Educational Review

Vol. 63, No. 2, May 2011, 195218

Differences in perceived approaches to learning and teaching

English in Hong Kong secondary schools
Barley Maka* and Pakey Chikb
a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of
Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, P.R. China; bCentre for Enhancing English Learning and
Teaching, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, P.R. China
Educational
10.1080/00131911.2010.534769
CEDR_A_534769.sgm
0950-3110
Taylor
2011
0Article
00
Dr
barleymak@cuhk.edu.hk
000002011
BarleyMak
&
andFrancis
(print)/1473-348X
Francis
Review
(online)

This paper investigates differences in approaches to learning and teaching English

as a second language (ESL) as reported by 324 mixed-ability Grade 7 Hong Kong
ESL students and 37 ESL secondary school teachers with different backgrounds.
Information about participants perceived approaches to learning/teaching English
were collected through a student questionnaire and a teacher questionnaire.
Analysis of the student data suggested significant differences among students of
low, medium, and high academic abilities in their reported use of deep and
achieving approaches to learning English. Analysis of the teacher data revealed
that teachers with different qualifications and number of years of teaching
experience performed significantly differently on the Information Transmission
Approach and on collaborative approaches to teaching English. Implications for
the learning and teaching of English in Hong Kong and limitations of the study are
also discussed.
Keywords: approaches to learning; approaches to teaching; learning and teaching
English as a second language; Hong Kong secondary schools

Introduction
Research on the approaches to learning as perceived by students studying in both
secondary and tertiary sectors arose as an alternative to the information processing
(IP) approach to learning, prevalent since the 1970s with its emphasis on students
mental learning processes and strategies regardless of the content and context. Unlike
the IP approach, research on student approaches to learning stems from an interest in
how students perceive their own learning in the learning environment. Evidence from
both interview studies in the early years and subsequent inventory studies has repeatedly shown that students approaches to learning are identifiable in distinctive categories (cf. Marton and Booth 1997) and are closely related to their conception of and
outcomes in learning (cf. Watkins and Biggs 1996). Parallel to the research on student
approaches to learning in design, studies of teachers perceptions of their approaches
to teaching began to flourish in the late 1990s. The results of these studies have uncovered different approaches to teaching, each embracing unique qualities that can be
associated with the teachers conception of teaching (e.g. Trigwell 1995; Lam and
Kember 2006) and corresponding student approaches to learning (e.g. Prosser and
Trigwell 1999; Richards 2005).
*Corresponding author. Email: barleymak@cuhk.edu.hk
ISSN 0013-1911 print/ISSN 1465-3397 online
2011 Educational Review
DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2010.534769
http://www.informaworld.com

