perspectives on the cultural appropriacy of hong kong's target-oriented curriculum (toc)...

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 17 November 2014, At: 19:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Language, Culture andCurriculumPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20

Perspectives on theCultural Appropriacyof Hong Kong's Target-Oriented Curriculum (TOC)InitiativeDavid Robert CarlessPublished online: 23 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: David Robert Carless (1999) Perspectives on theCultural Appropriacy of Hong Kong's Target-Oriented Curriculum (TOC)Initiative, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12:3, 238-254, DOI:10.1080/07908319908666581

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908319908666581

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07908319908666581

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908319908666581

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

9:28

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

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

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

Perspectives on the Cultural Appropriacyof Hong Kong’s Target-OrientedCurriculum (TOC) Initiative

David Robert CarlessEnglish Department, Hong Kong Institution of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po,Hong Kong

The management of change has long been recognised to be a complex and challengingprocess. The literature has revealed few success stories and many examples of curricu-lum innovations being adopted half-heartedly or not at all. Set against the increasingworld globalisation of which education is a part, the cultural aspects of innovations arebeing increasinglydiscussed in recent years. This paper focuses on the cultural dimen-sions of a major curriculum reform in Hong Kong, the Target-Oriented Curriculum(TOC) initiative. The main principles of TOC and its early implementation arediscussed. A number of the main features of TOC are analysed with particular refer-ence to their cultural appropriateness for the Hong Kong context. The thesis underly-ing the paper is that cultural issues need to be more carefully considered in the policyand adoption stages of the innovation process. In English Language teaching, it may benecessary to reflect more deeply on the suitability of the export of Western-basedlearner-centred,communicative or task-based approaches to other milieux where suchapproaches may not be commensurate with the local cultural context.

IntroductionIt is currently well accepted that technological and communication advances

are contributing towards the trend of globalisation that is affecting manyspheres, including education. Part of this trend involves a greatercross-fertilisation of ideas between countries and between cultures. Whilstborrowing ideas from other educational contexts may under certain circum-stances be a positive trend, there is a danger that imported curricula may containaspects that render them unsuitable for the host culture. Dimmock (1998) usesthe term ‘policy cloning’ which enables the process of policy formulation to becompleted speedily but, ‘with the consequence that minimal attention is paid tothe receptivity of the host culture to the imported policy’ (p. 375). Similarly,Levin (1998) talks of a policy epidemic, where education policy is transferred likea disease from one population to another. One such example is school-basedmanagement that has been adopted, with varying degrees of success, in numer-ous countries in the developed world. Within English language teaching (ELT),transporting methods from one context to another has also occurred frequentlybut again with mixed outcomes. Also using a medical analogy, Holliday (1992,1994)has talked of ‘tissue rejection’ when a transplanted organ (or in educationalterms innovation) does not become an effectively functioning part of the systemto which it is implanted, due to a failure to mesh the respective characteristics of‘donor’ and ‘receiver’.

This kind of failure to import curricula successfully has been common withinthe Hong Kong context. Hong Kong policy-makers have often looked to0790-8318/99/03 0238-17 $10.00/0 © 1999 D.R. CarlessLANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM Vol. 12, No. 3, 1999

238

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

9:28

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Anglo-American countries as a source for educational ideas but frequently inno-vations have failed to take root in the Hong Kong classroom. Paul Morris (1992,1995) has documented how a number of pupil-centred and/or discovery learn-ing approaches originating in the West have produced a façade of change butlimited actual impact on the classroom. With respect to ELT, Evans (1996)describes how the communicative approach became the official English syllabusin Hong Kong in 1983 but was never actually implemented on a wide scale in theclassroom, because of the failure of policy makers to take into account the uniquefeatures of the Hong Kong context which would clearly militate against theimplementation of a learner-centred, process-oriented teaching approach. Thedifficulties of implementing communicative approaches in other Asian contextshas also been discussed in the literature, for example, Hui (1997) with referenceto China, Li (1998) with respect to South Korea, and Cheah (1998) discusses thechallenges of implementing a process-oriented innovation in Singapore.

In line with similar developments in Britain, Australia and North America,Hong Kong’s Target-Oriented Curriculum (TOC) is an attempt to shift radicallythe way in which curricula are planned, taught and assessed. TOC is describedby Morris et al. (1996) as the most significant landmark in curriculum reform inHong Kong since the second world war, given that it attempts to change threekey ‘message systems’, namely the nature of knowledge/schooling, pedagogyand assessment. The development and early implementation of TOC has beenheavily debated in Hong Kong, with cultural dimensions being just one of manycontroversial issues.

The aim of this paper, which is deductive and exploratory, is to exploreaspects of synergy or mismatch between relevant features of East Asian culturesand learner-centred, process-oriented curricula derived from the West. This willbe done through specific reference to TOC in Hong Kong, although it is claimedthat the line of argument has implications for other contexts where importing ofteaching approaches and curricula are prevalent. In attempting this analysis, Irun a number of risks. Firstly, that my own male British origins may form adistorting cultural lens through which I perceive the world. Hopefully this ismitigated to some extent by having spent the greater part of my adult life in HongKong. Secondly, discussions of culture tend to be prone to over-generalisations(Putnis, 1993), which are clearly not true for all or even a substantial majority ofmembers of that culture. We all have our own ‘personal cultures’ in addition tothose characteristics imbued from our national cultures. In his thoughtful paper,Littlewood (1999) argues against ‘setting up stereotypical notions of East Asianlearners which, if misused, may make teachers less rather than more sensitive tothe dispositions and needs of individual students’ (p. 71). Anotherover-generalisation to be avoided is the use of the term ‘Western’; it is employedin this paper for stylistic variation to denote Anglo-American and fully acknowl-edges that within the West as with the East, there is considerable diversity andvariation.

