rapid development of information technology in general (Mok 2005;
Mok and Cheng 2002).
Education, as one of the main public services, is not immune from this tidal
wave of review and reform. The University Grants Committee (UGC), a local
funding body that sponsors its funded institutions and offers expert advice to the
Government on higher education in Hong Kong, has focused on a series of higher
education reviews in Hong Kong during the last decade to examine quality in
education and enable universities to become more competitive in the global market
(Petersen and Currie 2008; UGC 2004a, b; EDB 2007). Due to the fact that Hong
Kong has witnessed “the different regimes of higher education” (Mok 2005,
p. 284), a number of significant review reports have been published such as Hong
Kong Higher Education: To make a difference to move with the Times (UGC
2004a); Hong Kong Higher Education: Integration Matters (UGC 2004b), and
Legislative Council Brief: Developing Hong Kong As A Regional Education Hub
(EDB 2007). These reviews generally introduce strategic development reforms and
recommendations to enhance Hong Kong’s international competitiveness in the
university sector and encourage more collaboration among universities.
Shive (2005) has shown that many offshore study programs offered by univer-
sities from the United Kingdom and Australia have been set up in Hong Kong to
cater for graduates’ needs. All these offshore program providers need to be regis-
tered with the Hong Kong Council of Academic Accreditation (HKCAA). Hong
Kong now has more than 1000 offshore postsecondary education programs. This
indicates that the Hong Kong government wishes to keep its international status in
higher education. In particular, the UGC Higher Education Review (HER) report,
which sets out a broad strategic direction for the development of higher education in
2.2 General Review on the Higher Education of Hong Kong 11
Hong Kong, highlights that the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA)
aims to broaden and deepen collaboration with the Mainland across all fronts,
including education (UGC 2004a). The goal of attracting and retaining high quality
non-local students to study and live in Hong Kong to further internationalise its
higher education sector has been set out in the education hub policy. The Focus
Group on Trade and Business advised that attracting more Mainland Chinese stu-
dents should become one of the Hong Kong’s strategic development policies. This
is shown in the report on Economic Summit on China’s 11th Five-year Plan and the
Development of Hong Kong (Hong Kong Government 2006). Such initiatives not
only echo the SAR Government’s push to establish a steering committee to promote
Hong Kong as a regional education hub, but they also call for a sector that produces
graduates who are highly employable, mobile and versatile to foster manpower
needs of Hong Kong and enhance its long-term economic competiveness (EDB
2007; UGC 2004a).
While the Hong Kong government is concerned with the internationalisation of
higher education, there is also a trend towards “localisation”. Hong Kong and
Mainland China’s economic relationship has been further integrated since 1997 as
Mainland China’s economy has been booming. Hong Kong as an international
economic centre is vital for the economics of Hong Kong and the Mainland (Shive
2005). When Mainland China began its market economy, Hong Kong had been
included as one of the “four tigers” or Newly Industrial Economics (NIEs) in Asia
for its strong and rapid economic growth since the 1970s.
Furthermore, China now has Normal Trade Relations (NTR) with the United
States. This should attract many talented people in Hong Kong to move to the
Mainland searching for potential commercial and work opportunities. Over the past
decade the number of Hong Kong students sitting for an admission examination to
Mainland universities has seen a tenfold rise (Lo 2016). Hong Kong not only seeks
to lure elite students from across the border to study in Hong Kong, but its uni-
versities also have developed partnerships with the Mainland to export their pro-
grams to the Mainland (Shive 2005; Zou 2006). Hong Kong’s universities have
made efforts also to benchmark with the top universities in the world (Mok 2005).
The efforts expended by the higher education sector in Hong Kong shows that it is
one of the most competitive and open markets in the world.
In order to understand the moves towards both internationalisation and locali-
sation, it is necessary to review the current education system in Hong Kong. Hong
Kong currently has 20 local degree-awarding institutions of higher education, eight
of which are publicly-funded by the UGC. These 8 institutions are: The University
of Hong Kong (HKU), The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), The Hong
Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST), The Hong Kong Baptist
University (HKBU), The Hong Kong Polytech University (PolyU), City University
of Hong Kong (CityU), Lingnan University (LU) and The Education University of
Hong Kong (EdUHK). The first seven universities are more research-led compre-
hensive universities of world-class standing while the latter, conceived in the Hong
Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd, now Education University of Hong Kong,
EdUHK) in 1994, is a leading university on education in the Asia Pacific Region.
In spite of the fact that Hong Kong’s sovereignty was returned to China, “the
Hong Kong culture is hybrid in nature, with dominant Chinese culture mixed with
British elements, which differentiates Hong Kong from the Mainland” (Yu and
Zhang 2016, p. 302). One of the most influential aspects of British colonisation can
be seen in Hong Kong’s education system which resembles that of England. Before
2009 the education system in Hong Kong including its schooling structure and
examination system followed the British “3-2-2-3” model, which consists of
three-year junior secondary education (S1–S3), two-year senior secondary studies
(S4–S5) leading to the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (HKCEE),
two-year matriculation courses (S6–S7) leading to the Hong Kong Advanced level
Examination (HKALE), and then three-year undergraduate degrees. However, only
one-third of HKCEE test takers each year could succeed in promoting to Secondary
6 and continue on to take the HKALE as a requirement for university admissions
(Inoue 2013). Therefore there were debates about this schooling structure and the
examination system, which were considered to be much more streamed than that of
England in terms of future employment opportunity (Sinn 2010).
It was not until 2009 that this education system was shifted from the original
“3-2-2-3” to the current “3-3-4” model. Under the “3-3-4” education reform by the
Hong Kong Education Bureau, the length of higher education undergraduate
degrees were increased from three to four years while senior secondary education
was reduced from four to three years (Garcia et al. 2016). The two high-stakes
examinations (HKCEE and HKALE) were reduced to one set of exams, the Hong
Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE), which takes place by the end of
senior education (S6). As noted by Ma (2008), initiating the new “3-3-4” reform
which requires three-year junior secondary, three-year senior secondary and
four-year undergraduate studies is not only in line with four-year first degrees in
Mainland China, North America and Europe but also provides students with a more
flexible and coherent new senior secondary and higher education curriculum. Sinn
(2010) supports the implementation of the new academic structure which is more
aligned with international education standards as “the A-Level examination is
streamed but the baccalaureate-style diploma emphasizes on breadth” (p. 1). The
new education systems began at senior secondary in 2009 and was implemented at
university level in 2012 after the first exam of HKDSE. Within the government’s
expectation, the compressed secondary education from 7 to 6 years resulted in a
double cohort of graduating students in 2012 (Inoue 2013). In other words, the eight
baccalaureate-granting universities have been engaging in the process of migrating
their three-year British-style system to an international four-year system to cater for
more graduates’ needs.
Although the higher education of Hong Kong has undergone the transition phase
of education system change, the eight universities still remain highly competitive
due to its Western-style education, high academic rankings around the globe and
generous scholarships (Zhao 2013). In spite of a remarkable social change and close
connections to the Chinese education system, Hong Kong has still maintained a
British-style higher education convention which is reflected in the fact that
English-medium education and Western-oriented pedagogy are widely accepted.
Besides, the grading system for assessment follows five Western-style standards:
Fail, Pass, Satisfactory, Good and Excellent. Moreover, its academic degrees are
split into five divisions: First Class Honours, Second Class Honours One, Second
Class Honours Two, Third Class and Pass on the basis of the British university
standards (HKU 2017). Mok and Tan (2004) state that the ways in which Hong
Kong manages its public sector retain a strong association with the United
Kingdom’s ideology and practices. As a result, the higher education system in
Hong Kong is still affected by corporate managerialism and market forces. This is
reinforced by Petersen and Currie (2008) who highlighted that Hong Kong’s uni-
versities have been impacted “by diverse forces including Western notions of
academic freedom” (p. 589) because of over a century of colonisation. However,
researchers such as Zeng (2006) and Sit (2013) argue that both China and Britain
have influenced the current higher education in Hong Kong. As Pertersen and
Curries (2008) support that Hong Kong is historically a blend of Western and
Oriental cultures and traditions, its universities are also affected by the Confucian
ideology of the scholar’s role in society.
In terms of language used in Hong Kong’s public sector, English as an official
language of Hong Kong is widely used in the business sector and in higher edu-
cation, while Cantonese, the local Chinese dialect, is the most used language for
daily communication (Gao et al. 2010). In the majority of Hong Kong’s universi-
ties, using English as the medium of instruction is a common policy. Some can use
a mix-code (English-Cantonese) and offer courses in both languages. But with a
closer relationship with the Mainland, the SAR Government has promoted trilingual
(i.e., capable of speaking Cantonese, English, and Putonghua) and biliterate (i.e.,
capable of writing Chinese and English) as a required language policy for students
since the handover (Wang and Kirkpatrick 2015). Putonghua (Mandarin) has been
attached to greater importance and is also used in some courses in some universities
(Jackson 2005; Li and Bray 2007).
In addition, the composition of academics of universities in Hong Kong has also
undergone a shift in the past twenty years, although the institutional environment is
still very international. A migration movement affected Hong Kong several years
ago before its return to Mainland China. According to Wong (2009), a large number
of people, including many native speaking university teachers, returned or migrated
to Western countries such as the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia because of “97
Phobia”. They were anxious about any political changes that might cause political
turmoil. Some courses in some faculties could not be delivered because of a lack of
teaching staff in many of Hong Kong’s institutions in the period of the Handover.
Since 1978 more and more Chinese mainland Chinese students have studied
overseas following China’s economic reform and open policy. The number of
outbound students increased to 523,700 in 2015, bringing the number of Chinese
overseas students to over four million. The Ministry also notes that each year an
increasing number of Chinese students (roughly 70–80% of the student population)
return to China as well as its special administrative regions due to China’s attractive
job market and more positive career development after their overseas studies (MoE
2016). Likewise, many outstanding Chinese scholars want to teach and conduct
research work in Hong Kong’s institutions of higher education where East meets
West. Given that the employment benefits offered by Hong Kong’s universities is
relatively higher than those in Western countries, competitive salaries and welfare
benefits attract talented educators and researchers. As a result, both mainland
Chinese and international scholars have replaced the previous teaching and research
task force which before 1997 consisted mainly of British scholars and local Hong
Kong scholars.
After the handover, many of those who immigrated because of fears of a
changed Hong Kong have found that Hong Kong still offers a stable environ-
ment and good development opportunities. Statistics show that about 300,000
people in Hong Kong emigrated overseas in the late 80s and up to 1997, but more
than 300,000 people returned to Hong Kong after 1997 (Wong 2009). The higher
education sector now is comprised not only of native English speaking teachers and
local teachers, but also a number of Mainland Chinese scholars. The characteristics
of academic staff have been a salient international feature of Hong Kong’s uni-
versities as most of the academics gained their doctorates in Europe, North America
and Australia (Postiglione 1998). This would also be a reason why the workplace in
Hong Kong remains highly competitive in a global education market and
open-minded with an international outlook. In this sense, the teaching staff mem-
bers are of a blend of Western and Oriental cultures and traditions.
In terms of the student resources of Hong Kong’s higher education, a significant
change has also occurred. After becoming part of the PRC, Hong Kong attempted
to do whatever it could to reinforce its link with the Mainland including in the area
of education. According to Shive (2005), in the 1990s several hundred talented
Mainland Chinese undergraduates on scholarship offered by the Jockey Club were
brought into Hong Kong’s universities to study. Since that time, more Mainland
students have been recruited by many local graduate programs. Initially Hong
Kong’s universities tended to establish relationships with a few prestigious uni-
versities on the Mainland, such as Tsinghua University, Peking University, Nanjing
University and Fudan University.
With the impact of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, the Hong Kong SAR
Government wanted to curtail the deficit. One of its strategies was to promote
self-financed higher education programs. A series of budget cuts occurred and
many graduate programs were run on a self-financed basis (Shive 2005). As a result
of internationalisation in higher education and rapid economic development in
China, a large number of Chinese students pursued English-medium higher edu-
cation (Li and Bray 2007; Gao and Trent 2009). As English-medium higher edu-
cation is one of Hong Kong’s strengths, it has attracted a large number of Mainland
students. Hong Kong began to regard “the Mainland as a zone of potentially vast
opportunity to export higher education services” and considered its “English lan-
guage university programs in a Chinese socio-echoes sitting on China’s doorstep”
(Shive 2005, p. 14). Therefore, there has been an attitudinal shift to find the best
talent in China and to sponsor them to study at universities in Hong Kong.
It is noticeable that Mainland students are the majority non-local component in
Hong Kong’s higher education. Some relaxation in the policy on Mainland students
coming to Hong Kong for university study has occurred since 2005. For example,
the non-local student quota for publicly funded programs has increased from 10%
to 20%. Immigration control has been relaxed to allow a non-local graduate to do
part-time work and to apply for work upon graduation by granting a 12 months’
stay without any restriction. Such schemes have enhanced the attractiveness of
Hong Kong’s higher education to non-local students and enabled them to stay and
enter the workforce in Hong Kong (EDB 2007). As mentioned in Chapter One,
Mainland students has become the largest non-local student component in the
current higher education institutions in Hong Kong. This provides students with
more opportunities to experience the city’s multicultural and multilingual envi-
ronment. Nevertheless, the rising recruitment of non-local students studying in
Hong Kong has implications for language requirements in Hong Kong’s
universities.
2.3 English Language Education in Hong Kong
When the term “One country, Two systems, Three languages” (Kirkpatrick and
Chau 2008; Wright and Holmes 1997) was proposed, it indicated that the soci-
olinguistic context in Hong Kong is as complicated as its political changes.
Following the political guideline of “One country, Two systems”, a new
Government’s language policy of “Biliterate and Trilingualism” has been put for-
ward. This language policy aims to enable the local people to be trilingual in
speaking fluent Cantonese, Putonghua (Mandarin) and English, and biliterate in
mastering written Modern Standard Chinese (MSC) and English (Education
Commission 1997).
Hong Kong used to be identified as a special bilingual society where English and
Cantonese were the two main languages. They functioned in different domains and
coexisted during the former colonial period (Lin 1997; Tang 2006). Inevitably, the
transition from the British colonial rule to current local government has made the
linguistic situation more complex and complicated. Putonghua (Mandarin), China’s
official language, has emerged as a competitive language to both English and
Cantonese.
Hong Kong is a society where the local vernacular Cantonese, a regional dialect
of Chinese, is the mainstream language used in daily communications. The statistics
show that about 89% of the population inhabitants in Hong Kong are Chinese and
98% of them speak Cantonese as their mother tongue (Howlett 1997; Peng 2005).
Cantonese Chinese differs greatly from Putonghua syntaxically, lexically and
phonetically. Cantonese refers to the dialect of Canton (Guangzhou) and Canton
delta (Pierson 1992). Unlike Modern Standard Chinese with the simplified Chinese
characters as its written form, Cantonese is basically spoken with its unique written
form of traditional Chinese characters appearing in local televisions, advertise-
ments, newspapers, magazines, comic books, etc., but not widely accepted outside
southern China (Lau 2009). As Ho (2008) describes, most Hong Kong Chinese are
native Cantonese speakers, although the language of school literacy is Modern

Standard Chinese (MSC) together with the written form of the traditional characters
used in Hong Kong and Taiwan only.
In 1968, a local Chinese Language Campaign in Hong Kong pressed the British
government to give recognition to Chinese (Bolton 2000). It was not until 1974 that
Chinese was designated as a co-official language. During the preparation of the
handover, the status of Chinese was strengthened by the published Article 9 of the
Basic Law of the HKSAR, PRC. It stated that in addition to the Chinese Language,
English could also be used as an official language by the executive authorities,
legislature and judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Chinese
Government 1992). Hence, Cantonese was increasingly used in Legislative Council
Speeches and other related departments in the years just prior to 1997. A large
proportion of the written laws of Hong Kong have also been translated into Chinese
through the Bilingual Law Projects in 1998 (Bolton 2000; Peng 2005).
It is notable that although English, originally brought in by the British colonial
government in 1841, has been the official language to date, its use has been criti-
cised as a mirror of the colonial rule in Hong Kong (Peng 2005). During the
colonial era, English was first positioned as “the official language of government,
the official language of Law, and was by de facto the most widely used medium of
secondary and university education” (Bolton 2000, p. 270). It indicates that English
enjoys a high status in Hong Kong because its primacy of use is reinforced by many
formal domains such as government administration, legal and judiciary, education,
business, and commerce. Tang (2006) argues that although Cantonese functions as
a predominant language “typically reserved for the inner domain” like family
friends and traditions, English is “maintained as the medium of communication in
the outer domain” (p. 3) such as these formal situations.
As a global language, English in Hong Kong serves as a vehicle for an indi-
vidual’s upward social, economic, education and occupational mobility. Lau (2009)
observes that the end of the British colony did not mean that most Hong Kong
people thought English should be purged as a colonial legacy. Rather, they regarded
it pragmatically as the international language that increases their opportunities in
the world and a vital element for preserving the Hong Kong system under the policy
of “One country, Two systems”. The importance of English has been emphasised.
As So (2000) comments, “whether one likes it or not in the next millennium the
English language is going to be a lingua franca of members of international
communities in trade and commerce as well as in science and technology” (p. 22).
She further highlights the importance of using English as a mark of membership of
communities. It would be challenging for people without such a mark to gain access
to these comminutes (So 2000).
In addition to Cantonese and English which were the two main languages in
Hong Kong before 1997, Putonghua (Mandarin), that is, the national language of
the PRC, is now spoken in Hong Kong. The first government officers of HKSAR
used Putonghua to give a speech in the swearing-in ceremony on 1 July 1997. This
event showed that Hong Kong was part of China. The event also indicated that a
linguistic change was to occur in Hong Kong. Nowadays learning to speak
2.3 English Language Education in Hong Kong 17
Putonghua has become desirable. Putonghua is commonly heard in the streets. In

some employment institutions such as schools, law firms, and financial institutions,
speaking and understanding Putonghua has become one of the admission priorities
apart from the minimum requirement of speaking fluent Cantonese and English.
Notwithstanding, research by Ho (2008) examining tertiary students’ language
code choice among these three languages found that verbal exchanges in pure
Putonghua was rated the lowest (2%) alongside mixed Putonghua (6%). Despite the
small numbers, factors that would motivate university students to learn and use
Putonghua were identified by the qualitative data. Most Hong Kong students see its
pragmatic importance because of the close social and economic relationship
between Mainland China and Hong Kong. In addition, code-mixing is seen as
fashionable. The study suggests that although most tertiary students want to be
proficient in both English and Putonghua, it still needs time to accomplish the goal
of trilingualism in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, biliteracy and trilingualism cannot be
achieved overnight. One of the most important approaches is to use language
education from the primary level to the tertiary level. The proposal for biliteracy
and trilingualism puts major linguistic burdens on Hong Kong students. At the same
time, Hong Kong teachers at all levels are facing arduous tasks of language edu-
cation. The difficulties of language education can be seen in current debates about
how to implement the language policy.
Soon after 1997, the policy introduced by the SAR Government encouraged
most secondary schools to switch the language medium of instruction (MOI) from
English to Chinese, the mother-tongue of most Hong Kong students (Education
Commission 1997). Before that, English was predominantly used as the MOI from
the secondary school up to the tertiary level. All subjects were taught in English
except for Chinese language, literature and history (Evans 2000). The action, taken
by Education Department to achieve the goal of promoting students as future
biliterate and trilingual personnel, “represents a fundamental change in the nature of
language education in Hong Kong” (Evans 2000, p. 185). This policy of
“mother-tongue language education to replace English teaching” has remained
controversial.
The mother-tongue education policy, which replaced the former British colony’s
laissez-fair approach of allowing individual secondary school authorities to decide
the suitable medium of instruction used for its school (Hong Kong Government 1974;
Evan 2000), resulted in 114 secondary schools (out of 460) granted permission to
continue teaching in English (Education Commission 1997). This implied a major
change in English language education. Before the introduction of this policy, 90% of
schools were English-medium schools, 6% were Chinese-medium schools, and 4%
were English-medium and Chinese-medium combined schools (Boyle 1995). As a
consequence of the publication of the Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary
Schools (Guidance) in 1998, the statistics were significantly reversed:
Chinese-Medium of Instruction (CMI) schools increased dramatically from a previ-
ous 6–70%, while English-Medium of Instruction (EMI) schools dropped from 90%
to nearly 30% (Lau 2009; Peng 2005).
There were two main reasons for the shift from English-medium to
mother-tongue teaching. First, there was a decline in English proficiency of local
students, including university students, because of poor quality English-medium
education (Johnson 1994; Lu 2002). Moreover, there was the mixed use of
English-Chinese. For example, Bolton and Luke (1999) found that 81% of students’
subjects were conducted by code-switching mode, but the use of mix-code teaching
in Hong Kong’s English medium schools limited students’ academic and linguistic
skills (Education Commission 1995; Evan 2000). It was anticipated that Hong
Kong would produce sufficient English teachers to implement bilingual education
in Hong Kong. However, it was argued that there was a lack of teachers trained
properly in this field due to the local government’s negligence of teacher education
(Lu 2002). The shortage of qualified English teachers with sufficient English skills
in bilingual education was severe, which led to the result of falling English stan-
dards in Hong Kong and students’ failing to master English.
Second, in spite of the fact that English is a second language in Hong Kong, it is
not the mainstream language used by the majority of people, especially people from
a low socioeconomic background who usually communicate in vernacular
Cantonese. Most Hong Kong students learn English in educational settings and may
gain some exposure to English at work (Bolton and Luke 1999). Since English is
rarely spoken outside schools, government, well paid civil service jobs and pres-
tigious professional careers, only elite students are able to compete for such jobs or
careers (Hyland 1997; Lau 2009).
In addition, at least 30% of secondary school students had learning problems
when following the curriculum using pure English or even code-switching mode
(Kwo 1997). Most primary schools use Chinese as MOI for children. Hence,
mother-tongue education aimed primarily to better facilitate students to learn
knowledge common-sensibly, educationally and technically through their first
language Chinese (Halliday 1999), as the primary language, is believed to be the
best MOI for meeting students’ needs, enhance their development of literacy and
bring merits rather than hinder their English proficiency (Education Commission
2003). The decision to allow schools to keep using English as the MOI was based
on “their fulfillment of the three prescribed criteria, namely student ability, teacher
capability and support measures” (Education Commission 2003, p. 20). Even
though the objective of mother-tongue teaching was to help students who had
difficulties learning English, it has had an impact on English language education
(from primary to tertiary level) in Hong Kong.
Secondary schools in Hong Kong were inevitably classified into two categories
as a consequence of the two-language dichotomy (Tang 2006): English Medium of
Instruction (EMI) schools (30%) and Chinese Medium of Instruction (CMI) schools
(70%). The bifurcation of EMI and CMI threatened bilingual education in Hong
Kong (Legislative Council 2008). Although parents generally supported this policy,
they were dissatisfied with the labeling and even doubted whether learning good
English was the primary objective of education. Students attending EMI schools
were considered to be relatively proficient enough to gain English-medium edu-
cation compared to those in CMI schools. Thus about 30% of the students selected
2.3 English Language Education in Hong Kong 19
by EMI schools would easily be labeled as the best based on their English per-
formance, but the remainder with CMI schools might not be thought so at this point.
The two-language dichotomy also has affected the Secondary School Places
Allocation (SSPA) mechanism (Education Commission 2003). Primary school
graduates are divided into three bands based on their academic performance.
Students are judged and selected by secondary schools based on their English
abilities. Band One school students are more competitive than those from a lower
Band and have a greater likelihood of being selected by the best schools, which are
predominantly EMI schools. This also created public resentment. Parents claimed
that their children’s right to receive an education in English was removed (Lau
2009). They were anxious about their children’s declining English standards
because they could not enter an EMI school. Students in CMI schools were
unhappy that they could not learn most subjects in English. Staff at CMI schools
complained that their autonomy in recruiting students was hampered. They wanted
to be recognised as qualified English-medium teaching schools to compete in
attracting the best students.
The impact of the two-language dichotomy reached students’ tertiary study.
There has been constant criticism of the “linguistically ill-prepared” (p. 77) English
skills of Cantonese-speaking students (Hyland 1997). Local students complained
about poor English proficiency. Particularly, there was a growing dissatisfaction
with graduates’ English proficiency expressed by influential sectors such as busi-
ness, commerce, and professional organisations where better English language
skills are needed (Berry and Lewkowicz 2000; Evans and Green 2003, 2007).
Mother-tongue teaching accelerated variations in English standards among local
students. The good might become better, but the poor might also become worse.
Research conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong followed groups of
students enrolled in 1998 and 1999 respectively over a period of eight years. It
demonstrated that the likelihood of CMI school graduates entering university was
far lower than that of their EMI counterparts because of poor competence in
English. Moreover, students’ English passing rate in the Hong Kong Advanced
Level Examination (HKALE) has been decreasing (Singtao Daily 2008). After a
10-year implementation of mother-tongue teaching, this result has alarmed the
government and the public who suspected mother-tongue teaching was the cause of
declining academic performance.
The Chief Executive of the HKSAR and his administration suggested that more
autonomy be returned to schools in 2009 to decide which MOI should be used. The
Education Bureau has proposed a fine-tuning of the mother-tongue teaching policy
aimed at enhancing students’ English proficiency. Changes have been implemented
at secondary schools from September 2010. Similar to the rather laissez-fair
approach before 1998, schools now can choose their MOI, but there is one
pre-condition for teaching in English: at least 85% of pupils allocated to the school
need to be in the top 40% of their age group academically (Legislative Council
2009).
In contrast with the language education in secondary schools, high English
proficiency always has been emphasised at the tertiary level. The colonial education
system has been maintained and English as the second language medium is
imposed in most Hong Kong’s universities (Hyland 1997; Lu 2002). At least 80%
of lectures and 60% of tutorials are conducted in English. English competence is
extremely valued. Good English skills gained from secondary education can
increase students’ opportunities to get access to higher education and smooth their
adaptation to English-medium education in universities (Littlewood and Liu 1996;
Peng 2005).
There appears to be two types of Hong Kong students at tertiary level: top
students with higher English proficiency tend to use English more on campus; while
those with lower English proficiency tend to communicate more in Cantonese. Lai
(2001) identified that the two types of Hong Kong students, the middle-class elite
and the working class low achievers, have different attitudes towards language. The
former prefer to use English while the latter are more inclined to communicate in
Cantonese. The situation has become more complicated with the arrival of a large
group of elite mainland Chinese students who do not speak Cantonese but
Putonghua and English, creating an obstacle to easy communication between Hong
Kong and Mainland Chinese students. Nevertheless, English proficiency is vital for
success in higher education for both groups of students.
2.4 English Language Teaching

in Hong Kong’s Universities
There are two phases to English language teaching in Hong Kong’s universities.
The first phase is concerned with the pre-academic language assistance available at
self-access language learning centres within universities. Universities can help
students acquire language and study skills relevant to their needs and interests either
through intensive language training programs or by independent language practices
(Detaramani and Chan 1999; Klassen et al. 1998). Like language education in many
other English-speaking countries, the establishment of English language support
centres occurs in the Hong Kong’s higher education sector. These centres not only
provide students with professional and continued English support via formal study,
but also contain self-access facilities, services, and on-line support.
Inadequate English proficiency makes most undergraduates feel anxious about
studing in Hong Kong’s universities which are pre-dominantly English-medium of
instruction. Interviews with CMI school students have highlighted a number of
language problems compared with their English-medium counterparts (Evans and
Green 2007). Even so, tertiary education in Hong Kong will have a larger per-
centage of CMI school students than EMI school students for at least another
decade as the mother-tongue teaching policy in secondary education was discon-
tinued only in 2009.
Despite Mainland students emerging as the largest non-local student resource in
the universities of Hong Kong, there has been limited research of this phenomenon.
2.4 English Language Teaching in Hong Kong’s Universities 21
Gao (2007) investigated language learning experiences of Putonghua-speaking

Mainland Chinese in Hong Kong and found that most of them attempted to improve
their English proficiency by seeking English-medium education. Even though most
selected Mainland students’ language competence is described as high in their
pre-university education, they face a new instructional and institutional environ-
ment in Hong Kong’s universities. As a result, student preparation for linguistic and
institutional adaptation is necessary.
Although students are supposed to have developed English language skills for a
higher level of academic study in pre-university education, there are problems with
productive writing and speaking in English upon entering universities (Evans and
Green 2007; Hyland 1997). To provide students with a smooth transition from
pre-university study to university education, English language enhancement pro-
grams (English for Academic Purposes), offered by English Language Centres
within universities, are made available to most first-year undergraduates across
various disciplines. In providing intensive EAP courses, students are expected to
improve their linguistic proficiency and to adapt to a new teaching and learning
culture of university. A general overview of language enhancement courses pro-
vided by the eight UGC funded institutions in Hong Kong is presented in Table 2.1.
To help students meet the university’s English Language Requirement, the
language centres provide all students enrolled in the four-year curriculum a
mandatory, credit-bearing English language enhancement course (CityU 2016;
UNIVERSITY A 2012). As Chase (1998) notes, “language courses might be
considered one foundation upon which a university must be based” (p. 100). They
help students study in English-medium tertiary education. Along with language
teaching, they also prepare students to adjust culturally and academically to the
teaching learning environment of tertiary study in Hong Kong. Hong Kong pro-
motes a self-directed learning context that requires students to demonstrate
self-reliance and self-regulation (Bakx et al. 2006; Hyland 1997).
Apart from a broad introduction to studying at the tertiary level in Hong Kong,
the objective of language courses across various disciplines is to equip students
with the necessary language skills for specific academic disciplines. This type of
English provision has attracted much interest (e.g., Allison et al. 1995; Flowerdew
2003; Littlewood 2001; Peacock and Ho 2003) on discussing English for specific
purposes (ESP) (Bhatia and Candlin 2001; Jackson 2005; Swales 2001). For
example, Jackson (2005) conducted a cross-disciplinary analysis of business edu-
cation in Hong Kong. It found there was a need for discipline-specific ESP courses
for senior students. Each academic discipline has its unique nature and demands on
students. Becher (1987b) conducted research in Britain and the United States and
created four different academic disciplinary categories based on the development of
other studies, namely, the pure sciences (i.e., Medicine), the humanities (i.e., his-
tory), the technologies (i.e., mechanical engineering), and the applied social sci-
ences (i.e., education). From this scheme, a simple signpost to the academic
territory as reflected by the table above can also be identified. However, not many
universities’ language centres have provided comprehensive and thorough
discipline-based English courses so far.
Table 2.1 Language enhancement courses offered by each institution in Hong Kong
UGC-funded Language Conducting forms of Discipline-specific
universities supporting unit language courses requirement courses
Mission:
To provide support services to the university and enable students to use English effectively in
the universities’ English-medium academic contexts
University A Centre for Applied Mandatory credit-bearing EAP courses sorted by
English Studies core university English faculties (e.g., English
(CAES) for Arts, English for
Education, and Academic
communication for
Business and Economics,
etc.)
University Centre for Mandatory credit-bearing English courses for
AST Language English for the core undergraduates sorted by
Education (CLC) curriculum departments (e.g.,
English for University
Studies, English for
Business, Engineering
and Science Students
respectively, etc.)
PolyU English Language Mandatory credit-bearing Discipline-based courses
Centre (ELC) language and for English language
communication development in academic
requirement subjects contexts
(e.g., English for
Scientific
Communication, English
for Technical Project
Writing and Professional
English for ITC Students,
etc.)
CityU Chan Feng Compulsory credit-bearing English courses for new
Men-ling Chan university English course bachelor and associate
Shuk-lin English degree students
Language Centre (e.g., English for
(ELC) (ELC) academic purposes and
English foundation
course for associate
degree students, etc.)
CUHK English Language Compulsory, core Disicpline-based English
Teaching Unit university English course (e.g., English for
(ELTU) Arts, Education and
Business administration,
etc.)
HKBU Language Centre Compulsory credit-bearing English enhancement
(LC) English general education programs (e.g., English
courses through films and short
(continued)
Table 2.1 (continued)

UGC-funded Language Conducting forms of Discipline-specific
universities supporting unit language courses requirement courses
stories and Advanced
business English, etc.)
LU Centre for English Compulsory credit-bearing Elective English courses
and Additional courses English for to all students (e.g.,
Languages (CEAL) Communication (I & II) for Public Speaking and
first-year students and Presentation Skills;
English for English through
Communication III for Language Arts, etc.)
second-year students
University B Centre for Mandatory English English enhancement
Language in Enhancement Program for courses (English for early
Education (CLE) undergraduates childhood education and
Advanced academic
preparation, etc.)
Source Course information based on the university websites of HKU, HKUST, PolyU, CityU,
CUHK, HKBU, LU and EdUHK
Most discipline-based English courses are conducted in a mandatory,

credit-bearing module. The course length is generally around 42 teaching hours over
a single semester or throughout the first or second year of study. Evans and Green
(2007) argued that due to time constraints, this would be rather difficult to organise,
especially when specifying language items for students. Despite this, the research
indicates that university language support is essential for the majority of under-
graduates and argues that more academically-oriented and specialist language courses
should be designed (Evans and Green 2007; Hyland 1997; Jackson 2005). In addition
to English, many language centres also offer both credit-bearing and non-credit
bearing courses in other languages to meet student’ needs for third languages.
Putonghua and Cantonese are popular choices. By teaching other languages, the
universities are addressing the government’s push for biliteracy and trilingualism.
After this brief description of how English language centres help students with
language proficiency for transition and pre-communication training purposes, the
next step is to examine post-language centre English learning. After students finish
EAP or ESP courses, they must learn specific discipline matters through
English-medium in their departments. Language centres emphasise four inclusive
academic or general English skills, namely, listening, speaking, reading and writ-
ing. Discipline studies on the other hand require students to study using advanced
integrated English language skills. Successful academic performance is driven by
good English competence.
Departmental teaching staff members focus on specific subject content.