196

B. Mak and P. Chik

Undoubtedly, the earlier two strands of studies on approaches to learning and

teaching have contributed greatly to our current understanding of what students and
teachers think about their own styles in learning and teaching respectively. These
studies also provide pedagogically valuable information about what to aim for and
where to start from in the teaching-learning cycle. However, the approaches to learning as perceived by students in secondary schools and particularly in the subject of
English have rarely been researched. Neither has there been much research on how
secondary school teachers of English view their approaches to teaching the language.
Examining student and teacher approaches towards learning and teaching English
respectively also provides an important indicator for reviewing the impact of the
current reform of the English curriculum in Hong Kong secondary schools. Since
2000, waves of curriculum initiatives have been introduced in secondary education, in
particular, in the English language. These include the introduction of Language Arts
for the new senior high curriculum and school-based assessment as a component for
the Certificate Examination in English language (The Curriculum Development
Council 2002). English language teachers in Hong Kong are challenged not only by
their knowledge and skills in adopting/adapting to those initiatives in the classroom,
but also by their ability to help their students learn more effectively under the curriculum reforms. Their perceived approaches to teaching English which embody their
beliefs, knowledge, experience, and conception about the language and the learning of
it are thus crucial to their adapting to the changes. Specifically, under the current
educational reform, English teachers are encouraged to use learner-centred instruction
(e.g. task-based learning), instead of the traditional form of direct teaching, so as to
facilitate students to use English for purposeful communication and for independent
learning (The Curriculum Development Council 2001, 2002). They are also encouraged to participate in collaborative research and development projects to tackle
practical issues related to learning and teaching (The Curriculum Development
Council 2001, 2002). Implementing these initiatives should then favour the adoption
of teaching approaches that focus more on students and their learning processes than
on mere knowledge transmission, and should reflect more collegial efforts among
teachers than individual works alone. Correspondingly, it would also favour a change
in student learning approaches from passive reproduction towards active engagement
in knowledge seeking. What is more, students, the receivers of the reform undertakings, have to settle in to the changing demands on their learning, such as an increasing
emphasis on the speaking component in the English language curriculum and in the
English papers in Hong Kongs public examinations (Hong Kong Examinations and
Assessment Authority 2009). Students of different academic abilities may have different perceived approaches to learning, as we would expect, which may affect their
striving to learn the language in the new curriculum.
This study aims to examine any significant difference in the approaches to learning
English as perceived by students with different academic abilities in Hong Kong
secondary schools. Whether teachers with different backgrounds in teaching visualise
their approach to teaching English differently will also be investigated. It is expected
that the findings of the present study will add to current understanding of what
students and teachers think about their own styles in learning and teaching in the
secondary sector. Particularly in the light of the ongoing educational reform in Hong
Kong, the results of this study will shed light on what possible influence the reform
has on stakeholders (in this study, English teachers and their students) and their
approaches to teaching/learning in the classrooms. In turn, this will inform educators

Educational Review

197

and policy-makers in devising further plans to improve English language education in

Hong Kong, specifically in view of the status of English in Hong Kong, which has
changed in recent years. Before the handover to China in 1997, English had a unique
status, described by Luke and Richards (1982) as EAL (English as an Auxiliary
Language). English was the language of government, commerce, finance and big
business. However, it was only spoken regularly and fluently by a rather limited
percentage of the mainly Cantonese speaking population. The majority of civil
servants, university graduates and lawmakers had been educated in the small number
of prestigious English-medium secondary schools, even though many of the other
schools asserted that they taught through English. Since 1997, however, English,
although still important, has declined in importance as the legislative body and the
civil service have incorporated Cantonese into the language of their proceedings.
Furthermore, legislation promulgated shortly after the handover (HKED 1997; Tsui
et al. 1999; Lu 2002) restricted all but a very few secondary schools to genuine
English-medium education (Falvey 1998). Thus, after a decade of the twenty-first
century, the teaching and learning of English in Hong Kong is in general more closely
approximated to the state of teaching English in China (i.e. as a foreign language) than
it was hitherto. It should be noted, however, that the current situation may change in
the future as school, parental and student pressure caused the government, in 2009, to
alter its rigorous stance somewhat, to fine-tune the medium of instruction issue and
permit Chinese-medium secondary schools to teach selected content subject classes in
English (Education Bureau 2009).
The following sections will first provide a literature review of student approaches
to learning and teacher approaches to teaching. In this review, the purpose of the study
will also be elaborated. Next, the research design of this study will be described,
followed by a presentation of the results. Finally, the significance and implications of
the key findings will be discussed.
Student approaches to learning
Research on student approaches to learning originates from the classic study by
Marton and Slj (1976a, 1976b) on the qualitative differences among students reading an academic text in higher education. In their study, 30 university students were
asked to read the same text at their own pace and in their own way. Then, individually,
these students were interviewed about what they had learnt and how they had gone
about studying the text. The results suggested that the students adopted either a surface
approach, trying to memorise the wordings or facts communicated in the text, or a
deep approach, focusing on understanding the intended meaning of the text. Svensson
(1977) came up with similar distinction between an atomistic and a holistic approach
in re-analysing the data with a focus on the ways students dealt with the text. The
former approach refers to handling the text in isolated pieces, whereas the latter refers
to treating the text as an integrated whole. A great number of interview-based research
studies that followed in subsequent years have reinforced the findings of the initial
attempts that university students undertook either a surface or a deep approach to
learning in specific tasks [e.g. Hodgson (1984) on listening to lectures; Hounsell
(1984) on essay writing; Laurillard (1978) on problem solving; Slj (1982) on text
comprehension].
Quantitative measures were then developed to gauge surface and deep approaches
to learning (each in two subscales of motive and strategy) among large number of