The structure of the remainder of the paper is as follows. Firstly, some briefobservations on curriculum change and culture will be made. Then, after intro-ducing the background and key features of the TOC initiative, the paper willproceed to analyse a number of these features with respect to Chinese cultureand the theory and practice of education in Hong Kong. The concluding sections

Cultural Appropriacy of Target-oriented Curriculum Initiative 239D

ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

of the paper discuss some of the wider implications concerning the culturalappropriateness of imported curricula.

Culture and Curriculum ChangeThe failure of curriculum innovations to achieve long-lasting change has been

well documented in the educational literature (e.g. Fullan, 1991)and with respectto ELT (Markee, 1997). Issues such as lack of resources, insufficient long-termteacher training, entrenched teacher attitudes, lack of ownership of change havebeen seen to impact negatively on the prospects for change. Cultural aspectshave also been acknowledged to play a crucial part in the implementationprocess (see, for example, Coleman, 1996; Ellis, 1996; Holliday, 1994; Kramsch &Sullivan, 1996) but have sometimes been somewhat neglected by curriculumdevelopers or policy makers. For example, in the major work in book form oninnovationin ELT, Markee (1997)devotes very little attention to the discussionofcultural appropriateness of innovations.

In this paper, I am referring to culture in terms of Brislin’s (1990) definition,

culture refers to widely shared ideals, values, formation and uses of catego-ries, assumptions about life, and goal-directed activities that becomeunconsciously or subconsciously accepted as ‘right’ and ‘correct’ by peoplewho identify themselves as members of a society. (p. 11)

Similarly, in his seminal work on cross-cultural business practices, Hofstede(1991) defines culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind which distin-guishes the members of one group or category of people from another’ (p. 5).

Within this shared set of ideas and practices, there is of course, considerableindividual variation and it is doubtful if one can speak of a uniform Chineseculture. Instead, Biggs (1996a) uses the term Confucian heritage cultures (CHC)to refer to the countries or educational systems of China, Japan, South Korea,Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong which have been influenced by the tenets ofConfucianism. Biggs (1996a) also explores the paradox of high levels of learningamongst students from these countries (as measured in international surveys)when the antecedent conditions for learning seem unfavourable (large classes,apparently authoritarian teaching styles, examination-oriented).

Additionally, culture is not a static concept, it is constantly being made andremade (Clifford, 1988) as societies and individuals continue to evolve. In HongKong, political, social and economic changes have made flexibility and willing-ness to adapt part of the local culture. For example, the influence of Confucianthought on young, affluent well-educated citizens is arguably on the wane.

The paper does not focus on school cultures although it acknowledges thatschool cultures play an important role in the innovation process. The influence ofschool norms is alluded to in the later section on the roles of teachers and learnersbut it is not a primary focus of the paper.

The TOC InitiativeTOC was designed to improve the quality of individual learning in Hong

Kong schools by addressing the following perceived problems in the Hong Kongeducation system: an overcrowded and fragmented curriculum; an

240 Language, Culture and CurriculumD

ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

over-emphasis on the rote-learning of discrete chunks of information; lack ofawareness of the role of language in learning; limited efforts to cater for individ-ual learner differences; assessment methods focused primarily on rankingstudents (Clark et al., 1994).

The TOC framework was drawn up by four experienced expatriate curricu-lum developers commissioned by the Education Department. They wereassisted by various support teams, including seconded primary and secondaryteachers who gave feedback and helped to develop teaching materials. Prepara-tory research was carried out both within the Hong Kong context and withrespect to similar curriculum reforms in a number of other countries (e.g. the UKNational Curriculum, the Australian Language Levels Project). The frameworksubsequently devised was intended to cover all subjects in the curriculum butwas initially developed for Chinese, English and mathematics. The curriculumwas to be introduced incrementally, beginning with primary 1 (six years old) andlater proceeding into secondary schools.

TOC was implemented in primary schools, mainly from September 1995onwards, with an increasing number of schools starting the new curriculum ineach successive year. By the 1998–9 school year, 88% of primary schools werereported by the Education Department (ED) to be implementing TOC.

TOC is based on a constructivist view of learning. Its main intentions are:

� the development of specific learning targets to provide a clear direction forlearning;

� the use of learning tasks to promote ‘learning by doing’ and to involvepupils in five so-called ‘fundamental intertwining ways of learning’,communication, conceptualisation, inquiry, reasoning and problem solv-ing;

� catering for individual learner differences so as to adapt teaching andlearning to different pupil abilities and learning styles;

� the promotion of learner independence so that pupils can become moreactively involved in constructing knowledge and skills;

� task-based assessment as part of an integrated teaching, learning andassessment cycle;

� a greater emphasis on formative rather than summative assessment;� criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced assessment;� improved recording and reporting to parents of pupil progress.With respect to ELT, TOC has much in common with process-oriented,

communicative or task-based approaches. In the Hong Kong language class-room, this has generally been interpreted as a weak form of communicativeapproaches, in which a Presentation-Practice-Production approach is usedpredominantly and learning tasks characteristically occur in the productionstage of this sequence. This interpretation seems to permit a high degree ofteacher control in the presentation and practice stages, and some opportunity formore active pupil participation in the production stage.

The early stages of TOC implementation have been described in a number ofresearch reports and papers, for example, Carless (1997, 1998), Clark et al. (1999),Chan (1998), Lo (1998), Morris et al. (1996), Morris, Chan & Lo (1998) and Morris


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

et al. (1999).As is common with most innovations, the degree of actual implemen-tation of TOC is quite variable. Some teachers and some schools have developeda good understanding of TOC and are implementing its spirit. Other schoolshave a less thorough understanding and are adopting the innovation in name,without there being any actual classroom evidence of the principles of TOC. Thefollowing provides a brief outline of some of the main positive and negativeoutcomes of the early implementation of TOC.