Content-driven teaching and learning of English has been reported in some studies.
For example, O’Brien (1993) discussed the development of a model effective for
English for special purposes for engineering courses while Jackson (2002) held L2
discussions in business. Since many academics across various disciplines do not
experience training in inclusive language teaching training as language teachers do,
they are more concerned with how subject knowledge is to be taught and learnt
rather than students’ language enhancement. It is argued that “the language learning
outcome is subordinated to academic achievement” (Lyster 2007, p. 6). There is
however no achievement without good language competence because they are
interrelated.
In general, most Hong Kong teachers teaching EAP or ESP courses are trained
in the field of teaching English as a second or foreign language. They usually teach
English based on some commonly used approaches to language teaching such as
the situational approach, a comprehension-based approach, cooperative language
learning, content-based instruction, or communicative language teaching
(Celce-Murcia 1991; Nunan 2000; Richards and Rodgers 2001). In particular, a
communicative, process-based or task-based approach has been adopted in Hong
Kong’s education system since the 1980s because it promotes communicative
competence in English which has been a priority of Hong Kong’s education
department (Education commission 1994; Wong 2009).
At this point, some terms in language education need to be clarified. Approaches
to and methods in language teaching have been the subject of studies (e.g., Anthony
1963; Brown 1973; Celce-Murcia 1991; Howatt 1984; Richards and Rogers 2001).
According to Anthony (1963), three levels, approach, method and technique, were
hierarchically identified and arranged. An approach was defined as a paradigm or a
theory at the broadest level; method was a specific set of procedures for teaching a
language precisely; and technique, the narrowest term of the three, was a series of
classroom activities used to accomplish an objective.
Richards and Rogers (2001) have revised and extended this model. They argue
that the original model fails to spell out how an approach is realised in a method
and how method and technique are connected. They regard approach and method as
design level in which the design of objectives, syllabus and content is determined,
while instructional materials and the role of teachers and learners are specified.
They use a comprehensive term, procedure, which incorporates scheduled class-
room techniques, strategies and behaviors in language teaching within a type of
method. Hence, there are three dimensions in describing any language teaching
method that is “theoretically related to an approach, organisationally determined by
a design, and practically realised in procedure” (Richards and Rodgers 2001, p. 20).
Literature on language teaching has confirmed that an established method should
have a specified set of classroom practices that are guided by a set of theoretical
principles (Nunan 2000; Kumaravadivelu 2005). As Kumaravadivelu argued
(2005), much research concentrates on language teaching method but ignores other
factors “such as teacher cognition, learner perception, societal needs, cultural and
institutional contexts” (p. 165) that can affect classroom processes and practices.
Such factors have a significant impact on language education by shaping and

reshaping the content and character of teaching and learning. Nunan (2000) has
investigated the role of leaner and teacher by analysing classroom management and
teacher-student interaction to address issues related to English language compre-
hension skills and to analyse language teaching methods. Some early classroom
studies have revealed that it is difficult for teachers to use theories and practices in
everyday teaching consistently (e.g., Kumaravadivelu 1993a, Nunan 1987). Later
Kumaravadivelu (2005) suggests that language educators understand language
teaching from macro-strategies to micro-strategies. The former involves general
plans in accordance with theoretical and pedagogical knowledge in L2 teaching and
learning. The latter involves classroom procedures that realise the objectives of a
specific macro-strategy. Each macro-strategy can have any number or type of
micro-strategies to suit local learning and teaching situation. As a result, the
appropriate strategy use should be drawn from English language teaching.
In Hong Kong, the study method used in language centres is primarily tutorials or
workshops in which interactive teaching practices such as discussion, group work, role
play are employed to help students engage in independent learning (Nunan 2000).
Teaching methods for discipline study have also been investigated (Ho et al. 2001;
Kember and Kwan 2000; Murry and Macdonald 1997). For example, Kember (1997)
identified approaches or orientations to teaching in the disciplines, “teacher-
centred/content-oriented” and “student-centred/learning-oriented”.
Students focus on English language attainment at the first phase where specific
language assistance with clear tasks is offered. They then shift from a language
preparation level to an applied level of real communication in their respective
discipline departments. Confidence and competence in English is essential for their
disciplinary studies. Students have to become more independent advanced English
learners when engaging in their major study. Students new to university experience
a different teaching culture. Effective teaching methods including teaching strate-
gies can facilitate students’ adaptation to university study. Good teaching methods
and appropriate strategies can help students become competent in English, and at
the same time, enable them to boost their academic performance. For this reason, an
investigation of effective strategies in the level of procedure that can be used to
facilitate students’ learning is warranted.
Teaching strategies are activities initiated by teachers to help students to learn.
Effective teaching practices have been the focus of many studies (e.g., Good and
Brophy 1991; Killen 2007; Richards and Rodgers 2001; Trigwell and Prosser
1996b; Westwood 2008). There is substantial literature on this topic within disci-
plines such as healthcare, science, economics, and teacher education (e.g., Baldwin
et al. 2006; Gullason 2009; Norman 2009; Vogel et al. 2009; Zhao et al. 2009).
Researches in Hong Kong have examined lecturers’ conceptions of good teaching,
their approaches to teaching, and relevant educational practice mainly through a
mix of academic disciplines from social sciences, engineering, technology,
paramedical, business and management departments (Ho et al. 2001; Kember and
Kwan 2000; Murry and Macdonald 1997). However, there is little investigation of
effective teaching strategies in English studies as a discipline (Sit 2012).

Furthermore, specific procedures that help realise the “teacher-centred/
content-oriented” and “student-centred/learning-oriented” approaches to teaching
in higher education have not drawn as much attention as teaching methods in Hong
Kong’s higher education.
On the other hand, many studies about English language education mainly focus
on how to upgrade students from elementary to academic level in accordance with
approaches and related techniques in language teaching. Nevertheless, there is little
published literature in this area which focuses on English major students at the
higher education level in Hong Kong. Overall, a set of teaching strategies especially
for teachers and trainers have been systematically described by elaborating inten-
sive examples taken from a variety of subjects that are considered to be effective in
some situations in any subject area across all institutional settings including higher
education (Killen 1998, 2003, 2007). That is to say, those effective teaching
practices may be also applied to English studies as a subject in Hong Kong’s higher
education sector. Although they are commonly used across various disciplines in
Australian universities, no detailed examples or evidences can demonstrate whether
they are applicable for other institutional settings like Hong Kong. Since little
research has not as yet touched on this field, this study attempts to establish a
clearer picture of the use of specific teaching strategies for English major students
as advanced language learners using the effective teaching strategies proposed by
Killen as a framework for analysis in terms of research design.
2.5 Summary
This chapter discusses the research development in three areas: the reform in Hong
Kong’s higher education as a result of social changes since the 1997 handover; the
change in language policy by the SAR government and its consequences for
English language education in local elementary and secondary schools; and
research on the current situation of English language teaching in Hong Kong’s
universities. The rapid social changes in Hong Kong since 1997 have resulted in
reforms to higher education and have established a closer relationship with
Mainland China. The trends of both internationalisation and localisation in Hong
Kong’s higher education have affected the composition of both academics and
students. The increasingly number of Mainland students have become a challenge.
Academics must deal with a diverse range rather than a relatively homogenous
group of Hong Kong local students.
Second, the inevitable social change has brought about a change in language
policy. The “Biliterate and Trilingualism” policy intends that Hong Kong students
will be trilingual in speaking fluent Cantonese, Putonghua (Mandarin) and English,
and biliterate in written Chinese and English. As such, the linguistic requirements
for Hong Kong students at all levels are very high. The policy has affected language
teaching in both elementary and secondary education, creating a gap between
English-medium schools and Chinese-medium schools.
2.5 Summary 27
Third, local graduates from the two types of secondary schools, EMI and CMI,
have emerged with different levels of English language proficiency. Additional
linguistic and cultural complexity has been created by new arrivals from Mainland
China. Although students are provided with reinforcement programs for English
language proficiency in their university language centres, few have taken steps to
improve language proficiency within English discipline studies. Reseach has shown
that an interaction problem exists between Hong Kong local and Mainland stu-
dents. Therefore, an investigation of the types of inclusive teaching strategies that
enhance language attainment and class interaction is warranted. The design and
methodology of the research framework are detailed in the next chapter.
Chapter 3
Research Development
3.1 Introduction
Chapter 2 provides a review of the development of English language teaching and

learning in the higher education sector in Hong Kong. The review has shown
limited research on discipline-based English studies, that is, after initial study of
English in language centres. Apart from linguistic issues, prior research has also
identified problems with reciprocal adjustment between host students of Hong
Kong and Mainland sojourners.
The research design and method are discussed in this chapter. First, the
researcher examined existing teaching strategies used in Hong Kong’s universities.
A theoretical framework for this study is explained and discussed. In this ethno-
graphical study both quantitative and qualitative approaches were employed to elicit
statistical descriptive and in-depth interpretive data. To establish reliability and
validity using methodological triangulation, this study adopted three types of data
collection: surveys, classroom observations and in-depth interviews.
3.2 Theoretical Framework for Teaching Strategies

Investigation
Based on the work of Killen (1998), who summarised that seven main teaching
strategies (direct instruction, discussion, group work, cooperative learning, prob-
lem solving, student research and performance activities) are commonly used in
Western contexts to enhance the learning of their students (Good and Brophy 1991;
Westwood 2008), the assumption was made in this study that such teaching
strategies are culturally neutral and could be used across all disciplines and in
diverse socio-cultural contexts. There is limited literature on the effectiveness of
those teaching strategies in Hong Kong’s universities (Sit 2013). To identify

30 3 Research Development
whether they are effectively used in the higher education sector of Hong Kong and
to investigate students’ responses to them, a definition of teaching strategies was
considered.
Teaching strategies are activities used by teachers that aim to facilitate learning.
Researchers including Peterson and Walberg (1979), Wittrock (1986), Good and
Brophy (1991), Westwood (2008) and Killen (2013) have iterated that teachers use
techniques to enhance students’ learning in all subject areas. For techniques that
help in the teaching of languages there are three levels: approach, design and
procedure (Richards and Rodgers 2001). The current research focused on the
procedure level, that is, the last level concerned with “classroom techniques,
practices and behaviours when a method is used, interactional patterns observed in
lessons, and tactics and strategies used by teachers and learners” (Richards and
Rodgers 2001, p. 33). As noted by Killen (1998, p. III), “effective instruction is
often characterised by active involvement of students, student collaboration, and an
emphasis on academic achievement”. Students’ attitudes and learning styles as well
as teachers’ perceptions and teaching methods are important factors in learning
(Kame’enui and Carnine 1998). Because of this, attention was also given to the
learning context which has significant effects on what students learn. To examine
the teaching strategies used in the contemporary context of Hong Kong’s univer-
sities, the term “teaching strategies” adopted was based on Killen’s definition
as summarised below (Killen 1998, pp. 2–160):
(1) Direct Instruction (sometimes called “chalk and talk”): is a teacher-centred
approach in which the teacher delivers academic content in a highly structured
format, directing activities of students and maintaining a focus on academic
achievement. Common forms include lectures, seminars and demonstrations;
(2) Discussion: is an orderly process of face-to-face group interaction in which
people exchange ideas about an issue for the purpose of solving a problem,
answering a question, enhancing their knowledge or understanding, or making
a decision. When the discussion involves the whole class, the lesson will have
some of the characteristics of direct instruction and some of the characteristics
of student-centred learning;
(3) Small-group work: any time that two or more students are working together,
other than whole-class instruction, can be designated as group work. All
approaches to group work have the distinguishing feature that students are
working together without direct intervention by the teacher (for at least some of
the time). It needs the teacher to structure the learning environment so that the
students can interact productively under indirect guidance;
(4) Cooperative learning: this is both an instructional technique and a teaching
philosophy that encourages students to work together to maximise their own
learning and the learning of their peers. Usually, students work on a task in
groups of two or more, they are encouraged to help one another to learn, they
are dependent upon the efforts of one another to achieve success, and they are
held accountable for that learning both as a group and as individuals;
3.2 Theoretical Framework for Teaching Strategies Investigation 31
(5) Problem solving: it can be defined as any situation in which some information
is known and other information is needed. The problem might be something
that gives rise to doubt or uncertainty, or something that is hard to understand,
or a difficult task or question, or an inquiry that starts from given conditions to
investigate facts or principles. It can be the process of applying existing
knowledge to a new or unfamiliar situation to gain new knowledge. It is
designed to help students apply the knowledge they have already gained to new
situations and to acquire new knowledge;
(6) Student research: is a systematic process of gathering information, interpreting
it, and then reaching some conclusions based on that information. Teachers
must decide why they want student to gather information, make it possible for
them to gather it, help them to interpret the information they find, and respond
to the conclusions they reach. While student research is a student-centred
approach to learning, it is not something that teachers should expect students to
do independently;
(7) Performance activities: those teaching strategies in which one or more students
are required to “act” a part. They may be formal activities (such as a script
play), structured activities (such as debating), and free-flowing activities (such
assimilation games). All share common features. First, students are required to
take on a “role” and to behave in ways that may not be natural to them. Second,
the activity will usually involve a few “active” participants with the remainder
of the class expected to learn through observation (and later through
discussion).
In addition to these seven, Killen (2003, 2007) later added two more teaching
strategies by describing role play as one form of performance activities and pro-
viding rationales for case study and student writing. Killen’s writing (1998, 2003,
2007) explains when and why these teaching practices can be used to help students
achieve a good learning outcome. Only the original seven “classic” teaching
strategies were used as an analytical framework for this thesis. The reasons for this
choice are provided in the following paragraphs:
Role play is “a form of acting in which the general role of the players is defined
but they do not have scripts to follow” (Killen 2003, p. 226). As such, role play
comes with the scope of performance activities as free-flowing activity. There
seems little need to specify the difference between role play and performance
activities. Second, a case study as a teaching strategy provides a story with a
narrative message that “describes an actual, or realistic, situation in which an
individual or a group has to make a decision or solve a problem” (Killen 2003,
p. 240). It requires students to learn from stories and search possible ways to resolve
a given realistic issue. To a certain degree, it is also an inquiry-based learning
method because it can enable students to develop their problem-solving skills while
deepening their understanding of theory (Carlson 1999). As it is normally described
in relation to problem-solving skills, it would be reasonable to define it as a
problem-solving related strategy rather than treat it separately.
Third, Killen (2003, 2007) has addressed three types of writing including
note-taking, writing for consolidation and revision, and journal writing when he
proposes student writing as a deliberate teaching strategy. Writing not only
encourages students to develop their ongoing skills of organising reflective ideas in
a logical manner, but it also enables students to become independent learners
though searching information, presenting interpretations and reaching conclusions.
This activity can be considered to lie within the scope of student research. In all,
the initial classification of teaching strategies was adopted as a general checklist for
the current research. In general, teaching strategies could be divided into two
categories, teacher-centred approach and learner-centred approach (Killen 2007;
Prosser and Trigwell 2006). Direct instruction is a teacher-centred approach
designed to transmit information and skills from teacher to student while the other
strategies are more student-centred approaches.
It has been argued that these two teaching approaches fit with instructivist and
constructivist beliefs about learning. There is an on-going debate that compares
‘instructed knowledge’ and ‘constructed knowledge’ (Hmelo-Siver et al. 2007;
Scruggs and Mastropieri 2007). Direct teaching as ‘instructed knowledge’ can be
helpful for achievement by giving explicit instruction. On the other hand, advocates
of ‘constructed knowledge’ believe that learners learn more effectively by con-
structing knowledge from their own activities rather than receiving transmission of
knowledge from teachers. As a result of this debate, teachers question whether to
instruct their students in a direct manner or to encourage and support students by
scaffolding their activity.
Direct instruction encourages teachers to set clear learning objectives and sys-
tematically direct students from simple to more complex concepts and skills
(Westwood 2008). It presents explicit information to learners to follow and master
(Ellis 2005). Its procedures “are based on behavioral views of learning where
modeling, imitation, practice, shaping and reinforcement are key components for
helping learners master the objectives of the lesson” (Westwood 2008, p. 10). In
other words, acquiring external knowledge by students from instruction is the major
concern. In this sense, the teachers’ role mainly is to provide the knowledge.
The basic principles of constructivism rest on the assumption that firsthand
experience (through activities) helps shape learners’ learning and understanding
(e.g., Piaget 1983; Vygotsky 1978). Vygotsky’s social interaction theory posits that
collaborative social interaction and communication enhance learning through
constructed activities which allow individuals to learn from inquiry and personal
experience rather than direct instruction (Vygotsky 1978). The concept of “learning
by doing” has influenced the process-based approach or task-based approach
arising from constructivism learning principles (Bygate et al. 2001; Wong 2009).
The constructivist view emphasises the individual construction of internal knowl-
edge by learners. From this point of view, the primary role of teachers is to facilitate
learners to gain knowledge on their own. However, perceptions on teaching and
what constitutes good practice differs between students and is often influenced by
3.2 Theoretical Framework for Teaching Strategies Investigation 33
their cultural values and prior learning experiences. Therefore teacher’s under-
standing of students’ responses to the teaching strategies that they are using is vital
to successful teaching. This study examined in closer detail teachers’ teaching
strategies and their students’ feedback to them.
3.3 Context of the Study
Hong Kong’s universities have been trying to attract more non-local students (in-
cluding from the Mainland) to diversify the student mix, to enhance the interna-
tionalism of higher education and to provide a more challenging and stimulating
environment for local students (Yu and Zhang 2016). To conduct the study in a
manageable way and to achieve depth of investigation, two research sites were
selected, the Departments of English at University A and University B. Both
institutions recruit a relatively large number of Mainland Chinese students, a
necessity for this study.
University A is a well-known higher education institution in Hong Kong and one
of the most prestigious leading English-medium universities in the world. Being
one of the most prominent international universities in Asia, it provides a com-
prehensive education designed to cultivate the intellectual and personal strengths of
its students. An increasing number of Mainland students have been applying for
first-year-first-degree places. The majority of them achieve high scores in the
National Higher Education Entrance Examination (NHEEE) in Mainland China and
obtain competitive scholarships (EDB 2007). At the undergraduate level, the
English Department offers courses in English Studies, Cross-cultural Studies in
English as well as Language and Communication. University B is the largest tea-
cher education provider in Hong Kong. About 80% of Hong Kong’s kindergarten
teachers, 84% of primary school teachers and 30% of secondary school teachers are
graduates of this university or its predecessor colleges of education. It is the only
UGC-funded institution dedicated to professional teacher education in Hong Kong.
It offers courses in language education, English literature, media and culture. In
summary, University A is a leading comprehensive university while University B is
an educational institution focused on teacher training and development. Since the
research aimed to identify what teaching strategies are often used in Hong Kong’s
universities, two sets of data allowed for greater generalisation in terms of preferred
strategy use as well as their frequency, students’ responses, and the impact on
classroom interaction between multicultural counterparts.
The teaching staff at both institutions were broadly international and comprised
both native and non-native speakers of English. Of the teachers for whom English
was not their first language, there were local Hong Kong teachers, non-local
teachers with Mainland Chinese background, and teachers from other non-English
speaking countries. Most of them had trained internationally and received their
doctoral degrees overseas.
Both institutions currently have local Hong Kong and non-local Mainland Chinese
students. In spite of the fact that the students are ethnically Chinese, they show
considerable historical, political, social and cultural diversity (Gao 2007; Lam 2006;
Li and Thao 2006). It is common to see both groups of students being excluded or
maintaining their distance from each other due to the sense of otherness that is often
reinforced by competition at school and in the workplace (Lam 2006). Examining
whether teachers were aware of this gap and whether they were making efforts to
enhance classroom interaction between these groups of students formed part of this
research. It is essential to investigate teachers’ choice of teaching strategies.
3.4 Methodological Triangulation
This research used both qualitative and quantitative methods to answer a number of
sub-questions derived from the key research question. In the first instance, it involved a
quantitative survey. In addition, there was intensive qualitative data collection based on
an ethnography strategy using classroom observations and in-depth interviews
(Creswell 2014; Harré and Moghaddam 2003). Both the quantitative and the qualitative
data gathering were guided by an ethnographic research perspective. The textual
information provided more in-depth views and perceptions while the numerical mea-
surement helped establish validity. Mixed methods provide complementary quantitative
and qualitative data on the same topic. This creates a triangulation design that increases
the reliability and validity of the research (Mathison 1988; Punch 2009).
Triangulation using multiple methods, data sources and researchers enhances
validity (Mathison 1988) and may involve one of four approaches including data
triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation, and methodological tri-
angulation. In particular, the last type of triangulation can be used as a strategy to
reduce bias and help dismiss plausible rival explanations. Triangulation is “a technique
which provides more and better evidence from which researchers can construct
meaningful propositions about the social world” (Mathison 1988, p. 15). It is a way of
challenging findings and re-examining interpretations. Methodological triangulation,
the most common type of triangulation, was used in this research (survey, class
observation and in-depth interviews). The three methods of inquiry used in the current
research and justification for each method will be discussed in the following sections.
3.4.1 Quantitative Investigation
A survey was used as the first data collection procedure in this study. Quantitative
data collected via an instrument designed to answer research questions can be
statistically presented in a clear numeric way (Creswell and Clark 2007). In this
study, the survey aimed at identifying the teaching strategies commonly used in
discipline-based English studies and their frequencies, identifying teachers’
3.4 Methodological Triangulation 35
preferences for strategies to enhance students’ language attainment, and examining

its effectiveness for promoting an interactive in-class learning environment.
A survey provides a numeric description of a specific sample, characteristics, atti-
tudes, perceptions or opinions on a particular issue. Survey research can help a
researcher generalise findings to the wider population, and offer other advantages in
relation to the “economy of the design and the rapid turnaround in data collection”
(Creswell 2009, p. 146) as well as the ability to “tap the subjective feelings of the
public” (Fowler 2002, p. 2). Wiersma and Jurs (2009) have suggested that survey
research is a method that is applicable to and appropriate for many educational research
situations. For example, surveys are often conducted by schools, colleges and uni-
versities to gather students’ perceptions or feedback on their courses.
For the current research, a survey was designed to gain an understanding of
teachers’ attitudes towards teaching students with diverse cultural backgrounds in the
learning environment of Hong Kong. In particular, this survey attempted uncover
whether teachers were aware of the differences between the two groups in terms of the
ways in which students responded to teaching strategies and their classroom beha-
viours. Most teachers have a heavy workload in teaching and research in the academic
context of Hong Kong. Whilst it may have been more appropriate to conduct in-depth
interviews considering the small number of teachers involved in the study, a survey
was used instead due to time restraints. As Wen (2004) points out, the survey is widely
used as a technique for quantitative data collection. Advantages of using this method is
that it requires less time and fewer resources than interviews and observations. It only
took about 10–15 min for participants to complete the survey. There are how-
ever disadvantages in using a survey for a small number of subjects. A survey was used
to identify teachers’ preferences and the frequency with which each teaching strategy
was used rather than identifying the correlation between variables. The intended data
collection was designed to identify teaching strategies commonly used by teachers
rather than establishing a relationship between different teachers and different teaching
strategies. The researcher was aware of the limitations of using a survey, but the reality
made it impossible to conduct an interview among the academic staff who could not
spare the time to attend an in-depth interview.
The targeted subjects for survey were approximately 50 academic staff depending
on their availability during data gathering. All the teachers were teaching an under-
graduate course in the English Departments of the two universities. There were 16
academics who were working for the English Department of University A while 34
worked for University B at the time when this research was conducted. All these
academics hold international doctorates. In addition, there were teaching fellows or
tutors in supporting roles. Although it was limited to a relatively small number of
subjects and universities, the statistical evidence should provide a general picture of
teachers’ perceptions, frequencies and preferences for strategy use in their teaching.
Furthermore, the survey focused on English teaching, mitigating any potential concern
about the subjects’ English language proficiency affecting the results of the survey.
The survey instrument was a modified version of one used in another study
(Chen and Sit 2009) that was concerned with how international students from
various regions adjusted to the teaching strategies used in an Australian university
in contrast with those of their home countries. As a result, a reliability test on the
questionnaire had been run to ensure the consistency of the designed items before
preparing the final form of the questionnaire for this survey. In addition, the
modified questionnaire (Appendix 1) was reviewed by experts in the fields of
language education and educational psychology to check the validity of the items.
Potential problems such as question content, wording and sequencing, question
instructions and ambiguous statements were detected and refined. Moreover, the
instruments were reviewed by the Heads of the English Department at both insti-
tutions in Hong Kong.
Originally there were three parts to the survey: “Personal background”, “Cultural
context of education in your home country”, and “The problems you have
encountered at your current university”. After modification, five areas were inclu-
ded: “Background”, “Teaching strategies used in your classroom”, “Preferences for
strategies of teaching”, “Difference between Mainland and Hong Kong students”,
and “Classroom interaction–how classes are conducted”.
Part one of the redesigned survey was to acquire general personal information
about each respondent (gender, years of teaching, educational background, etc.) as
obtaining “background or demographic information is important for identifying the
individual in terms of classifying variables for the analysis, especially for surveys
using questionnaire” (Wiersma and Jurs 2009, p. 198). Parts two and three were
based on the seven teaching strategies identified by Killen (1998). These survey items
identified which teaching strategies teachers commonly used and their preferences for
doing so. The last two parts had items pertaining to perceived differences in the
learning preferences of Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students and to examine
the teaching strategies that encouraged interaction between these two cohorts.
Most of the questions in the survey were designed as selected-response items.
Subjects were asked to respond to the question “How often do you use the following
teaching strategies in your classroom?” using a five-point Likert rating scale from 1
(never) to 5 (very often). They were also asked to indicate their preferences for
teaching strategies based on another five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). There were also several open-ended items, such as “What
suggestions do you have to improve interactions between Mainland and Hong Kong
students?” Items with fixed responses are able to ensure the consistency of responses
whilst generating straightforward statistical evidence. They are generally less
time-consuming than open-ended responses, but may result in “boxing-in the
respondents on the breadth of the response” (Wiersma and Jurs 2009, p. 204).
Compared to fixed-response items, open-ended questions reveal unexpected per-
ceptions or feelings that may not be available with fixed-response items. Open-ended
items may have some inconsistency problems such as articulation of irrelevant
information. When incorporated however in the one survey, these different sorts of
items can maximise their advantages while minimising any disadvantages.
The survey covered major content sections that were consistent with the research
topic. The format was straightforward, with each part containing items in a logical,
sequential order. There were clear and concise instructions for respondents to
complete the questionnaire. Definitions or explanations were provided for each
identified teaching strategy (e.g., direct instruction-direct teaching or lecturing) so

as to avoid misinterpretation or confusion.
The quantitative parts of the survey were used to confirm the existence of seven
teaching strategies in Hong Kong’s universities and so help to validate previous
research (Malhotra 1993). Open-ended questions allowed the subjects to describe
other teaching strategies that they use in addition to the seven identified in the
fixed-response items. Apart from the survey as mentioned above, two other
methods including classroom observation and in-depth interview were also used in
the research to provide more detailed and more diversified content (Wen 2004),
thereby minimising the limitations of the survey as much as possible.
3.4.2 Qualitative Investigation
Qualitative investigation is an interpretive inquiry form that enables researchers to

interpret what they see, hear and understand (Creswell 2009). Qualitative research
collects data naturalistically at the site (Punch 2009). It can enable the researcher to
capture a holistic overview of the context from the inside through observing
behaviours, interviewing participants, or examining documents. It also allows
researchers to step into the everyday life of individuals or groups. Another salient
element of qualitative data collection is it can comprise multiple sources of data
(i.e., observations, interviews, documents, etc.) rather than a single data source.
Ethnography is one of the more popular approaches to qualitative inquiry. The
term ethnography originates from cultural anthropology (Wiersma and Jurs 2009).
Ethnography can describe a culture and attempt to understand a way of life from
participants’ points of view (Punch 2009). It further “means a picture of the way of
life of some identifiable group of people and conceivably, those people could be
any culture bearing group in any time and place” (Wolcott 1988, p. 188). The
primary goal of ethnography is the description of cultures (Hammersley and
Atkinson 1995). It comprehends the social, cultural and meaning in the life of
people involved (Lam 2006). It studies “the meanings of the behaviour, the lan-
guage, and the interaction among members of the culture-sharing group” (Creswell
2007, p. 68–69). As used in the research, an ethnographic approach would fore-
ground the participants’ everyday lives and their social and cultural experience of
learning in the universities in Hong Kong.
In terms of data collection techniques, ethnography is eclectic, but fieldwork is
central (Punch 2009). As noted by Creswell (2013), ethnography as a strategy of
inquiry allows the researcher to collect primarily observational and interview data
in the field setting. Classroom observation and in-depth interviews, two types of
qualitative collection procedures, were used in the current research.
(1) Classroom Observation

Classroom observation, one of the salient techniques of an ethnography
approach, was employed as the second instrument in this study. The purpose of
observation was to identify teaching strategies commonly used by teachers in the
contemporary context of Hong Kong’s universities, to examine the responses of
two groups of participants (Mainland Chinese and local Hong Kong students) to
these strategies, and to examine how both sub-groups of students behaved and
interacted with each other in class when different teaching strategies were used.
Observation has been widely used in educational research (Maxwell 2013). It
enables the researcher to obtain first-hand experience with participants, record
anything that occurs, notice any unusual aspects, and explore topics that partici-
pants may feel uncomfortable discussing. The researcher can take field notes which
describe the situation and events in an unstructured or semi-structured way. It was
anticipated that observation could provide the researcher with a holistic picture of
the teaching and learning environment, how teachers taught, how students
responded, and to what extent students interacted with each other. Both teachers’
and students’ behaviours could be witnessed. Since the researcher is trilingual (she
speaks Chinese Mandarin, Cantonese and English) and bicultural (she has lived in
Hong Kong and on the Mainland), an ethnographical investigation could take
advantage of the researcher’s linguistic ability and cultural awareness.
Observation was conducted in all the undergraduate courses in the Department
of English for a period of 10 weeks. Apart from teachers, all the students who were
enrolled in undergraduate courses in the English Department in the target university
were invited to participate in this research. Approximately 20 observations of
English classes were planned. This provided a comprehensive understanding of
current practices and the extent to which Mainland and Hong Kong students
interacted with each other in class. The researcher was given permission by the two
Heads of Department to attend Advanced English classes. There were no additional
tasks required of teachers or students after obtaining their permission to take notes
during classes.
The researcher used an observational protocol (Appendix 2) to record infor-
mation. An observation protocol is a useful method for recording on-site field notes
that contain both descriptive and reflective notes (Creswell 2013). There were two
content areas addressed in the observation manual, background information and
observations. Part one described when and where the observation was made. Part
two, the main body of the working manual, was designed in three sections: Teacher
data, Student data, and Classroom interaction including teacher-student and
student-student interactions. The teacher data section was designed to identify
teachers’ teaching strategies as well as ratings of frequency throughout the lesson.
The student data section was designed to identify students’ responses and beha-
viours through their engagement in different strategies. The last section was
designed to identify teacher-student, student-teacher, and peer (local students)-peer
(Mainland students) interactions.
The protocol used some abbreviations of types of teaching strategies (e.g.,

DI = direct instruction) for convenience. Second, the researcher included reflective
notes which conveyed her personal thoughts, ideas, hunches, feeling and impres-
sions. Third, as elaborated in the appendix, the researcher generated statements that
referred to the student behaviour and classroom interaction from her previous
research project working experience within a culturally mixed context.
Classroom observations enabled the researcher to identify both teachers’ and
students’ behaviours and witness the interaction process. The data collected
through the observations was compared with data collected through the quantitative
survey. In this way, the validity and reliability of the various research methods
could be enhanced.
(2) In-depth Interviews
In-depth interviews, a common technique for qualitative data collection, were
used as the third means of data gathering. The interviews were designed to gain an
understanding of both Mainland and Hong Kong students’ perspectives on teaching
strategies used by their teachers, to identify students’ perceptions of the advantages
and disadvantages of existing teaching strategies, and to identify students’ per-
ceptions of the teaching strategies which might promote productive interaction
between Mainland and Hong Kong students.
An interview has various advantages. For instance, an interview is a very useful
tool to access “people’s perceptions, meanings, and definitions of situations and
constructions of reality” (Punch 2009, p. 144). It has been used in educational
research as an instrument to explore learners’ world. It enables the researcher to
understand individuals’ perspectives (Kayrooz and Trevitt 2005). It may be
impossible to obtain in-depth information such as thoughts, feelings, intentions and
so on by any other means.
Having justified the choice of interview, the researcher selected a specific form for
it, of which there are three: structured, unstructured and semi-structured interviews
(Wen 2004). For this study, a semi-structured interview with open-ended questions
was used because of its flexibility and potential to encourage participants to articulate
a variety of opinions (Flick 2002). The semi-structured interview has become one of
the core methods in small-scale educational studies (Tierney and Dilley 2002). It has
scheduled questions, but the order of the questions can be modified on the basis of the
interviewer’s perception of what seems most appropriate. The wording of questions
can be changed if necessary. It is possible to probe beyond the answers and thus enter
into a dialogue with interviewees (Robson 2002; Wen 2004). More questions may be
added and the sequence of questions may be re-arranged by the interviewer to ensure
a more natural flow to the interviewing process. Semi-structured interviews fitted with
the current research purpose to explore students’ learning experience in Hong Kong
institutions. Interviewees would be able to talk freely about the topics of the
interview.
Approximately 40 undergraduate students majoring in English (20 Mainland

Chinese students and 20 Hong Kong local students) in the target institutions were
interviewed. A gender balance as well as a Mainland/Hong Kong balance were
taken into consideration when the selection was made if there were more than 40
students willing to participate in an interview. All interviews were audio-recorded
with the consent of the interviewees and transcribed verbatim. The face-to-face,
one-on-one interviews allowed the researcher to control the process and provided
the interviewee with freedom to express their thoughts (O’Leary 2004). The
interviews were conducted in a quiet classroom or a meeting room provided by the
institutions. The participants were interviewed for about 30 min. To make students
feel more comfortable in answering questions, the researcher used Mandarin,
Cantonese, or English to communicate, depending on the preference of the student.
All students could speak English (they were advanced English learners) but some
were more proficient than others. Having the option to use multiple languages
helped the researcher obtain useful interview data that was not restricted by stu-
dents’ language proficiencies.
An interview protocol (Appendix 3) for asking questions and recording answers
was designed. Components included a heading (date, venue, time, interviewer and
interviewee), several warm-up questions regarding background information at the
very beginning, general interview questions, and a final acknowledgement for
thanks. There were four main sections: General introduction which was used as an
opening, Experience of studying in an institution in Hong Kong, Classroom
interaction, and Closing.
These sections functioned as a guide during the qualitative interview. The
“conversation” began with the purpose of this interview and a brief overview of
each participant (i.e., origin, preference of language use, specific major of study
etc.). Part two had a set of open-ended questions to explore interviewees’ general
feelings about studying in a Hong Kong’s institution and to encourage them to
articulate their perspectives on teaching strategies, especially their effectiveness and
ineffectiveness (e.g., What do you think of small group work used as a teaching
strategy in university?). Part three was concerned with students’ English compe-
tence (e.g., How would you rate your competence in English?). Part four contained
questions about relations between Mainland and Hong Kong students (e.g., How do
you feel about communication with your Mainland/Hong Kong counterparts when
learning in a university class? What teaching strategies do you think can help you
work with each other productively?). Specific probing questions were asked after
more general questions. At the conclusion of the interviews, participants were given
the opportunity to ask any questions and were thanked for their participation.
Interview questions were pre-tested before final refinement and revision. The pri-
mary focus of the interview was participants’ experiences of undergraduate study in
an institution in Hong Kong and their thoughts about effective and ineffective
teaching strategies. It was anticipated that interviewing would produce in-depth
information including experiences, feelings, opinions, and preferences.
3.5 Data Analysis 41
3.5 Data Analysis
The quantitative data collected through the teacher survey were processed using
SPSS software. A comparison was made in order to identify the distinctive features
of their performance in the two institutions. The observation notes were organised
to establish a fundamental base for a later phase of data analysis. They were coded
based on the timeline throughout the lesson. The transcripts were loaded into
NVivo8 (N8) software to compile a database for the textural data collected. In terms
of the initial coding, the seven teaching strategies were used as main indicators for
this study. Each interview was entered as a separate text file. The matrix operation
in N8 is especially salient for micro-theory building as many of the elements of the
study including data collection can be envisioned as matrices. It also assisted in
identifying strong connections between specific themes and narrowing gaps and
discrepancies. This approach helped to maximise the chances of highlighting
divergent and contradictory data and contribute to the overall robustness of the
process. The information was systematically arranged and sorted by theme and
concept, thus allowing preliminary categories to be formed.
3.6 Summary
This chapter presents methodological framework for this research. The methods
used to investigate seven teaching strategies are justified. A methodological trian-
gulation design which employs both quantitative survey and qualitative research
methods (classroom observation and in-depth interviews) is discussed in detail.
There were fixed-choice survey items concerned with teachers’ attitudes, behaviour
and preference for the teaching strategies. Open-ended information that was also
collected examined students’ in-depth attitudes towards different teaching strategies
and their impact on classroom interaction. Three data collection techniques were
used to generate multiple sources of data to help establish validity and reliability.
The data collected will be analysed as research findings in the following chapters.
Chapter 4
Findings from Survey
4.1 Introduction
In Chap. 3, the reasons why mixed methods were employed in this study are
justified. The following three chapters reported three phases of data collection and
presentation from survey, classroom observation and interview, respectively. The
first phase was findings from survey. To start with the field work, a quantitative
survey (Appendix 1) was designed to identify the existing teaching strategies used
by teachers in the targeted institutions. The results and findings from the survey of
teachers were firstly described and analysed. In the second stage, classroom
observation conducted by using an observational protocol (Appendix 2) was
employed to seek evidence to support the survey data from teachers. In the next
phase, the validity of findings through classroom observation were further checked
by in-depth interviews (Appendix 3) with students.
Remark: key results are presented from Chapter 4 to Chapter 6. For more details,
please refer to other publications by the author (Sit 2010, 2012, 2013).
4.2 Results from Surveys
4.2.1 The Participants
The survey aimed to investigate the teachers’ preferences for strategies and identify
the teaching strategies that were effective in enhancing language attainment and
promoting productive classroom interaction. The participants were teachers who were
teaching an undergraduate course in the English Departments of University A and
University B. Of the total 36 academics sampled, depending on their availability, 22
(11 at University A and 11 at University B) completed and returned the question-
naires posted to them. In other words, the response rate was 61%. The researcher was
aware of the limitation of survey for such a small number of subjects. Since the data