198

B. Mak and P. Chik

students in their everyday learning that encompasses a range of tasks. These measures
include the Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) (Entwistle and Ramsden 1983)
and the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) (Biggs 1987) for tertiary students as well
as the Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ) (Biggs 1987) for secondary populations.
In these measures, an additional category has been added, namely the strategic
(Entwistle and Ramsden 1983) or achieving (Biggs 1987) approach to denote the
significance of the role of assessment in students perception of their approach to
studying. Students scoring high on the scale for the achieving approach are characterised by a dedication to achieving the highest possible grades and the use of strategies,
like being cue conscious, as well as working hard and efficiently. In the latest
revisions of SPQ and LPQ, the scale for the achieving approach was, however,
removed since its items were found to have heavily cross-loaded with the surface and
deep approaches (Biggs, Kember and Leung 2001; Kember, Biggs and Leung 2004).
As Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) have reported in their interviews with students in
Lancaster about their everyday learning and in other studies (e.g. Scouller 1998),
students deliberately chose to adopt different approaches to learning based on coursework requirements (e.g. multiple choice questions versus assignment essays). The
nature of the subject or course unit in which students were studying was also found to
affect the students approaches to their everyday learning or studying (Eley 1992;
McCune and Hounsell 2005). For example, rote learning may be particularly important in some subject areas like languages, history, and pharmacy for understanding,
whereas additional skills may also be involved in some other disciplines, such as
mathematics, physics, and economics. As such, Biggs (1993, 10) claims that although
instruments like SPQ and LPQ attempt to investigate the ways students usually go
about learning in general, they actually provide evidence for the students predispositions to adopt particular processes which are both content- and context- bounded.
Immense interest in the cultural difference in student approaches to learning has
been triggered by the generally exceptional performances of students from south-east
Asian countries in a series of international studies of educational achievement since
the mid-1990s (e.g. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 1995,
1999, 2003, 2007; Programme for International Student Assessment 2003; Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study 2007). In their book The Chinese Learner,
Watkins and Biggs (1996) reviewed a number of comparative research studies on
student approaches to learning and revealed a higher tendency for Hong Kong secondary and university students to report a deep approach to learning than their counterparts in Western countries such as Australia. This is consistent with the findings of
subsequent interview-based studies that Hong Kong secondary school children
demonstrated sophisticated conceptions of learning (Dahlin and Watkins 2000) and
that these conceptions are beyond what had been noted in previous studies with
university students in Western countries (Marton, Watkins and Tang 1997). In Dahlin
and Watkins study (2000), the students from Hong Kong also reported the use of
repetition and memorisation (typical surface strategies) to improve their understanding of the materials they were studying (denoting a deep motive). Consistent with this,
Hong Kong students reported greater use of both surface and deep approaches in their
learning when compared to their Western counterparts (Kember and Gow 1990;
Leung, Ginns and Kember 2008). Different combinations of strategies typical of the
surface and deep approaches to learning (Marton, DallAlba and Kun 1996), selective
adoption of either approach to learning (Tang 1991; Tang 1993) and a progression
from using the surface approach to using the deep approach to learning throughout