One of the main successful features of early implementation seems to be thatTOC has had a positive impact at the organisational level of schools. TOC hasprompted greater cooperation and discussion between teachers and throughthis collaboration, teachers’ professional development has been enhanced(Morris et al. 1996). Secondly, there seems to have been a small but discernibleshift away from the traditional teacher role of ‘knowledge giver’ towards a roleof facilitator of pupil learning. A repercussion of this slight shift is that TOCseems to have had a generally positive effect on pupil motivation,with teachersgenerally reporting more enjoyment and greater involvement from pupils(Carless, 1998; Clark et al., 1999).

Based on two large-scale TOC research studies (Clark et al,. 1999; Morris etal., 1996) the most problematic aspects of the early implementation of TOCrelate to the areas of assessment, catering for individual differences, and tasks.The major problem in the early implementation of TOC seems to be the role ofassessment in TOC. Initially, the preparation of TOC assessment lagged behindthe development of the other core elements of the framework, namely targetsand tasks. This was contrary to the TOC spirit of integrating teaching, learningand assessment. The concomitant failure to integrate TOC assessment with thehigh stakes testing mechanism at the end of primary 6 (11 years old) has nega-tively impacted on the anticipated role of assessment in the TOC framework(Morris et al., 1999). A further problem with TOC assessment has been ED’semphasis on the recording and reporting of information. This has tended toresult in teachers keeping detailed records of pupil achievement without therebeing any purposeful use made of the data. This has increased teacher work-loads and has caused a certain amount of frustration amongst teachers withoutpupils or any other parties deriving any benefit from the records generated(Clark et al., 1999).

The second major problem is that teachers have experienced difficulties inoperationalising the TOC notion of catering for individual learner differences,due to large class sizes, heavy workloads, generally poorly resourced workingconditions and lack of awareness amongst teachers of varied strategies for indi-vidualised learning (Clark et al., 1999).

The third major problem is that teachers are generally unclear about thenature of tasks and the theory and practice of task-based learning (Clark et al.,1999; Morris et al., 1996). Classroom observation for the Clark et al. (1999)study indicated that teachers believed they were carrying out more tasks thanwas actually the case. Misconceptions in this area have been partly due to thefailure of TOC documentation to operationalise the concept of task inteacher-friendly terms.


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The roles of teachers and learnersTOC posits that teachers should be facilitators of pupil learning, rather than

transmitters of knowledge and information. The role of the learner is to activelyconstruct knowledge and skills, rather than to be a more passive receptacle ofknowledge. How do these roles required by TOC relate to the existing educa-tional norms in Hong Kong?

In CHC’s the teacher holds a position of respect, as a source of authority andwisdom. The teacher should be a role model of learning and exemplary behav-iour. To some extent, this seems to be an extension of the Confucian ethic of filialpiety, where the younger generation respect and support their elders or seniors.Thus to undermine the authority of a senior or to pose challenging questions to ateacher would generally be regarded as inappropriate. The role as the respectedelder and moral guardian indicates authority but not authoritarianism as warmpersonal relationships are frequently built up between teachers and students.

In Hofstede’s (1991) terms, Hong Kong is a high power-distance culture,whereby the less powerful members of organisations expect and accept thatpower should be organised unequally along hierarchical lines. Hofstede equatesschooling in high power-distance cultures with the teacher as ‘guru’: strict orderin the classroom, pupils only speaking when invited, and deference towardsteachers inside and outside of school.

One of the main roles of the teacher in CHC contexts is to pass wisdom fromone generation to the next. Traditionally teachers in Hong Kong have tended tosee their main role as to impart information to students, who are generallyexpected to sit quietly (to Western eyes somewhat passively) and to absorbinformation. Cheng and Wong (1996) indicate that education is not only aboutlearning but about the training of character and developing conscientiousnessand altruism. In a critique of TOC from a moral and value system perspective,Wong (1994) comments, ‘it is dangerous and irresponsible if we are onlyconcerned with teaching methods but neglect the role-modelling function inthe learning process’.

A repercussion of these roles is that whole-class teaching is generally the normin East Asian cultures. The work of Harold Stevenson and his associates (e.g.Stevenson & Stigler, 1992; Stevenson & Lee, 1996, 1997) has been influential inextolling the merits of whole-class teaching in CHC contexts. Stevenson andcolleagues found that in the classes under investigation in Beijing, Taipei andSendai (Japan) teachers carried out whole-class interactive teaching, with lessonsoriented towards problem solving with pupils actively involved and frequentlyused as sources of information. Expectations were high and rooted in the tradi-tional Confucian belief that all are capable of learning and that diligence andpersistence are the keys to learning. In contrast with Western learning styles thattend to emphasis the role of ability, CHC contexts emphasise diligence andeffort. The Confucian tradition holds that all learners are educable, on conditionof hard work. Given the emphasis on effort, motivation tends to be extrinsic.Intrinsically motivating activities, such as games, may be perceived as frivolousand not to be taken seriously.

In contrast to classes in Minneapolis (USA), Stevenson found that pupils inthe East Asian classrooms spent more time on task and more time in direct


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

communication with the teacher. The socialisation of pupils towards highimportance of education and allegiance to the collective discipline enable CHCteachers to devote more time to direct interaction with pupils. Discipline, moralvalues and high expectations are an important aspect of this process and help tomake pupils ‘teachable’ by acculturating them to the required norms of theclassroom (Biggs, 1996a).

Turning more directly to the Hong Kong English language classroom,research has indicated the dominance of teacher talk in the classroom and thegeneral reticence of pupils to speak up. Tsui (1985) found that teacher talk wasmore than 80% of the total talk in the two secondary classroomsshe observed andthat there were no instances where a learner initiated a question. Wu (1993)observed four secondary classroomsand reported similar findings to Tsui. In hisstudy, no students sought clarification or posed questions, pupil responses toteacher questions were invariably short and Wu concluded that Hong Kongstudents seem to prefer to give brief answers rather than to show off by givinglengthy responses to teacher questions. As Tsui (1996) points out, Chineseculture emphasises modesty and so volunteering an answer may be inhibited bythe ‘maxim of modesty’. Tsui (1996) also discusses how reticence and anxietycontribute to this unwillingness of pupils to speak up in class. This is a character-istic frequently noted by overseas teachers of Chinese learners. To the teacherunused to the prevailing culture, CHC students can be stereotyped as passiveand unwilling to contribute in class; in traditional Chinese culture, however,verbal dexterity is not particularly valued. Two extracts from the ConfucianAnalects are cited to support this viewpoint: ‘The gentleman desires to be haltingin speech but quick in action’ (Analects, 4, 24), and ‘What need is there for him tohave a facile tongue?’ (Analects, 5, 5).