44 4 Findings from Survey
collected in a small sample size, any results must be accepted with a caution. Tables 4.1
and 4.2 below summarise background information of the subjects:
The above tables show that each institution consisted of 36% of the subjects
speaking English as their mother-tongue. They were from English-speaking or
European countries while the remainders were from Hong Kong or Mainland
China. The female participants were 55% while the male teachers accounted for
45%. It was noted that 10 (out of 22) teachers were experienced teachers because
they had already gained more than 10 years of lecturing and tutoring experience.
The rest of the teachers were either novice teachers or short term contract teaching
fellows. The two groups of teachers taught courses from Year 1 to Year 3. Overall
Table 4.1 University A teachers surveyed

No. Gender Level of Years of Role in the course English native
course teaching speaker
1 Female Yr.2 & 3 Over 10 years Lecturing No
2 Female Yr.2 & 3 1–3 years Coordinating & Yes
Lecturing
3 Male Yr.2 Over 10 years Lecturing Yes
4 Male Yr.2 & 3 Over 10 years Coordinating & No
Lecturing
5 Male Yr.2 & 3 Over 10 years Lecturing No
6 Male Yr.1 & 2 4–6 years Lecturing & Tutoring No
7 Female Yr.1 4–6 years Lecturing & Tutoring No
8 Female Yr.2 1–3 years Lecturing No
9 Female Yr.1 1–3 years Lecturing Yes
10 Female Yr.1 4–6 years Lecturing No
11 Female Yr.1 4–6 years Lecturing & Tutoring Yes
Table 4.2 University B teachers surveyed

No. Gender Level of Years of Role in the course English native
course teaching speaker
12 Male Yr.2 Over 10 years Lecturing & Tutoring No
13 Male Yr.1 1–3 years Lecturing & Tutoring Yes
14 Male Yr.2 & 3 Over 10 years Coordinating, Lecturing & Yes
Tutoring
15 Male Yr.1 Over 10 years Lecturing & Tutoring No
16 Male Yr.1 4–6 years Coordinating, Lecturing & No
Tutoring
17 Male Yr.1 1–3 years Lecturing & Tutoring No
18 Female Yr.1 1–3 years Coordinating, Lecturing & Yes
Tutoring
19 Female Yr.2 4–6 years Lecturing & Tutoring No
20 Female Yr.2 & 3 Over 10 years Lecturing No
21 Female Yr. 1 & 2 Over 10 years Lecturing & Tutoring Yes
22 Female Yr. 2 Over 10 years Coordinating, Lecturing & No
Tutoring
4.2 Results from Surveys 45
the survey covered a wide range of teachers who were responsible for a variety of
disciplines of English Studies.
4.2.2 Surveys Results
All the participants responded to the questionnaire in four sections. The first two
sections were designed to scrutinize the seven teaching strategies identified by
Killen (1998) so that teachers’ preferences for these strategies could be revealed.
The third section aimed to check students’ interaction from the eyes of teachers to
examine to what extent the differences in the learning process between Mainland
Chinese and Hong Kong students were noticed by teachers. The fourth section was
concerned with classroom interaction and teaching strategies that promoted com-
munication between these two groups of students.
The survey data was processed by SPSS software to generate means and stan-
dard deviations. T-tests were conducted to check the institutions’ response differ-
ences. The quantitative statistical results did not provide much significant or
valuable evidence in terms of gender, educational backgrounds and teaching
experience due to the limited subject number. However, some important points
could be identified: the University A group might use a specific teaching strategy
more than the University B group or vice versa; both groups of teachers might
express greater preference for some teaching strategies; the interaction situation in
the two research sites might share some common features or differ from each other;
and the two groups of teachers might share a similar view or hold a different
opinion to “What are the most effective teaching strategies to promote positive
interactions between HK and ML students?”. To check these points, a series of
tables with statistical information and explanations were presented.
(1) Reported Use of Teaching Strategies
Table 4.3 indicates the use of each teaching strategy at University A and
University B in Question number 10. The question was answered on a five-point
Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The seven teaching strategies were:
(1) direct instruction (DI); (2) classroom discussion (CD); (3) small group work
(SGW); (4) cooperative learning (CL); (5) problem solving (PS); (6) student
research (SR); and (7) performance activities (PA).
As displayed in Table 4.3, the rate of using CD (4.63) and SWG (4.18) at
University A was very high among the seven. The rate of these two strategies CD
(4.00) and SGW (4.09) was also great at University B. The use of CL and DI ranked
highly at both research sites. This showed that there was a higher frequency for the
majority of participants in using the first four strategies in the two institutions. The
rate of using SR (3.18) at University A was slightly higher than University B (2.36).
The use of PA (2.63) at University A was lower than University B (3.09). The
dependent measures t-test compared the participants’ responses to the use of these
Table 4.3 Use of teaching strategies at University A and University B

Teaching strategies use frequency University A University B T-test
(n = 11) (n = 11) (Sig.)
Mean SD Mean SD
DI 3.81 1.17 3.73 0.90 ns
CD 4.63 0.50 4.00 0.45 t = 3.13a
SGW 4.18 0.98 4.09 0.54 ns
CL 4.00 1.00 3.81 0.87 ns
PS 3.54 1.29 3.18 0.98 ns
SR 3.18 0.98 2.36 1.03 ns
PA 2.63 1.36 3.09 1.30 ns
a
p < .01; ns = non significant
strategies. There was no significant difference between the two groups of teachers’
use of most strategies except for CD (t = 3.13, p < .01). In other words, this figure
provided highly significant evidence to indicate that teachers at University A used
more CD than those at University B.
It was noticeable that five other strategies in addition to the original seven were
specified in the open-ended item. On the University A research site, “analysing
some data” was frequently used in class. This strategy would obviously help stu-
dents to develop useful skill of data analysis in a research orientated university. On
the University B research site, “inductive learning” by giving students examples
and facts to summarise the rules and reasoning behind those rules was used from
time to time. “Biographical sharing” by using teachers’ personal cross-cultural and
bi-lingual experiences was often used to engage students from various cultural
backgrounds. “Student-authored online Wiki-book project” was also used to pro-
mote academic reading and writing. Moreover, “question sharing session” as
another strategy was used to encourage students to raise questions that they might
have. These comments showed that the teachers surveyed at University B were
more inclined to use a wider variety of teaching strategies.
(2) Preferences to Use Teaching Strategies
The next section of questionnaire was designed to investigate the teaching
strategies preferred by the teachers. Below was a summary of the responses from
the participants in terms of their preferences for each teaching strategy in Question
number 11. The question included some statements in relation to seven individual
strategies and required each participant to indicate their agreement or disagreement
on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These
items and relevant statements are listed below:
(1) DI I prefer direct instruction because it is very effective for teaching fundamental
concepts or knowledge of the subject. It allows me to convey a large amount of
information in a relatively short time
(2) CD I prefer classroom discussion because it can involve students in learning actively,
motivate them to express ideas, and help enhance their social communication means
such as listening, speaking politely, and respecting others’ views
(3) I prefer small group work because it can help students exchange ideas from diverse
SGW perspectives, deepen their understanding of course content, improve their
communication skills, and increase their active participation in learning
(4) CL I prefer co-operative learning because it can encourage students to achieve a desired
task cooperatively. It not only helps students to share responsibilities for their own
learning, but it also enhances the learning of other group members
(5) PS I prefer problem solving because it helps develop students’ critical thinking skills,
resourcefulness, independence and self-confidence, and their ability to apply
knowledge to some real-world situations
(6) SR I prefer student research because it can enable students to develop a deep
understanding of the subject and develop their organizational and time-management
skills
(7) PA I prefer performance activity because it can engage students in learning activities
and provide them with opportunities to develop their communication skills
The above items and statements were used as indicators of preference and
reasons for preference. The use of a five point Likert scale resulted in statistically
comparable results, as listed in Table 4.4.
On the University A site, preferences for SR (4.27) and CD (4.27) were rated as
the highest. Preference for PS (4.18) was also high but PA (3.45) was the lowest.
On the University B site, SGW (4.27), CD (4.18) and CL (4.18) were highly rated,
but SR (3.27) gained the lowest rate. The t-values of preferences for most teaching
strategies except for SR were more than .05. No major differences were found
between the two institutions. However, preference for SR was estimated as
t = 2.32, p < .05. This showed that there was a significant gap between the two
research sites. The UniversityA group was more enthusiastic on Student Research
than the University B group. See discussion part for further analysis. One teacher
from University B also specified how “weekly written feedback online”, a teaching
Table 4.4 Preferences to use teaching strategies at the two Universities

Preferences for teaching strategies University A University B T-tst (Sig.)
(n = 11) (n = 11)
SD Mean Mean SD
DI 0.75 3.81 3.54 1.04 ns
CD 0.47 4.27 4.18 0.87 ns
SGW 0.92 3.63 4.27 0.47 ns
CL 0.75 3.82 4.18 0.60 ns
PS 0.60 4.18 3.55 1.04 ns
SR 0.65 4.27 3.27 1.27 t = 2.32a
PA 0.69 3.45 3.82 0.75 ns
a
strategy that he or she preferred, helped students to learn in a designed open-ended

question. This strategy allowed students to take the last few minutes of the class to
raise questions with the lecturer. Questions and responses would be uploaded onto
“blackboard”. This strategy was described to be very useful and favoured by stu-
dents although it was very labour-intensive.
(3) Difference between Mainland and Hong Kong Students
Question number 12 asked the participants to see whether they could identify
differences in attitudes of learning and classroom behaviours between ML and HK
students from their teaching experience. 18 teachers (out of 22) firstly answered
“Yes” and then indicated their agreement or disagreement of the differences on a
five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). One teacher
who answered “No” described that he or she had never taught Mainland students
before. Another 3 teachers found no differences between the two groups of students.
The items of this question were shown below and Table 4.5 summarises the sta-
tistical data:
(1) Responses to Differences between Hong Kong students and Mainland

strategies Chinese students emerge in the way they respond to the
teaching strategies used
(2) Competence in Differences between Hong Kong students and Mainland
English Chinese students emerge in their competence in the English
language
(3) Academic Differences between Hong Kong students and Mainland
performance Chinese students emerge in their academic performance
(4) Learner attitudes and Differences between Hong Kong students and Mainland
behaviour Chinese students emerge in their learning attitudes and
behaviour
(5) Attitudes to teachers Differences between Hong Kong students and Mainland
Chinese students emerge in their attitudes towards teachers
Table 4.5 showed all average scores were above “neutral 3” but no averages at
“agree 4”. This implied that most of the participants found there were differences
but they were not remarkable. Dependent measures t-tests were calculated. The
results demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the percep-
tions of these two groups of participants.
It was noted that learner attitudes and behaviour among the five items was the
strongest response by the University A group (3.78) and University B group (3.80).
It indicated that the both groups of participants thought ML and HK students’
learning attitudes and behaviour differed from each other. This point was expanded
by the 8 teachers’ written responses. Of these teachers, 5 reflected that most ML
students would put more efforts into their studies. In general, they were more
serious in their assignments. Two expressed that many HK students seemed to be
more confident. They felt ML students tended to be more reserved and sometimes
found it more difficult to engage in casual conversation that was irrelevant to the
task at hand.
Table 4.5 Differences between mainland and Hong Kong students

Differences between ML and HK students University A University B T-test
(n = 11) (n = 11) (Sig.)
Mean SD Mean SD
Responses to strategies 3.22 0.97 3.80 0.92 ns
Competence in English 3.44 1.01 3.50 0.85 ns
Academic performance 3.22 0.97 3.60 0.97 ns
Learner attitudes and behaviour 3.78 1.20 3.80 1.03 ns
Attitudes to teachers 3.22 1.09 3.40 0.70 ns
ns = non significant
It was also noted that the rate of responses to teaching strategies at University B
(3.80) was the highest. The teachers found the two groups of students had different
responses to teaching strategies. This point was further explained by 2 teachers
from University A and University B. They wrote that “many ML students were
active in answering instructor’s questions but appeared not to be as active as HK
students during small group discussions”. “HK local and Cantonese-speaking stu-
dents from the Mainland seemed to be more outgoing and felt more at ease with
classmates and in various group settings”. Another 2 teachers pointed out that
“competence of English between ML and HK students could be seen as a dis-
crepancy”. However, no more details were specified. For other items, there was no
special comment expanded. From the teachers’ response to the survey question and
the additional statements, there was overt evidence that at least the teachers on both
research sides had not paid sufficient attention to the difference of two groups of
student although some of them were able to identify the gaps between HK and ML
students in learning attitudes and classroom behaviors, English language compe-
tence and motivation for interactions with peers. This situation must be changed if
the interaction between the two groups of students is regarded as a priority in
considering teaching strategies in classrooms.
(4) How Classes were Conducted to Ehance Classroom Interaction
Question number 13 surveyed the participants’ responses on classroom inter-
action. They needed to consider how they conducted their classes to promote
interaction between ML and HK students and rated the items on a five-point Likert
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Five items were listed as:
(1) Lecturing Lecturing is used as a major means of

communication with students in my classroom
(2) Students with different cultural Students with different cultural backgrounds are
backgrounds working together encouraged to work together to generate ideas or
opinions
(3) ML and HK students participate
in class
(continued)
(continued)
Both Mainland students and Hong Kong students
participate in class activities by raising questions
and expressing their ideas
(4) ML and HK students cooperate Mainland students and Hong Kong students
in class interact and cooperate well in most collaborative
classroom activities
(5) ML and HK students have When Mainland students and Hong Kong students
troubles in interaction meet each other in class, they communicate less
than when they are with other Mainland or Hong
Kong students
Table 4.6 showed the overall picture of students’ interaction. The numbers
indicated that there was no striking difference between the University A and
University B groups with respect to the first four items. The first item about
encouraging ML and HK student to work together by the University A group (3.73)
and the University B group (3.82) was the strongest response. There was an obvious
gap between University A (2.90) and University B (3.73) with regard to the last
item indicating ML and HK students had troubles in interaction. The t-value
(t = −2.31, p < .05) provided sufficient evidence that the University B group of
teachers found more problems in relation to the interaction between ML and HK
students than the University A group did. The rate of agreement on cooperation
between ML and HK students in class at University B (3.09) was also statistically
lower than that of University A (3.64).
However, not many written responses were added to the open space of the
question. Only one teacher at University B expanded the reason pertaining to the
problems with ML and HK students’ interaction. It was reflected that this should
depend on the student composition of the two groups of students because the
teacher reported that if there were fewer ML students in class, they would mix more
with the local students. No conclusion could be drawn at this stage but it indeed
Table 4.6 Classroom interaction between mainland and Hong Kong students
Classroom interaction between ML and University A University B T-test
HK Students (n = 11) (n = 11) (Sig.)
Mean SD Mean SD
Lecturing 3.18 1.17 3.27 1.01 ns
Students with different cultural 3.73 0.65 3.82 1.08 ns
backgrounds working together
ML and HK students participate in class 2.91 1.38 3.81 0.75 ns
ML and HK students cooperate in class 3.64 0.67 3.09 0.83 ns
ML and HK students have troubles in 2.90 0.74 3.73 0.90 t = −2.31a
interaction
a
raised a noteworthy point for further investigation by using the other two research
methods (classroom observation and interviews).
(5) Classroom Interaction-Effective Strategies to Promote Interaction
The participants answered Question number 14 which required them to report
what teaching strategies should be effective for promoting productive classroom
interaction. Their responses varied on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 4.7 shows their ratings:
The teachers at University A and University B found that these learner-centered
teaching strategies were more effective than DI to promote classroom interaction. In
particular, CD (4.36), PA (4.00) and PS (3.91) got the first three high ranks at
University A. SWG (4.27), CD (4.18) and CL (4.09) ranked highly at University B.
Except for SGW (t = −2.27, p < .05), t-tests found no significant difference
between the two institutions for other strategies. This gap showed that the
University B favoured SGW than the University A group. As to the reasons behind
this gap, analysis would be made in the discussion section.
Four teachers from University B wrote down their additional opinions about
effective teaching strategies to enhance productive classroom interaction. Two of
them described “weekly feedback online” in response to students’ questions or
“anonymous written questions or comments for the lecturer” could give students an
opportunity to ask questions, which is not always possible in or after class. One
teacher thought “biographical sharing” could be helpful. The fourth teacher com-
mented that productive interaction depended not just on the use of the strategies, but
also the content and topic of the task as well as the outcome of the tasks. Students
needed to understand the meaning of the tasks which were set up on purpose to
contribute to the classroom interaction. These identified strategies and comments
seemed to illustrate that teachers at University B were more enthusiastic in con-
sidering more effective strategies beyond those “seven” checked in the current
research.
Table 4.7 Effective strategies to promote interaction

Effective teaching strategies University A University B T-test (Sig.)
(n = 11) (n = 11)
Mean SD Mean SD
DI 3.45 1.29 3.00 1.26 ns
CD 4.36 0.50 4.18 0.40 ns
SGW 3.73 0.65 4.27 0.47 t = −2.27a
CL 3.73 0.65 4.09 0.83 ns
PS 3.91 0.54 3.91 0.54 ns
SR 3.64 0.67 3.91 0.70 ns
PA 4.00 0.63 3.82 0.98 ns
a
(6) Suggestions on How to Improve Interaction between ML and HK Students

Question number 16 asked about the participants’ suggestions on how to
improve classroom interaction between ML and HK students in English studies. In
total, 12 teachers (3 University A teachers and 9 University B teachers) gave their
written suggestions. Generally speaking, there appeared two recommendations by
the University A teachers. One suggestion was to use group work of some sort.
They thought that it seemed to work well because it usually required input from all
students and allows ML students to express themselves in a less intimidating
environment. The other suggestion was that it was important to let students know
that teachers prefer them to speak up in the class rather than to be silent listeners.
There were three recommendations given by the 8 University B teachers.
5 teachers recommended that “consciously mixing HK and ML students when
assigning small group tasks or group projects should be helpful to positive inter-
action. Such mandatory mixed grouping could be done randomly in a
non-face-threatening manner, e.g., assigning a number (of 1, 2 and 3 …10) to each
student, and let all students with the same number get together in groups”.
2 teachers suggested that “an effort should be made to inspire the groups to realise
that they shared a lot in common. They could learn many things from each other by
positive interaction. Teachers should not form any stereotypes nor show any
prejudice towards either ML or HK students. Rather, they should try to avoid any
judgemental remarks on cultures of the Mainland and Hong Kong. Consequently, it
would be helpful for teachers to take a Confucian point of view: Harmony in
diversity or unity with variation to teach their culturally mixed classes”. However, 2
teachers who had the opposite view suggested that “teachers should normally
encourage students to form their own groups. It is very difficult to improve their
interaction because students usually would sit in separate groups”. What other
factors would make it so hard for them to interact? More explorations would be
offered in an later session.
4.3 Discussions of Survey Findings
From the above description of quantitative data gathered from the survey, we could
draw a few discussion points. First, two important facts were “teachers at
University A used more classroom discussion than those at University B” and “the
University A group was more enthusiastic about student research than the
University B group.” There was significant evidence to conclude that
the research-orientated University A stressed on the importance of using
student-centred teaching strategie while University B, as a teaching training insti-
tution, emphasized on a variety of teaching strategies. This conclusion was further
supported by the finding that “the teachers surveyed at University B were more
inclined to use more sorts of teaching strategies than University A”. In other words,
there was a significant gap between the two research sites. Regardless of the gap,
4.3 Discussions of Survey Findings 53
the quantitative data also demonstrated a common feature of the two research sites,
namely, the majority of participants preferred teaching strategies that were more
student-centred.
The second conclusion was that the teachers were aware of the existence of HK
and ML students and could identify them through their learning attitudes and
classroom behaviours. Nevertheless, the teachers on both research sides had paid
insufficient attention to the difference of the two groups of students. The awareness
of the existence of two groups had not been adequately taken into consideration in
their selection of teaching strategies in classrooms.
Third, in terms of interaction, “the University B group found more problems in
relation to the interaction between ML and HK students than the University A
group did”. “The rate of agreement on cooperation between ML and HK students in
class at University B was also statistically lower than that of University A” left no
conclusion but a doubtful contributing factor that was the student composition. At
this stage, it was not sure whether student numbers in each group would affect their
interaction patterns. That is to say, the numbers of ML student enrolment in
University B and University A might be the cause of the difference.
Finally, the University B group was more enthusiastic in considering more
effective strategies. This might be related to the special features of teacher training
institution where teaching strategies often occupy important positions in assessing
teachers’ academic and professional performance. The following section discussed
and analysed the reasons behind the findings from the survey in depth:
(1) Different Preferences to Some Teaching Strategies on the Two sites:
Overall all the participants were keen to use these seven strategies to enhance
student learning outcome in their English disciplinary studies. The majority had
greater preferences for student-centred teaching strategies including classroom
discussion, small group work, cooperative learning, problem solving, student
research, and performance activities. This tendency might derive from their
educational backgrounds and qualifications. As mentioned earlier in the book,
most teachers in this research were academics trained internationally and
received their PhD degrees in Western countries where student-centred teaching
practices are widely used and emphasised. Most teachers in this study might
expect students to construct knowledge by themselves rather than rely on
teachers’ transmissive knowledge. Therefore students’ acquisition of indepen-
dent study skills was more valued. Westwood (2008) claims that
student-centred teaching strategies are necessary to empower students with
great autonomy and to establish collaborative work with others. The statistics
showed that whether the participants were English native speakers or not, they
had been strongly influenced by the rationales of student-centred approaches.
Teachers tended to expect students to learn through their firsthand experience.
This was also consistent with Hong Kong’s Western style higher education
sector that emphasizes on autonomous learning and independent thinking. As
such, the frequencies of using student-centred strategies at the two institutions
were higher than direct instruction which is more teacher-oriented.
In addition, the two groups of participants had different preferences for some
specific student-centred teaching strategies. For example, the University A
group was keener on student research while the University B group favoured
small group work more. Context of teaching and learning might account for
differences between the two sites. In the highly research-orientated environ-
ment of University A, research capability and academic insights were par-
ticularly valued. The teachers at University A tended to prioritise the
scholarship of subject matter in English studies. The written response from
the University A group stated explicitly that analyzing data as a research
activity was favoured as an alternative strategy. By contrast, the teachers at
University B were inclined to pay more attention to the professional devel-
opment of students since their main responsibility was to prepare professional
teachers for the work force. Teaching competence was a major concern in
teacher training institutions because teachers were playing a role model for
students. Most University B teachers had a teaching qualification in addition
to an academic higher degree. That is to say, they had been trained on how to
use various effective teaching strategies apart from a command of academic
side of subject matter. Their written response was a solid reflection of this
point. Providing class time for small group work may have provided students
with opportunities to use this teaching strategy and to understand the value of
the student-centred approach. As a result, the institutional culture and the
composition of the teachers with various academic and teaching qualifications
could be the contributing factors to the preference of using some specific
teaching strategies.
(2) Awareness of the Two Culturally Identical Groups of HK and ML
Students:
The large proportion of participants were aware of a certain gap between HK
and ML students. In particular, these teachers found that the two groups of
students had varied learning attitudes and classroom behaviours (e.g.,
hardworking Vs self-confidence) and responses to teaching strategies (e.g.,
group discussion). Despite the fact that Confucian heritage culture is shared
by Chinese background students from mainland China and Hong Kong, there
are sub-cultural derivatives known as Mainland Chinese culture and Hong
Kong Chinese culture (Li and Thao 2006). With a long history of British
colonization, Hong Kong has been a place where the East meets the West.
Each of the two communities has its own distinctive form of local culture and
differs in aspects such as sociological settings, traditions of educational
systems and behavioural approach to learning. Research demonstrates that
different social and educational practices lead to different learner attitudes
and approaches to learning (Guibemau and Goldblatt 2000; Sternberg and
Grigorenko 1997). The two alike but unique Chinese-background discourses
could increase our understanding of the differences between ML and HK
students.
Education, awarded great importance by traditional Chinese culture, is seen as a

way of achieving social and economic success. In modern Chinese society,
English learning has also been regarded as a means of enhancing one’s
self-value and career opportunity. Working hard to pass examination at all
levels including English in higher education and demonstrating highly com-
petitive academic results to go further are characteristics of Mainland Chinese
educational expectations. The subjects’ written comments provided evidence
that ML students in their classes were most likely to mobilize their learning
efforts through hardship. In the meantime, they also cared more about their
academic results. These learning attitudes and behaviours might be rooted in
their upbringings. Confucian ideology that advocates an attitude of
hard-working can make up for a lack of natural talent has a great impact on
Mainland Chinese learners. In this sense, students may feel their aspirations are
unlikely to be successful without such elements. What personal aspirations did
Mainland students want to pursuit in the Hong Kong higher education sector?
More data collected from the in-depth interviews would provide a detailed
explanation about this feature.
The participants felt HK students appeared to be more confident in general. In
other words, HK students seemed to have a higher English language compe-
tence. Chan and Chan (2004), who conducted a comparative study between
newly arrived ML children and HK local Chinese Children, found that HK
children were generally more confident in English language. This could be
explained by the different linguistic and sociological background of Hong
Kong. Unlike students from the Mainland where English is mainly taught from
primary or secondary schools, HK students have learnt English since
their kindergarten education. After primary education, top students are largely
allocated to secondary schools that follow an English schooling system. To
enter the higher education sector where English-medium education is adopted,
they are also selected by gate-keeper examinations in either Science stream or
Arts stream. As the current educational system in Hong Kong has been
maintaining Western-style education elements, self-confidence of HK students
and their social lives may be affected by the uprooted social and educational
environment. This point also finds further confirmation through the analysis of
qualitative data presented in later sessions.
Due to educational disparities between students from Mainland China and
Hong Kong, newly arrived ML learners might have experienced uncertainty in
a different historical and socio-cultural background of the host society. To
survive in such a highly competitive learning context, they needed to spend
much time studying hard to achieve what they want. As Lam (2007) states,
self-esteem for Asian students including Chinese is largely earned through
achievements. Rather, humility rather than self-congratulation is encouraged as
a virtue in the East (Horin 2007).
The issue of humility could also explain why ML students were not consid-
ered as active as HK students in group discussion. The ML students in this
current research had a tendency to attend classes with less orally group par-
ticipation. Therefore they were interpreted as quieter than their HK counterparts
by their lecturers. Keeping silent in class can be seen as a sign of politeness and
respect for teachers and classmates in the traditional Chinese culture (Liu
2002). ML students may emphasize more on humbleness, harmony and unity
so that they may not easily voice opinions or argue with each other in class
discussion unless it was required by their teachers. HK students had been
proclaimed to like constructing knowledge with their fellow students (Biggs
1991; Chan and Watkins 1994). Like many Western students, they were more
accustomed to speaking up in group work. As a result, students’ styles of
learning would make them have different responses to group discussion.
Moreover, since ML students worked harder to acquire good academic
achievement, they may immediately become “rivals” to their HK counterparts
who also would spend time on extra-curricular and social activities including
part-time work.
(3) Reciprocal Interaction between The Two Groups of Students:
Another noteworthy point related to classroom interaction, especially the
communication between ML and HK students through their teachers’ eyes. The
interaction difficulties raised by the University B participants were bigger. To
some extent, this could be linked with student minority or majority status in
class. Liu (2002) shows an example that ML students with their minority status
in American classrooms were inclined to keep silence as a means of
self-protection or as a sign to express their agreement and harmony with the
majority of local students. During classroom communication, it was natural for
them to work as a subordinate group when interacting with the dominant social
group enjoying more power over the minority groups. Similarly, student
composition of ML and HK students at the two research sites might be a factor
that affects their interaction.
Although University A is one of the most prestigious comprehensive institu-
tions and attracts the largest population of ML students (UGC 2010), it had
relatively less ML students studying in the Department of English. In the
observed lessons for this study, only a few courses had some ML students. For
example, 16 out of 117 students in a mass lecture were from the Mainland and
accounted for 13% of the total class population. Major selection could be
considered as a reason behind this. In accordance with the employment
statistics in Hong Kong, more than half of ML university graduates worked in
Hong Kong in 2009 and the financial services industry were their largest
employer (EIC 2010). It would be easier for most ML students to choose
careers such as business, medicine, information technology and media in Hong
Kong (Qiu and Lin 2010). One of the University A teachers also noticed that
the degree of interaction between the ML and HK students seemed to depend
on the number of ML students among the host students. If there were fewer of
them, they would be mixed more with local students. Due to their minority
status, ML students tended to follow the mainstream in class activities.
Furthermore, their presence often drew little attention from the majority,
namely, large numbers of HK students. In this sense, conflicts between students
might be invisible.
By contrast, the Department of English at University B recruited a large number
of ML students. For example, over 57% of the student intake in the department
was ML undergraduates studying English language teacher education programs
in 2008 (Gao and Trent 2009). This was consistent with what was seen in the
lesson observation in this research. The majority of the visited classes were
predominantly ML Chinese (with HK students becoming minority) and some
comprised half ML and half HK students. This kind of student body indicated
that the English language teaching profession was also highly attractive to a
great number of ML and HK students. Employment may direct such a choice.
Both research sites may compete not only academically but also in graduate
employment.
Teaching is a highly respectable profession in traditional Chinese culture and
English language teaching is considered a prestigious occupation. In 2005,
teaching was rated as the third most desirable profession by HK local secondary
school students among 20 careers (Lai et al. 2005). To most ML students who
want to work in or migrate to Hong Kong, studying a four to five-year-language
education program can be helpful because the immigration policy requires them
to spend at least seven years on permanent residency, with monthly starting
salary no lower than HK$11,000 (EIC 2010). Statistics showed that
University B graduates excelled and achieved full employment at 100% in
2009, earning an average monthly salary of HK$18,014 (EIC 2010). As a
result, more and more ML and HK students choose language education because
it can not only improve their English competence, but also help them to get a
wanted job easily.
As such, both majority and minority should have an impact on student inter-
action. To some extent, ML students had become a majority group in class. In
other words, they also could exercise power over subordinate groups and form
their own mainstream of learning and communication. Some University B
teachers found that getting ML and HK students to interact was hard because
seldom did they talk with each other unless invited upon. The two groups of
students preferred to stick to their own groups. ML students could be flexible to
work with more counterparts from the same cultural background. The more the
two groups of students worked separately, the less ML and HK mixed groups
would be formed and therefore less interaction would occur.
(4) Features of Institutionally Based Cultures of the Two Universities:
As mentioned previously, the survey results showed that the teachers at
University A preferred classroom discussion and student research. This might
be a distinctive feature of a research-orientated university. In the further
investigation, it was noticed that in answering “what is the most effective
teaching strategies in promoting classroom interaction”, the teachers of
University B favoured small group work.
Valimma (1998) states that new students encounter “disciplinary-based cultures

and institutionally-based cultures” (p.120) when they study in a different cul-
tural context. In this study, ML students studying in these two universities were
facing different institutionally-based culture though they might encounter
similar disciplinary-based culture. Moreover, ML students may experience a
difference between their home culture (Mainland Chinese culture) and new
target cultures (Hong Kong local culture). By contrast, HK students only
appeared to face their local culture which they were familiar with. Since
University B is a teacher education institution, the institutionally based culture
may enable the teachers to show a tendency to feel their responsibility is not
only to teach students with both disciplinary-based and institutionally-based
cultures, but also to accommodate them to adapt in the new target culture.
When they sensed interactive problem between ML and HK groups, they were
more inclined to consider more strategies to promote their communication. In
comparison, the teachers at University A, influenced by their institutionally
based culture, tended to regard the issue as students’ responsibility to “when in
Rome, do as the Romans do”.
The selection of small group work as the most effective strategy by
University B teachers was not an arbitrary choice. Establishing a good rapport
with students or colleagues is often emphasised in teacher training. Cooperative
learning in theory and its teaching practice also depend on the rationales of
small group work. In comparison with the preference to classroom discussion
and student research by teachers of University A, it should be appropriate to
explain that the institutional-based cultures of the two research sites in this
study had a strong impact on the teachers’ response to the survey. This factor
was further investigated by using classroom observation and interviews.
4.4 Summary
The findings from the survey data concluded the teachers’ use of teaching strate-
gies, their identification of student differences, and perceptions of effective strate-
gies for interactive classroom interaction. Although issues associated with
communication between ML and HK students were raised, some teachers suggested
using mixed group work to get them speak up. These needed to be checked to see
whether mixing students up would be incorporated in the classroom and how
effective it would be.
To confirm the reliability and validity of findings, classroom observation was
used to witness the process of interaction in person. In the next chapter, classroom
observation data including field-notes that recorded teacher teaching, student
involvement, and classroom interaction were presented and discussed on the basis
of the timeline of each lesson.
Chapter 5
Findings from Classroom Observation
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, survey findings are analysed and discussed. The quantitative results
reflected the teachers’ views on their teaching strategies and students’ interactions
at the two research sites. As described in this chapter, classroom observations were
used to seek further evidence that would support the data gathered from teachers.
As discussed in Chap. 3, the classroom observations were carried out using an
observation protocol (Appendix 2) to record field-notes. The presentation of results
will be followed by an in-depth discussion.
5.2 Results from Classroom Observation
5.2.1 Observed Lessons and Courses
The observations were conducted on the basis of teaching programs offered by the
class timetable for three months at both research sites. In total, 29 classes were
observed including 18 taught by 12 teachers at University A and 11 by 7 teachers at
University B. The duration for each lesson at University A was 50 minute on
average, except for some lectures and seminars that lasted for three 50 min sessions.
The lessons at University B were normally 2–3 hours of lectures and tutorials.
Teaching programs from Year One to Year Three were covered at both research
sites. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 provide a summary of the number of lessons and the
courses that were observed in English studies:
Courses at both institutions typically involved a combination of lectures and
workshops or tutorials. English Studies observed at University A included both the
study of literature in English (e.g., literary, cultural studies, and critical theory) and
English language and linguistics (e.g., second language acquisition, discourse