Educational Review

199

secondary schooling (Watkins 1996) have also been noted among secondary or
tertiary students in Hong Kong.
Based upon the research findings reviewed earlier, it is clear that different
approaches to learning are not mutually exclusive, but sensitive to the content and
context of learning; in particular, a higher degree of dual usage of the surface and deep
approaches to learning/studying has been found among students in Hong Kong. Yet,
many of the studies carried out in Hong Kong have focused on learning or studying in
general irrespective of the students academic abilities. In 1991, Gow, Kember and
Chow used the SPQ to examine the relationship between the student approach to
learning and English language ability in a tertiary institution in Hong Kong. The
results suggested that students low in English language ability were more likely to
adopt the surface approach to learning, whereas the deep approach was positively
related with higher English language ability. While these results showed a possible
relationship between students ability in the subject and their perceived approaches to
learning in general, it raises the question of whether the reverse would be true, that is,
if students general academic ability would affect their perception about their use of
different approaches in learning a specific subject. It is therefore of particular interest
in this study to address this issue in the context of English as a subject in secondary
schools in Hong Kong.
Teacher approaches to teaching
The development of the research on teacher approaches to teaching follows closely
that on student approaches to learning, especially in higher education. Following the
work of Marton and Slj (1976a, 1976b) in identifying the qualitative differences in
students approaches to learning, Trigwell and colleagues (Trigwell and Prosser 1993;
Trigwell, Prosser and Taylor 1994) interviewed 24 university staff teaching first-year
courses in chemistry and physics to discover how they perceived their approaches to
teaching the subjects. Five qualitatively different approaches to teaching the two
subjects were identified. Each of these approaches was characterised in terms of the
teachers motives/intentions and strategies, as it has been in the studies on student
approaches to learning. These approaches form a hierarchy from a single-focused
information transmission/teacher-focused (ITTF) approach to a multi-focused
conceptual change/student-focused (CCSF) approach embracing the other four
approaches. Teachers using an ITTF approach tend to focus on their own teaching acts
and knowledge structure in delivering the content of a syllabus or textbooks. What
students may bring to or experience in learning is rarely a concern in their teaching.
Rather, teachers concentrate on forward planning, classroom management, and techniques that can facilitate their transmission of knowledge or information to the
students [e.g. use of information technology (IT)]. In contrast, teachers adopting a
CCSF approach see information transmission as necessary but not sufficient. In particular, they aim at changing students ways of thinking or experiencing the subject
matter and often make use of student-focused strategies, such as questioning, and
student group discussion and presentation.
Based on their qualitative data, Trigwell and Prosser (1996) further developed
the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) to measure approaches to teaching in a
larger pool of teachers. Initially, the ATI contained two intention subscales (i.e.
information transmission and conceptual change) and three strategy subscales (i.e.
teacher-focused, studentteacher interaction, and student-focused) that corresponded

200

B. Mak and P. Chik

to the teaching approaches identified in the interview study. However, due to the
heavy cross-load of the student/teacher interaction subscale with the student-focused
subscale, the former was removed from the strategy dimension, leaving four subscales
in measurement of the CCSF and ITTF approaches. The subsequent use of the ATI to
examine academic staffs approaches to teaching in the domain of science (e.g.
Trigwell, Prosser and Waterhouse 1999) and other disciplines (e.g. Trigwell et al.
1998; Gibbs and Coffey 2004) has provided supporting evidence for the fundamental
distinction between the CCSF and ITTF approaches to teaching at tertiary level.
Trigwell and Prosser (2004) as well as Prosser and Trigwell (2006), in reviewing the
validity and reliability of the ATI, further point out that the use of the ATI is relational
and contextual, instead of merely being a tool, to yield a full and rich, yet context-free
self-report of teaching. Teachers perception of their approach to teaching as revealed
by their scores on the ATI (e.g. Trigwell and Prosser 1996) or similar inventory (e.g.
Kember and Kwan 2000) have also been shown to have followed logically from their
conceptions of teaching.
There are relatively fewer studies characterising teachers approaches to teaching
from their own perspective in the school-based research literature of teaching. Even
fewer attempts have been made to research in the Hong Kong context until more
recently. In 2006, Lam and Kember, basing their research on their early attempt to
categorise the conceptions of teaching art among 18 secondary art teachers in Hong
Kong, further explored the relationship between conceptions of and approaches to
teaching art in the secondary school sector. Similar to those in the studies in higher
education, their interview data suggested that teachers perception of their approach
to teaching art ranged between subject- and student-centred poles and followed logically from their conceptions of teaching the subject. In their study, some contextual
factors, such as the impact of the external examination syllabus and the teachers
educational background, also indicated noticeable influence on the teachers
perceived approaches to teaching the subject. Similar contextual influences have also
been noted in earlier studies conducted in the West (e.g. Gibbs 1992). It may therefore
be worth investigating if teachers with different backgrounds in teaching would show
significant differences in their perceived approaches to teaching a particular subject.
Intensive qualitative methods are undoubtedly of high value in forming a solid
foundation for deeper understanding of the differences in how teachers view their
approach to teaching. However, they may not be suitable for collecting evidence from
relatively large numbers of teachers, which would normally require the use of
quantitative measures. This study attempts to adapt the ATI, a well-established and
widely employed tool, to look for any significant differences in the reported
approaches to teaching English between teachers who have different backgrounds in
teaching, such as the number of years they have taught in schools and the highest
qualification they have attained.
Method
Participants
The present study was launched within the research teams current school-based
projects with three secondary schools in Hong Kong. These projects were supported
by the government English Enhancement Scheme (EES) to ensure that students in
CMI [Chinese-medium] schools would be proficient in English while learning nonlanguage subjects through the mother tongue (Education Bureau 2006). The