There are also additional cultural factors that militate against the use ofspoken English. Wong (1984) cited in Fu (1987) points out that striving toimprove your reading and writing skills for academic enhancement is consid-ered praiseworthy but there are social pressures not to speak English too well infront of one’s peers. To display open confidence in the colonial tongue may riskalienation from the peer group, a particularly serious fate in a predominantlycollectivist society.

Another factor affecting what goes on in the classroom is that teachers putgreat emphasis on covering the textbook. Ng (1994: 82) observes that ‘manyteachers, perhaps as a result of perceived or actual pressure from the school orfrom parents, try to “finish the textbook” with little regard to the ability of thestudents’. This reliance on the textbook is also related to the fact that many teach-ers lack confidence in their own English proficiency and so the textbook becomesa crutch on which to lean. It is also suggested (Tong, 1996) that the apparentdeference to the textbook may be related to the emphasis on text in traditionalChinese culture, notably the Five Classics and the Four Books, the Confuciantreatises which formed the basis for the imperial civil service examinations inChina. In similar vein, Cortazzi (1998) suggests that in the Confucian tradition,‘the teacher and textbook become invested with moral authority’ (p. 44).

Dictation, generally a non-communicative technique, is a particularlyfavoured tool in the Hong Kong English language classroom, the memorisationand copying of texts being seen as a mental discipline and the precursor to deeper


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

understanding. Cheng (1998) outlines the role of memorisation ‘as a form oftraining, discipline and hard work’ (p. 21). To Western eyes, this kind of memori-sation may be perceived as decontextualised rote learning. Biggs (1996a)however, critiques Western misperceptions about rote learning. He indicateshow repetitive learning can act as the first stage towards deeper understanding,and that rote learning should not necessarily be equated with surface learning.

The characteristics of the Hong Kong classroomdiscussed above seem to indi-cate that the implementation of TOC would require a major shift in teacher andlearner roles. There are however, characteristics of the Chinese learner that maybe suited to process-oriented educational approaches imported fromAnglo-American countries. Given the Chinese emphasis on social relationshipsand collectivism Tang (1996) suggests that cooperative learning, wherebystudents work together in problem-solving tasks, may be well suited to the HongKong context. Similarly, given this cooperative tendency, peer tutoring alsoappears to be a culturally suitable strategy (Winter, 1996). This might beemployed either within classes whereby more able pupils support the less ableones or across age-groups as in the ‘Big brother, big sister’ schemes popular inmany Hong Kong schools (see, for example, Kwai Chung Public School, 1998).

Littlewood (1999)also discusses how the notion of learner autonomy, which issometimes presented as a Western concept, can be developed in East Asiancontexts. He suggests that different aspects of autonomy need to be matchedwith the characteristics and needs of the learners. In similar vein, Ho andCrookall (1995) provide a case study of Hong Kong tertiary students workingenthusiastically on a project which afforded them a high degree of autonomy. Itremains to be seen however, whether or not these examples which are mainlydrawn from the tertiary field can be adapted to the primary level for TOC.

Task-based learning/learning by doingLearning through task-based learning is one of the key components of TOC.

The framework document for TOC introduces the notion of tasks as follows:

Learning tasks are the purposeful and contextualised means by whichstudents work towards the learning targets. They are holistic experienceswhich involve both learning and using knowledge. They address the prob-lem that in Hong Kong schools, teachers tend to adopt a transmissiveapproach, which means that students do not often have to construct, useand reconstruct knowledge in tasks that involve inquiry, thinking andcommunicating, problem-solving, creating, performing, judging orreasoning. (Clark et al., 1994: 39)

In terms of teacher and learner roles, tasks in TOC require a shift fromteacher as transmitter of information towards teacher as facilitator of pupillearning. For the learners, they may need to take more initiative in activelyconstructing their own knowledge and skills. In terms of classroom organisa-tion, tasks may involve individual, pair or group work. In ELT classes, pair orgroup work by means of information gap, information transfer or problem-solving tasks are particularly common.

What factors seem to facilitate or militate against task-based learning in theHong Kong culture? There are elements of Confucianism which seem to support


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

the principles of task-based learning, for example, the notion of learning in theAnalects emphasises practice and applications as a way of continuous learning(Cheng & Wong, 1996). Biggs (1996a) also presents evidence of constructivistteaching approaches employed in CHC contexts in which teachers have engagedstudents collectively in problem solving through posing questions, encouragingreflection and working towards higher level thought processes.

Acting against task-based learning may be the traditional notion of teacher asinformation giver that may imply a somewhat teacher-centred classroom role asdiscussed in the previous section. There are also practical issues that seem toimpact negatively on the implementation of task-based learning. One of theproblems faced by teachers in carrying out task-based learning lies in classroommanagement. Setting up pair or group activities and monitoring noise levelstend to require more sophisticated management skills than teacher-centredinstruction. Teachers often express concerns about aspects of discipline whencarrying out activities. The importance of discipline in East Asian cultures isemphasised by Cheng and Wong (1996):

Discipline is seen as a necessary part and indeed the fundamental part ofmoral education, because it trains compliance to collective norms. It is not amere training for obedience as suspected by many observers from the West,nor a pragmatic means to keep classroom order. (p. 39)

Large class sizes and cramped classroom conditions also accentuate the diffi-culties of carrying out activities. Additionally, teachers also state that they lackthe teaching time to carry out activities (Carless & Gordon, 1997), given theperception that they need to complete the syllabus or the textbook. There seemsto be a belief that carrying out tasks takes away time from direct teacher instruc-tion, the culturally ingrained model of teaching.