60 5 Findings from Classroom Observation
Table 5.1 Summary of lesson observations and courses at University A

No. of No. of Courses Course type Grade
Teachers lessons level
T1 3 Introduction to English Studies Lecture Yr. 1
T2 2 Phonology and Literary Studies Workshop Yr. 1
T3 1 Phonology, Morphology, and Phrase Workshop Yr. 1
Structure
T4 1 Phonology, Morphology, and Phrase Workshop Yr. 1
Structure
T5 1 World Englishes: Hong Kong English Workshop Yr. 1
T6 1 World Englishes: Hong Kong English Workshop Yr. 1
T7 2 Literary Linguistics Lecture-seminar Yr.
session 2 and
3
T8 1 Morden Literacy Criticism Lecture Yr. 2
T9 1 Morden Literacy Criticism Tutorial Yr. 2
T10 3 Theories of Language and Communication Lecture-seminar Yr.
and Cultural Dimensions of Language and session 2 and
Communication 3
T11 1 Language and Politeness Tutorial Yr.
2 and
3
T12 1 Theories of Language Acquisition Tutorial Yr. 3
Table 5.2 Summary of lesson observations and courses at University B

No. of No. of Courses Course type Grade level
Teachers lessons
T1 2 Introduction to Literary Studies Tutorial Yr. 1 and 2
T2 2 Advanced English Proficiency Lecture-tutorial Yr 1 in-service
through the Media and Developing session English
Oracy teachers
T3 2 Adolescent Literature in the ESL Lecture Yr. 2
Classroom
T4 2 ELT Curriculum Tutorial Yr. 2
T5 1 Secondary ELT Methods: Lecture-tutorial Yr. 3
Developing Oracy Skills session
T6 1 Psycholinguistics and Second Tutorial Yr. 2
Language Acquisition
T7 1 Drama Workshop Lecture-tutorial Yr. 2
session
analysis and literary linguistics). Language and Communication courses that

studied the use of language from various angles were also observed. That is, the
observations covered English Studies and other subjects for interdisciplinary pro-
grams provided by the Faculty of Arts. Languages Education of undergraduate
programs at University B included modules such as literacy development (e.g., L2
5.2 Results from Classroom Observation 61
literacy and adolescent literature), language curriculum (e.g., ELT curriculum and
syllabus design and management), spoken interaction (e.g., learning and teaching of
oral language skills in the L2), psycholinguistics (SLA and language classroom
interaction), and drama (e.g., drama workshop).
The different undergraduate courses at both sites as well as their instructions
enabled the researcher to observe the nature of the teaching learning environment,
frequency of each teaching strategy including the responses from the students, and
classroom interaction. These elements were recorded in the classroom observation
manual. Teaching activities were recorded in accordance with the timeline of the
lesson. The purpose of the classroom observation was to check the reliability of the
teacher survey data. The observations were conducted in a purposeful and careful
manner. As mentioned in Chap. 3, the observation notes were sent to teachers to
check whether the teaching strategy use and situations noted in their classes were
valid. The following section analyses data gathered from observations.
5.2.2 Classroom Observations Results
Four categories of findings emerged: frequency of using each teaching strategy,

student engagement in each teaching strategy, students’ reactions towards teaching
strategies, and classroom interaction including teacher-student and student-student
interactions.
(1) Frequency of Using Each Teaching Strategy
The observation scores presented in Table 5.3 indicate the frequency of using
the teaching strategies of direct instruction (DI), classroom discussion (CD), small
group work (SGW), cooperative learning (CL), problem solving (PS), student
research (SR), and performance activities (PA). The scores were calculated based
on a five-point rating scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). It also provides the
means and standard deviations for the frequency data on teaching strategies at
University A and University B.
The scores showed differences in the frequency of the seven teaching strategies.
At University A, the teaching strategy with the highest mean score was classroom
Table 5.3 Means and standard deviations for the frequency of using each teaching strategy
Teaching strategies Mean (University A) SD Mean (University B) SD
DI 2.28 0.96 2.18 0.60
CD 2.61 0.98 2.73 1.01
SGW 1.56 0.62 2.91 1.14
CL 1.28 0.46 1.73 0.90
PS 1.44 0.51 1.36 0.50
SR 1.22 0.55 1.09 0.30
PA 1.33 0.59 2.45 1.21
discussion (2.28) and the strategy with the lowest mean score was student research
(1.22). Direct instruction (2.28) and small group work (1.56) ranked the second and
third highest respectively. These elements were consistent with the teaching
activities reflected on the observation notes. For example, “Introduction to English
Studies”, an introductory course on the basic elements of literary analysis and
theory in English, prepared students for senior courses in the School of English. It
was taught in the form of lectures and workshops and offered guidance and practice
in discussion and group work. Below are two examples extracted from the
field-notes on the lesson observation coding sheet:
T1 and Lesson 1 (2:10-2:50 pm): The topic of this lesson was phonology linguistics. After
handing out the worksheets, the lecturer introduced students (> 117 undergraduates) to a
web link and showed them how to pronounce some English sounds (e.g., 12 monophthongs
and 8 diphthongs) (DI scored 4).
T3 and Lesson 6 (1:14-1:25 pm): It was phonology workshop (7) for “Introduction to
English Studies”. 11 students were asked to work on Task 1 which required them to write
the provided words in IPA script by using the chart given in the previous lecture for
assistance. The tutor encouraged students to discuss in small groups (SGW scored 3).
Another example recorded in “Literary Linguistics” shows that classroom dis-

cussion was often utilised as a class activity. This course dealt with discourse
analysis and equipped students with theories and practices of stylistics. It aimed to
enable students to be able to make a critical analysis of and an aesthetic response to
the subtle workings of language in literary and non-literary texts. The observed
topics included verbal, aural and visual, discourse into discourse, and narration and
representation of speech and thought. Here is an example:
T7 and Lesson 9 (2:16-3:15 pm): The lecturer asked the 16 students to do text analysis
together by discussing Task 2: Telling and Showing. It required students to read and
analyse the given texts both texturally and technically through classroom discussion. The
lecturer often encouraged students to talk more and show their opinions to the class (CD
scored 4).
On the other hand, the figures show that the three highest mean scores for the
University B group were small group work (2.91), classroom discussion (2.73) and
performance activities (2.45). However, student research (1.09) was rated the
lowest. Some teaching activities recorded in the observation notes highlight such
results.
For instance, “Secondary ELT Methods: Developing Oracy Skills” guided stu-
dents to develop practical skills for English language teaching in the areas of
listening and speaking in the secondary ESL classroom in Hong Kong. The
observed topic of this module was ‘Issues for the teaching of speaking’. It intro-
duced students to a number of speaking activities and provided various approaches
to organising the stages of a speaking lesson. In this lesson, students were often
required to work in groups and work on tasks to experience different ways of
speaking activities. Here are the field-notes in relation to this aspect:
T5 and Lesson 9 (4:08-4:25 pm): The lecturer divided the 20 students into 5 groups and
asked them to work on Task 2: Two situations to talk about and produce a collective report
after 15 min (e.g., one situation required the students to imagine they could create a
completely new country made up of the best things from at least 5 other countries) (SGW
scored 5).
The module “Psycholinguistics and Second Language Acquisition” introduced

students to theories of second language learning and explored how second language
development was affected by learner characteristics. The topic of the observed
lesson was language classroom interaction in which classroom discussion was often
adopted:
T6 and Lesson 10 (5:40-6:15 pm): The teacher asked the 17 students to discuss worksheet 1
that contained 5 questions in small groups (e.g., discuss the difference between instruction
[+] and instruction [-]), and what is negotiation of meaning). After 10 min, he encouraged
the students to share their opinions with the class (CD scored 4).
Performance activities also ranked very high. This could be shown in the
module “Drama Workshop”. This module, which incorporated different kinds of
drama activities for school students of various ages, equipped students with learnt
skills through Drama Performance module to teach English language in the
classroom. Here is an example:
T7 and Lesson 11 (8:50-10:15am): The teacher asked the 10 students to do role play
exercises in groups. The topic was “In the Doctor’s office”. He asked the audience to check
their counterparts’ performances on the stage to see how they acted, how they employed
believable real elements, and what else they could make up. Two groups of students
re-acted after comments (PA scored 5).
In summary, three teaching strategies at both sites occurred frequently. For

direct instruction and classroom discussion, there was little difference in the fre-
quency. For small group work, however, the University B teachers were observed
to use it more frequently than those at University A. Problem solving was used for
similar periods of time at both sites. Student research at each site was used very
little. There was little difference in the use of cooperative learning in the two
institutions. The frequency of using performance activities as a strategy at
University B was higher than that of University A.
(2) Student Engagement in Each Teaching Strategy
The observation scores presented in Table 5.4 indicate the extent of student
engagement during each teaching strategy. The scores were calculated based on the
five-point rating scale from 1 (no engagement) to 5 (very high engagement). It also
provides means and standard deviations for student engagement data during
teaching strategies at University A and University B.
At University A, the highest mean score for student engagement was direct
instruction (4.17) and the lowest mean score was student research (1.44).
Classroom discussion (3.78) and small group work (2.78) ranked the second and
third highest. These were consistent with the following notes that showed the
variation in and extent of students’ involvement to these teaching strategies.
Table 5.4 Means and standard deviations for student engagement during each teaching strategy
Engagement during Teaching Mean (University SD Mean (University SD
Strategies A) B)
DI 4.17 1.29 4.09 1.14
CD 3.78 1.00 3.45 1.13
SGW 2.78 1.80 4.64 0.50
CL 1.61 1.42 2.73 1.85
PS 2.28 1.49 2.18 1.72
SR 1.44 1.04 1.18 0.60
PA 1.89 1.53 3.55 1.44
The course “Modern Literary Criticism” provided major texts from the early
19th century to the 1960s for students to practise literary criticism. In these texts,
principal critical concepts and methodological principles were examined and the
developments of critical thought within this period was traced. It was delivered in a
series of lectures and tutorials (discussion sessions). Here are two examples:
T8 and Lesson 12 (11:15-12:05noon): The lecturer moved to the lecture part by concep-
tualising some key theoretical concepts in relation to post structuralism and structuralism.
He used an overhead transparency to explain differences in language use between two
historical periods. Students appeared to be very concentrated on this session. They jotted
down key points from time to time (Student engagement to DI scored 5).
T9 and Lesson 13 (5:05-6:00 pm): This was a question-and-answer session to help students
clarify points they didn’t understand. When the tutor asked for students’ opinions after
reading the text “The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction”, most students
were actively involved in classroom discussion. They would make comments on different
opinions and raise new questions to discuss (Student engagement to CD scored 4).
Another example extracted from the course “Language and Politeness” showed
students’ high involvement in small group work. This course discussed the phe-
nomenon of linguistic politeness. It introduces students to a variety of theoretical
frameworks to understand this concept. Students were asked to discuss linguistic
politeness from different aspects in small groups. Here is an example:
T11 and Lesson 17 (11:40-11:55am): The students were asked to discuss an extract given in
the previous lecture. The aim of analysing this extract was to check how students inter-
preted this extract in terms of politeness. Most students showed great interest in sharing
their opinions with group members (Student engagement to SGW scored 4).
At the University B site, the mean scores indicated that students were highly
engaged during small group work, direct instruction, classroom discussion, and
performance activities. The following illustrations provide examples of the activ-
ities that engaged students.
Students appeared to be very attentive when attending the course “Secondary
ELT Methods: Developing Oracy Skills”. Students in this lesson were asked to
experience various activities after the lecturer introduced relevant classroom
language skills for effective spoken interaction. Here are two examples in relation to
direct instruction and small group work:
T5 and Lesson 9 (3:40-3:55 pm): Good start to lesson by outlining the purposes of this
class and using ppt slides to refer to key knowledge points of organising stages for a
speaking lesson. Students were interested and keen to learn. The lecturer involved all the
students in his introduction. This part was delivered well with direct instruction success-
fully utilised. Students maintained their interests during the 10 min direct teaching (Student
engagement to DI scored 5).
T5 and Lesson 9 (3:55-4:08 pm): The lecturer divided students into small groups to do the
1st speaking task on the topic of “Getting to know your group”. Students were fully
engaged in this activity by introducing each other’s likes or dislikes. It was a helpful
warm-up teaching exercise to arouse their interests (Student engagement to SGW scored 5).
Students appeared highly motivated in both classroom discussion and perfor-

mance activities in the module “Developing Oracy”. This module encouraged
students to construct their own theories and pedagogies of L2 oracy development
through dialogue, reflection and critical response. It provided students with an
understanding of theory and pedagogical practice in oracy development, as seen
from the following notes:
T2 and Lesson 4 (4:40-4:48 pm): The lecturer gave a general introduction by posting a
question “Do you think storytelling can be helpful to children’s language development?
Why?” to draw students’ attention. Students were very interested in this topic ‘using
storytelling for developing oracy’. They actively discussed what they thought (Student
engagement to CD scored 5).
T2 and Lesson 4 (5:20-6:00 pm): Students were asked to work in small groups to practise
retelling the given stories “The Lilypad” or “Mousie’s Adventures” and to present their
group work to the class afterwards. Each group member needed to take a part. The students
were listening carefully while the presenters were retelling their parts of stories. They all
enjoyed this activity very much (Student engagement to PA scored 5).
The results show that direct instruction, classroom discussion and small group
work at both sites were rated high in student engagement. Most students seemed to
be deeply involved in their learning when their lecturers or tutors used the first three
strategies. In contrast, engagement in learning was less obvious when the remaining
teaching strategies, namely, cooperative learning, Problem solving, and student
research, were employed occasionally. In terms of small group work, performance
activities and cooperative learning, there were gaps between the two institutions.
This was related to factors such as different contexts, courses and instructional
practices which are discussed in the next section.
(3) Students’ Reactions towards Teaching Strategies in General
The scores presented in Table 5.5 provide information about students’ reaction
towards teaching strategies in general. The scores were generated on the basis of
a five-point rating scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). It also provides means and
standard deviations of students’ engagement with various teaching-learning
strategies. Five specific items were used to describe different responses of stu-
dents towards the various strategies that were used by their teachers:
Table 5.5 Means and standard deviations of students’ engagement with various teaching-learning
strategies
Items Mean (University A) SD Mean (University B) SD
I 3.11 1.23 3.09 0.83
II 4.06 1.26 4.00 0.63
III 2.28 1.07 2.45 0.82
IV 1.39 0.98 1.09 0.30
V 2.17 1.50 3.09 1.04
Item I: Engagement with direct instruction: Most students appeared actively engaged in
deductive teaching activities that transmitted information and skills from teacher to
student
Item Engagement with classroom discussion: Most students appeared actively involved in
II: teaching activities that provoked discussion and critical thinking
Item Engagement with group discussion, cooperative learning and problem solving: Most
III: students appeared to actively share ideas in group discussion to resolve a problem
cooperatively
Item Engagement with individual work: Most students preferred working individually
IV: and conducting student research activities
Item Engagement with performance of reporting group work: Most students appeared
V: confident in reporting their group work cooperatively
At University A, Item II scored the highest. This result indicated that stu-
dents were actively involved in thought-provoking teaching activities. Item IV
which maintained elements of student research was the lowest. Item I was the
second highest. The difference in ratings demonstrated students’ attitudes towards
different teaching strategies. Both Item III and Item V which gained an intermediate
mean score provided evidence that most students were cooperatively incorporated
in task-based class activities. There was also a trend for them to show confidence in
performing group tasks to the class. An example obtained from the observation
notes describes an hour workshop of “Introduction to English Studies”, which led
students to conduct a small group session and focus on discussions and resolving
designed tasks to expand students’ linguistic and literary analysis skills:
T2 and Lesson 5 (11:00-11:15am): The tutor encouraged students to discuss Q2: to create a
product name of a business sector (i.e., sports, perfume, camera and housing estate, etc.)
and explain their implications. The mixed group of 3 students (2 Mainland Chines-MC and
1 local Hong Kong student-HK) sitting in the left row appeared to discuss well to resolve
the given task. They worked cooperatively: one providing a name, the other showing her
opinions, and then another jotting down their suggestions. After that, each group was
confident in sharing their work (Item III scored 4 & Item V scored 4).
University B student reactions to Items I, II and V also scored high while

Item IV was the lowest. These elements was confirmed by the previous examples of
teaching activities which included direct teaching, discussion and performance
activities.
One of the positive examples of student responses to Item III, which

was comprised of strategies including group work, cooperative learning and
problem solving, was observed in the module “Adolescent Literature in the ESL
Classroom”. It focused on studies of adolescent literature and guided students to
manage literature-based language classrooms by incorporating diverse language
arts activities. The observed topics of this module were ‘using visual media in the
ESL classroom’ and ‘cartoons and comics’. The lecturer employed integrated
teaching strategies to motivate students to participate in class activities:
T3 and Lesson 5 (10:35-10:55am): A successful integrated teaching strategy (problem
solving, small group work and cooperative learning) was used in this part. Students were
asked to work in groups, resolve different given tasks to experience different ways of using
cartoons and comics in the ESL classroom (e.g., create an ending, fill the speech bubbles,
role play etc.), and then share what they had experienced to the class. Most of them
appeared actively engaged (Item III scored 4).
Overall, students’ reactions towards teaching strategies at both institutions to

most of the above items were similar. There was no noticeable discrepancy across
the teaching strategies except for performance activities. Despite this, the
field-notes indicated that most students at University A appeared to enjoy per-
forming their group work to the class. In general, the majority of students at both
sites appeared to be in favor of direct instruction and thought-provoking strategies
such as classroom discussion, small group work and performance activities.
Student research was rated the lowest in the class, but problem solving and co-
operative learning ranked intermediately higher. It seemed that the overlapping and
combination of strategy use was a common practice at both sites. For example,
students’ interests were aroused by participating in integrated teaching activities
through group discussion to resolve a problem cooperatively and finally shared
what they had done with other groups. As presented in the table, the majority of
students at University A and University B showed a general positive reaction
towards most teaching strategies. However, to what extent these strategies affected
their classroom interaction needed further exploration. With this question, more
evidence should be sought from records on classroom interaction in the following
section.
(4) Classroom Interaction Including Teacher-student and Student-student
interactions
Table 5.6 displays the results of classroom interaction including teacher-student
and student-student interactions. The mean scores were estimated on the basis of a
five-point rating scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The means and standard
deviations of the ten specific items which described the general information about
communication situations were as follows:
Table 5.6 Means and Items Mean (University SD Mean SD

standard deviations of A) (University
classroom interaction data B)
I 4.06 0.24 4.00 0.45
II 1.22 0.43 2.18 0.60
III 2.83 1.04 2.64 0.81
IV 3.56 0.78 3.73 0.65
V 3.39 0.50 3.64 0.50
VI 3.22 0.88 3.64 0.67
VII 3.00 0.97 3.45 0.93
VIII 1.67 0.77 2.55 0.82
IX 1.44 0.51 2.27 0.90
X 1.94 0.73 2.64 1.03
Item I: The teacher encouraged students to actively participate in the classroom activities
Item II: The teacher used students’ multicultural backgrounds in organising activities
Item III: The teacher worked as a resource person supporting and enhancing students’
investigation
Item IV: The teacher worked as a facilitator scaffolding students and promoting classroom
interaction
Item V: In general, the teacher-student interactions appeared cohesive and productive
Item VI: Students were involved in the communication of sharing ideas with each other
when working together
Item It appeared that most students preferred to work in neighboring groups rather than
VII: being assigned by the teacher
Item There was less interaction among students who were assigned to be in mixed
VIII: groups that comprised local Hong Kong students and Mainland Chinese students
Item IX: Different dialects used by Hong Kong students and Mainland students affected
their interaction during group discussion
Item X: In general, there was a high proportion of student talk and positive interaction
among students
The highest mean score for University A was Item I (4.06) while the lowest was
Item II (1.22). It appears that teachers’ encouragement of participation was quite
positive, but their awareness of students’ cultural identity was evaluated lower.
Most teachers seemed to pay more attention to subject knowledge than to the
identification of students’ diverse cultural backgrounds in their class. Item IV (3.56)
and Item V (3.39) were rated the second and third highest respectively. Teachers
usually promoted classroom interaction by facilitating and scaffolding students’
learning to create a productive teaching and learning environment. This point fits
with the notes taken in a lesson on “Literary Linguistics”:
T7 and Lesson 10 (2:00-2:20 pm): The lecturer started the topic “Discourse into discourse”
by asking students to think about “What is repetition?” Most students kept silent initially
until being named. But when the lecturer used several interesting examples of “baby talk”
to let them guess the underlying meaning as a warm-up exercise, they got involved in the
classroom discussion more actively and provided their own examples (Items I & IV scored
4).
As observed, the lecturer often encouraged students to think more deeply and provided
strong support for them with his inclusive questioning and affirmative responses to their
answers. Positive teacher-student interaction was observed (Item V scored 4).
Item VI (3.22) and Item VII (3.00) showed students’ preference of grouping and
related peer-to-peer interaction in class activities. The following comments selected
from a workshop on “Introduction to English Studies” show this in practice:
T2 and Lesson 5 (10:40-11:00am): There were 11 students (8 HK students, 2 MC and 1
from a European country). The 2 MC and 3 HK sat in the left row while the remainder
stayed at the right row of the classroom. Most students discussed the questions between
each other quite well. They appeared to have a good interaction to achieve a common
understanding (Item VI scored 4).
Like other groups, the 2 MC and 1 HK sitting together also formed a neighbouring
group. They were familiar with each other in the previous lessons. They communicated
mainly in English, sometimes in Mandarin (Item VII scored 3).
The first high mean score for University B was Item I (4.00). The second and
third were Items IV (3.73) and V (3.64). Teachers’ stimulating activities and stu-
dents’ active participation led to a positive teacher-student interaction in general.
Notes on the module “Adolescent Literature in the ESL Classroom” support this
finding:
T3 and Lesson 6 (10:30-11:30am): This was a very well prepared lesson. There were also
well-spaced and informative tasks for students to complete during the lecture which
maintained student engagement impressively (Item I & IV scored 4).
(10:35-10:55am): To make sure students stayed on the right track, she walked around to
monitor the progress and to give positive comments. She also provided guidance and
assistance to the students. Mutual respect between the teacher and the students was
observed (Item V scored 4).
Students liked forming neighbouring groups to achieve pleasant student-student

communication. Such grouping behaviour could be seen in the notes of “Primary
ELT Curriculum”. This module examined the principal components for planning a
primary ELT curriculum in accordance with a task-based approach. It developed
students’ understanding of curriculum theories and its applications in ELT syllabus
design, teaching plans and program development for primary pupils. The lecturer
often enabled students to participate in class activities in small groups to experience
different ways of school-based curriculum design:
T4 and Lesson 7 (3:00-3:35 pm): Students were asked to complete Task 1 in the handouts
in groups by analysing objectives for coherent language teaching. There were 23 students
(9 local HK + 14 MC). Students who were familiar with each other would sit together
before the lesson started. 6 neighbouring groups were formed by themselves depending on
prior acquaintance (2 were host groups, 3 were MC groups and 1 was a mixed group). Most
of them appeared to actively engage in group discussion and stayed on the required tasks
(Item VII scored 4).
Item VIII (2.55) and Item X (2.64) obtained relatively lower scores across the ten
items. This indicated that when unfamiliar students worked in a mixed group, most
of them appeared to be reluctant to interact. An example from an observation of the
“Primary ELT Curriculum” supports this:
T4 and Lesson 7 (3:00-3:35 pm): It was noted that when the MC students met unfamiliar
HK students in a group, they seemed to have less communication than the other 5 groups
because the MC students would easily switch their mother tongue (a colloquial
Chinese-shanghai dialect) so the HK students sometimes seemed to be unwilling to join in
their discussion (Item VIII scored 3 & Item X scored 2).
This example also showed that use of different dialects between students affected
their communication.
Item II (2.18) which examined cultural awareness of a diverse student body was
not valued despite the fact that there were cases in which teachers acknowledged
cultural differences between their students:
T1 and Lesson 1 (11:30-11:40am): The lecturer introduced students with multicultural
backgrounds to the researcher before class (9 HK students and 8 MC exchange students
studying for Module II and 2 Korean exchange students for Module 1). This was the first
time that the teacher had precisely identified her students’ different cultural backgrounds
because she used to misrecognise the MC students as Koreans (Item II scored 2).
T5 and Lesson 9 (3:55-5:12 pm): There were 20 students (6 local HK + 14 MC + 1
Canadian student) in this lesson. 5 groups were formed by the lecturer. Of these 5 groups, 3
were MC groups and 2 were mixed groups (one comprised of 2 HK and 1 Canadian, the
other involved 3 HK and 3 MC). (5:12-5:28 pm): The lecturer re-grouped students into 4
big groups to do Task 4: “For & against”. Again, different mixed groups were formed.
Students with multicultural backgrounds were encouraged to work together (Item II scored
4).
Overall, the above description revealed two parts to classroom interaction. One
which consisted of the first five items was concerned about teacher-student com-
munication, the other made up of the latter five focused on student-student inter-
action. Similarly, the higher figures led us to see a good teacher-student
communication at both institutions, whereas the lower mean scores showed that
peer (Hong Kong students) to peer (Mainland Chinese students) interaction turned
out to be weak. However, the majority of students of the two sites preferred to form
neighbouring groups with their familiar counterparts in activities. This implied that
if they (no matter local students or Mainland students) got acquainted with each
other, they would work well together. By contrast, when unfamiliar students hap-
pened to meet in a mixed group, they tended to interact less.
Although teachers’ awareness of cultural identity was estimated the lowest at
each institution, there were differences between the two research sites. The given
examples demonstrated that some teachers at University B were more conscious of
their students’ multicultural backgrounds and made the effort to mix them up to
study. Perhaps because of the noticeable number of Mainland Students at
University B, the teachers were aware of the importance of recognising their cul-
tural differences while at University A very few Mainland students were enrolled in
the Department of English. This tendency confirms the finding on the importance of
student composition in the previous survey sections.
Other obvious gaps were identified in the last three items: VIII) less interaction
in mixed groups due to cultural identity; IX) the influence of using different spoken
Chinese in communication; and X) the general degree of peer-to-peer interaction.
These items might be associated with some factors, for instance, whether a mixed
group was formed in the class, whether the channel in linguistic communication
was pure English, or whether the extent of interaction between the two sub-groups
was high or low. The figures obtained from University B in terms of the above
items were relatively higher than those from University A. To reveal the courses
behind those factors, an in-depth discussion is necessary.
5.3 Discussions of Findings from Classroom Observation
In the previous section, carefully selected observation notes were cited to describe
an overall picture of the results of the classroom observation. First, among the seven
teaching strategies proposed by Killen (1998, 2007), some were used more fre-
quently than others. The strategies of classroom discussion, small group work and
direct instruction were frequently used by teachers and appeared to be well received
by students at both institutions. Choice of strategy use probably depends on course
content. Second, when teachers used these teaching strategies in classrooms, there
was an obvious trend for various teaching strategies to overlap. Teaching strategies
were employed in an integrative rather than independent way. A combination of
two or three teaching strategies was common practice. There was no clear-cut
boundary between one strategy and another. In addition, some teaching strategies
could be seen as an extension or variation from another strategy. Third, there was
little evidence that the use of teaching strategies was purposefully considered to
encourage interaction between HK and ML students. Not every teacher was aware
of the different cultural backgrounds of his or her students. The desirability of
employing appropriate teaching strategies to enhance interaction between students
was not widely acknowledged.
With these three identified facts, we can conclude that the results from
the classroom observations were consistent with the findings obtained from surveys
and that the survey results were thus reliable. In the next section, we analyse these
results and the causes behind:
(1) Unbalanced Use of Each Teaching Strategies in the Two Research Sites:
The observations of teaching strategies and the frequency with which each was
used indicated that some teaching strategies were more popular than others. Course
content appeared to influence teachers’ use of teaching strategies. Most of the
observed lessons at both sites were delivered in a series of lectures and tutorials
(e.g., Introduction to English Studies). A few were given by means of a
lecture-tutorial-session (e.g., Drama Workshop). Most lectures involved a combi-

nation of deductive teaching and discussion strategies. For example, the lecturers
transmitted fundamental knowledge and skills to the students first and invited them
to join a discussion later. Some would initially arouse students’ interest by posing a
question for discussion that led to the topic of the lecture. The workshops or
tutorials were more discussion-oriented using both classroom discussion and small
group work. The combination of lectures and workshops or tutorials showed a
transition from an approach that was teacher-centred to one that was student-
centred.
The University B observations showed a higher frequency of these three
strategies. This finding may reflect the characteristics of course content designed for
teacher trainees. There was a noticeable gap between the two sites in terms of small
group work. One possible explanation for this was that the two institutions had
different missions and visions. As discussed earlier, the institutional-based cultures
also had an influence on the teaching content and context therefore it was not
surprising that differences emerged from the two research sites.
According to the course information provided by the institutions, the courses offered
at University A emphasise students’ critical and independent thinking. Their BA cur-
riculum is designed to expose students to a rich spectrum of approaches to the study of
English in a global environment and to promote a broad understanding of why English
is and can be used in a variety of discursive contexts (School of English-University A,
2016). As such, it offers a broad curriculum of literary and linguistic studies in English.
On the other hand, University B wants to optimise each student’s potential through the
shared efforts of learning and teaching embedded in various activities of the
Department. It promotes excellence in the effective learning and teaching of English
(Department of English-University B, 2016). Language education programs are
designed to enrich students’ professional development, becoming confident and com-
petent in English language teaching and learning in the spirit of collegiality and
co-operation. The teaching content for English courses at University A and
University B differs in their emphasis. The former is more academically oriented while
the latter is more professionally oriented. In other words, teaching contents and contexts
are part of institutionally based culture (Valimma 1998).
The teaching strategies of classroom discussion, small group work and direct
instruction appeared to fit English studies in both institutional settings of Hong
Kong, which is consistent with Killen’s (1998, 2003, 2007) assumption that these
strategies can be commonly used effectively across various disciplines. Greater use
of small group work at University B may be the result of curriculum design and the
intention of preparing teaching professionals. The frequency of student research as
a strategy was low. This may be the result of undergraduate course requirements.
English studies at both sites were conducted by coursework. Students were assessed
mainly by means of oral presentations, written essays, and mini-research projects.
Oral presentations usually occurred in class while the latter two assessments were
done outside class time.
For example, the course “Theories of Language Acquisition” was an advanced
module with a small number of Year Three students at University A. Instead of
5.3 Discussions of Findings from Classroom Observation 73
lectures or tutorials it was conducted as a research seminar. It was designed for

students to pursue advanced work in the study of literature in English and they were
to locate and evaluate research materials independently. A written essay or a project
was the final assessment. Student research was used at more senior levels with
students who had considerable prior knowledge in the subject area. For most of the
time, students from Year One to Year Three demonstrated their understanding of
topics and course materials through oral presentations and written essays. They were
expected to develop their skills in reading and thinking, and to develop their skills in
critical analysis in English. In this case, student research was involved in the
preparation of presentations and essays, and thus its frequency of use and related
extent of student engagement in class was much less obvious. The unbalanced use of
teaching strategies was proved to be an outcome of performance by teachers working
in different institutionally based cultures. Selection of teaching strategies may depend
on whether it is a research-oriented university or a teacher training institution.
(2) Integration of Various Teaching Strategies:
It was noted that teaching strategies were employed in an integrative rather than
an independent way. Integration of teaching strategies was skillfully handled by
teachers and was well received by students. Nevertheless, elements in relation to
student engagement and reactions to strategy use might have been limited by subjec-
tivity. This was therefore further checked through in-depth interviews with students.
It was common for teachers to use small group work, cooperative learning and
problem solving in an overlapping manner. Cooperative learning requires two or
more students to work together to produce a joint piece of work. This was used both
as an in-class teaching strategy and outside-class activity. Problem solving
was sometimes adopted as a teaching strategy, whereby students were required to
solve a realistic problem and share their results with their peers. Problem solving
usually was used in conjunction with several cooperative learning activities or
mini-projects (Westwood 2008).
One example of this was observed in the module “Secondary ELT Methods:
Developing Oracy Skills” at University B. To get students to learn how to engage
with approaches to speaking activities in the ESL classroom, the lecturer integrated
problem solving, small group work and cooperative learning. Students were able to
increase their understanding of the lesson content, to develop their problem-solving
abilities, and to improve their communication skills by working on problems
cooperatively. Another example was an integration of the teaching strategies of
cooperative learning and performance activities. The lecturer of “Theories of
Language and Communication” at University A asked students to prepare a group
presentation for an assigned topic. After performing the academic task together in
front of the class, all group members were given a group score.
Likewise, cooperative learning and problem solving often overlapped with
group discussions or presentations. They seldom were intentionally used as a single
strategy. When used as an outside-class activity, cooperative learning would be
monitored by students themselves. Their learning outcome would show whether
they cooperated well or not. Students were positively independent, but they relied
on each other to accomplish a common task. They must be active and accountable
participants. A limitation of using such teaching strategies in class was that they
would require an extended period of preparation (Killen 1998). Compared to group
discussions or presentations which often occurred in class, the use of cooperative
learning and problem solving appeared to be less apparent.
Presentation was used as an extension of performance activities. Performance
activities were presented in a formal way (e.g., a script play), or in a free-flowing
method (e.g., role play), or through a structured activity (e.g., debating). Such
examples were all found at University B. For instance, the module “Drama
Workshop” contained both role play and a final script play for students; “Primary
ELT Curriculum” had a task that required each group to discuss one of the issues
listed in the handouts and to conduct debating.
The use of the above activities at University B was higher than that at
University A according to the observation notes. There are two points to consider
here. Evidence of performance activities came from a University B drama course.
In fact, University A also provided such a course “Comedy and Cross-cultural
Drama” to Year Two undergraduates, but the researcher did not have the oppor-
tunity to observe it. Lecturers at University B are expected to model approaches that
are relevant to teaching and therefore its teaching staff demonstrate a variety of
teaching techniques in English language teaching.
Presentation, an activity designed to examine students’ performance on a desired
task, was popular among teachers and students at both research sites. With the rapid
development of information technology, applying multi-media in class presenta-
tions has become common. Similar to scripted or unscripted play, students were
encouraged to step onto the stage to perform their work in front of the class using
PowerPoint or video. Presentation also shares the key characteristic of performance
activities as identified by Killen (1998): the students need to take on a role; only a
few active participants are involved in performing the activity while the rest of class
are required to listen, observe and raise questions in a later discussion. It could be
considered as a type of performance activities.
The existence of various integrated teaching strategies suggests that each
teaching strategy has its strengths and weaknesses. The advantages and disadvan-
tages of using each strategy depend on how teachers set up the teaching objectives
and the teaching process to achieve learning outcomes. The integration of two or
three teaching strategies may compensate for the weakness of each individual
strategy. The combined teaching strategies should have greater impact than the use
of individual strategies.
(3) Insufficient Use of Teaching Strategies to Promote Classroom Interaction:
Consistent with the survey findings, inadequate attention to the difference
between ML and HK students consequently led to the oversight of the teaching
strategies that enhance positive interactions between the two cultural groups. Only a
5.3 Discussions of Findings from Classroom Observation 75
few teachers could clearly identify the diverse student body in their classrooms.
Most teachers seemed to lack awareness of teaching multicultural students in their
classes. Most students tended to work in neighbouring groups which mostly
comprised familiar classmates or friends. When local and ML students met in a
group, the peer-to-peer interaction generally appeared weaker than that
of non-mixed groups because of elements such as personal unfamiliarity and lin-
guistic difference. Mixing of HK local and ML students occurred more at
University B because in most observed lessons there were predominantly ML
students and, as a result, mixed groups were more likely to be formed.
Most teachers showed an enthusiasm for applying different kinds of teaching
strategies to ensure an effective transmission of subject knowledge. However, they
seemed less concerned with student interaction, especially the peer-to-peer inter-
action of the two groups of students. Two reasons may provide an explanation for
this. One appeared to be relevant to teachers’ willingness to teach culturally
diversified students; the rapid change of student composition made them think
about new ways of coping with the situation that they had never experienced before.
The other might be that the problems in classroom interaction were unavoidable in
the eyes of teachers because the two groups of students differed both linguistically
and culturally. This view was expressed by some of the teachers who were surveyed
and had stated that they could do nothing to change the situation or promote their
interaction. However, classroom interaction in such a multicultural teaching and
learning environment should consist not only of effective teacher-student interac-
tion but also effective peer-to-peer interaction.
5.4 Summary
This chapter started with a detailed description of the classroom observation of the
two research sites, University A and University B. It listed the lessons observed and
tabled the background information of each class. The results of the observation
included: the frequency of use each teaching strategy, students’ engagement in the
teaching strategy, students’ reactions to teaching strategies in general, and class-
room interaction including both teacher-student and student-student interactions.
A comparison was made between the two research sites. Reasons behind these
results were clarified.
The findings discussed in this chapter are consistent with the results described in
Chap. 4. Being aware of the limitation of subjectivity in using classroom obser-
vation, let us go further to examine the results from the in-depth interviews which
are the focus of Chap. 6.
Chapter 6
Findings from Interviews
6.1 Introduction
In Chap. 5, the findings from the survey discussed in Chap. 4 were confirmed to be
reliable by presenting and analysing the data gathered from classroom observation.
In this chapter, the validity of findings through classroom observations was further
checked by in-depth interviews with students. The focus of this chapter was stu-
dents’ perceptions of the current teaching strategies used by teachers in the two
research sites, their opinions on existing classroom interaction and their suggestions
for improvement.
6.2 Results from Interviews
6.2.1 The Participants
This part of study involved 41 student volunteers (20 HK and 21 ML students) in

the English departments of the two institutions. All the HK informants were native
HK students. Most of them graduated from English-medium of Instruction
(EMI) secondary schools and two from Chinese-medium of Instruction (CMI) ones.
The difference between EMI and CMI in accordance with the language policy in
Hong Kong schools had been discussed in Chap. 2.
As mentioned in Chap. 1, all the ML participants were “elite” applicants selected
from the Mainland. They had gone through a rigorous selection process including
competitive results of the National Higher Education Entrance Examination
(NHEEE) and interviews with Hong Kong’s universities. In addition, the ML
students at University A had already taken a one-year pre-college program at
prestigious universities in Mainland China such as Tsing Hua University, Fudan
University and Nanjing University to prepare for the westernised education patterns