Educational Review

201

instruments used in the present study were tools for gaining an overall understanding
of the learning and teaching of English in those schools so as to inform further curriculum and teacher professional development in the projects.
The student and teacher participants were recruited from the three participant
schools of the EES. The medium of instruction in these schools is mainly Chinese
(Cantonese), except for the teaching of English as a subject. The English proficiency
of these students is between medium to low levels according to the school information. In Hong Kong, there are approximately 460 secondary schools. In one quarter of
these, the medium of instruction is English; that is, English is used in these schools as
the medium for all major content subjects and also for a lot of day-to-day-interaction
within the school such as announcements, assemblies, etc. A total of 324 Secondary
One (S1, i.e. Grade 7) students took part in this study, excluding 10 extraneous data
points. Half of them were male and the other half were female. In each school, S1
students were streamed into high, middle, and low academic ability classes (later
referred to as high, middle, and low ability groups) based on school entrance
attainment tests on the three major subjects of Chinese, English and Mathematics.
These tests normally assess students general performance in each of the subjects; and
students language skills in English of reading comprehension and writing, and sometimes also of listening and speaking, would be tested. Students scoring low on the tests
would be placed into lower band classes and vice versa. Although this kind of simple
test scores are too general to represent different kinds of competences and higher order
abilities essential for learning and using English as a second language (ESL), they
form a reasonably good indicator of students overall academic competence, including
their English proficiency for the current investigation of possible differences in
student approaches to learning English, especially when more detailed breakdown of
the attainment test scores were not available. The teacher participants were all English
language teachers, including the English panel chairperson (head of department), the
assistant English panel chairperson, form coordinators, and class teachers as well as
Native-speaking teachers in the schools. There were 37 teacher participants. Eight of
them were male and 29 were female.
Instruments
Student questionnaire
The measurement of students perceived approaches to learning English in this study
was adapted from Biggss LPQ (1987) which consists of three scales, each further
divided into intention/motive and strategy subscales measuring for the surface, deep,
and achieving approaches to learning. The surface approach measures for both
participants intention to pass with minimum effort (surface motive) and their use of
strategies to reproduce materials just enough to meet the minimum requirement
(surface strategy). There were nine items in the scale of surface approach, four of them
in the subscale of surface motive (e.g. I think teachers shouldnt expect me to work
on topics that are outside the set course) and five in that of surface strategy (e.g. I
tend to study only whats set; I usually dont do anything extra). The deep approach
gauges the extent to which participants want to understand the subject (deep motive)
and to relate it to meaningful contexts and to what they already know (deep strategy).
A total of seven items were included in the scale of deep approach, three of them in
the motive subscale (e.g. I find that many subjects can become very interesting once
I get into them) and four in the strategy subscale (e.g. In reading new material, I am