Individual differencesThe TOC framework (Clark et al., 1994) highlights the importance of the issue

of catering for individual learner differences:

It is the role of the teacher … to know how to respond to learner differencesby providing them with appropriate learning experiences and levels ofsupport … lack of differentiation in teaching and resources was one of themajor problems to which the TOC initiative should respond. (p. 51)

In the traditional Hong Kong classroom catering for individual learner differ-ences has not been emphasised to any great extent. In a review of the Hong Kongeducational system, Cheng (1997) points out that the concern for individualneeds and diverse goals appeals only to a small minority and that ‘The notions ofindividual-based and student-centred teaching have been slow to take root inHong Kong schools. Traditional Chinese classrooms rely heavily on the organi-sation of the class and the social relations among students’, (p. 39). Put morestrongly, Cheng and Wong (1996)state, ‘Individualised teaching, where teacherswork towards diverse targets at different paces, is almost inconceivable in EastAsian societies’ (p. 44).

In traditional Chinese culture there is, however, a belief in individualself-development, albeit so as to contribute to the common good. As Cheng


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(1998) points out, ‘In the West, the ultimate aim of education is to develop fullythe potential capacity of individuals. In East Asia, the ultimate aim of educationis to cultivate a person so that he or she can and will contribute to the society’ (p.25). Confucius followed this principle in his teaching, by adjusting his teachingmethods according to the individual capacities and personalities of his students(Chen, 1993). For example, ‘Ch’iu holds himself back. It is for this reason that Iurge him on. Yu has the energy of two men. It is for this reason that I tried to holdhim back’, (Analects, 11, 22). Elsewhere in the Analects, Confucius providesdifferent answers to various central issues, such as love, benevolence and filialpiety with the implication that messages should be tailored to the needs andbackground of the individual posing a question.

Carless (1999) suggests that the following four factors contribute to the diffi-culties teachers experience in catering for learner differences. Firstly, in the earlystages of the implementation of an innovation, teachers concerns may bedirected towards ‘mechanical’ issues, such as struggling to make the innovationmanageable and easy to implement (Hall & Hord, 1987). Secondly, teachers maynot be entirely convinced of the value of individualised instruction given thecollectivist nature of Hong Kong society and the local classroom (Cheng, 1997).In particular, there may be concerns that a focus on individualism will bring withit indulgence and egoism (Wong, 1994). Thirdly, large class sizes, heavy work-loads and generally poorly resourced working conditions may prevent ordiscourage teachers from paying more than lip-service to the notion of individ-ual differences. Fourthly, given the relatively low levels of professionalismamongst primary school teachers in Hong Kong, the professional skills requiredto cater skilfully for individual learner differences may be present among only aminority of teachers.

Hofstede (1991) points out that there is a strong correlation between a coun-try’s national wealth and the degree of individualism in its culture. As Triandis(1995) observes, ‘Affluence means more choices that the individual rather thanthe group makes, hence more individualism’ (p. 178). It is consequently hypoth-esised that given the general trend for economic development in Hong Kongover the last ten years (notwithstanding the slump of 1998–9) there may havebeen some increase in trends towards individualism and that these trends maypersist if wealth continues to accrue. This may perhaps carry implications forincreased individualisation in the classroom.

AssessmentCompetitive imperial civil service entrance examinations have a traditional

role in China in providing potential access to the elite of government officialdom.With reference to China, Lee (1996) observes, ‘the belief in the possibility ofupward social mobility through educational success was important and becamea significant driving force for many ordinary people to study hard for a betterfuture’ (p. 38). This comment is also very much applicable to the modern HongKong where parents are highly ambitious (for themselves or their offspring) withexam success the route to upward mobility, material rewards, foreign passportsor all three (Tang & Biggs, 1996).

The competitive nature of the Hong Kong examination system has been welldocumented over the last twenty years (e.g. Biggs, 1996b; Llewellyn et al. 1982;


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Morris, 1988). From kindergarten onwards parents strive to enrol their offspringat the most prestigious schools, so as to maximise the possibility of reaching thenext rung on the educational ladder. Obtaining a place at a well establishedsecondary school puts a child in a favourable position for obtaining a futureuniversity place. Throughout this process there is competition through tests andexaminations. Cheng and Wong (1996) view competition as the essence ofschooling in Hong Kong and indicate that competition is a means of socialisationso as to prepare the young for tougher future societal competition. The ShengKung Hui (SKH) group of schools (1994) also extol the merits of competitiveschooling, in that comparisons between students allow the learners to find outwhere they stand and provide a basis for improvement and learning from moreable peers.

The main competitive norm-referenced examination impacting on TOC is atprimary 6 (11 years old) determining secondary school placement at one of fivebands of schools (Band 1 highest to Band 5 lowest). Because of its importance,this test of mathematical ability and verbal reasoning (in Chinese) exerts astrong washback effect on the teaching of primary 5 and 6 classes. Given theimportance of such test results, Morris (1988) found that the maximisation ofpass rates was a major criterion of teacher effectiveness. Didactic teachingapproaches with notes and model answers were considered to be the bestmethod of achieving exam success. As Wong (1996) observes, ‘It is a tradition ofthe education system in Hong Kong that didactic teaching is a superior modebecause of constraints of public examinations and unwillingness of teachers tochange’ (p. 92). The impact on students is that due to the quantity and impor-tance of testing, students become very cue conscious and streetwise in terms oftest techniques (Tang, 1996).