78 6 Findings from Interviews
in Hong Kong. To achieve a better convergence with the educational system of

Hong Kong and to integrate into its academic culture, these students studied at the
mainland’s top universities for one year before commencing their study in Hong
Kong. They were required to undertake a discipline that was similar to what they
intended to study in Hong Kong (e.g., Faculty of Language and Literature). They
could choose among courses as they would do at University A and improve their
English proficiency by inclusive language training courses.
In this part of study, all the students were interviewed individually for
approximately 30–50 min. To articulate their viewpoints clearly, the participants
could choose a preferred language. Most interviews were conducted in Cantonese
or Mandarin while a few were in English. They were all digitally recorded and
verbatim transcribed. The interviews in Chinese were translated into English
transcripts. To reduce validity and reliability threats, the researcher sent the com-
pleted transcripts to the participants for clarification. As Maxwell (2013) points out,
soliciting feedback is helpful for identifying researcher’s bias or assumptions. This
can minimize the possibility of misinterpreting students’ comments. Each partici-
pant was coded with a number and an abbreviation “University A-HK”/ “University
B-HK” or “University A-ML”/“University B-ML” for confidentiality. Tables 6.1
and 6.2 below provide general information of the participants:
Students included 8 males and 23 females ranged from the junior level to the
senior phase of their study programs. In terms of place of origin and native lan-
guages, the HK students were all local undergraduates with Cantonese as their
mother-tongue. Two of them were also native speakers of English due to their
immigration history in English-speaking countries. The Mainland students came
from different regions of Mainland China including Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing,
Guangdong, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Shandong, Shanxi and Zhejiang.
Although their hometown dialects are regionally different, they all speak Mandarin
as their first language. Both groups of students were encouraged to voice their
perceptions to a set of interview questions.
6.2.2 Interview Data
A semi-structured interview was guided by the interview protocol. In this section,

the description and analysis of results from interview showed that three main areas
of interests emerged: students’ perceptions about studying higher education in
Hong Kong; influences of students’ prior learning experiences; and students’
reactions to peer-to-peer interaction.
(1) Students’ Perceptions about Studying in Hong Kong
Part of the interview questions encouraged the HK and ML participants to
express their feelings about studying in the Hong Kong higher education sector.
The HK students encountered a transition from senior secondary level to tertiary
6.2 Results from Interviews 79
Table 6.1 Hong Kong students interviewed

No. of informants Gender Grade level Place of origin Native languages
University A-HK1 Female Yr.1 Hong Kong Cantonese
University A-HK4a Male Yr.2 Hong Kong Cantonese
University A-HK5 Male Yr.2 Hong Kong Cantonese
University A-HK8 Female Yr.3 Hong Kongb Cantonese and English
University B-HK12a Female Yr.1 Hong Kong Cantonese
University B-HK15 Female Yr.2 Hong Kong Cantonese
University B-HK16 Male Yr.2 Hong Kong Cantonese
University B-HK18a Male Yr.3 Hong Kongb Cantonese, English and Mandarin
University B-HK20 Female Yr.3 Hong Kong Cantonese
a
Informants were interviewed in English
b
Informants were Hong Kong citizens and received their previous education from primary to secondary in
Canada and Singapore respectively
level while the ML students faced a change not only from senior high to under-
graduate level, but also from the education system of the Mainland to that of Hong
Kong SAR. It was expected to understand their overall attitudes of being an
undergraduate in institutions, their thoughts to the sorts of teaching strategies. The
following sections addressed the issues from two angles of perspectives: (a) reac-
tions to study in Hong Kong higher education sector and (b) preferences for
teaching strategies.
(a) Reactions to Study in Hong Kong
When asked about the question how they felt about doing higher education in
Hong Kong, the majority of ML students expressed the higher education system in
Hong Kong was different from that of the Mainland. They indicated that studying in
Hong Kong would provide them not only with a good English language learning
environment, but also an opportunity to widen their views over the world through
the special programs opened to ML students. Moreover, they appreciated its offer of
scholarship to support their studies in Hong Kong since the tuition fees and living
Table 6.2 Mainland students interviewed

No. of informants Gender Grade level Place of origin Native languages
University A-ML1 Female Yr.1 Shanghai Shanghai dialect and Mandarin
University A-ML2 Female Yr.1 Shanghai Shanghai dialect and Mandarin
UniversityA-ML3 Female Yr.1 Beijing Mandarin
University A-ML4 Female Yr.1 Guangdong Cantonese and Mandarin
University A-ML5 Female Yr.1 Hubei Mandarin
University A-ML6a Female Yr.2 Nanjing Mandarin
University A-ML7 Female Yr.2 Hunan Hunan dialect and Mandarin
University A-ML8 Male Yr.2 Shanghai Shanghai dialect and Mandarin
University B-ML9 Female Yr.1 Shanxi Shanxi dialect and Mandarin
University B-ML10 Female Yr.1 Beijing Mandarin
University B-ML11 Female Yr.1 Jiangsu Dialect of Wu and Mandarin
University B-ML12 Female Yr.1 Zhejiang Hangzhou dialect and Mandarin
University B-ML13 Female Yr.2 Jiangsu Dialect of Wu and Mandarin
University B-ML14 Female Yr.2 Hubei Mandarin
University B-ML15 Female Yr.2 Shanghai Shanghai dialect and Mandarin
University B-ML17 Female Yr.2 Henan Henan dialect and Mandarin
University B-ML18 Female Yr.2 Shandong Mandarin
University B-ML20 Female Yr.3 Guangdong Cantonese
University B-ML21 Female Yr.3 Guangdong Cantonese
a
Informants were interviewed in English
costs were much higher in comparison with those in their home cities. For example,
one of the responses given by ML17 represented a widespread view of receiving
higher education in Hong Kong among the ML students:
Hong Kong’s international environment is favorable and it has a good English-medium
learning environment. Its Oriental tradition meets Western world, so I can experience a
different education system. It would be a good platform to study abroad in the future…I feel
I’m lucky because it offers me scholarships and gives me more opportunities to have
immersion and exchange programs in the U.S. and Britain. The teaching methods are also
very different from the mainland. These enriched my experience (University B-ML17).
Some ML students also talked about their experience that their host institutions
used Western-style teaching methods and assessments. Teachers used a variety of
teaching strategies. In assessing their learning outcomes, their teachers did not
merely rely on a final examination but took their everyday performance into con-
sideration. They experienced more class activities than they did in their previous
education. One of the ML students described the new experience as:
I think the teaching style here is more Western like…In the past, our teachers normally
taught us bit by bit before but we had fewer class activities. Here, most classes contain a
discussion part. Teachers will…use other ways such as presentation and discussion to
assess us. Exam was the only tool before…it is different and sometimes teachers will stress
the spirit of cooperation (University A-ML3).
In the above statement, the positive feeling on the new changes was explicitly
expressed. The use of various teaching strategies by Hong Kong teachers was
praised and supported. A few ML participants indicated that they were encouraged
to be more independent and self-motivated by various teaching strategies:
…I think it encourages us to become more independent learners so that we have to handle
many things on our own. So I think we have greater freedom…if you want to focus on
learning, then there is more time to search for resource I need. Yeah, I feel it’s good because
I am self-motivated…(University A-ML4).
On the other hand, the most of HK students pointed out that higher education
was different from their secondary education as it encouraged more autonomous
learning compared with high schools. Learner autonomy enabled them to adjust
their previous methods of study and to take a more active role in the new learning
environment. One of the typical comments selected among HK students went:
Teachers in secondary school provided all the materials for you and used the fixed books
often. However, the teachers here won’t do many things for you. But they want us to learn
by ourselves, to learn how to learn and how to handle our work…You are guided to enrich
your knowledge by researching references in library and resources centres. I think studying
has become a lot more autonomous here (University B-HK12, English original).
The above citation showed that the autonomy and independence were two most
important features of learning in comparison with their previous secondary learning
experiences. Apart from those features, many HK students described their institu-
tion as “free”. Critical thinking abilities and creativity were emphasized as an
important part of their graduate attributes. They described their prior secondary
education as “spoon-feeding”, requiring memorization and examination skills. They
felt that traditional one-way and top-down communication in which teachers talked
and students listened was no longer a normal practice but replaced by more
interactive communications between teachers and students. Critical thinking and
independent search for new knowledge were stressed:
It is different from high school where we focused on memorization and examination skills.
We often liked being taught and that’s all, just like spoon-feeding. But it’s free and
interactive here. Teachers encourage you to critically think about matters and even to learn
to criticise the books. This makes you rely on your independent analytical skills and
creativity (University A-HK5).
Most HK students were fully aware that such a change of teaching and learning
should bring benefits to their future development. The student-centred teaching
strategies would help them to expand their professional knowledge and become
more capable for employment after graduation. The positive affirmation on new
teaching strategies could be seen from the following:
Receiving higher education in Hong Kong is an enriching experience that connects to
everywhere else in this world…I get different perspectives on education and think of
problems that exist in today’s educational world and to give my own suggestions for ways
to improve them. I think it’s a way that allows us to do that on one level and from there
we’ll be able to go to a higher level in our future work (University B-HK18, English
original).
From the response from HK students, a conclusion could be reached that both
groups of students held a positive view on the new changes of teaching learning at
tertiary level. Consequently, they were ready to make an adjustment in their
methods and styles of learning because they were aware of the benefits of more
active learning.
(b) Preferences for Teaching Strategies
Students were asked to indicate their preferences for the teaching strategies used
by their teachers and to evaluate their effectiveness. All the students had encoun-
tered the seven teaching strategies: direct instruction, classroom discussion, small
group work, cooperative learning, problem solving, student research, and perfor-
mance activities (e.g., role play, drama or presentation).
Half of the ML students liked classroom discussion used as a teaching strategy.
They mentioned that this strategy was new to them and they often experienced this
in tutorials. It was good to get everybody to give their views. One of them made a
statement which conveyed their feelings on classroom discussion on behalf of
everyone:
I feel the tutorial part is quite fresh. We need to think and participate in discussion. I like
this strategy because we can express our opinions. Especially when someone shares
wonderful ideas, it clears my view and makes me understand something (University
A-ML7).
More than half the ML informants preferred small group work. Most of them
thought this was more effective than classroom discussion because everyone could
have an opportunity to talk in small groups. In the classroom discussion, the peer
pressure sometimes might hinder ML students to speak out because of the shyness.
Those who were talkative normally got more chances to voice their opinions. But in
small groups, the peer pressure was lower hence they found it easy to seize the
chance to speak. They could also hear opinions from the others as well as improve
their critical thinking ability as one of them expressed:
I like the form because I like talking. It’s good to give students some time to voice their
own opinions. It gets us involved in a discussion atmosphere. Once you open the door, all
the ideas come to you and you can be enlightened. It’s a process to improve your critical
thinking ability and make your ideas more sophisticated (University A-ML6, English
original).
From above expression, it showed that the ML students were ready to accept
new teaching strategies which they had never encountered before although they
might have different preference to various teaching strategies. For instance, ten
participants were in favour of problem solving and student research respectively.
Problem solving was interesting because it challenged them to seek possible
solutions to resolve a given problem. A lot of students shared the following opinion:
I like problem-based learning. Some teachers would ask each group to discuss different
questions, so we brainstorm solutions to solve the problem. The more we participate, the
better we can resolve a given problem from different perspectives. It’s challenging and
flexible (University A-ML7).
Even though research activities could be exhausting and time-consuming, stu-

dent research was enjoyed by ten students interviewed. Some thought this strategy
was beneficial to their essay writing because they had learnt how to choose an
appropriate research topic, to find a right research method, to make careful quo-
tations, and to build correct bibliographies. Some others had already experienced a
small research project since they came to Hong Kong:
I did a ‘child study’ where we looked at children’s cognitive development in Year 1. We
were supposed to see how a kid responded and to make analyses and conclusions. Soon,
we’re going to design a survey and make a comparison between a pre and post survey
analysis. It is complex but I find it relatively interesting as long as it’s not used too often
(University B-ML17).
It is noted that discussion strategies, problem-based learning strategies, and

research-oriented activities were enjoyed by ML students in general. However there
were some problems with cooperative learning and performance activities. Though
students who disliked cooperative learning admitted it might teach them cooper-
ative skills for work, they seemed to over emphasize two negative points: unequal
contribution to the group work and difficulties in managing ideas. The fact that most
ML students had been trained to work individually and the highly competitive
learning environment in secondary schools might make them feel hard to fulfil a
learning task together with peers as they complained:
‘Cooperative’ sounds like teaching you how to cooperate with colleagues in the future, but I
don’t think many ML students would adapt to it or even like it. I don’t either as I can’t do
whatever I want and follow up my own ideas. Particularly when there are more able
members, there’ll be free riders who make less effort (University A-ML1).
As discussed earlier, performance activities should include presentation in

addition to role play and drama. Some students enjoyed role play and drama, but
like ML2, five students disliked presentation because of nervousness and pressure.
It might take some time for them to adapt to such a strategy:
I don’t like it as I can’t adapt to it. I feel nervous when speaking in front of unfamiliar
people. It’s stressful because you’re assessed on presentation. You have to pay attention to
your tone and manner of speaking. May be the more practice the better performance.
I prefer to do research and problem solving myself. I like individual writing after some
reading (University A-ML2).
Previously, ML students had indicated that Classroom discussion was effective,

but a few students pointed out a successful discussion should depend on students’
well preparation. In addition, clear answers were not emerged during discussions:
…It’s lost a straight sense of either correct or wrong. It can be meaningless if students just
say whatever they want, without deep thoughts. Teachers may give general but vague
feedback like: good idea. But I don’t know why it’s good. I feel confused since I used to get
either right or wrong answers in my previous study. I want a clearer answer rather than a
general comment of “good” (University B-ML14).
Moreover, being familiar with the most commonly used one way communication
in which teachers pass the knowledge to students in the class, the majority of ML
students was neutral about direct instruction. This attitude was contradictory to
their previous preference. They always thought that there was only one strategy
most effective, that is, direct instruction from teachers.
I like a teacher-centred method because it makes me to acquire basic skills. However, I also
like the current methods that highly promote our discussion capacities and enourage us to
work in groups to communicate (University B-ML21).
It is apparent that when no choice could be made, the ML students would

narrowly think that their teachers’ teaching strategy was unquestionable and the
only way to teach. When their views about teaching and learning were widened by
experiencing not only one but different ones, they immediately made a comparison
on each strategy and evaluated its effectiveness in learning.
To HK students, they mostly enjoyed all teaching strategies except for direct
instruction. They liked performance activities the most, the discussion strategies
such as classroom discussion, small group work and cooperative learning the
better, and then problem solving and student research. Almost all the HK students
preferred performance activities including drama and presentation. Learning to
perform a drama provided them with a different but relaxing and interactive
learning environment:
I enjoy my drama class every week as it makes me happy and enjoy the communication and
show with my fellow students. We have great fun when learning the lesson content. That's
why I like performance activities that are different from conventional methodology
(University B-HK18, English original).
Another citation reflected these students’ preference to presentation used as

another form of performance activities. They regarded it as a way to improve their
social skills in their future workforce:
I have been doing presentations in class since my secondary education. I found it valuable
to improve my communicative competence not only for my current studies, but for my
future work... (University B-HK14, English original).
As indicated in this citation, HK students were fully aware of the importance of

oral presentation skills in their future work. No matter they would be language
teachers or engage in other professions, presentation skills are always indispensable

for a successful career.
It was interesting to find that each thirteen subjects enjoyed classroom discus-
sion, small group work and cooperative learning respectively. In fact, some of them
had experienced these teaching strategies before university. As they elaborated,
classroom discussion would promote a mutual teacher-student and student-student
interaction:
I like classroom discussion because I’ m the person who likes interaction a lot. We may
learn more communication skills in discussion, not only with the teacher, but also with our
classmates. So opportunities for me to speak with others are good (University A-HK11,
English original).
Such point was confirmed by other ten HK students, but they thought group
work was better than classroom discussion because it could help reduce distractions
of students. It gave them more chances to express their ideas instead of merely
waiting for a chance to share with whole class:
Classroom discussion is good to me but I think small group work should be more effective
because we can have more opportunities to express our opinions. (University B-HK13,
English original).
In this sense, HK students shared the similar view as ML students who also
thought that small group discussion was more effective than the whole classroom
discussion. In particular, for those students who felt shy in front of people due to a
peer pressure, the small group discussion was a comfort more to impress their ideas
and feelings. Likewise, ten HK students considered Cooperative learning was the
most effective among these discussion strategies. It not only encouraged discussion
but also enabled them to contribute solutions to sort out a common problem among
the peer group. The following quotation was evaluation on this strategy:
From an interaction point of view, I find cooperative learning is more helpful than class
discussion and group work. I’m quite accustomed to it as we also did it in secondary school.
We would figure out a way to address an issue together. There should be some sort of
delegation. (University A-HK10).
In addition, problem solving and student research were also favoured by half of
the HK participants. Problem solving, which helped to train their higher order
thinking skills, was said to be used more in senior courses where teachers would
usually combine it with some other teaching activities:
I think problem solving is a higher order thinking strategy and that may be a reason why we
don’t really see a lot of this strategy in the junior form. The teacher may use it when we
have enough skills to resolve some difficult problems, so most of the time there’s a
combination of direct instruction and group work. It doesn’t happen straight away
(University B-HK20).
At the same time they felt student research would inspire them to expose some
dimensions of research in the learning process:
I’ve been working as a part-time research assistant. I think research is interesting. I can
learn more than just reading the books or course materials and learn how to critically
resolve a problem. Thought it’s exhausting but I enjoy it. Students also need to do some
research when writing a paper (University A-HK8).
Overall, HK students were in favour of student-centred approach. The above

citations were overt evidence to show this tendency. They liked classroom inter-
action rather than spoon-feeding strategy. During the interview, ten students dis-
liked direct instruction because it involved less interaction:
I don’t like it. I think it’s just like spoon feeding. The way a school functions is like kids
going to school for milk, getting fat and go home and go to bed. That way is not very good
in terms of intellectual growth. I like interaction, but in the direct medium, there is no
interaction at all. (University B-HK18, English original).
However, this did not mean HK students were fond of all the student-centred
teaching strategies. Among the HK students, nine of them disliked cooperative
learning and student research. They found both ineffective. In particular, it would
be disaster if no good leader to manage division of labour when they engaged in
teamwork:
I don’t like it. It sounds great, but it’s not practically effective as we come from different
cultural backgrounds and perhaps have different styles of working, and suddenly we’ve got
no one to manage us. You can’t say: ah, I’m the group leader and I’m gonna manage them
all. It’s hard to divide work very well. (University A-HK4, English original).
In terms of student research, they found it complicated and time-consuming:

I find it difficult because it’s complicated, so I don’t like it…If the research topic is large
scale, I’ll have to search for information, invite people to do questionnaires or interviews,
and then analyze their responses. It’s time consuming and makes me very exhausted
(University B-HK13,English original).
As shown above, both groups of students seemed to have a similar preference to

the strategy use, however, their dislikes appeared to be varied. The findings not only
revealed their general responses to these strategies were different, but also implied
that their prior learning experiences could influence their current learning experi-
ence. Next, whether students’ pedagogical preference was affected by their lin-
guistic competence in English would be explored.
(2) Influences of Students’ English Competence
When asked about if students had any difficulties studying in the institutions
where English is used as a medium of instruction (EMI), the two groups of students
had different comments on their English competence. The feedback of their English
attainment was expected to seek verification that might possibly shape their pref-
erences to the strategy use.
Most ML students felt they had already made some progress in using English to
learn their subject matters, but they still came across some linguistic difficulties when
firstly commenced their disciplinary studies in Hong Kong. English medium edu-
cation was completely new to them except for those who had already experienced a
one-year pre-college education at some top universities in Mainland China. They

considered it as an helpful transition for their language medium adaptation. As the
eight University A subjects had been allocated to take a similar disciplinary study in
the English department before they seemed to be more confident in their adaptation to
the EMI mode. However, they also found some differences after arrival in Hong
Kong:
I need some time to adapt to English medium education, but it’s all right because I took a
pre-college education in Nanjing University, so it’s like a transition period. But there’s a
clear comparison between the two education patterns. I think in Nanjing University, it’s
more language-orientated including four English skills and here we focused more on lit-
erature part but not language base. Now I feel quite comfortable attending class and
discussing (University A-ML6, English original).
Comparatively speaking, the ML students at University B were originally

recruited from high schools where Chinese is usually used as a medium of
instruction. They appeared to have greater language shock in attending class at the
very beginning:
Initially I was not accustomed to it because the language medium was switched to English
and I haven’t had that experience before. It was horrible the first day I had lectures in
English, like a bomb exploding in my head…I feel much better now, but my English skills
still need to be improved (University B-ML9).
In spite of their different pre-university learning experience, most ML subjects

found a common difficulty in essay-format assignment. To overcome such a
problem, they tended to search academic materials to do with essays. To some
extent, this might affect their pedagogical preferences to student research and
problem solving. Holding the same view, ML7, ML9, ML15 and ML17 found it
hard to write a long essay (1000 words or more) in English. In particular, how to
critically express theories and deep meanings was challenging:
We had difficulties writing about a 1000 word essay. I think my English ability was not
good enough, especially how to be critical in academic writing. We had never done this as
we only needed to finish a 100 word composition before. Teachers often enable you to
express deep thoughts and theoretical aspects in English rather than teach you English skills
solely (University B-ML15).
The changing learning environment made ML students feel stressed. Despite so,
they believed that it would be helpful for them to resolve such a problem through
accessing whatever learning resources they could:
I’ve been working hard to resolve this writing difficulty by actively searching resources…
These references give me information on how to structure academic writing and how to
make an argument. I can’t say I’ve completely resolved this but I still work very hard
(University A-ML7).
Like ML1 and ML10, some ML students disliked classroom discussion and
presentation because they would be nervous to open their mouths when they were
unable to clearly express themselves:
I think my listening is good, but I feel nervous about speaking out if I can’t express myself
clearly. I need some time to brainstorm for what to say. Teachers would ask us to share
opinions or present something, but I don’t enjoy this. I’m nervous to speak if I’m not ready
with the answer (University B-ML10).
From above description, it naturally led us to consider about that the English
competence indeed affected ML students’ preferences to the various teaching
strategies. With regards to the group of HK students, there was also evidence to
indicate that linguistic competence could lead them to like some teaching strategies.
According to the HK students’ prior learning experiences, most of them were from
EMI schools while three from CMI ones. The EMI school graduates mostly found
no or less barriers in English language use in a university classroom:
There is no trouble because my secondary school is one of the 100 or so secondary schools
where English is used as a language medium, so I’m used to using English. Perhaps, if it is
in Cantonese, I won’t adapt to it (University A-HK4, English original).
On the other hand, three students from CMI schools such as HK7, HK12 and
HK19 felt that they were disadvantaged in English competence in comparison with
those EMI counterparts. The change of the medium of instruction was the first
challenge to them. They were initially less accustomed to use English as the
medium of instruction in the first year, but they had confidence in dealing with their
English studies and believed that their language proficiency would be further
improved through English medium education:
Honestly, I was not so confident with my language ability for the first year of study. I think
teachers in my CMI school didn’t give us many materials in English. We needed to expand
our spare time to have further tutorials to learn more English. But as an English major
student, I think it’s OK for my standard and my English ability is improving… (University
B-HK12, English original).
Nevertheless, different secondary education did not cause much discrepancy in

their preferences to presentation and discussion strategies. For instance, most of HK
informants were more likely to practice their English proficiency by presentation.
Such evidence could be further reflected by HK12:
…Some may think it’s scary of presenting in front of many people, but I think it’s a good
chance to improve our English proficiency, learn different performance, and train our
confidence…it gets me to understand not to read the lines of ppt slides but to present my
point form ideas in fluent and complete sentences (University B-HK12, English original).
Similar to some other positive comments to discussion strategies, another typical

quotation in relation to English as the medium of communication confirmed that
these strategies could not only suit their style of learning, but also help them learn
subject matters in English:
Hmm… I think encouraging discussion would suit my learning style. The teacher gives
some guiding questions to brainstorm our thinking and we do group discussion in English.
It’s helpful for me to learn knowledge in English (University B-HK14, English original).
In short, both groups of students' linguistic competence in English turned out to

be a contributing factor to some of their pedagogical preferences to the teaching
strategies. In the following section, we would look at students’ views on the peer to
peer interaction.
(3) Students’ Views on Peer to Peer Interaction
The last part of the interview questions required the students to convey their
feelings about the communication between the host HK and ML participants when
learning together. The following displayed a detailed picture of the data from four
specific aspects: general communication barriers, teaching strategies that could
enhance their interaction, and their mutual adjustment.
(a) General Communication Barriers
In general, the data indicated that the informants encountered communication
setbacks with each other. On the one hand, many ML students pointed out some
difficulties in adjusting themselves to the local HK network. The selected citations
were served as evidence to illustrate their general feelings. For instance, several
students thought different spoken languages would be the first factor that affected
their interaction. They might not communicate well with the host students unless
they were able to speak Cantonese in addition to English:
Language is a barrier. We may stop talking because very often we don’t know what
language is more proper to express ourselves. But English is the dominant language in
class, I usually speak English, sometimes a bit Cantonese. If they can’t understand, I’ll
switch to Mandarin. If it’s still not workable I’ll use body language (University A-ML2).
In addition to the language barrier, the majority of ML students held an over-

whelming view that it was hard to achieve a common sense with their HK coun-
terparts due to cultural differences:
…there’re barriers, not only language itself but also cultural barriers. We have different
learning experiences and thinking styles. Now there’re more and more ML students here, so
we would rather form our small groups like ML with ML, probably because of cultural
variation (University B-ML13).
Naturally, linguistic difference symbolised the cultural identity of the two groups
of students who felt more comfortable to interact with peers with the same cultural
backgrounds. Some pointed out that the cultural difference could be reflected by
their different learning attitudes and pursuit of life values:
Our life values might vary from each other, say, for a future goal. We may want to further
our degree or study overseas. Some locals that I know might just be satisfied with a
teaching job as it can make money and earn good social status. We may finish an
assignment a week earlier than they do. They tend to spend spare time on part-time jobs or
social activities (University B-ML10).
Holding the same view, ML9, ML14 and ML19 all mentioned that some sen-
sitive examples given by teachers might worsen their interaction with their HK
counterparts. If the HK teachers did not care about the feeling of ML students, it
might cause resentment. The following complaint apparently showed a negative

example which should be avoided in the class. The negligence of the responsibility
of a teacher to promote positive interaction should not be overlooked and tolerated:
Our interaction is OK except in one course. We feel unhappy as once a tutor showed us
some poor linguistic examples, that we felt were untrue, to show English translation in the
Mainland is not good. We were upset keeping silent on this side while the local students
laughed on the other side. Obviously there’s been a line between us since then (University
B-ML9).
A few ML students said that there were few opportunities for them to interact
with their HK fellow students in class. For most of time they would work together
with ML peers:
In fact, we have few opportunities to interact. We would naturally form our own groups in
discussion activities regardless of the number of ML students. Yes, ML with ML, so we
have few overlaps with HK students and exchange little indeed (University B-ML20).
On the contrary, several HK participants found no problem in communicating

with their ML classmates when language obstacles could be overcome. Like HK2
and HK19, a few HK students had already learnt Mandarin for some years because
they thought speaking Mandarin would become more and more popular with the
rapid development of Mainland China. They had passed the National Putonghua
Proficiency Test. Below was one of their comments:
With most HK students having difficulties in speaking fluent Mandarin, the only way to
speak with ML students would be to use English. I’ve no problem to speak to them as I’ve
learnt Mandarin for 3 years and passed the language test. They can fully understand my
spoken Mandarin so they don’t have to use Cantonese. (University A-HK2).
Most of the HK students felt interaction with their ML classmates was generally
satisfactory, but it depended on contexts. Some thought that different cultural and
linguistic backgrounds might cause misunderstandings during the communication.
As the hosts, HK students were aware of some sensitive words could lead to
misunderstanding by the ML students:
It depends. Sometimes it’s hard to interact with some ML students as I don’t quite
understand their culture, and vice versa. It can be harder if they don’t like to learn
Cantonese. But it’s better to cooperate with those who have been overseas before. They are
more playful since they have experienced a similar life style and thinking mode to us
(University A-HK6).
Like HK6, HK13 and HK19 also realised that they were unable to find a
common theme to share during their interaction due to the different perceptions on
cultural identity:
There is a difference in terms of cultural identity. I think most ML students are patriotic
about national issues. They think HK is part of China and China’s mainstream culture is the
big one. But not many HK students of our age have been to the Mainland and have deep
knowledge about it, so it’s hard to find a common topic to talk about (University B-HK19).
Half of the host students agreed that there was a cultural gap. The most sig-
nificant cultural difference would be in attitudes to study:
The biggest cultural difference would be that they’re very hard working. It’s easy to identify
who is the Hong-Konger and who is the ML student in class. If you split the class into half,
the half that’s sitting closer to the teacher would be ML students and I can almost promise
you the last rows of students would be HK students. It’s interesting but I couldn’t explain
why and most of us usually form our own group…there’s a gap (University B-HK18,
English original).
As shown above, this part was concerned with some communication barriers
investigated between the host students and their ML counterparts. In short, both
cultural and linguistic differences would cause misunderstanding in their commu-
nication. This would be further discussed in the latter section. Next part of this
section would focus on class activities that could enhance their interaction.
(b) Teaching Activities That Promoted Students’ Interaction
In regard to the class activities that could enable students to interact more with
each other, both groups of participants had a similar point of view. Most of them
thought they were more likely to communicate when doing group discussions,
cooperative learning through group projects or presentations. For example, some
ML students noted that group discussions would be used as a relatively formal way
of interaction inside the classroom while group projects enabled them to complete
an academic task cooperatively outside the classroom:
If we need to interact with HK students in class, I think group discussions would be a
formal but limited way to do it. If we do group projects outside the classroom, we would
discuss in a more relaxed place like Maxim’s (a local fast food restaurant in University A).
We can not only cooperate with each other but also learn more about their language and
culture (University A-ML5).
Although the above activities could promote their interaction, some students still
doubted that such interaction might not be positive enough unless the class was split
into some mixed groups:
Our interaction is quite limited in group discussions. Most ML students would work with
ML sitting together and HK with HK, so teamwork and group discussion can’t make us
mix. I think more interaction would only be guaranteed when teachers make us work in
mixed groups. But teachers usually don’t care about this (University B-ML18).
In terms of mixed groups required by teachers, HK13 indicated that it was

natural for them to form a neighbouring-group with their friends or familiar
classmates, but teachers’ purposeful designation of group members would provide
them with more opportunities to interact with the ML students:
I often work with HK students in group tasks, but it is natural because you’ll sit with your
friends. May be the teacher will ask us to form a mixed group so that we must find other
classmates like ML students. So the mix up of students is a great opportunity for us to
communicate in groups (University B-HK12,English original).
Apart from group discussion and cooperative learning through group projects,
both ML7 and HK18 stated that presentation was another strategy that promoted
them to have more interaction with each other:
It is when the teacher asks us to do presentations we have a chance to communicate. We
may also discuss study problems during class break time. I rarely spent time with them
except for learning tasks (University A-ML7).
Regardless of ML students or HK students, they did think that some teaching