202

B. Mak and P. Chik

often reminded of material I already know and see the latter in a new light). The scale
of achieving approach consisted of 12 items, half in the motive subscale measuring for
participants intention to excel and obtain the highest possible grades in examinations
(e.g. I will work for top marks in a subject whether or not I like the subject) and half
in the strategy subscale soliciting their use of cue-conscious strategies to meet this end
(e.g. I usually try to read all the references and things my teacher says we should).
(See also Appendix for a sample of the student questionnaire.) Although the heavy
cross-load of the achieving approach with the other two approaches (referred to as the
surface- and deep-achieving approaches) has led to it being removed in the later
version of the LPQ (Biggs et al. 2001; Kember et al. 2004), we decided to keep the
measurement for the achieving approach. This is because the classroom environment
in Hong Kong has long been characterised by its strong competitiveness and examination stress (Biggs 1991) together with a huge concern with students academic
achievement (Gow et al. 1996). Chinese students are also well known for their strong
emphasis on the importance of learning for its high instrumental value in getting a
good career (Gow et al. 1996).
Cronbachs alpha coefficients were calculated for the internal consistency of each
of the six subscales of the LPQ and they ranged from 0.47 to 0.87 (see Table 1).
Although many of the coefficients fell in the sixties or lower and raise concerns about
the robustness of the instrument (George and Mallery 2003), the fact that the instrument has been repeatedly used in other studies in the context of Hong Kong with good
reliabilities (e.g. Kember and Gow 1990; Watkins and Biggs, 1996; Dahlin and
Watkins 2000; Leung et al. 2008) provides us with the confidence to use the instrument in this study. A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was also
Table 1. Reliabilities, means, standard deviations and range of the scales and subscales of the
student and teacher questionnaires used in this study.
Approach to learning/
teaching English
Surface approach
Motive
Strategy
Deep approach
Motive
Strategy
Achieving approach
Motive
Strategy
CCSF approach
Intention
Strategy
ITTF approach
Intention
Strategy
Collaborative teaching
approach

Reliability
(Cronbachs alpha)

Maximum

Mean

Standard
deviation

Range

0.71
0.47
0.66
0.82
0.67
0.73
0.87
0.76
0.81
0.83
0.79
0.52
0.84
0.64
0.64
0.85

45
20
25
35
15
20
60
30
30
40
20
20
40
20
20
15

24.16
11.33
12.90
21.11
9.59
11.56
34.15
16.55
17.60
23.61
12.68
11.00
25.88
13.24
12.53
9.65

6.05
3.19
3.86
5.59
2.78
3.31
9.49
5.03
5.22
4.60
2.92
2.03
4.64
2.61
2.36
2.94

1042
420
525
735
315
420
1259
630
630
1230
518
716
1235
517
718
315

Note: CCSF approach refers to the conceptual change/student-focused approach to teaching, whereas ITTF
approach refers to the information transmission/teacher-focused approach to teaching.

Educational Review

203

performed to confirm the factor structure of the items adapted from the LPQ in this
study. The results support a two-factor structure by having two major clusters of the
items measuring for surface and deep-achieving approaches to learning English (see
Table 2 for the factor loadings).
Teacher questionnaire
Information about the English language teachers perception of their approach to
teaching the language in terms of teaching intention and strategies was solicited by
means of the scales adapted from the ATI (Prosser and Trigwell 1999). Additional
Table 2. Factor loadings based on the principal components factor analyses with varimax for
the student questionnaire (n = 324).
Approach to learning English
Item

numbera

DS29
AS30
AS16
AM13
AM27
DS15
DM17
AS25
AS19
AM08
DM07
AS34
AS11
DS10
DS24
DM21
AM32
SM20
AM22
SS23
SS33
SM26
SS09
SS14
SS28
SM31
SM12
AM18

Deep-achieving
0.74
0.74
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.69
0.67
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.61
0.57
0.55
0.55
0.50
0.49
0.48
0.44

0.37
0.36

Surface

0.31
0.32
0.37
0.73
0.71
0.64
0.56
0.54
0.45
0.45
0.30

Note: Factor loadings < 0.3 are suppressed.

a
Items labelled with SM and SS, DM and DS, AM and AS were set to measure the surface, deep and
achieving approaches to learning English, respectively.