TOC attempts to overthrow these deeply ingrained competitive examinationelements by a paradigm shift from summative to formative, and fromnorm-referenced to criterion-referenced assessment.The educational reasons forsuch a change seem to be sound; in short, moves towards, process rather thanproduct, cooperation rather than competition, assessment for learning ratherthan for testing/accountability. However, the shift seems not to be commensu-rate with views from the general public, parents and to some extent principalsand teachers. The pupils themselves are also socialised into this kind of teach-ing/testing cycle. Contributing to this educational context are forces at the macrolevel of society, where in some respects Hong Kong society can be seen ascompetitive, particularly in the sense of wanting offspring to get an educationalheadstart. There is an emphasis on meritocracy and a ‘level playing field’, withthe educational emphases of such a society tending towards the quantitative, theobjective and in testing terms reliability (possibly at the expense of validity). Inthis respect, teachers and the general public are often suspicious of test items thatrequire professional judgement, branding them as ‘too subjective’.

To summarise crudely the point that is being made, Table 1 presents the para-digm shift dichotomously, although in reality the issues should be viewed ascontinua rather than absolutes. This broad snapshot of assessment issuessuggests that the assessment concepts underlying TOC are at odds with thenotions generally prevalent in Hong Kong society.


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

ConclusionsThis paper has raised doubts about the suitability of a major national curricu-

lum for the context into which it has been imported. It has examined how anumber of features of TOC are somewhat in conflict with the norms and values ofthe Hong Kong culture. It suggests that these cultural factors have negativelyimpacted on the process of TOC implementation.

Carless (1997) points out that it was undoubtedly a strategic error for the fourmain TOC curriculum developers all to be of non-Chinese origin. This contrib-uted to the widespread belief that the innovation was imported from the Westwithout sufficient adaptation to the local context. In similar vein, Morris, Chanand Lo (1998) point out that TOC was perceived as, ‘developed by an overseasteam with no experience in the local context; attempting to redefine Chineselanguage education in terms of the precepts of English as a foreign language; andoverall, an attempt to perpetuate the colonial influence beyond 1997’ (p. 209).

In the initial stage of TOC development (the period 1993–5), TOC was hotlycontested and numerous commentaries and discussion forums appeared in themass media. The influential SKH group of schools openly opposed TOC on thegrounds that it was incompatible with Chinese culture. Now that the majority ofschools have started implementation, opposition appears to have softened. Thereasons for this are not exactly clear but the following appear to be contributingfactors. Firstly, a generally laissez faire implementation policy affords schools thefreedom to implement those aspects of TOC with which they feel most comfort-able with and to underplay those that they feel are less compatible with theprevailing societal and/or school culture. Within this framework teachers areable to continue largely with their previous practices and add on some TOCelements. Given these additive and superficial changes, TOC in practice hastended to be less threatening and burdensome than was once anticipated. Inaddition, the general consistency and determination of the Education Depart-ment has largely convinced teachers that TOC is a long-term reality rather than apassing fad. In pragmatic fashion, school personnel seemed to have concludedthat it is in their best interests to adapt to TOC rather than to oppose it. In somesense, through proposing a radical change (perhaps too radical), TOC hasenabled at least some change to take place.

Cultural Appropriacy of Target-oriented Curriculum Initiative 249

Table 1 Assessment emphases as dichotomies

Approaches to assessmentTraditional TOCNorm-referenced Criterion-referencedCompetitive Co-operativeSummative FormativeQuantitative QualitativeProduct ProcessDiscrete IntegrativeObjectivity SubjectivityReliability Validity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

9:28

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

It is generally agreed that there is a tolerance rather than genuine enthusiasmfor TOC. Clark et al. (1999) do however, provide tentative evidence that attitudestowards TOC are becoming more positive. It was pointed out earlier in the paperthat cultures are not static and that there is considerable individual variationwithin any cultural group. There is case study evidence (Carless, 1998) andconsiderable anecdotal evidence that younger teachers who have often beentrained in communicative or task-based approaches seem more willing to carryout TOC-style approaches. It is hypothesised that the younger generation ofteachers may be undergoing a gradual shift away from the traditional roles ofteachers and learners described earlier in the paper.

ImplicationsBorrowing and importing educational policies developed elsewhere seems

superficially attractive for policy-makers in that it saves time, money and effort.Cheng (1998), however, warns that ‘it is rare that policies that run counter to thesociety’s cultural norms will succeed in changing educational practice’ (p. 26).More provocatively, Cheng and Wong (1996) suggest that in Hong Kong onemay argue that ‘Hong Kong teachers and the system are “polluted” by Westerneducational philosophies which are not suitable for the society’ (p. 47).

If we apply this line of thinking to ELT, there is now a body of literature thatindicates the problematic nature of implementing communicative, process-oriented or task-based approaches in CHC contexts. Cultural mismatches are notthe only issues. Other factors that militate against the introduction of theseapproaches include a lack of in-depth teacher training and the failure to resourcethe innovation with appropriate teaching materials. (In fact, even within congru-ent cultures the management of educational change is fraught with problems.)

In CHC contexts, there are other factors that militate against the implementa-tion of communicative, process-oriented approaches. Firstly, traditionalteacher-fronted, textbook-oriented approaches place fewer demands on both theteacher’s pedagogic techniques and their own language proficiency. Teacherswho have not necessarily been trained to teach English and/or have limitedEnglish proficiency are likely to prefer a tightly controlled, teacher-centred, text-book-based approach.

In CHC contexts, there is also usually a high correlation between proficiencyin English and socioeconomic status. It is not surprising that both students andteachers tend to see the main goal of English teaching as to prepare students forcompetitive public examinations where exam success can be a precursor offuture financial rewards. Traditional product-oriented approaches are generallyperceived to be more effective methods of examination preparation than moreprocess-oriented approaches. Curriculum change through changing examina-tions is thus often recommended as a change strategy, although as indicatedabove, resistance to changes in modes of assessment are equally likely to occur ifthe proposed change is not commensurate with societal beliefs.