strategies might promote positive interactions if the teacher used them appropriately
and purposefully. In particular, mixed group discussions, cooperative learning and
presentations could be very useful strategies. Having experienced some cultural
differences, would they be willing to make any reciprocal adjustments? The
interview data provided us with some evidence for the answer.
(c) Students’ Reciprocal Adjustment to Each other
In spite of some cultural differences and communication obstacles, most par-
ticipants indicated that they had consciously or unconsciously made some adjust-
ments to help smooth their communication. For instance, the two groups of students
tended to learn about something valuable from each other during communication.
This could reflect an unconscious aspect of adjustment.
For the ML group, most noted that they could learn a lot from their HK
counterparts such as their self-confidence and creativity. Learning these strengths
would inspire them to improve their critical thinking and analysing skills:
I feel they’re more creative. For example, they would use a video to shoot an MV for a
presentation and use a voice recorder to collect authentic data for a research task. They can
make different sorts of items. Most of their oral English is fluent. They’re confident in
giving presentations. They make me learn how to be more creative, more efficient and more
energetic handling a problem (University B-ML20).
Some thought HK students were more open-minded and independent because

many local students would take great responsibility for their own study and life.
This inspired them to be more independent when living in Hong Kong:
I appreciate their stronger sense of self-responsibility. We’re the same age, but they have to
do part-time jobs to undertake their tuition fees or living costs and make their own future
plans, while we keep learning without these concerns and only focus on study. They’re
more open-minded and independent. I used to rely on my parents a lot but now I learn to be
independent (University A-ML1).
In terms of the HK participants’ perceptions, they all found ML students’

learning attitude very admirable. They were impressed by their diligence and
perseverance in seeking knowledge and skill. The persistent efforts made in aca-
demic excellence by the ML students were indeed a good example to HK students.
At the same time, some HK students also suggested their ML counterparts relax a
bit from study and join them for more extra curriculum activities, community
service, sports and socialization to increase mutual communication:
Well, the best thing to learn from ML students would be their awesome attitude to learning.
They’re very hard working. They do a lot of pre-work for a lesson. I think we all should
learn from them. But they can also learn from us. We can teach them how to relax. We are
not lazy with study. We play and work as well, so we try to juggle between both. If they can
sometimes join us for games that would be fine (University B-HK18, English original).
In the meantime, both ML and HK informants also addressed that they were
inclined to understand more about each other including their different languages,
cultures and ways of doing things. Below illustrations might be a sign of their
conscious adjustment. Some ML students voiced they had been working hard to
integrate with their local counterparts:
I feel I’ve been working hard to integrate with them. I’m learning Cantonese and getting
used to their ways of doing things. After all we have different cultures. I think the more we
communicate, the more we know about HK society and its culture. I’d like to make friends
with them and think about things from their point of view (University A-ML2).
Similarly, some HK students also showed willingness to tolerate some cultural

differences between them. In fact, they could focus on the community of HK local
culture and Mainland Chinese culture:
I think my tolerance and adjustment are OK. Personally I don’t concern much about
Chinese history, but I can learn more about it from our interaction. Apart from Mandarin, I
learn different places of the Mainland have different customs. When you understand a
cultural difference, you will be tolerant of it (University B-HK16).
As shown above, this part investigated if the participants would be willing to

adjust to each other and how they would make mutual adjustments. The results
showed they not only found some learnable points from each other, but also
attempted to comprehend more about cultural differences. This implied that they
had been experiencing not only a teaching and learning adaptation but also a
cultural adaptation in studying higher education in Hong Kong. Next section of the
chapter would be concerned with an analysis and discussion on the above results
gathered from interview.
6.3 Discussions from Interview Findings
From the data gathered from in-depth interview with students, a number of con-
clusions were drawn in relation to teaching strategies and students’ interaction: first,
both HK and ML students were satisfied with the new academic culture. Besides,
both groups of students responded differently to the various teaching strategies
because their likes and dislikes were strongly influenced by their prior educational
backgrounds. In addition, the English language competence of the two groups of
students contributed to their pedagogical preference for various teaching strategies.
Moreover, in terms of communicative misunderstanding between the two groups of
students, linguistic difference and cultural background were the major contributors
to less positive interactions in the class. For this reason, these students thought that
teachers’ purposeful use of appropriate teaching strategies was necessary to pro-

mote positive interactions in class.
(1) Positive Response to the Hong Kong higher education Sector:
Both the ML and HK participants found autonomous learning valuable because
the entire teaching culture promoted learning-centred activities at their institutions.
They needed to take greater initiative to resolve many problems themselves rather
than merely waited for teachers’ instruction and advice. This substantial change
from senior secondary to tertiary level made both groups feel that they had been
given more freedom and encouraged to think critically to search for more knowl-
edge rather than being fed with existing knowledge. This could be one reason why
they responded to Hong Kong higher education positively.
It was interesting to see that the two groups’ positive responses to autonomous
learning were based on different reasons. Most ML students thought that teachers’
Western-style teaching activities were an effective measure to assess students’
academic performances. On the other hand, most HK participants believed that such
a flexible teaching arrangement enabled them to practise more critical thinking
skills and gain creativity abilities. In other words, the ML students were more
inclined to place value on the product of learning while HK students tended to care
more about the process of learning.
Another reason for ML students holding a positive view on Hong Kong higher
education was that they enjoyed the English-medium teaching and learning envi-
ronment (Gao and Trent 2009). They found some of the opportunities could give
them more space to make progress and more exposure to the world. They con-
sidered this as a good foundation for their future study either in Hong Kong or
overseas. However, the HK students held a more pragmatic view that getting a
university degree was necessary for them to apply for their wanted jobs. The
importance of English for them had been stressed since their secondary education.
The language policy put forward by the HK SAR Government was also well known
to them. The English-medium teaching and learning environment of universities
would reinforce their language competence in English and provide good opportu-
nities for cross-cultural communication with non-local students.
(2) Students' Preferences to the Teaching Strategies:
The finding revealed that the dislikes of the ML and the HK group were varied.
In general, most ML participants were not fond of cooperative learning, perfor-
mance activities (classroom presentation) and classroom discussion. The majority
of HK informants disliked direct instruction and student research. The findings not
only demonstrate their general preference to these strategies, but also imply that
their prior learning experiences and cultural assumptions on teaching and learning
has affected their likes or dislikes although both groups of students were rooted in
the Confucian heritage culture (CHC) (Nguyen et al. 2006).
On the one hand, both groups of the participants held mixed perspectives to
these learner-centred strategies. The most of the HK students favoured discussion
6.3 Discussions from Interview Findings 95
strategies and performance activities due to their prior learning experiences in their
secondary education where teachers followed Western teaching styles and peda-
gogy. Guided by constructivist beliefs, task-based teaching and learning encourages
students to engage in a more independent, constructive and communicative way of
learning. Hence, task-based teaching model and process-oriented learning play an
important role of the reform of the new senior secondary English language cur-
riculum in Hong Kong (Curriculum Development Council 1999; Wong 2009). As
such, the group of HK participants showed a stronger preference to engage in
collaborative work. This point supported the finding that HK students preferred to
rely on great network and performed well in groups in comparison with their ML
counterparts (Chan and Watkins 1994).
On the other hand, most of the ML students doubted the effectiveness of co-
operative learning but they liked small group work. This could be explained by the
factor that students are usually required to listen to their instructors rather than
challenging teachers because teachers are regarded as the main source of knowledge
(Chen and Sit 2009). Therefore, the majority of participants found it was difficult to
adapt to the new academic culture where some mismatched expectations and
confusions occured. It was noted that they expected their teachers to provide them
with an accurate answer directly and would not prefer to generate a general good
answer from group discussions. This finding confirmed Kennedy’s (2002) assertion
that Mainland Chinese learners could barely endure ambiguity and uncertainty of
knowledge. To cope with confusion caused by the cultural shock of new learning
environment, they had to change to become more independent and active by par-
ticipating in group discussions to achieve the same learning outcome as their HK
fellow students.
To ML students, strategies like problem solving and student research were not
popular, but they were accepted in spite of some reluctance. The ML seemed to
prefer to work individually rather than endeavour in groups compared to the HK
students (Woodrow and Sham 2001). Research also suggested that ML students had
a tendency to control their assignments at a pace they preferred (Kee and Wong
2004; Wang and Shan 2007). Regardless of fatigue and heavy work load, the ML
students did not mind doing independent research. They realised the importance of
solving problem by themselves. Obviously, their preference to work individually
rather than cooperatively was heavily dependent on how they could overcome the
limitation of their learning habits formed through the learning process in their
previous education.
Although Hong Kong has a similar culture to Mainland China, the strong
influence of British colonization has made Hong Kong' social institution similar to
that of Britain and the HK students tended to prefer collaborative work to establish
social and intellectual support for study (Biggs 1991; Smith 2001). They were
found to be the most anxious Chinese learners among those from Mainland China,
Taiwan and the U.S. in terms of the personality traits (Cheung et al. 1992). This
study also revealed that HK students were more inclined to be nervous about
complicated research activities with relatively large amount of work. It is important
for teachers to identify students’ different assumptions and attitudes towards
knowledge and approaches to learning as no matter where they come from, students
often value their home cultures and their individual experiences within different
educational contexts (Thao and Li 2006).
(3) The impact of linguistic competence on students’ pedagogic preference:
The interview results also indicated that students’ English language competence
affected their pedagogical preference. Despite the fact that the majority of ML
students were top students with highly competitive scores in the National Higher
Education Entrance Examination (NHEEE) held in the Mainland, some still felt
reluctant to express themselves through class discussion or presentation because of
a lack of confidence and insufficient oral proficiency in English. On the contrary,
most of their HK counterparts preferred these two strategies because they found it a
good way of improving English proficiency. This study had no intention to compare
the two groups of participants’ linguistic competency to identify discrepancies and
evaluate which group’s English proficiency was better. Rather, it intended to
explore the reasons why their linguistic competence would affect students’ attitudes
to teaching strategies.
According to Chen and Zhang (1998), the objective of English teaching in most
parts of Mainland China is to prepare students for passing technical English exams
which largely focus on grammar, vocabularies, reading and writing. Oral interaction
has not been a main concern in such instruction, although communicative language
approach is now being advocated, and therefore testing usually comes first before
teaching and learning language for communication. Some early English immersion
programs implemented in public primary schools were reported to enable students
to build their listening and speaking skills before they obtained intensive grammar
and language rules (Siegel et al. 2009). However, such immersion program is still
limited and cannot be spread throughout the Mainland overnight.
In Mainland China, most English teachers still use Chinese as the medium to
teach the target language. Students often follow English courses that aim to train
their language skills for the NHEEE, in order to attend higher education institution,
particularly for English studies. They are mostly crammed with grammar exercises
and rote language rules to pass exams in secondary education. In fact, some ML
students’ uneasiness at speaking in front of class provided evidence that commu-
nicative oral language skills are not sufficiently prioritised in the secondary schools
in China (Anderson 1993). Those who had experienced the one year transition
period of a language immersion program prior to study in Hong Kong tended to be
more confident with discussion and presentation. This implied that immersion could
be an advantage for improving students’ listening and speaking skills.
English language teaching and learning in Hong Kong was discussed in detail in
Chap. 2. As stated earlier, English immersion in Hong Kong is a common practice
compared with that of Mainland China because of the different education system.
There are two mainstreams of secondary schools in Hong Kong: EMI schools and
CMI schools. In this study, most HK participants from EMI schools were more
accustomed to English-medium education context than those CMI school graduates
6.3 Discussions from Interview Findings 97
interviewed. A study which compared students’ subject scores between EMI and
CMI schools revealed that English-medium school students scored higher in
English than their non-immersion peers in terms of speaking skill, vocabulary and
literacy (Marsh et al. 2000). Exposure to English instruction earlier might enable the
EMI schools students to show strong confidence in commencing their English
studies. Majoring in English, the HK participants including EMI and CMI graduates
were satisfied with their language standard. Interviews conducted with these HK
students in English could support that they felt more comfortable speaking English.
They considered discussion and presentation as helpful strategies to develop lan-
guage proficiency. Obviously, both ML and HK students with higher linguistic
competence in English were more confident in classroom discussion and presen-
tation, which rely on good oral communication skills. Hence, linguistic competence
should be closely related with pedagogical preference.
(4) Cultural difference as a major factor to hinder positive interactions:
It is important to note that the ML group and HK group experienced some
obstacles on peer-to-peer interactions. In spite of their different spoken languages
(Mandarin and Cantonese), both groups of students thought linguistic difference
was not a major problem that hindered their interaction because they usually used
English as the medium of communication in class. As specified by most students, it
would only be after class where they spoke to each other in Cantonese and there had
been a trend for HK students to speak Mandarin with the ML. They both found it a
good learning opportunity. There was a common view by both groups of the
students that language barrier could be overcome since English could be used as
lingua franca. Many ML and HK participants reported that the most significant
difficulty was social and cultural difference such as different cultural values,
mindsets and preferences of topics. This finding echoes Lam (2006)’s study that
two different cultures would direct the way the two groups of students speak, the
way they think and the themes they preferred to talk about. The two groups of
informants felt it would be hard for them to find a common subject for further
discussion. This finding is consistent with the results from class observation
described in the previous chapter.
Brought up in Mainland China, the ML students had sound knowledge of
Chinese history, literature and art. However, very few HK students would have the
same vision as their ML counterparts did since they were born in a commercial and
financial centre in Hong Kong which had been strongly influenced by Western
culture. The ML students had a stronger national identity while HK students were
more sensitive to a regional cultural status. This difference might prevent them from
getting close to each other. Examples could be shown by the way the ML and HK
students addressed their counterparts as “they” and “we” respectively. As indicated
previously, they also had different worldviews, lifestyles and ways of thinking and
studying. The intrinsic motivation for many ML informants was to further their
degree either in HK or overseas upon graduation so that they focused more on study
than other social activities. Whereas many HK students felt employment, creativity
and social experiences were necessary. This attitude was also widely held by many
American university students as found by Li (2009).
In addition, another visible culture shock to many HK students was that the ML
students were extremely hard workers. The ML students were reported as out-
standing students while local students were condemned for the decline in English
language proficiency through the mass media in Hong Kong (Singtao Daily 2008).
The HK participants described the ML group as highly competitive counterparts. In
the meantime, the HK students also feared that the “threat” of the ML students’
excellent academic achievement would jeopardise their opportunities for future
employment. Research by Watkins (2009) showed that like traditional Chinese
society, the Hong Kong education system had been promoting intense competition
for students to compete against one another in examinations. Qualified people
would be identified to enter higher education and obtain good jobs. This rivalry
seemed to keep the HK and ML students apart.
In spite of some problems with interaction, both groups of students showed
willingness to make some adjustments. They attempted to learn others’ strength,
know more about different cultures and tolerate cultural differences. What made
them interact in class was doing group discussion and presentation. They both felt
that such teaching strategies provided more chances for them to communicate. The
findings from survey, lesson observation and interview all indicated that the peer
communication could be positively enhanced by teachers’ appropriate teaching
strategies. Hence, using effective strategies to facilitate student interaction should be
carefully taken into consideration.
6.4 Summary
The interview results showed students’ perspectives about learning experiences

including their feeling about studying in the higher education sector in Hong Kong
and preferences for the teaching strategies, how their language competence influ-
enced their pedagogical preferences, and their views on the peer to peer interaction.
The findings were proved to be consistent with those revealed in survey and class
observation.
In addressing the issue of minimising cultural conflict and helping students to
settle in Western-style institutions, reconsideration of existing teaching strategies by
teachers has become a crucial and urgent task for education reform in Hong Kong’s
universities. There was a strong belief from both HK and ML students that teachers
should use appropriate teaching strategies purposefully to promote positive inter-
actions between two groups of students. As to how, the findings of the survey in
Chap. 4 and the findings of the class observation in Chap. 5 as well as the analysis
in this chapter should lay a solid foundation for the establishment of a series of
inclusive teaching strategies to meet the needs of students. In the final chapter a
constructive proposal is put forward on the basis of the findings in Chaps. 4, 5 and
in this chapter.
Chapter 7
Developing Inclusive Teaching Strategies
7.1 Introduction
In Chaps. 4, 5 and 6 the data derived from the field work based on a methodological
triangulation, namely, surveys from teachers, on-site classroom observations and
in-depth interviews with students were thoroughly described and analysed. The
results were consistent with each other, indicating that validity and reliability were
reasonably high. The findings demonstrate that problems of interaction existed
between Hong Kong (HK) local and Mainland (ML) students in the learning pro-
cess of English advanced studies.
In spite of the identified problems of interaction, it seemed that teachers at both
University A and University B paid insufficient attention to the two groups of
students’ attitudes toward each other, and their learning behaviour in class inter-
action. There was little evidence that appropriate teaching strategies were employed
purposefully by teachers to promote positive interactions. Based on the investiga-
tion of current practice, it was necessary to consider the issue of “how to use
effective teaching strategies to promote positive interaction between HK and ML
students” from a theoretical perspective and to develop inclusive teaching strategies
for a new direction. On the basis of research findings, an innovative model was
proposed in order to promote positive interactions between HK and ML students in
discipline-based English studies in Hong Kong’s higher educational institutions.

100 7 Developing Inclusive Teaching Strategies
7.2 The Taxonomy of Teaching Strategies and Its Use

in Practice in Discipline-based English Studies
As revealed in Chap. 2, great efforts and progress have been made in the research
field of language teaching methods, and ESL in particular, but limited attention has
been paid to teaching strategies that form the micro-elements of pedagogy in
general education. In other words, discussions about various language teaching
methods have dominated the research arena for decades without a close look at
classroom interaction. Obviously in a post-method era, the research of language
teaching should not be restricted to analysis on a theoretical level but be extended to
the reality of classrooms. The seven teaching strategies (direct instruction, class-
room discussion, small group work, cooperative learning, problem solving, student
research, and performance activities) discussed by Killen (1998) had never been
evaluated in the field of discipline-based English studies nor specifically investi-
gated in the context of higher education in Hong Kong. In the current study, the
taxonomy of teaching strategies has been critically examined and evaluated in terms
of the preference of teachers and students and the effectiveness of each strategy in
the discipline of English studies within Hong Kong’s higher education sector.
Although Killen’s taxonomy provided a framework for this research, limitations
relating to its static nature became evident upon closer inspection of each teaching
strategy. Killen (1998) classified teaching strategies into seven categories.
Figure 7.1 is a diagram showing this taxonomy of effective teaching strategies.
Killen (1998) has described each of these strategies thoroughly through a
comprehensive review of teaching practice and research. The essence of his work is
that he conceptualised basic principles for these strategies and highlighted advan-
tages or disadvantages for using or not using a single strategy. Based on this
taxonomy, it is apparent that student-centred strategies are much more emphasised.
This point is also supported by the contemporary view stressed by Hattie (2009)
that strategies which are more student-centred are usually effective. Therefore, this
taxonomy serves as a tool for synthesising a systematic investigation of each useful
strategy. However, there appears to be an obvious clear-cut boundary amongst the
strategies. Theoretically, this classification has integrated theory with practice
because it provides teachers with a rational basis upon which to implement each
effective strategy. However, its practical application had not been widely exam-
ined outside of Australian education context. Consequently, this research was
designed in a way that would enable this theory to be tested in practice.
Studies have suggested that each strategy shown above can be applied in various
learning contexts including secondary education (Baldwin et al. 2006; Kellough
and Carjuzaa 2006) and higher education (Killen 1998, 2009). Within the
western-style higher education in Hong Kong, this study has proved that teachers
commonly used these strategies in the English Department to facilitate students’
learning and to enhance their language attainment in specific disciplinary studies.
Practically, the frequency and preference of each strategy used by teachers were
varied, depending on the contents and contexts of teaching and learning. The
7.2 The Taxonomy of Teaching Strategies and Its Use in Practice … 101
Direct
Instruction
Performance Classroom
Activities Discussion
Effective
Teaching
Strategies
Student Small
Research Group Work
Problem Cooperative
Solving Learning
Fig. 7.1 Killen’s (1998) effective teaching strategies
teaching strategies usually came together as a bundle rather than a single one.
Overlapping two or three teaching strategies was a common practice among
teachers in this study in order to more effectively arouse students’ interests to learn.
In contrast with the unrelated and separate teaching strategies described in Fig. 7.1,
the structure of Fig. 7.2 might be more appropriate and accurate in reflecting the
tendency to use mixed teaching strategies in practice.
As indicated in Fig. 7.2, the centre of the diagram is DI (Direct Instruction)
which, in any situation, must be used with other teaching strategies. DI is the only
teacher-centred teaching strategy among the seven defined by Killen. Upon
investigation of its use in practice, it was noticed that DI was always followed by
other student-centred teaching strategies among which CD (Classroom Discussion),
SGW (Small Group Work) and CL (Cooperative Learning) were most frequently
used. The three overlapping, interwoven circles in Fig. 7.2 represent CD, SGW and
CL respectively. They were more overlapped in their practical use. The less fre-
quently used teaching strategies of PS (Problem Solving), SR (Student Research)
and PA (Performance Activities) are indicated by three “border areas” formed by
the intersection of the three full circles.
Fig. 7.2 The overlapping use

of teaching strategies
CD
PS SR
DI
SGW CL
PA
As discovered in the classroom observations, most teachers devoted the majoity of

their time to classroom discussion, small group work and cooperative learning. Problem
solving, performance activities and student research, which would not occur immediately
upon commencement of a class, were often combined with the previous three strategies.
Students rarely came into class and started to solve problems or present their work
immediately. Interestingly, all strategies were typically followed by direct instruction
given by teachers. Hence, it seems that there were no clear boundaries between strategies.
This trend can also be traced from much research previously conducted on teaching
practices in action (e.g., Artz and Newman 1990; Brady 2006; Cole and Chan 1994;
Johnson and Johnson 1999; Roger and Johnson 2002; Westwood 2008).
Cole and Chan (1994), for instance, noted that class discussion is one of the most
frequently used strategies when teachers deliver fundamental knowledge in whole class
teaching. Teaching explicit knowledge is therefore important during classroom dis-
cussion. Brady (2006) claimed that discussion, role play, presentation, and solving
problems in small groups often enable students to learn from each other. Small group
work may also provide a forum for teachers from which to convey their instructions
and scaffold students’ learning. Johnson and Johnson (1999) described how coopera-
tion in small group discussion is a salient characteristic of cooperative learning. It
requires a team of students to solve a problem, complete a mini-project, or achieve a
common learning goal (Artz and Newman 1990; Westwood 2008). In other words,
small group work, problem solving and student research can be used in conjunction
with cooperative learning. These strategies all need to follow teachers’ specific pre-
scriptions or stipulations regarding the nature of the task. While problem solving and
student research are strategies that are predominantly undertaken in cooperation among
group members, they can also be completed individually (Brady 2006). This point was
further confirmed by the current research findings that students could work indepen-
dently on these two strategies.
7.2 The Taxonomy of Teaching Strategies and Its Use in Practice … 103
Having tested the theory in practice, it can be concluded that the integration of
teaching strategies in the two institutions was a common practice with sound jus-
tification. In particular, small group work, cooperative learning, problem solving,
and performance activities were difficult to separate because they all involved
students working together. As a whole, Fig. 7.2 shows a shift towards a more
dynamic, integrated teaching process in comparison with Killen’s (1998) original
taxonomy which appears static and isolated in teaching practice. According to all
the studies above, these strategies are effective to some extent. However, questions
regarding the nature of the interactions between HK and ML students has caused
concerns about their effectiveness. In other words, their efficacy is questionable if
the cultural differences of learners are taken into consideration. With the increasing
numbers of ML students at Hong Kong universities, the classrooms of higher
education have become a multicultural learning environment. The teachers of
discipline-based English studies can no longer rely on their previous experience of
using teaching strategies in existing classroom situations. For this reason, it was
necessary to look more closely at the impact of cultural differences between stu-
dents on classroom interaction.
7.3 Classroom Interaction Influenced by Cultural Factors
In terms of teacher-student interaction and student-student interaction, this study

which was conducted at two research sites in Hong Kong has revealed two
important factors. One was that in-class teacher-student interaction was in general
positive, in spite of the fact that some teachers saw the students as one homoge-
neous body rather than two sub-cultural cohorts. The other was that it confirmed the
finding by Lam (2006) who reported that the interaction between HK and ML
students in the multicultural environment was problematic when teachers used
similar teaching strategies to facilitate their learning (See Fig. 7.3 below).
The current research has also indicted that cultural differences was the main
factor affecting student interaction. Both HK and ML students articulated that they
would not voluntarily work in a mixed group unless required by their teachers.
Fig. 7.3 Classroom Teacher

interaction
HK student ML student
They usually formed a neighbouring group that comprised friends or familiar

classmates. This phenomenon could be explained by a principle of homophily
which “structures network ties of every type including friendship, work, support…
and other types of relationships” (McPherson et al. 2001, p. 415). The effect of the
principle is that “people’s personal networks are homogeneous with regard to many
sociodemographic, behavioural and intrapersonal characteristics” (McPherson et al.
2001, p. 415). Homophily in social networks promotes more contact between
people with similar ethnical, cultural and educational backgrounds than with those
who are different from them. Students only concentrated on small social groups in
which they had close ties between members. It occurred in the classroom setting of
the study and it was common to see and hear that students were more inclined to
interact with those like themselves. This tendency, unfortunately, did not draw the
teachers’ attention sufficiently when they used various teaching strategies (Sit
2013a).
This principle of homophily in student relationships provides confirming evi-
dence that different historical, social, cultural and educational backgrounds have
made the two groups of students different from each other. They cannot be gen-
eralised as a homogenous group although they are both ethnically called Chinese.
Undoubtedly, it can be argued that this homophily phenomenon limits students’
social worlds in the way that they get information, form a certain attitude, and
experience interaction. The less interaction that both groups of students had in
class, the more that social distance existed. It is essential for teachers to understand
the learner’s behaviours and attitudes to learning and interaction so that they can
think about how their teaching strategies can be modified to enhance classroom
interactions between diverse learners.
In order to understand the cultural differences between the HK and ML students,
it seems significant for teachers to have a deep understanding of Hofstede’s (1997,
2005) research findings on cultural difference which can provide insights into how
different cultural dimensions affect student-student relationships and classroom
interaction. Hofstede (1997) proposed that culture can be distinguished along a
number of dimensions, such as power distance, individualism-collectivism,
uncertainty avoidance, etc. Mainland China differs from Hong Kong based on
Hofstede’s analysis. Sit and Meshram (2016) note that these dimensions can pro-
vide an understanding of culture-specific behaviours and expectations that have a
significant impact on both the learning styles, attitudes and behaviours of the two
cultural groups of students and the teaching strategies that are considered appro-
priate by teachers.
In Hofstede’s framework of analysing culture, one of the dimensions is power
distance. It describes inequality issues and examines the extent to which less
powerful members of a society deal with unequal power distribution (Hofstede
2005). In Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC) where there is high power distance,
as seen for example in China, Japan and Korea, people follow rules of hierarchy
and build social relationships in terms of leadership. According to Phuong-Mai
et al. (2006), an unequal relationship between parents and children within a family
extends to inequality in teacher-student relationships in school. There are strict class
7.3 Classroom Interaction Influenced by Cultural Factors 105
orders whereby teachers are greatly respected and students are expected to be
obedient and well-behaved. In contrast, in cultures with low power distance, such as
the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, people expect and accept
equality, freedom and independence in relationships. Both teachers and students are
treated equally. Holding the view of “knowledge begins with students themselves”
(Phuong-Mai et al. 2006, p. 5), teachers in Western cultures are seen as facilitators
rather than powerful givers of knowledge in the learning process (Jian et al. 2010).
Brown (1994) contended that the degree of toleration for unequal power distribution
varies from one culture to another. Based on Hofsted’s (2001) power distance index,
Mainland China (80) is higher than Hong Kong (68). This index supports the suggestion
that power distance in the Mainland is larger than that in Hong Kong. Considering
students’ responses towards teaching strategies, this study discovered that ML students
preferred teachers to tell them what to follow more so than HK students. Seeking and
taking advice from elders and teachers signalled the acknowledgment of power distance.
With a hierarchy in educational settings in the Mainland, the teacher is still the one who
initiates communication with students and students are only permitted to speak when
invited to do so (Hofsted 2005). In this sense, it is easy to understand why ML students
remained more dependent on their teachers and expected to receive direct instruction on
how they were to learn. By contrast, HK students, educated in a place where the East
meets the West, preferred more autonomy and felt more comfortable with learning how
to learn. However, it is also worth noting that teamwork can be effective for both groups
of students because this allows them to find a group leader whom they can follow.
Obviously, the notion of power distance explains why ML and HK students responded
differently to the teaching strategies used by teachers in the two research sites.
Another differentiated culture dimension is individualism-collectivism. It
examines the role of the individual and groups within a community or a society.
People from individualist societies such as the UK and Australia tend to pursue
self-reliance, individual achievement and creativity. Self-esteem, autonomy and
an individual point of view are associated with the individual’s behaviours, needs
and curiosities (Horak 2010). In contrast, people from collectivist societies such as
China and Hong Kong are inclined to highly value group harmony, consensus,
cooperation, and combined achievement (Warring et al. 2006). Obliging rather than
challenging is a way of avoiding conflict and keeping social order and harmony.
This cultural dimension of individualism versus collectivism has significant rele-
vance in understanding students’ expectations in the classroom.
Even though both Mainland China and Hong Kong score low on Hofstede’s
(2001) individual ranking, the individualism index demonstrates that there is a
difference between Mainland China (20) and Hong Kong (25). This result indicates
that Hong Kong is more individualist than the Mainland. Nevertheless, the con-
tradictory factor that HK students have more collectivist tendency to rely on greater
network (Chan and Watkins 1994) has been found in this current research. As a
result, the individualism versus collectivism should not be seen as isolated, con-
trasting continua (Phuong-Mai et al. 2006). Rather, the two concepts appear to
co-exist depending on culturally-specific situations. The fact that group discussion
strategies were preferred by HK students is supported by Salali (1999). In her
study, she stated that cooperative learning was largely encouraged and effective for
HK collectivist learners because they could freely express opinions in both
whole-class and small group discussions.
In comparison, ML students, who liked both individual learning and group
work, held a less positive preference for cooperation (Sit and Chen 2010). From a
pedagogical perspective, this discrepancy is highlighted by Agelasto (1998) who
argued that competition in Mainland China is usually more encouraged than student
cooperation. In general, study is managed individually rather than cooperatively.
This competitive classroom context led students to pursue academic excellence
above social intelligence. This tendency is seen as a salient feature of individual
cultures (Warring and Huber-Warring 2006). Moreover, it is argued that ML stu-
dents are not passive in engaging class activities. Listening attentively to other
people rather than interrupting an conversation is valued as a virtue in Chinese
culture (Liu 2002). Students’ learning styles can be influenced by their cultural and
educational backgrounds. Teachers should consider these factors and vary their
expectations of group participation accordingly when organising class activities. It
is important for teachers to be aware of the differences between their students to
avoid stereotyping.
Uncertainty avoidance, defined as “the extent to which members of culture feel
threatened by unknown or uncertain situations” (Hofstede 1997, p. 113), is another
cultural dimension that can strongly influence students’ expectations of class par-
ticipation, their attitudes and behaviours in class. Individuals from cultures with
strong uncertainty avoidance tend to prefer precise objectives, structured tasks and
predictable situations (Liu and Littlewood 1997). Guessing and unclear guidelines
may make high uncertainty learners feel anxious. On the contrary, individuals with
weak uncertainty avoidance are more likely to feel comfortable in flexible and
unstructured situations (Oxford et al. 1992). Low uncertainty learners have a high
level of tolerance for ambiguity. Different levels of uncertainty can result in
misunderstandings in the multicultural classroom and students’ different levels of
tolerance for ambiguity can explain why some teaching strategies are more pre-
ferred than the other.
Among those CHC cultures which rank very high on the continuum of uncer-
tainty avoidance, for example Japan (95) and Korea (85), China (40) scores con-
siderably lower. However, Hong Kong (29) also differs greatly from China (40).
This research has revealed that ML students with higher uncertainty avoidance
tolerated less vagueness than HK students. They wanted to follow step-by-step
instruction and know the precise answer to each question because of their prior
educational experience. They felt insecure about speaking in situations in which
sufficient instructions were not available (Liu and Littlewood 1997) but would
frequently show spontaneous ideas when they knew what to do clearly.
Although HK students endured much uncertainty, they also shared a similarity with
their ML Chinese counterparts. They were also more inclined to learn
7.3 Classroom Interaction Influenced by Cultural Factors 107
systematically to build a good foundation of knowledge so that they could be more

reflective and analytic (Kennedy 2002; Oxford and Burry-Stock 1995). It is highly
recommended that detailed instructions and step-by-step guidelines be provided
when teachers assign CHC learners in group or individual work (Phuong-Mai et al.
2006). In other words, well-structured tasks with clear objectives and detailed
instructions need to be carefully considered in any kind of classroom activity.
Determining which kinds of teaching strategies should be used at each stage of
learning seems particularly important if teachers intend to promote positive inter-
actions between two groups of students who have different degrees of endurance
towards uncertainty. Purposeful grouping of students in cooperative work for
instance might be used to overcome problems with interaction due to uncertainty
avoidance.
As discussed above, cultural differences can cause some problems in multicul-
tural classrooms. This study has demonstrated that cultural variations have impli-
cations for teaching and learning which can be translated into the university
classroom context of Hong Kong. It has also noted that teachers seemed to pay less
attention to the students’ cultural backgrounds, so it is necessary for them to
observe the interaction of their students and their learning behaviour. To promote
quality teaching for quality learning, facilitating an interactive classroom environ-
ment is vital. In a culturally mixed classroom, teachers should be culturally sen-
sitive and aware of different learners’ needs so as to produce good learning
outcomes.
Understanding the cultural differences between students can be very meaningful
when reflecting on teachers’ instructional strategies and pedagogies (Parsons and
Brown 2002). Killen (2009) contends that “there is always room for improvement
no matter how well you teach” (p. 100). In the process of reflection-on-action it is
crucial for teachers to self-evaluate their teaching and the result of student
engagement. Teachers should take the initiative to modify teaching strategies for
multicultural classrooms because the selection of strategies should not be arbitrary.
Rather, it should be established on a rational basis, namely, maximising learning
outcomes of the sub-cultural groups of students rather than a dominant cultural
group of learners (Sit and Chen 2010). Given that teaching strategies might also
have some limitations regarding the extent to which students interact with each
other, the findings of this research indicated that peer communication could be
enhanced by teachers’ appropriate teaching strategies. Mediating strategies could at
least increase positive interaction between both ML and HK students. However, no
purposeful action was taken in selecting strategies to promote student-student
interaction. So as far as classroom interaction is concerned, teachers should not
only raise their cultural awareness and recognise the diversity of their students
rather than treat them homogenously, but also help them to adapt to the new
teaching and learning context. In this sense, developing inclusive teaching strate-
gies is vitally important for promoting positive interaction.
7.4 Inclusive Teaching Strategies to Enhance Language

Attainment and Class Interactions
If teaching strategies are purposefully used for enhancing positive interaction

between the students with various cultural backgrounds, then the isolated and static
teaching strategies listed in the taxonomy are not sufficient to meet the needs of
both ML and HK students. Cross-cultural interaction which takes the cultural
backgrounds of students into consideration will become the major concern when
selecting and using teaching strategies. The integrative features of teaching
strategies in practical use as revealed by this study provide a solid foundation for
the development of a dynamic, inclusive and comprehensive model for using
teaching strategies. This consideration means that existing teaching strategies would
not be denied or abandoned; instead, they would be used in a more rational and
elaborated way, in which they are interrelated, integrated and interdependent of
each other. A three-dimensional model, developed as a result of this research, is
therefore recommended for enhancing productive interaction in the multicultural
learning environment at Hong Kong’s universities.
In the first instance, the recommended model focuses on “preparing for inter-
action”. This is a pre-interaction stage whereby students come into the classroom
when class begins, waiting for the teacher to initiate the interaction of teaching and
learning. At this stage, it is vitally important that teachers, as learning facilitators,
are aware of their students’ cultural backgrounds and understand their diverse
needs, expectations and learning behaviours. In order to be inclusive, namely, no
cultural groups to be excluded, teachers must pay attention to the Instructional
Dimension of teaching strategies so that diverse students are able to follow
teachers’ instructions in teacher-student interaction and student-student interaction.
Secondly, when teaching and learning is initiated, teachers should shift their
focus to encouraging teacher-student interaction. This promotes interaction between
teachers and students during the transition from known knowledge to unknown
knowledge exploring. Teachers move from instruction to the provision of scaf-
folding students in learning and promoting their motivation. This Inspirational
Dimension helps teachers understand more about their students’ responses to their
teaching strategies in the context of existing cultural differences which in turn
enables teachers to organise and modify their teaching strategies in accordance with
their students’ needs.
Finally, great efforts should be made to promote student-student interaction in
order to achieve the optimal learning outcome. At this last stage, teachers act as a
cultural mediator to resolve cultural conflicts and support positive interactions
between students with various cultural backgrounds. In using teaching strategies at
this stage, teachers’ attention should be placed on Interactional Dimension. In
other words, with a clear purpose, teaching strategies used by teachers enable all
students, without any exclusion, to engage in active learning. These three dimen-
sions are interdependent and interrelated in a cohesive way. Below are more
detailed constructive recommendations:
7.4 Inclusive Teaching Strategies to Enhance Language … 109
(1) Instructional Dimension

At the pre-interaction stage, teachers must have a clear idea about what they are
going to teach in order to meet the needs and expectations of students with various
cultural backgrounds. By providing students with clear instructions, students are able to
prepare for the interactions that teachers expect. In the case of higher education in Hong
Kong, the different needs and expectations of HK and ML students need to be clearly
identified. Rather than assuming that students have acquired sufficient learning skills
such as analysing, summarising, and categorising learning materials, teachers should
devote time to delivering factual information to students directly. After guiding students
to work with information, teachers are in a position to ensure that students understand
the teaching content and learn to apply it to higher order thinking. Focusing on the
Instructional Dimension of teaching strategies is helpful for teachers; students clearly
know what they are going to be taught (Hattie 2009) and teachers themselves are aware
of how their students might react in the process of learning.
Expository teaching as a teacher-directed strategy in lectures or whole class
teaching is widely used in university classrooms. It is an effective strategy for
teaching both “large and small classes and with students from most cultures” (Killen
2009, p. 120). It provides students with didactic teaching. By this means, students are
able to learn basic concepts, facts, rules or theories needed in subsequent learning
(Baldwin et al. 2006). In other words, the teaching process is easier for teachers to
control while the learning process is systematic for students as information is highly
structured. This kind of strategy might be considered easier to implement than
student-centred strategies because classroom control is less difficult to monitor,
however, it is not the case (Kellough and Carjuzaa 2006). The effectiveness should be
established on teachers’ skills in use and well-organised lessons. To lead students to
produce optimal learning outcomes in active teaching, setting clear learning objec-
tives is essential. To achieve this, the following recommendations are made:
Recommendation One:
In preparing for positive interaction, teachers should provide students with
clear and explicit instructions that define clear learning objectives, supply
students with necessary knowledge and point out the direction of learning.
To make explicit goals efficiently, teachers firstly need to prepare advance
organisers to give students clear goals. Advance organisers play an important role in
helping teachers plan the content that they intend to cover and organise class
activities accordingly. They provide students with a brief “introductory statement of
a relationship or a broad concept encompassing the information to be presented”
(Parsons and Brown 2002, p. 130). They prepare students for making connections
with materials learnt or to be experienced, scaffolding students’ learning to meet the
goals of each lesson. The use of multi-media or visual aids to support teaching and
learning can also assist English language learners to experience visuals and share
how their visuals reflect the content. Although the students of this study were
advanced learners of discipline-based English study with a good command of
language skills, some still struggled to comprehend information involving com-
plicated vocabulary or technical jargon in large chunks. Teachers ought to use
ordinary language and explain the meaning of unfamiliar words to most students as
this can also build students’ vocabulary. In addition, it might be beneficial to pause
lecturing every 15 min (if necessary) to check whether students are keeping up with
the content.
Recommendation Two:
Clear and explicit instructions must be accompanied by powerful ques-
tions that check students’ comprehension, activate students’ critical thinking
and facilitate the interaction between teaching and learning.
Questioning, another useful instructional strategy for checking students’ com-
prehension (Brady 2006), can be used to facilitate expository teaching in large and
small classes. When facing many points to be covered in a lecture, students may
easily get bored or distracted in long continuous lecturing. Questioning initiated by
teachers can encourage student participation while also enhancing one-on-one
teacher-student interaction. As indicated earlier, questioning is most frequently used
with Chinese learners who are accustomed to being called on to respond to
teachers’ questions. This strategy is a good fit for their learning styles.
In addition, teachers need to ask questions related to the knowledge, experience
and abilities of students. In giving consideration to student diversity, teachers
should ensure that the wording of questions is clear and direct and that they are
aware of culturally sensitive topics because this might cause students to misun-
derstand each other. As echoed by Cole and Chan (1994), students will answer
pleasantly if they have the matchable knowledge and understanding, but will balk at
questions that do not match their experience. By assessing students’ achievement of
instructional objectives, teachers can keep students on track, clarify any points
that students may feel immediately confused by, and move ahead with more
information.
(2) Inspirational Dimension
At the stage of teacher-student interaction, teacher-centred teaching strategies
would be shifted to those with a student-centred focus. In order to promote moti-
vation in the process of learning, teachers need to shift their emphasis to teaching
strategies within the Inspirational Dimension. While effective delivery of
knowledge relies on good teacher presentation, it also depends on “student
involvement and interaction in contributing to discussion” (Brady 2006, p. 93) and
responding to mutual explanations. The Inspirational Dimension focuses on
assisting students to understand a problem analysed explicitly through listening,
observing and interpreting. In this stage, teachers’ teaching strategies will enhance
students’ understanding about the learnt knowledge so that they will be able to
apply their analysis.
Recommendation Three:
To facilitate positive interactions between teachers and students, teachers
should consider stimulating demonstrations with instructions and ques-
tions that raise students’ curiosity, motivate their desire to learn, and thus
actively interact with teachers in the process of teaching and learning.
Demonstration, a special teaching strategy, helps students to learn new concepts or

thinking skills by teachers’ modelling (Wragg and Brown 1993). Demonstration
involves a high degree of proactive student participation and collaboration (Brady
2006). Baldwin et al. (2006) explained that it “can be used by any teacher in any
subject and for a variety of purposes” (p. 206). This strategy can be conducted in many
different forms such as through a teacher’s verbal presentation or through role play
whether undertaken by a teacher or a group of students. In this study, for example, one
lecturer demonstrated how to conduct a student research project and compile an
accurate bibliography; another lecturer modelled different ways of practising
English-speaking activities for student teachers to learn how to motivate primary school
pupils; a lecturer asked students to consider error correction dialogues to understand the
underlying theories of second language acquisition. These activities can draw students’
attention and enable them to feel the conjunction between theory and practice.
In designing a demonstration, teachers need to make the learning objective clear
to students and organise the activities in a way that makes sense to them, ensuring
that students understand what is to follow. By demonstrating, teachers can either
elaborate the shown points or ask students to apply existing knowledge to analyse a
new situation. Both teachers and students will be actively involved during the
process. Along with this kind of activity, teachers can allocate time for more
questions and discussions.
Recommendation Four:
To promote positive interactions between teachers and students, teachers
should frequently organise whole-class discussions that fully engage students
in exchanging their opinions and comments in order to clear doubts and share
new ideas.
Moreover, whole-class discussion as a frequently used student-centred teaching
strategy can also build upon what students already know. It is a strategy that
“involves an exchange of ideas with active learning and participation by all con-
cerned” (Orlich et al. 2004, p. 268). Whole-class discussion requires students to
voice their ideas rather than simply listening or responding to teachers. Teachers
can scaffold student learning by questioning continuously throughout the discus-
sion. It fosters not only good teacher-student communication, but also meaningful
interaction. Students will be asked to focus on a topic, think critically and draw on
their previous knowledge. When they start opinion-sharing, they are also actively
listening or commenting on other students’ thoughts. This strategy can enhance
students’ analytical thinking skills.
Whole-class discussion can be conducted in different ways such as integrated as
part of a lesson or as a whole lesson. Discussion is often involved as “a complement
to other techniques of whole-class instruction” (Killen 2009, p. 147). In order to
facilitate students’ progress towards the learning objectives and reinforce what they
have studied in class, teachers can (a) pose a question for a short discussion, for
instance, “Will you use these different ways of practicing English speaking activ-
ities in teaching primary school students? Why?”; (b) ask students to think about
one or two reasons for a while; (c) encourage or invite students to exchange their
opinions orally to the class; or (d) summarise the issues that are important for
students. Teachers should also give students a certain amount of thinking time
rather than forcing them to respond immediately. Appropriate praise from teachers
is also a useful technique for encouragement.
Alternatively, teachers can assign students reading materials to study before
class and ask them about what they have studied in a whole-class situation to check
their understanding. Students are expected to share their thoughts with the class. In
the process of class discussion, it is ideal for teachers to cluster students in a circle
or semicircle because this creates a better atmosphere for students to feel close to
and talk with each other (Baldwin et al. 2006). Teachers need to address fairness in
the classroom to avoid “falling into the trap of interacting with only the stars, or
only those in the front of the room or on one side, or only the loudest and most
assertive” (Kellough and Carjuzaa 2006, p. 223). Teachers ought to be sure students
are listening and not merely focus on more verbal students. Teachers must be
cautious about this issue that might cause the relatively quiet students to feel
ignored as this might cause them to keep their distance not only from teachers but
also from their peers. Effectively using whole-class discussion can encourage many
students to speak up. In order to give every student equal opportunity to speak up
and increase their peer-to-peer interaction, having students work in small groups
offers a solution to resolve problems because taking turns should be an important
feature of group work (Warring and Huber-Warring 2006). Whole-class discussion
can inspire students’ enthusiasm to voice their views in front of teachers and peers.
(3) Interactional Dimension
At the final stage of enhancing student-student interaction, teachers should
prioritise the Interactional Dimension of teaching strategies that encourage social
interaction through working together. These group strategies have common fea-
tures: they require students to interact with one another in groups; they need stu-
dents to participate in self-directed activities interactively; and they develop
students’ communication skills through increased student collaboration. Particularly
in a multilingual and multicultural classroom, these strategies can provide oppor-
tunities for diverse learners to learn how to cooperate and construct knowledge
together and how to tolerate cultural difference and accept divergent opinions
(Brady 2006). Therefore, teachers should purposefully take advantage of group
strategies to promote student interaction. In the case of higher education in Hong
Kong, group activities should include both HK and ML students in the process of
learning.
Recommendation Five:
To promote positive interactions between students, teachers should pur-
posefully organise group work, which consists of pairs and mixed groups of
different sizes and focuses on learning tasks that bring together individual
effort through interaction.
Group work, no matter how large or small, is a desired strategy in higher
education because university highly values “the development of teamwork and
interpersonal skills” (Grajczonek 2009, p. 105). Grouping students to work together
to establish a sense of common identity is helpful for teaching diverse learners. Working
in groups, students can cooperatively achieve a desired learning goal through the joint
efforts of their learning group. In the learning process, students can establish relation-
ships with group members. The more they communicate, the fewer misconceptions they
have. It not only increases students’ proactive engagement and helps them develop
independence, but also encourages social interactive skills and enhances communica-
tion (Westwood 2008). Students can broaden their insights into other dynamic points of
view. By constructing knowledge interactively, students are able to learn from their
peers and benefit from the help of more capable students through scaffolding.
The purposeful selection and preparation of group work is necessary for stu-
dents to achieve the requisite educational goals for success in work and society.
The components of group work, such as social patterns and learning style, as
identifed by Kellough and Carjuzaa (2006), was also addressed in the current
research which took place in multilingual and multicultural university classrooms in
Hong Kong. To encourage students to interact, teachers must be culturally sensitive
and firstly get to know their diverse cultural backgrounds and learning styles. After
that, teachers can mix students up in groups because mandatory group work offers
opportunities for them to talk and enhance their rapport. When the homophily
principle limits their interactional pattern with dominant classmates, mandatory
mixed groups help lessen such a negative effect. It contributes to broadening the
connection among students and providing students with mixed styles of learning
perspectives. Importantly, teachers should give feedback or constructive comments
immediately when students finish tasks. As Westwood (2008) suggests, feedback
should come in the form of descriptive praise that not only indicates “well done”
but also specifies why the praise is given. Teachers should provide instant cor-
rection if students’ points are irrelevant or incorrect. In particular, supplying
accurate or reasonable information will help students with strong uncertainty
avoidance to minimise any misconception.
There are a number of ways of conducting group work. For example, group
work can be organised either in pairs or small groups depending on class size.
A good starting point is to have students work in pairs and then in small groups. It
especially helps those who are new to the class to gradually familiarise themselves
with each other. Teachers can pause and ask students to share ideas with
their partners or group members and finally with the whole class. This helps
teachers assess students’ comprehension efficiently. From a theoretical perspective,
the L2 interaction hypothesis describes that learner-interaction can facilitate
acquisition of the target language, as students are required to construct their own
sentences and reflect on their language use (Long 1996). L2 learners can correct
their errors and produce more accurate language output during communication
(Swain 1993). McDonough (2004), investigating how English language learners
interact when participating in pair and small group activities, found that they
demonstrated improved production of target language forms. From a pedagogical
perspective, pair and small group activities that involve L2 learner interactions give
students more time to speak in the target language and enhance autonomous
learning. For these reasons, this recommendation is suggested.
Recommendation Six:
To promote positive student interactions, teachers should employ cooper-
ative learning, which divides learning tasks for individuals within groups and
shares contributions made by individuals and groups through interaction.
Apart from group work, cooperative learning can be adopted as another useful
interactional activity for this stage. It is flexible enough to be used both inside and
outside class activities. Cooperative learning is an extension for varied interactive
instructional procedures of small groups in which students are required to be
positively interdependent and individually accountable to achieve a common goal
(Roger and Johnson 2002). In other words, students are responsible for their own
work. Learning activities are structured so that students need each other to
accomplish a target task. This helps students involved in group activities to
maintain their identities as a team and to increase their interpersonal relations
(Ahmad 2010). This also enables them to develop social skills including awareness
of others, decision making and negotiating skills.
As in-class activities, solving problems or exhibiting group work is often used
collaboratively. For instance, teachers can assign each group with a different des-
ignated problem, encourage students to assist one another to solve the problem, and
then ask students to report what they have discussed amongst other groups. This
kind of activity trains students’ systematic thinking and reasoning skills, and should
benefit their interaction. It is important for teachers to create a warm and supportive
learning environment for students. Guiding them to follow certain rules such as
listening carefully when others are talking and respecting others’ opinions is also
necessary. Marsh (2004) suggested that collaborative groups be heterogeneous
with regard to gender, capability and ethnicity. By this means, students are more
likely to accept one another and build coherent relationships.
When used as an outside-classroom activity, cooperative learning typically
involves self-assigning work roles to each individual student within a group (Brady
2006). Students are required to distribute the labour in order to work on group
projects or prepare for group presentations. Chauhan (2006) indicated that coop-
eration among group members makes students ultimately engage in interactive
social problem solving by using their learnt academic knowledge. This type of
group work usually is assessed based on the entire group performance (Marsh
2004). Studies reported that teachers tend to allocate the same mark to each group
member (Lejk and Wyvill 2001; Grajczonek 2009). Students are all in the same
boat and they either sink or swim. The current research findings have shown
that students found cooperation sometimes to be unfair because those students who
contributed less were also rewarded. Kilic and Cakan (2006) suggest that teachers
use peer assessment in group work that reflects group members’ participation in and
contribution to the group task before giving the final mark. As Kellough and
Carjuzaa (2006) advised, teachers must instruct students with skills for group
learning and assign a responsible role within a group. Thus, assigning a take-turn
group leader who will lead the group to fulfill their responsibilities will be espe-
cially helpful for learners.
In short, the Instructional Dimension, including expository teaching and

questioning, aims to create a non-threatening learning environment in which stu-
dents will obtain direct, basic, systematic information and skills. They can help
teachers guide students to build fundamental subject knowledge and develop their
understanding. The Inspiration Dimension, comprising demonstration and
whole-class discussion, will mediate students to shift from a knowledge-receiver
role to a knowledge-processer role. The Interactional Dimension which consists of
group work and cooperative learning will promote a learning context in which
students assist each other to learn during collaboration. Both group work and
cooperative learning can provide students with opportunities to interact with
each other through joint construction. A set of inclusive teaching strategies with six
recommendations are integrated as a “3-I” Module displayed in Fig. 7.4:
In Fig. 7.4, the arrowed circle reflects the three stages in selecting and using
teaching strategies. Initially, teachers’ emphasis should be placed on the
Instructional Dimension which prepares and facilitates the interaction of teaching
and learning. In the second stage, teachers should shift their attention to
the Inspirational Dimension which stimulates and encourages teacher-student
interaction in order to
Interactional
Instructional
Learning and Interacting
Fig. 7.4 The “3-I” module of

teaching strategies
Instructional
Learning and
Interacting
Inspirational
enhance students’ motivation for learning. Finally, teachers should focus on the
Interactional Dimension which promotes positive interactions between students
who have various cultural backgrounds with different needs and expectations.
7.5 Implications for the Higher Educational Institutions

in Hong Kong
Finally the implications of “3-I” Module for the higher educational institutions in
Hong Kong should be discussed. This study involved University A and
University B as the research sites. The proposed teaching module has common but
varied implications for each institution. The significance of setting up a series of
teaching strategies to promote positive interaction between HK local and ML
non-local students in the classrooms would be relevant for both sites. Based on the
institutions’ different attributes, with one being a comprehensive university
(University A) and the other a dedicated teacher-education (University B), the
teaching module should also have different impacts on teaching diverse learners
which is a widespread concern in the Hong Kong higher education sector.
As described earlier in previous chapters, University A is a comprehensive,
research-oriented institution in Hong Kong, which constantly emphasises the
importance of training students’ critical and independent thinking skills and strives
to match course teaching with students’ backgrounds, interests and learning
objectives. In this study, teachers at University A have shown greater preference for
research-directed activities to engage students in learning, but have paid less
attention to the use of purposeful teaching strategies that promote interaction
among diverse learners. They appear to attach less importance to students’ cultural
diversity, beliefs and cultural patterns. It is suggested that the more teachers
understand how students from different cultures behave and work, the more
effective they are at “learn[ing] more about the teaching dynamic within culturally
diverse classrooms” (Vaccarino 2009, p. 115). As a result, the proposed strategies
can provide teachers with insights into their pedagogical modifications in order to
maintain excellence.
The investigation of teaching at University A revealed that teachers pay more
attention to their academic competence than their professional teaching compe-
tence. As a result, the content, or ‘what to teach’, is their major concern. This
phenomenon probably exists in all the research-oriented universities in Hong Kong.
The proposed “3-I” Module will provide a base from which academics can seek
in-service professional development in research-oriented universities. In the context
of cooperative research across nations, intercultural competence is significantly
important to academics. Understanding students with different cultural backgrounds
is vital not only in classroom teaching but also in laboratory research, therefore
following the “3-I” Module and purposefully applying its inclusive teaching
strategies will be beneficial to the academics at these universities for both
7.5 Implications for the Higher Educational Institutions in Hong Kong 117
their teaching and research. In particular, more and more ML students are enrolling
in these research-oriented universities therefore classrooms are becoming more
culturally diverse. High quality teaching is also very important to these universities.
In this sense, the module proposed on the basis of this study is valuable and
significant to all research-intensive universities in Hong Kong.
On the other hand, University B is solely a professional teacher training institution
focusing on educating quality teachers. Teachers are expected to model teaching
approaches that are applicable to the student teachers’ own teaching contexts and to
conduct learning activities that encourage collaboration, reflection, critical thinking and
independence. This study has found that teachers at University B were more keen on
using a variety of strategies to facilitate students’ learning. Nevertheless, few teachers
have purposefully modelled the positive role of assisting interaction between students
with diverse cultural backgrounds at this stage. Rather, most of them simply disre-
garded this issue. This should not continue. Student teachers may encounter culturally
mixed classrooms when engaging in their teaching, therefore it is also necessary for
them to learn how to adapt what they have learnt to teach diverse students. Teachers
ought to take more initiative to be reflective modelling practitioners. The set of
inclusive strategies proposed in the “3-I” Module can help teachers re-consider how to
effectively promote collaboration among mixed groups of students.
In contrast with University A, the investigation of teaching at University B
revealed that teachers there did pay attention to their professional teaching com-
petence. Consequently, the process of how to teach was their major concern. This
tendency probably exists in the Faculty of Education or School of Educational
Studies at other institutions where in-service training programs are available for
existing teachers. The proposed “3-I” Module should provide a base for univer-
sities that offer in-service teacher training. In the multicultural context of teaching
and learning, understanding students with different cultural backgrounds is indis-
pensible not only for teachers in the tertiary sector but also for those in the teaching
force in both secondary and primary levels, therefore applying the “3-I” Module
and purposefully using the module’s inclusive teaching strategies will be beneficial
to all teachers in Hong Kong. In this sense, the module proposed on the basis of this
study will be valuable and significant to all universities in Hong Kong that
offer pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher training.
7.6 General Conclusion
In conclusion, this study has revealed a number of important facts about teaching
and learning in the social cultural context in Hong Kong. First of all, the increasing
number of diverse cultural background students, in particular students from
Mainland China, has significantly changed the student composition and classroom
environment in Hong Kong’s higher educational institutions. Consequently,
teachers cannot rely on their previous preference for teaching strategies if teaching
culturally mixed groups of students. It is clear that the current research has
yielded significant findings on the teaching strategies used in Hong Kong’s higher
educational institutions and their impact on the interactions between students from
different cultural backgrounds, which in this case, were from Hong Kong and
Mainland China. The “3-I” Module put forward by this research is a constructive
principle in theory that has been grounded in the Hong Kong higher education
sector. This theory has universal significance for improving the quality of teaching
and learning. No matter what country or discipline, teachers must be fully aware
that students might respond differently to teaching strategies due to their various
cultural backgrounds. Therefore, rational selection and integration of teaching
strategies is necessary to create productive interaction in multicultural classrooms.
Positive learning and a positive teaching environment serves as a platform for all
students from which they may achieve optimal academic results.
The teaching strategies used by teachers also received different responses from
students with various cultural values and educational perceptions. Selection of
teaching strategies should not be arbitrary but established on a rational basis and
used purposefully to maximise learning outcomes for all sub-cultural groups rather
than a dominant cultural group. By developing and discussing a new module that
consists of instructional, inspirational and interactional dimensions in using
teaching strategies, this study has answered the research question of how inclusive
teaching strategies can be used to enhance students’ language attainment and
positive interactions between diverse students in discipline-based English studies.
Although the new model needs to be implemented and evaluated through further
empirical research, this study is at least an attempt to enhance teaching and learning
in the higher education sector in Hong Kong. The research findings not only
identify the varieties of teachers’ strategies but also the frequency with which each
is used. The study focuses on the diverse cultural backgrounds of students within
Hong Kong’s higher education context and thus it provides insights from both
teachers and students on teaching and learning in general. It has the potential to
contribute to the development and innovation of higher education in Hong Kong
which aims to become a regional education hub while maintaining its long-held
reputation on the international stage.
There have been potential peer interaction obstacles between local and mainland
students due to their differing social, cultural and educational backgrounds. The
research has identified this trend and found that studies on the role of teachers in
facilitating peer interaction are limited in the current context of higher education in
Hong Kong. The researcher of this study thus attempted to investigate how
teaching strategies used in English Departments impact on enhancing peer inter-
actions in the university classroom context. Solutions that have been recommended
should help improve the multicultural learning environment not only in Hong Kong
but also at other universities with diverse student cohorts. The study not only makes
recommendations for curriculum design and teaching practices, but also has the
potential to impact on the quality of learning and teaching in universities other than
those in Hong Kong in the context of internationlisation.
Appendix A
Survey
I. Background
Please respond to the following items.
1. Name of University:
2. Discipline:
3. Title of Course you teach:
4. Level of Course:
⃞ Freshman ⃞ Second Year ⃞ Third Year ⃞ Fourth Year
5. Years of Teaching:
⃞ 1–3 years ⃞ 4–6 years
⃞ 7–9 years ⃞ More than 10 years
6. Gender:
⃞ Male ⃞ Female
7. Your Education Background /qualifications:
8. Are you an English native speaker?

⃞ Yes ⃞ No
9. Your role in this course:

⃞ Coordinating ⃞ Lecturing ⃞ Tutoring
Please respond to each of the following items by putting a “✓” or “✕” in the box
with the number that best matches your response.

English Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-4708-4
120 Appendix A: Survey
II. Teaching Strategies Used in Your Classroom
10. How often do you use the following teaching strategies in your classroom?
1 2 3 4 5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Very
often
(1) Direct instruction (direct ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
teaching or lecturing)
(2) Classroom discussion (small ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
class tutorials, whole-class
discussion etc.)
(3) Small group work (two or ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
more students work together
under a formally structured
learning environment)
(4) Cooperative learning (students ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
work on a task in groups of
two or more and they are
encouraged to help one
another to learn)
(5) Problem solving (students ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
focus on a task that requires
them to solve some realistic
problem through multiple
solutions individually or in
small groups)
(6) Student research (to answer a ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
research question, students
use suitable ways of gathering
information, interpret the
information they find, and
reach conclusions based on
the analysis of the
information)
(7) Performance activity ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
(one or more students play a
role in some activities such as
a scripted play, debating, role
play, classroom presentation
etc.)
(8) Others, in addition to those ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
identified above (please
describe)
Appendix A: Survey 121
III. Preferences for Strategies of Teaching
11. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
disagree agree
(1) I prefer direct instruction because it ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
is very effective for teaching
fundamental concepts or
knowledge of the subject. It allows
me to convey a large amount of
information in a relatively short
time
(2) I prefer classroom discussion ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
because it can involve students in
learning actively, motivate them to
express ideas, and help enhance
their social communication skills
such as listening, speaking politely,
and respecting others’ views
(3) I prefer small group work because ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
it can help students exchange ideas
from diverse perspectives, deepen
their understanding of course
content, improve their
communication skills, and increase
their active participation in learning
(4) I prefer co-operative learning ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
because it can encourage students
to achieve a desired task
cooperatively. It not only helps
students to share responsibilities for
their own learning, but it also
enhances the learning of other
group members
(5) I prefer problem solving because it ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
helps develop students’ critical
thinking skills, resourcefulness,
independence and self-confidence,
and their ability to apply
knowledge to some real-world
situations
(6) I prefer student research because it ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
can enable students to develop a
deep understanding of the subject
and develop their organisational
and time-management skills.
(continued)
(continued)
1 2 3 4 5
disagree agree
(7) I prefer performance activity ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
because it can engage students in
learning activities and provide them
with opportunities to develop their
communication skills
(8) Other teaching strategies that you ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
prefer. Please describe
IV. Difference Between Mainland and Hong Kong Students
12. From your teaching experience, do you think that there are differences in
attitudes and behaviours between Mainland and Hong Kong students?
⃞ Yes ⃞ No
(If you answered Yes, please proceed to the following statements. If you
answered No, please proceed to Question 13)
1 2 3 4 5
disagree agree
(1) Differences between Hong Kong ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
and Mainland Chinese students
emerge in the way they respond to
the teaching strategies used
emerge in their competence in the
English language
emerge in their academic
performance
emerge in their attitude towards
learning and their desire to interact
with other students
emerge in their attitudes towards
teachers.
(continued)
Appendix A: Survey 123
(continued)
1 2 3 4 5
disagree agree
Please expand on any of these
points, or other ways in which you
think Mainland and Hong Kong
students differ in your classroom
V. Classroom Interaction-How Classes are Conducted
13. Considering what happens in your classroom, please indicate your agreement or
disagreement with the following statements.
1 2 3 4 5
disagree agree
(1) Lecturing is used as a ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
major means of
communication with
students in my classroom
(2) Students with different ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
cultural backgrounds are
encouraged to work
together to generate ideas
or opinions
(3) Both Mainland and Hong ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
Kong students participate
in class activities by
raising questions and
expressing their ideas
(4) Mainland and Hong ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
Kong students interact
and cooperate well in
most collaborative
classroom activities
(5) When Mainland students ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
and Hong Kong students
meet each other in class,
they communicate less
than when they are with
other Mainland or Hong
Kong students
14. What teaching strategies do you think are effective to promote productive
classroom interaction?
1 2 3 4 5
disagree agree
(1) Direct instruction ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
(2) Classroom discussion ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
(3) Small group work ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
(4) Cooperative learning ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
(5) Problem solving ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
(6) Student research ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
(7) Performance activity ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
(8) Others in addition to ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
those identified above
(please describe)
15. What suggestions do you have to improve interaction between the two groups
of students?
Appendix B
Clasroom Observation Maunal
I. Background Information
Name of University ____________________________________________
Name of Teacher ______________________________________________
Topic of Subject ______________________________________________
Student Number _________________Grade Level __________________
Observer _______________________ Date of Observation _____________
Start time ______________________ End time _______________________
II. Observations
Codes for Types of Teaching Strategies
DI: direct instruction
CD: classroom discussion
SGW: small group work
CL: cooperative learning
PS: problem solving
SR: student research
PA: performance activity
OTH other: please describe

126 Appendix B: Clasroom Observation Maunal
1. Teacher Data
(a) Class Observation Record of Identifying Major Teaching Strategies Used
Through English Teaching Activities
Time Teaching Activities Teaching Strategies Used Remark

Appendix B: Clasroom Observation Maunal 127
(b) Frequency of Using Each Teaching Strategy

1 2 3 4 5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Very often (>7
(0 (1 or 2 (3 or 4 (5 or 6 times)
times) times) times) times)
DI ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
CD ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
SGW ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
CL ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
PS ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
SR ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
PA ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
OTH (please ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
describe)
⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
2. Student Data
(a) Classroom Observation Record of Student Engagement in Each Teaching
Strategy
1 2 3 4 5
No Low Medium High Very high
engagement engagement engagement engagement engagement
DI ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
CD ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
SGW ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
CL ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
PS ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
SR ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
PA ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
OTH (please ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
describe)
128 Appendix B: Clasroom Observation Maunal
(b) Student Reactions towards Teaching Strategies in General

1 2 3 4 5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
(1) Engagement with direct ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
instruction: Most students
appeared actively engaged
in deductive teaching
activities that transmitted
information and skills from
teacher to student
(2) Engagement with classroom ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
discussion: Most students
appeared actively involved
in teaching activities that
provoked discussion and
critical thinking
(3) Engagement with group ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
discussion, cooperative
learning and problem
solving: Most students
appeared to actively share
ideas in group discussion to
resolve a problem
cooperatively
(4) Engagement with individual ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
work: Most students
preferred working
individually and conducted
student research activities
(5) Engagement with ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
performance of reporting
group work: Most students
appeared confident in
reporting their group work
cooperatively
3. Classroom Interaction Including Teacher-Student and Student-Student

Interactions
1 2 3 4 5
(1) The teacher encouraged ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
students to actively
participate in the classroom
activities
(continued)
Appendix B: Clasroom Observation Maunal 129
(continued)
1 2 3 4 5
(2) The teacher used students’ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
multicultural backgrounds
in organizing activities
(3) The teacher worked as a ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
resource person supporting
and enhancing students’
investigation
(4) The teacher worked as a ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
facilitator scaffolding
students and promoting
classroom interaction
(5) In general, the ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
teacher-student interactions
appeared cohesive and
productive
(6) Students were involved in ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
the communication of
sharing ideas with each
other when working
together
(7) It appeared that most ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
students preferred to work
in neighboring groups
rather than being assigned
by the teacher
(8) There was less interaction ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
among students who were
assigned to be in mixed
groups that comprised local
Hong Kong students and
Mainland Chinese students
(9) Different dialects used by ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
Hong Kong students and
Mainland students affected
their interaction during
group discussion
(10) In general, there was a high ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞ ⃞
proportion of student talk
and positive interaction
among students
Appendix C
Interview Protocol
Start time of interview _______________ End time of interview______________

Date of interview ___________________Venue of interview
________________
Interviewer ________________________ Participant
______________________
I. General Introduction
• Thank the interviewee for agreeing to the interview.
• The primary focus of the interview is the participant’s experience of
undergraduate studies in a university in Hong Kong and his/her perspectives
of effective teaching strategies.
• Ask the interviewee if s/he has any queries before interview begins.
II. Experience of Studying in a University in Hong Kong

1. How do you feel about doing higher education in Hong Kong?
Probe (sub-questions related to each participant’s background), for example:
• How long have you studied here?
• Did you (Mainland students) take any pre-training courses after National
Examination and before studying in Hong Kong?
• Was it easy for you to get used to such a new learning environment?
• How do you like it?
2. What do you think of direct instruction used as a teaching strategy?
Probe, for example:
• Do you like it or dislike it? Why?
3. What do you think of classroom discussion used as a teaching strategy?
Probe, for example:

132 Appendix C: Interview Protocol
4. What do you think of small group work used as a teaching strategy?

Probe, for example:
5. What do you think of cooperative learning used as a teaching strategy?
Probe, for example:
6. What do you think of problem solving used as a teaching strategy?
Probe, for example:
7. What do you think of student research used as a teaching strategy?
Probe, for example:
8. What do you think of performance activities used as a teaching strategy?
Probe, for example:
III. English Competence

9. How would you rate your competence in English?
Probe, for example:
• Do you have any difficulties studying in the institutions where English is
used as the medium of instruction? What are they?
• Do you get used to learning subjects in English?
IV. Views on Peer to Peer Interaction

10. How do you feel about communication with your Mainland/Hong Kong
counterparts when learning in a university classroom?
Probe (sub-questions related to each participant’s background), for
example:
• How do you feel about the Mainland/Hong Kong classmates in general?
• Do you enjoy peer relationships with them?
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 133
11. In what ways do you usually interact with each other in class?
Probe, for example:
• Do you usually interact with each other when doing class activities?
What activities?
• What language do you usually speak to each other?
12. What kind of difficulties have you experienced in communicating with each
other?
Probe, for example:
• What caused it?
• How do you usually cope with it?
13. What kind of things do you think you can learn from each other?
14. Would you be willing to make any adjustments in such a learning envi-
ronment with students from different cultural backgrounds?
Probe, for example:
• How? In what aspect?
V. Closing
• Thank the interviewee for his/her time and participation.
• Ask the participant if s/he has any questions.
References
Agelasto, M. (1998). Educational disengagement: Undermining academic quality at a Chinese

university. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.agelastos.com/disengagement/.
Ahmad, F. (2010). Effect of cooperative learning on students’ achievement at elementary level.
The International Journal of Learning, 17(3), 127–141.
Allison, D., Berry, V., & Lewkowicz, J. (1995). Reading-writing connections in EAP classes: A
content analysis of written summaries produced under three mediating conditions. RELC
Journal, 26(2), 25–43.
Altbach, P. G., & Postiglione, G. (2006). Can Hong Kong keep its lead in the brain race?
International Higher Education, 45, 6–24.
Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros
and cons. System, 21, 471–480.
Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, method and technique. English Language Teaching, 17, 63–67.
Artz, A. F., & Newman, C. M. (1990). Cooperative learning. Mathematics Teacher, 83, 448–449.
Bakx, A. W. E. A., Van Der Sanden, J. M. M., Sijtsma, K., Croon, M. A., & Vermetten, Y. J. M.
(2006). The role of students’ personality characteristics, self-perceived competence and
learning conceptions in the acquisition and development of social communicative competence:
A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 51, 71–104.
Baldwin, M., Keating, J., & Bachman, K. (2006). Teaching in secondary schools: Meeting the
challenges of today’s adolescents. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Teaching students from overseas: A brief guide forlecturers and
supervisors. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Barro, R. J. (1998). Economic viewpoint: The East Asian tigers have plenty to roar about. Business
week. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Inc.
Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic
profession (pp. 271–303). Berkeley: UC Press.
Berry, V., & Lewkowicz, J. (2000). Exit tests: Is there an alternative? Hong Kong Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 19–49.
Bhatia, V., & Candlin, C. (Eds.). (2001). Teaching English to meet the needs of business education
in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Centre for English Language Education and Communication
Research, Department of English, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Biggs, J. B. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong:
Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6, 27–39.
Bodycott, P., & Lai, A. (2012). The influence and implications of Chinese culture in the decision
to undertake cross-border higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16,
252–270.
Bolton, K. (2000). The sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong English.
World Englishes, 19(3), 265–285.
Bolton, K., & Luke, K. K. (1999). The social survey of languages in the 1980’s. Hong Kong:
Social Sciences Research Centre, the University of Hong Kong.