Given the educational successes of CHC countries as evidenced in interna-tional surveys, is it worth importing educational ideas from East to West? DavidReynolds (1997) is an enthusiastic proponent of East Asian interactivewhole-class teaching and advocates greater use of such teaching in British class-rooms. There is no reason, however, to believe that importing from East-West is


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

more promising than vice versa. CHC teaching methods work precisely becauseof the culture to which they belong it is unlikely that they would work particu-larly well in Western contexts. Students in CHC cultures are socialised to acceptmainly didactic whole-class teaching, which is generally not the case with West-ern students.

Does this mean that importing educational policies is doomed to failure? Notnecessarily, change is a fundamental axiom of the postmodern world and exter-nal experiences can be a powerful source for change. Failure to change, leads tostagnation or as Hargreaves (1997) puts it, ‘in the complex, rapidly changingpostmodern age, if you do not get better as a teacher over time, you do not merelystay the same: you get worse’ (p. 116). How then might imported curricula betailored to the needs of the local culture?

An imported policy needs to undergo a process of mediation in which thelocal classroom ecology is meshed with the imported policy (Ellis, 1996). Thismay result in an adaptation of curriculum to the realities of the local classroom atthe micro level and to the societalculture at the macro level. In the hands of a skil-ful and reflective teacher, this may result in a version of the imported policy thathas been modified by the realities of the local classroom. This can become a morebottom-up version of curriculum development or one in which a general direc-tion is outlined from above, but classroom implementation is controlled by theteachers. This may occur deliberately or serendipitously. This can go some wayto mitigating the common mismatch between the intentions of a curriculum andthe actual classroom realities.

Such a scenario does rely, however, on teachers having the ability, languageproficiency, training and resource support to understand and implement newcurricula. One repercussion of this is that professional development for localstaff may be more productive than reliance on overseas advisers or expatriatestaff. Or when such outsiders are used, one of their main roles is to facilitate thedevelopment of local officers who can take over once outsiders have departed.General teacher education efforts which extend the capabilities of the teachingworkforce are, therefore, an effective precursor to successful change, or in Sten-house’s venerable dictum, ‘There is no curriculum development, withoutteacher development’.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Dr David Robert Carless, English

Department, Hong Kong Institution of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, HongKong ([email protected]).

AcknowledgementI would like to thank Li Kit-Yi for her research support and advice on various

aspects of Chinese culture.

ReferencesBiggs, J. (1996a) Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D.

Watkins and J. Biggs (eds) The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and ContextualInfluences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and AustralianCouncil for Educational Research.


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Biggs, J. (1996b)The assessment scene in Hong Kong. In J. Biggs (ed.) Testing: To Educate orSelect? Education in Hong Kong at the Crossroads. Hong Kong: Hong Kong EducationalPublishing Co.

Brislin, R. (1990) Applied cross-cultural psychology: An introduction. In R. Brislin (ed.)Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Carless, D. (1997) Managing systemic curriculum change: A critical analysis of HongKong’s Target-Oriented Curriculum initiative. International Review of Education 43 (4),349–66.

Carless, D. (1998) A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. System 26(3), 353–68.

Carless, D. (1999) Catering for individual learner differences: Primary school teachers’voices. Unpublished manuscript.

Carless, D. and Gordon, A. (1997) Hong Kong primary teachers’ perceptions of thedifficulties in implementing task-based language teaching. Journal of Primary Education7 (1), 139–159.

Chan, K.K. (1998)Curriculum reform and school change: A case study. In P. Stimpson andP. Morris (eds) Curriculum and Assessment for Hong Kong: Two Components, One System.Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.

Cheah, Y.M. (1998) The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations: Thecase of Singapore. Language and Education 12 (3), 192–209.

Chen, J. (1993) Confucius as a Teacher: Philosophy of Confucius with Special Reference to itsEducational Implications. Delta: Malaysia.

Cheng, K.M. (1997) The education system. In G. Postiglione and W.O. Lee (eds) Schoolingin Hong Kong: Organisation, Teaching and Social Context. Hong Kong: Hong KongUniversity Press.

Cheng, K.M. (1998)Can education values be borrowed? Looking into cultural differences.Peabody Journal of Education 73 (2), 11–30.

Cheng, K.M. and Wong, K.C. (1996) School effectiveness in East Asia: Concepts, originsand implications. Journal of Educational Administration 34 (5), 32–49.

Clark, J., Lo, Y.C., Hui, M.F., Kam, M., Carless, D. and Wong, P.M. (1999) An Investigationinto the Development and Implementation of the TOC Initiative with Special Reference toProfessional Competencies, Professional Development and Resources: Final Report. HongKong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.

Clark, J., Scarino, A. and Brownell, J. (1994) Improving the Quality of Learning: A Frameworkfor Target-Oriented Curriculum Renewal. Hong Kong: Institute of Language inEducation.

Clifford, J. (1988)The Predicamentof Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Coleman, H. (ed.) (1996) Society and the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Confucius (1979) The Analects (D.C. Lau, trans.). London: Penguin.Cortazzi, M. (1998) Learning from Asian lessons: Cultural expectations and classroom

talk. Education 3 to 13 26 (2), 42–49.Dimmock, C. (1998) Restructuring Hong Kong’s schools: The applicability of Western

theories, policies and practices to an Asian culture. Educational Management andAdministration 26 (4), 363–77.

Ellis, G. (1996) How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach? EnglishLanguage Teaching Journal 50 (3), 213–18.

Evans, S. (1996)The context of English language education: The case of Hong Kong. RELCJournal 27 (2), 30–55.

Fu, G.S. (1987) The Hong Kong bilingual. In R. Lord and N.H.L. Cheng (eds) LanguageEducation in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

Fullan, M. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Hall, G. and Hord, S. (1987)Change in Schools:Facilitatingthe Process. Albany: SUNY Press.Hargreaves, A. (1997)From reform to renewal: A new deal for a new age. In A. Hargreaves

and R. Evans (eds) Beyond Educational Reform: Bringing Teachers Back In. Buckingham:Open University Press.


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ho, J. and Crookall, D. (1995) Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learnerautonomy in ELT. System 23 (2), 235–243.

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. London:HarperCollins.