136 References
Boyle, J. (1995). Hong Kong’s educational systems: English or Chinese? Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 8(3), 291–304.
Brady, L. (2006). Collaborative learning in action. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson, Prentice
Hall.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain
(Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 1–
20). Harlow, England: Pearson.
Carlson, W. (1999). A case method for teaching statistics. Journal of Economic Education, 30(1),
52–58.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed.). Boston,
Mass: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Centre for Applied English Studies (CAES)–HKU. (2017). Undergraduate courses. Retrieved
January 11, 2017, from https://caes.hku.hk/home/courses/undergraduate-courses/.
Centre for English and Additional Languages (CEAL)–LU. (2017). Courses offered by the
ELEAC. Retrieved January 11, 2017, from https://www.ln.edu.hk/reg/info/prospectus/6_11.
html.
Centre for Language Education (CLE)-HKUST. (2017). English for university studies I. Retrieved
January 11, 2017, from http://cle.ust.hk/courses/lang1002a/.
Centre for Language in Education (CLE)–EdUHK. (2017). English enhancement courses.
Retrieved January 11, 2017, from http://www.eduhk.hk/cle/en/eng/engcourselist/.
Chan, J. (1991). Choice of medium of instruction: A challenge for the school in the 90’s. New
Horizons, 32, 11–17.
Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner—a question of style. Education & Training, 41(6/7), 294–
304.
Chan, Y.-Y. G., & Watkins, D. (1994). Classroom environment and approaches to learning: An
investigation of the actual and preferred perceptions of Hong Kong secondary school students.
Instructional Science, 22, 233–246.
Chan, Y. M., & Chan, M. S. (2004). Self-esteem: A comparison between Hong Kong Children and
Newly arrived Chinese children. Pro Quest Education Journals, 72, 18–31.
Chase, M. (1998). English language teaching at CUHK: Some reflections on professional identity.
Hong Kong Journals Online, 5, 97–101.
Chauhan, S. S. (2006). Innovations in teaching-learning process. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing
House Ltd.
Chen, C., & Zhang, Y. (1998). A perspective on the college English teaching syllabus in China.
TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 15(2), 69–75.
Chen, S., & Sit, H. W. (2009). A comparative study on the responses by international students
towards the teaching strategies used in an Australian university. The International Journal of
Learning, 16(9), 495–504.
Cheng, K. (2016). 76% of non-local university students are from mainland; Government auditor
urges more diversity. Hong Kong Free Press. Retrieved November 30, 2016, from https://
www.hongkongfp.com/2016/11/23/76-of-non-local-university-students-are-from-mainland-
govt-auditor-urges-more-diversity/.
Cheung, P. C., Conger, A. J., Hau, K. T., Lew, W. J. F., & Lau, S. (1992). Development of the
multi-trait personality inventory: Comparison among four Chinese populations. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 59(3), 528–551.
Chinese Government. (1992). The basic law of the Hong Kong special administrative region of the
people’s Republic of China. Hong Kong: One Country, Two Systems Economic Research
Institute.
References 137
City University of Hong Kong. (2016). Undergraduate catalogue 2015/16: Degree requirements.
Retrieved December 22, 2016, from http://www.cityu.edu.hk/ug/201516/catalogue/catalogue_
UC.htm?page=B/degree_requirement.htm.
Cole, P. G., & Chan, K. S. (1994). Teaching principles and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice
Hall.
Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the language classroom. Cultural
and the Language Classroom, 132, 54–65.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Curriculum Development Council. (1999). Syllabus for English langua (secondary 1–5). Hong
Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.
Dahlin, B., & Watkins, D. A. (2000). The role of repetition in the processes of memorising and
understanding: A comparison of the views of German and Chinese secondary school students
in Hong Kong. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 65–84.
Detaramani, C., & Chan, I. S. I. (1999). Learners’ needs, attitudes and motivation towards the
self-access mode of language learning. RELC Journal, 30(1), 124–147.
Education Bureau (EDB). (2007). Legislative council brief: Developing Hong Kong as a regional
education hub.
Education Bureau (EDB). (2016). Hong Kong: The Facts-Education. Retrieved February 10, 2017,
from http://www.edb.gov.hk/mobile/en/about-edb/publications-stat/hk_thefacts_education/
index.html.
Education Commission. (1994). Report of the working group on language proficiency. Hong
Kong: Government Printer.
Education Commission. (1995). Report No. 6 (Part 1: Main report) Enhancing language
proficiency. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Education Commission. (1997). Medium of instruction: Guidance for secondary schools. Hong
Education Commission. (2003). Working group on review of secondary school places allocation
and medium of instruction for secondary schools. Hong Kong.
EIC. (2010). Employment Rate in Hong Kong: Most of mainland students’ ideal careers in Hong
Kong.
Ellis, L. (1997). Learning there, learning here: Is there an Asian approach to learning. Unpublished
paper.
Ellis, L. A. (2005). Balancing approaches: Revisiting the educational psychology research on
teaching students with learning difficulties. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational
Research.
English Language Centre (ELTC)–CityU. (2017). ELC program content. Retrieved January 11,
2017, from http://www.cityu.edu.hk/elc/courses_content.html.
English Language Centre (ELC)–PolyU. (2017). Subject information. Retrieved January 11, 2017,
from https://elc.polyu.edu.hk/subjects/#DSR.
English Language Teaching Unit (ELTC)-CUHK. (2016). University requirements. Retrieved
January 10, 2017, from http://eltu.cuhk.edu.hk/curriculum/university-core-requirements/.
Evans, S. (2000). Hong Kong’s new English language policy in education. World Englishes, 19
(2), 185–204.
Evans, S., & Green, C. (2003). The use of English by Chinese professionals in post-1997 Hong
Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(5), 386–412.
138 References
Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary students.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 3–17.
Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
Flowerdew, J. (1998). English in Hong Kong and the reversion to Chinese sovereignty.
Perspectives: Working Papers of the English Department, City University of Hong Kong IO
(pp. 46–89).
Flowerdew, L. (2003). A combined corpus and systemic-functional analysis of the problem–
solution pattern in a student and professional corpus of technical writing. TESOL Quarterly, 37
(3), 489–511.
Foster, P. (1996). Observing schools: A methodological guide. London: Paul Chapman.
Fowler, F. J. (2002). Survey research method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gao, L., & Watkins, D. A. (2002). Conceptions of teaching held by school science teachers in
P. R. China: Identification and cross-cultural comparisons. International Journal of Science
Education, 24(1), 61–79.
Gao, X. (2007). Language learning experiences and learning strategy research: Voices of a
mainland Chinese student in Hong Kong. Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching, 1
(2), 193–207.
Gao, X. S. (2016). To stay or not to stay in Hong Kong: An examination of Mainland Chinese
undergraduates’ after-graduation plans. Internationalization of Higher Education, 28, 185–
203.
Gao, X., & Trent, J. (2009). Understanding mainland Chinese students’ motivations for choosing
teacher education programmes in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(2), 145–
159.
Gao, X., Leung, P. P., & Trent, J. (2010). Chinese teachers’ views on the increasing use of
Putonghua as a medium of instruction in Hong Kong schools. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 35(8), 79–103.
Gieve, S., & Clark, R. (2005). The Chinese approach to learning: Cultural trait or situated
response? System, 33(2), 261–276.
Grajczonek, J. (2009). Exploring students’ perceptions of peer assessment in group work for
allocation of individual marks in higher education. The International Journal of Learning, 16
(3), 105–125.
Gullason, E. T. (2009). A compilation and synthesis of effective teaching strategies in the
economics discipline. The Journal of Business and Economics Studies, 15(2), 83–97.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1999). Language across the curriculum: With special reference to
Chinese-medium secondary education. Open lecture at the University of Hong Kong, February
27, 1999.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Harré, R., & Moghaddam, F. (2003). Introduction: The self and others in traditional psychology
and in positioning theory. In R. Harré & F. Moghaddam (Eds.), The self and others (pp. 1–11).
Westport: Praeger.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. London:
Routledge.
Hirvela, A. (1991). Footing the English bill in Hong Kong: Language politics and linguistic
schizophrenia. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 2, 117–137.
Hmelo-Siver, C., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in
problem-based and inquiry learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Ho, A. S. P., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving
teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher
Education, 42, 143–169.
Ho, W. Y. (2008). Code choice: from bilingualism to trilingualism. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31(2), 1–17.
References 139
Hofstede, G. (1997), Promoting a European dimension of intercultural learning– developing

school materials, EFIL Seminars.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and
organisations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,
Revised and expanded (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hong Kong Government. (1974). Secondary education in Hong Kong in the next decade. Hong
Hong Kong Government. (2006). Economic summit on “China’s 11th Five-Year Plan and the
Development of Hong Kong”. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Horak, S. (2010). Does the individual’s culture play a role in the value perception of members of
small multinational teams? An empirical analysis based on Hofstede’s cultural dimension
model. Business and Economics Journal, 2010, 1–8.
Horin, A. (2007). Hard work beats self-love. July 21, The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved
March 9, 2016, from http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/hard-work-beats-selflove/2007/07/
20/1184560038612.html.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howlett, B. (Ed.). (1997). Hong Kong—a new era. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Hyland, K. (1997). Is EAP necessary? A survey of Hong Kong undergraduates. Asian Journal of
English Language Teaching, 7, 77–99.
Inoue, Y. (2013). Secondary education in Hong Kong. Aisa Pacific: World Education News &
Reviews. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from http://wenr.wes.org/2013/01/wenr-
januaryfebruary-2013-hong-kong-secondary-education.
Jackson, J. (2002). The L2 case discussion in business: An ethnographic investigation.
In J. Flowerdew (Eds.), Academic discourse (pp. 268–286). New York: Longman.
Jackson, J. (2005). An inter-University, cross-disciplinary analysis of Business education:
Perceptions of business faculty in Hong Kong. Science Direct, 24, 293–306.
Jian, H. L., Sandnes, F. E., Huang, Y. P., Huang, Y. M., & Hagen, S. (2010). Toward harmonious
East-West educational partnerships: A study of cultural differences between Taiwanese and
Norwegian engineering students (pp. 1–14). Asia Pacific Education Review: Online
Publication.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive
and individualistic learning. USA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, R. K. (1994). Critical review of literature on language in education in Hong Kong. In
Hong Kong Education Commission: Education Commission Report No. 6 Part 2 (Annexes).
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse
learners. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.
Kayrooz, C., & Trevitt, C. (2005). Research in organizations and communities: Tales from the
real world. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Kee, J., & Wong, K. (2004). Are the learning styles of Asian international students cultually or
contextually based? International Education Journal, 4(4), 154–166.
Kellough, R. D., & Carjuzaa, J. (2006). Teaching in the middle and secondary schools (8th ed.).
Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions
of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275.
Kember, D. (2001). Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a factor
in adjusting to study. Higher Education, 26(2), 21–205.
Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1991). A challenge to the anecdotal stereotype of the Asian student.
Studies in Higher Education, 16, 117–128.
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to
conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5), 469–490.
140 References
Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult Hong
Kong-Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5), 430–455.
Kilic, G. B., & Cakan, M. (2006). The analysis of the impact of individual weighting factor on
individual scores. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(6), 639–654.
Killen, R. (1998). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice (2nd ed.).
Katoomba, N.S.W.: Social Science Press.
Killen, R. (2003). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice (3rd ed.).
Katoomba, N.S.W.: Social Science Press.
Killen, R. (2007). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice (4th ed.).
South Melbourne, Vic.: Thomson Social Science Press.
Killen, R. (2009). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice (5th ed.).
South Melbourne, Vic.: Cengage Learning.
Kirkpatrick, A., & Chau, M. (2008). One country, two Systems, three Languages: A proposal for
teaching Cantonese, Putonghua and English in Hong Kong’s schools. Asian Englishes: An
International Journal of the Sociolinguistics of English in Asia/Pacific, 11(2), 32–45.
Klassen, J., Detaramani, C., Lui, E., Patri, M., & Wu, J. (1998). Does self-access language learning
at the tertiary level really work? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8, 55–80.
Kwo, O. (1987). Bilingual secondary education in Hong Kong: What are the options? Working
Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 10 (pp. 1–10).
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximizing learning potential in the communicative classroom. ELT
Journal, 76(1), 41–49.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2005). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Lai, F. (2016). Surge in Hong Kong students applying to mainland universities contrasts sharply
with anti-China sentiment. South China Morning Post. Retrieved March 14, 2017, from http://
www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/article/2003819/number-hong-kong-
students-applying-mainland-china.
Lai, K., Chan, K., Ko, K., & So, K. (2005). Teaching as a career: A perspective from Hong Kong
senior secondary students. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31, 153–168.
Lai, M. L. (2001). Hong Kong students’ attitudes towards Cantonese, Putonghua and English after
the change of sovereignty. Journal of Mulitlingual and Multicultural Development, 22(2), 112–
133.
Lam, A. (2004). Welcome speech by Dr Alice Lam, Chairman of University Grants Committee.
Retrieved May 3, 2016, from http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/publication/speech/2004/
digbymemoriallecture.htm.
Lam, A. (2007). Too much self esteem spoils your child. July 6, New America Media. Retrieved
March 9, 2016, from http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=
96855813a910dda0453a6675c0d934f6.
Lam, M. H. (2006). Reciprocal adjustment by host and sojourning groups: Mainland Chinese
students in Hong Kong. In M. Byram & A. W. Feng (Eds.), Living and studying aboard:
Research and Practice (pp. 91–108). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lau, C. K. (2009). Hong Kong’s English teaching conundrum. Hong Kong Journal (HKJ), 14, 1–
9.
Legislative Council. (2008). Panel on education. Legislative Council, Hong Kong. Retrieved
October 18, 2015, from http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ed/minutes/
ed080717.pdf.
Legislative Council. (2009). Panel on education: Fine-tuning the medium of instruction for
secondary schools. Legislative Council, Hong Kong. Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://
www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_7373/ed0115cb2-623-1-e.pdf.
Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). The effect of self assessment with peer assessment of contributions
to a group project: A quantitative study of secret and agreed assessments. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 551–561.
References 141
Leung, M. Y., Li, J. Y., Fang, Z., Lu, X. H., & Lu, M. (2006). Learning approaches of construction
engineering students: A comparative study between Hong Kong and Mainland China. Journal
for Education in the Built Environment, 1(1), 112–131.
Li, J. (2009). Learning to self-perfect: Chinese beliefs about learning. In K. K. Chan & N. Rao.
(Eds.), Revising the Chinese learner: Changing contexts, changing education (pp. 35–69).
Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Li, M. (2006). Cross-border higher education of mainland Chinese students: Hong Kong and
Macao in a globalizing market. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. The University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong.
Li, M., & Bray, M. (2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push-pull factors
and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education,
53, 791–818.
Li, S., & Thao, L. (2006, 27 Novmember–1 December). Discourses of Chinese culture: A tale of
many cities. Paper presented at the AARE Annual conference, Adelaide.
Lin, A. M. Y. (1997). Bilingual education in Hong Kong. In J. Cummins & D. Corson (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language and Education (Vol. 5, pp. 281–289). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Littlewood, W. (2001). The use of collaborative interaction techniques in teaching EAP. HKBU
Papers in Applied Language Studies, 6, 81–101.
Littlewood, W., & Liu, N. F. (1996). Hong Kong students and their English. Hong Kong:
Macmillan.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second languag acquisitio. In W.
Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Language Acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 413–468)., Second
Language Acquisition New York: Academic Press.
Lu, D. (2002). English Medium Teaching at Crisis: Towards Bilingual Education in Hong Kong.
GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 2(1), 1–16.
Lui, J. (2002). Negotiating silence in American classrooms: Three Chinese cases. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 2(1), 37–53.
Liu, N. F., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in
classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371–384.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counter-balanced
approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ma, D. (2008). Hong Kong undergraduate education reform under “3+3+4”. Hong Kong council
for accreditation of academic and vocational qualifications.
Malhotra, N. K. (1993). Marketing research: An applied orientation. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Inc.
Marsh, C. (2004). Becoming a teacher (3rd ed.). Sydney: Pearson.
Marsh, H., Hau, K. T., & Kong, C. K. (2000). Late immersion and language of instruction in Hong
Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and nonlanguage subjects. Harvard
Educational Review, 70, 302–350.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
May, T. (1997). Social research: Issues, methods and process (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a
Thai EFL context. Elsevier, 32, 207–224.
McKay, J & Kember, D. (1997). Spoon feeding leads to regurgitation: A better diet can result in
more digestible learning outcomes. Higher Education Research and Development, 16(1), 55–
67.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social
networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
142 References
Miller, L. (2007). Issues in lecturing in a second language: lecturer’s behaviour and students’
perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 747–760.
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth interviewing (2nd ed).
Longman.
Ministry of Education (MoE), P. R. China. (2016). Outbound and inbound international students.
Retrieved November 25, 2016, from https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/Research-
Snapshots/Documents/China_outbound%20and%20inbound%20tertiary%20students.pdf.
Mok, K. H. (2005). The quest for world class university: Quality assurance and international
benchmarking in Hong Kong. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 277–304.
Mok, K. H., & Lee, H. H. (2000). Globalization or re-colonization: Higher education reforms in
Hong Kong. Higher Education Policy, 13(4), 361–377.
Mok, M. M. C., & Cheng Y. C. (2002). New teacher education in Hong Kong: Innovative
implementations in support of paradigm shift. Invited Paper presented to Round
Table “Teacher Forum in Selected Countries” at the Second International Forum on
Education Reform: Key Factors in Implementation 2002, organized by the Office of the
National Education Commission of Thailand in collaboration with UNESCO, SEAMEO,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Mok, K. H., & Tan, J. (2004). Globalization and marketization in education: A comparative
analysis of Hong Kong and Singapore. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Murry, K., & Macdonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers’ conceptions of teaching
and their claimed educational practices. Higher Education, 33, 331–349.
Norman, G. (2009). Teaching basic science to optimize transfer. Medical Teacher, 31(9), 807–811.
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41, 136–145.
Nunan, D. (2000). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers (3rd ed.). Edinburgh:
Pearson Education Limited.
O’Brien, T. (1993). Developing a model for an effective ESP for Engineering course. In N. Bird,
J. Harris, & M. Ingham (Eds.), Language and content (pp. 331–344). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Government Education Department, Institute of Language in Education.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Education at a
glance. OECD indicators 2015. Retrieved December 22, 2016, from http://download.ei-ie.org/
Docs/WebDepot/EaG2015_EN.pdf.
O’Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.
Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., & Brown, A. H. (2004). Teaching
strategies: A guide to effective instruction (7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Oxford, R., Hollaway, M., & Horton-Murillo, D. (1992). Language learning styles: research and
practical considerations for teaching in the multicultural ESL/EFL classroom. System, 20(4),
439–456.
Parsons, R. D., & Brown, K. S. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action researcher.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 179–200.
Peng, L. L. (2005). The English language in Hong Kong: Review and prospect. US-China
Education Review, 2(9), 76–81.
Petersen, C. J., & Currie, J. (2008). Higher Education Restructuring and Academic Freedom in
Hong Kong. Policy Futures in Education, 6(5), 589–600.
Peterson, P. & Walberg, H. (Eds.). (1979). Research on teaching: Concepts, findings and
implictions. Berkeley: McCutchan.
Peytcheva, R. (2000). The role of information and communication technologies for the innovation
of teaching strategies. School of Education & Allied Prodessions, University of Dayton.
Phuong-Mai, N., Terouwb, C., & Pilota, A. (2006). Culturally appropriate pedagogy: The case of
group learning in a Confucian heritage culture context. Intercultural Education, 17(1), 1–19.
Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget’s theory. In W. Kesson & P. Mussen (Eds.), History, theory, and methods
(Vol. 1, pp. 103–128). New York: Wiley.
References 143
Pierson, H. (1992). Cantonese, English, or Putonghua-unresolved communicative issue in Hong

Kong’s future. In G. A. Postiglione, Y. M. Leung (Eds.), Education and society in Hong Kong:
Toward one country and two systems. (pp. 183–202). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
Postiglione, G. A. (1998). Maintaining global engagement in the face of national integration in
Hong Kong. Comparative Education Review, 42(1), 30–45.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the ‘Approaches to teaching
inventory’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 405–419.
Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. SAGE: Los Angeles; London.
Qiu, L. Y., & Lin, J. (2010). Business largely attracts Mainland students coming to Hong Kong for
employment or education. China News. Retrieved June 3, 2015, from http://news.jyb.cn/china/
gat/201002/t20100203_339279.html.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Roger, T. & Johnson, D. W. (2002). An overview of cooperative learning. Retrieved October 3,
2015, from http://www.clcrc.com/pages/overviewpaper.html.
Salili, F. (1996). Accepting personal responsibility for learning. In D. A. B. Watkins, J. B (Eds.),
The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences (pp. 85–105). Hong
Kong & Melbourne: CERC & ACER.
Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story. Higher
Education Research & Development, 6, 121–134.
Senior, R., & Xu, Z. (2001). East meet West: Language teachers from different contexts discover
similar goals. English Australian Journal, 19(1), 65–74.
Sinn, A. (2010). Comparison of the Scottish education system with that of Hong Kong. NETTER,
Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Retrieved February 15, 2017,
from http://plate.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/netter/2010/02/13/comparison-of-the-scottish-education-
system-with-that-of-hong-kong/.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). Science learning in special education: The case for
constructed versus instructed learning. Exceptionality, 15(2), 57–74.
Shive, G. (2005). Hong Kong Universities Welcoming Mainland Students. International
Educator, 14(5), 12–16.
Siegel, L., Knell, E., Pei, M., Qiang, H. Y., Zhao, W., & Zhao, L. (2009). Teaching English to
Chinese-speaking children. In K. K. Chan & N. Rao. (Eds)., Revising the Chinese learner:
Changing contexts, changing education (pp. 233–254). Comparative Education Research
Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Sit, H. W., & Chen, S. (2010). The teaching strategies used for advanced English studies in
English language teacher education. The International Journal of Learning, 17, 1–16.
Sit, H. W. (2012). Teaching strategies for enhancing peer interaction among diverse learners.
Higher Education Studies, 2, 31–39.
Sit, H. W. (2013a). A Case study: The teaching strategies used for discipline-based study in
English. The International journal of literacies, 19, 1–19.
Sit, H. W. (2013b). An investigation of how lecturers’ teaching strategies promote classroom
interaction. US-China Education Review B, 3, 162–171.
Skyrme, G. (2007). Entering the University: The differentiated experience of two Chinese
international students in a New Zealand University. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 357–
372.
Smith, S. N. (2001). Approaches to study of three Chinese national groups. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71(3), 429–441.
Snider, P. D. (2005, 6th–9th July). Better meeting the counselling needs of ethnic Chinese
international students: Exploring the relationship between cultural backgrounds and
counselling expectations. Paper presented at the higher education in a changing world, Sydney.
144 References
So, D. W. C. (1992). Language-based bifureation of secondary schools in Hong Kong: Past,

present and future. In K. K. Luke (Ed.), Into the twenty first century: Issues of language in
education in Hong Kong (pp. 69–95). Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
So, D. W. C. (2000). Achieving biliteracy and trilingualism without MOI-based bifurcation of the
schools: A plea for third-alternatives. In David, L. et al. (eds.), Language and education in
postcolonial Hong Kong (pp. 9–33). Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
Stafford, G. (2004, 29 June–2 July). Accumulating cultural capital? Some lessons from history for
understanding mainland Chinese students in Australian high schools. Paper presented at the
the 15th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, Canberra.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American
Psychologist, 52(7), 700–712.
Swaffer, J., Arens, K., & Morgan, M. (1982). Teacher classroom practices: Redefining method as
task hierarchy. Modern Language Journal, 66, 24–33.
Swales, J. (2001). EAP-related linguistic research: An intellectual history. In J. Flowerdew & M.
Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 42–54).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
Tang, W. (2006). Linguistic imperialism in medium of instruction policies in pre and post 1997
Hong Kong. East Asian studies thesis (pp. 1–45).
Thao, L., & Li, S. (2006, 27 Novmember–1 December). Chinese-background students’ Learning
approaches. Paper presented at the AARE Annual conference, Adelaide.
The University of Hong Kong. (2016). Regulations for first degree Curricula: 4-Year Curriculum.
Retrieved December 20, 2016, from http://www4.hku.hk/pubunit/calendar/archive/a/r/13-
2012-2013/213-4-year-curriculum.
Tierney, W. G., & Dilley, P. (2002). Interviewing in education. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.),
Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 453–472). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective.
Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275–284.
University Grant Committee (UGC). (2004). Hong Kong higher education: To make a difference
to move with the times. Hong Kong: University Grant Committee.
UGC. (2004b). Hong Kong higher education: Integration matters. University Grant Committee,
Hong Kong. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/doc/ugc/publication/
report/report_integration_matters_e.pdf.
UGC. (2008). Figures: Non-local student enrolment (Headcount) of UGC-funded programmes by
institution, level of study, place of origin and mode of study, 2006/07 to 2007/08. University
Grant Committee, Hong Kong. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from http://www.ugc.edu.hk/
eng/ugc/publication/report/figure2007/figures/13.pdf.
UGC. (2010). Figures: Non-local student enrolment (Headcount) of UGC-funded programmes by
institution, level of study, place of origin and mode of study, 2007/08 to 2008/09. University
Grant Committee, Hong Kong. Retrieved August 11, 2010, from http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/
doc/ugc/stat/porigin.pdf.
UGC. (2016). General statistics on UGC-funded institutions. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from http://
cdcf.ugc.edu.hk/cdcf/indepthAnalysis.do.
Vaccarino, F. (2009). Learning and teaching in culturally diverse classrooms: A case study
exploring teachers’ and students’ perceptions. The International Journal of Learning, 16(4),
105–117.
Valimma, J. (1998). Culture and identity in higher education research. Higher Education, 36, 119–
138.
Vidich, A., & Lyman, S. (2000). Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and
anthropology. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd
ed., pp. 37–84). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
References 145
Vogel, K. A., Kimatha, O., Grice, M. G., & Murphy, D. (2009). Do occupational therapy and
physical therapy curricula teach critical thinking skills? Journal of Allied Health, 38(3), 152–
157.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wang, L., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2015). Trilingual education in Hong Kong primary schools: An
overview. Multilingual Education, 5(3), 1–26. doi:10.1186/s13616-015-0023-8.
Wang, T., & Shan, X. J. (2007). A qualitative study on Chinese postgraduate students’ learning
experiences in Australia. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 1–19.
Warring, D. F. & Huber-Warring, T. (2006). Born in the U.S.A., Teaching in Caracas, Venezuela.
Multicultural education, Summer (pp. 11–16).
Watkins, D. A. (2009). Motivation and competition in Hong Kong secondary schools: The
students’ perspectives. In K. K. Chan & N. Rao. (Eds)., Revising the Chinese learner:
Changing contexts, changing education (pp. 71–88). Comparative Education Research Centre,
The University of Hong Kong.
Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and
contextual influences. Hong Kong/Melbourne: CERC & ACER.
Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (2001). Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and
pedagogical perspectives. Hong Kong/Melbourne: CERC & ACER.
Wen, Q. F. (2004). Research methodoly and thesis writing. Beijing: Foreign language teaching
and research press.
Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about teaching methods. Camberwell, Vic.:
ACER Press.
Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2009). Research methods in education: An introduction (9th ed.).
Boston: Pearson.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillian.
Wragg, E. C., & Brown, G. (1993). Explaining. London: Routledge.
Wright, S., & Kelly-Holmes, H. (Eds.). (1997). One country, two Systems, three Languages: A
survey of changing language use in Hong Kong. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Wolcott, H. F. (1988). Ethnographic research in education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary
methods for research in education (pp. 187–249). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Wong, H. Z. (2009). The wrong migration decision and the rugged back road (In Chinese). Hong
Kong: Takungpao.
Wong, L. Y. (2009). Perspectives on the English language education of Hong Kong’s new senior
secondary (NSS) curriculum. Asian EFL Journal, 35, 1–27.
Wong, R. M. H. (2007). Motivation and English attainment: A comparative study of Hong Kong
students with different cultural backgrounds. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16(1), 2–
43.
Woodrow, D., & Sham, S. (2001). Chinese pupils and their learning styles. Race, Ethnicity and
Education, 4(4), 377–394.
Yu, B. H., & Zhang, K. (2016). ‘It’s more foreign than a foreign country’: Adaptation and
experience of Mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong. Tertiary Education and Management,
22(4), 300–315. doi:10.1080/13583883.2016.1226944.
Zeng, M. (2006). The adaptation of Mainland Chinese research postgraduates to the Universities
of Hong Kong. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Zhang, L. F., & Watkins, D. (2001). Cognitive development and student approaches to learning:
An investigation of Perry’s theory with Chinese and U.S. university students. Higher
Education, 41, 239–261.
Zhang, Q. J. (2005). It’s more than a piece of paper: Chinese students’ experience of learning in
Australia. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Darwin University, NT, Australia.
146 References
Zhao, S. (2013). International students face fee hikes of up to 20%. University World News.
Retrieved December 20, 2016, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=
20130503153157175.
Zhao, Y. L., Meyers, L., & Meyers, B. (2009). Cross-cultural immersion in China: Preparing
pre-service elementary teachers to work with diverse student populations in the United States.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 295–307.
Zou, H. R. (2006). Hong Kong seeks to lure brightest young minds. China Daily. Retrieved May
20, 2015, from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2006-07/14/content_640707.htm.

Inclusive Teaching Strategies Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inclusive Teaching Strategies Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hing Wa (Helena) Sit

Inclusive Teaching Strategies

ISBN 978-981-10-4707-7 ISBN 978-981-10-4708-4 (eBook)

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

5 Findings from Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Fig. 7.1 Killen’s (1998) effective teaching strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Table 2.1 Language enhancement courses offered by each institution

The rapid growth of economic globalisation has resulted in a fastening pace of

Improving the teaching of discipline-based English study at tertiary level is a

1.1 The Higher Education Context of Hong Kong

mainly from South-Asian countries (including Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia),

repetitive rote-learning and memorisation, categorised as surface learning (Ballard

1.2 Questions to Discuss

To explore how teachers play an active role in promoting students’ interaction in

How might one construct a series of inclusive teaching strategies to promote

University A is a prestigious comprehensive university while University B is a

1.3 The Signiﬁcance of the Study

shaping teaching methods to accommodate students from different cultural and

This chapter introduces background information of this research. It provides an

2.2 General Review on the Higher Education

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 9

2.3 English Language Education in Hong Kong

native Cantonese speakers, although the language of school literacy is Modern

Putonghua has become desirable. Putonghua is commonly heard in the streets. In

2.4 English Language Teaching

Gao (2007) investigated language learning experiences of Putonghua-speaking

Table 2.1 (continued)

Most discipline-based English courses are conducted in a mandatory,

Departmental teaching staff members focus on speciﬁc subject content.

Such factors have a signiﬁcant impact on language education by shaping and

effective teaching strategies in English studies as a discipline (Sit 2012).

Chapter 2 provides a review of the development of English language teaching and

3.2 Theoretical Framework for Teaching Strategies

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 29

3.3 Context of the Study

3.4 Methodological Triangulation

3.4.1 Quantitative Investigation

preferences for strategies to enhance students’ language attainment, and examining

identiﬁed teaching strategy (e.g., direct instruction-direct teaching or lecturing) so

3.4.2 Qualitative Investigation

Qualitative investigation is an interpretive inquiry form that enables researchers to

(1) Classroom Observation

The protocol used some abbreviations of types of teaching strategies (e.g.,

Approximately 40 undergraduate students majoring in English (20 Mainland

3.5 Data Analysis

4.2 Results from Surveys

4.2.1 The Participants

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 43

Table 4.1 University A teachers surveyed

Table 4.2 University B teachers surveyed

4.2.2 Surveys Results

Table 4.3 Use of teaching strategies at University A and University B

Table 4.4 Preferences to use teaching strategies at the two Universities

strategy that he or she preferred, helped students to learn in a designed open-ended

(1) Responses to Differences between Hong Kong students and Mainland

Table 4.5 Differences between mainland and Hong Kong students

(1) Lecturing Lecturing is used as a major means of

Table 4.7 Effective strategies to promote interaction

(6) Suggestions on How to Improve Interaction between ML and HK Students

4.3 Discussions of Survey Findings

Education, awarded great importance by traditional Chinese culture, is seen as a

Valimma (1998) states that new students encounter “disciplinary-based cultures