Holliday, A. (1992) Tissue rejection and informal orders in ELT projects: Collecting theright information. Applied Linguistics 13 (4), 403–24.

Holliday, A. (1994) Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Hui, L. (1997)New bottles, old wine: Communicative language teaching in China. EnglishTeaching Forum, 38–41.

Kramsch, K. and Sullivan, P. (1996) Appropriate pedagogy. English Language TeachingJournal 50 (3), 199–212.

Kwai Chung Public School (1998) The ‘Little Teacher’ Scheme. In Good Practice in EnglishLanguage Teaching: A Handbook for Primary Schools. Hong Kong: English Section,Advisory Inspectorate, Education Department.

Lee, W.O. (1996) The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in theConfucian tradition. In D. Watkins and J. Biggs (eds) The Chinese Learner: Cultural,Psychological and Contextual Influences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education ResearchCentre and Australian Council for Educational Research.

Levin, B. (1998) An epidemic of education policy: (What) can we learn from each other?Comparative Education 34 (2), 131–42.

Li, D. (1998) ‘It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine’. Teachers’ perceiveddifficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOLQuarterly 32 (4), 677–697.

Littlewood, W. (1999)Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. AppliedLinguistics 20 (1), 71–94.

Llewellyn, J., Hancock, G., Kirst, M. and Roeloffs, K. (1982) A Perspective on Education inHong Kong – Report by a Visiting Panel. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Lo, M.L. (1998)Understanding the process of teachers’ professional development in HongKong primary schools: The impact of curriculum reform on reflective practice. In P.Stimpson and P. Morris (eds) Curriculum and Assessment for Hong Kong: TwoComponents, One System. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.

Markee, N. (1997) Managing Curricular Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Morris, P. (1992) Curriculum Development in Hong Kong. Education Papers 7. Hong Kong:Faculty of Education, Hong Kong University.

Morris, P. (1995) The Hong Kong School Curriculum. Hong Kong: Hong Kong UniversityPress.

Morris, P. (1998) Teachers’ attitudes towards a curriculum innovation. Research inEducation 40, 75–87.

Morris, P., Adamson, B., Au, M.L., Chan, K.K., Chan, W.Y., Ko, P.Y., AuYeung Lai, W., Lo,M.L., Morris, E., Ng, F.P., Ng, Y.Y., Wong, W.M. and Wong, P.H. (1996)Target-OrientedCurriculum Evaluation Report: Interim Report. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education,University of Hong Kong.

Morris, P., Adamson, B., Chan, K.K., Lo, M.L., Ko, P.Y., Kwan, Y.L., Mok, A.C., Ng, F.P.and Tong, S.Y. (1999) The Project on Feedback and Assessment: Final Report. Hong KongUniversity/Education Department.

Morris, P., Chan, K.K. and Lo, M.L. (1998) Changing primary schools in Hong Kong:Perspectives on policy and its impact. In P. Stimpson, and P. Morris (eds) Currriculumand Assessment for Hong Kong: Two Components, One System. Hong Kong: OpenUniversity of Hong Kong Press.

Ng, S.M. (1994) Language teaching and bilingual literacy at pre-primary and primarylevels in Hong Kong. Report to Education Commission.

Putnis, P. (1993) Cultural generalisations: Help or hindrance? In T. Boswood, R. Hoffmanand P. Tung (eds) Perspectives on English for Professional Communication. Hong Kong:City University of Hong Kong.

Reynolds, D. (1997) East-West trade-off. Times Educational Supplement, June 27.


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sheng Kung Hui Primary Schools Principal’s Association (1994)TOC – consequences andresponsibilities of school autonomy. (In Chinese) Wah Kiu Yih Pao, December 15.

Stevenson, H. and Lee, S.Y. (1996) The academic achievement of Chinese students. InM.H. Bond (ed.) The Handbook of Chinese Psychology. Hong Kong and New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Stevenson, H. and Lee, S.Y. (1997) The East Asia version of whole class teaching:Implications for America. In W. Cummings and P. Altbach (eds) The Challenge ofEastern Asian Education: Implications for America. Albany: State University of New YorkPress.

Stevenson, H. and Stigler, J. (1992) The Learning Gap. New York: Summit Books.Tang, C. (1996) Collaborative learning: The latent dimension in Chinese students’

learning. In D. Watkins and J. Biggs (eds) The Chinese Learner: Cultural, PsychologicalandContextual Influences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre andAustralian Council for Educational Research.

Tang, C. and Biggs, J. (1996) How Hong Kong students cope with assessment. In D.Watkins and J. Biggs (eds) The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and ContextualInfluences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and AustralianCouncil for Educational Research.

Tong, J.W.M. (1996) Hong Kong Chinese students’ approach towards English languagelearning revisited. Hong Kong Polytechnic University Working Papers in ELT and AppliedLinguistics 2 (1), 73–88.

Triandis, H. (1995) Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Tsui, A.B.M. (1985) Analyzing input and interaction in second language classrooms.

RELC Journal 16 (1), 8–32.Tsui, A.B.M. (1996)Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. Bailey and D.

Nunan (eds) Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Winter, S. (1996)Peer tutoring and learning outcomes. In D. Watkins and J. Biggs (eds) TheChinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences. Hong Kong:Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for EducationalResearch.

Wong, C. (1984) Sociocultural factors counteract the instructional efforts of teachingthrough English. PhD dissertation, University of Washington.

Wong, C.K. (1994) Looking at TOC from a moral and value system point of view. (InChinese) Wah Kiu Yih Pao, December 2.

Wong, Y.F. (1996) To investigate the understanding of principals and teachers of the keyfeatures of the Target-Oriented Curriculum (TOC) and their perceptions of its impacton their teaching. Unpublished MEd thesis, University of Hong Kong.

Wu, K.Y. (1993) Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC Journal 24(2), 45–68.


ownl

oade

d by

[Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

perspectives on the cultural appropriacy of hong kong's target-oriented curriculum (toc)...

Documents