204

B. Mak and P. Chik

Table 3. Factor loadings based on the principal components factor analyses with varimax for
the teacher questionnaire (n = 37).
Approach to teaching English
Item numbera

ITTF

TM17
TS18
TM10
TS07
TS13
TM08
TS16
TM19
SS15
SM14
SM27
SS12
SS25
SM11
CT23
CT22
SM26

0.78
0.76
0.68
0.66
0.66
0.56
0.53
0.47
0.42

0.39

CCSF

Collaborative approach

0.39
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.78
0.72
0.72
0.66
0.57

0.42

0.31
0.37
0.41
0.86
0.77
0.72

Note: Factor loadings < 0.3 are suppressed.

a
Items labelled with TM and TS, SS and SM, CT target for measuring the ITTF, CSSF and Collaborative
approaches to teaching English, respectively.

items gauging the teachers perception towards peer collaboration and sharing which
have become prevalent under current educational reforms were included. There are
also items on the teachers background, such as level taught, position, number of
teaching years, and qualifications as an English language teacher. Cronbachs alpha
coefficients calculated for each of the four subscales of the ATI and an additional
scale measuring teachers approaches towards collaboration fell into a range from
0.52 to 0.85 (see Table 1). A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was
also run to assure the assumed underlying three-factor structure for the items that
measured for the CCSF, ITTF, and collaborative approaches to teaching English in
this study. As shown by the factor loadings in Table 3, the assumed three-factor
structure of the items was upheld.
Procedures
The student questionnaire was translated into Chinese and administered to the student
participants during English lessons on a class basis. In this questionnaire, the students
were asked to rate on a five-point Likert-type scale, from never or only rarely (1) to
always or almost always (5), to show how true each statement is for them. Before the
students started to fill in the questionnaire, they were informed that its purpose was to
understand their learning of English in school. All the questionnaires remained anonymous. The students generally took about 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

Educational Review

205

The teacher questionnaire was in English. It was self-administered by the participants. Like the student questionnaire, the teacher questionnaire required the teachers
to rate on a five-point Likert-type scale, from never or only rarely (1) to always or
almost always (5), to reflect how true each statement is for them. The completed questionnaires were put in envelopes, and returned anonymously to the researchers
through the panel chairperson of each school.
Results
Differences in perceived approaches to learning English among S1 students with
different academic abilities
As mentioned earlier, one of the purposes of this study is to examine whether students
of different academic abilities would have different perceptions about their approach
to learning English or not. To address this, non-parametric MannWhitney U twotailed tests were conducted to reveal any significant differences on the three scales and
six of their subscales for the three learning approaches in the following pairings: the
low and middle ability groups, the low and high ability groups, and the middle and
high ability groups. Significant differences in the mean ranks of any group pairing on
the scale and subscales for a particular approach to learning English are taken to
denote distinctively different levels of agreement on students perception of that
particular approach. Conversely, the absence of significant difference suggests a
similar opinion of the groups in comparison to their use of a particular approach to
learn English. Table 4 summarises the results of the non-parametric MannWhitney
U two-tailed tests on the student data.
Table 4. Results of non-parametric MannWhitney U two-tailed tests on student approaches
to learning English.
Approach to
learning English

Academic
ability

Surface Approach

Low
Middle
Low
High
Middle
High
Low
Middle
Low
High
Middle
High
Low
Middle
Low
High
Middle
High

Surface Motive

Surface Strategy

Sum of rank

Mean rank

102
72
102
126
72
126
109
74
109
130
74
130
106
75
106
130
75
130

8722.50
6502.50
12079.50
14026.50
7781.00
11920.00
9911.00
6925.00
12924.00
15756.00
7593.00
13317.00
9408.50
7062.50
13471.50
14494.50
8693.00
12422.00

85.51
90.31
118.43
111.32
108.07
94.60
90.93
93.58
118.57
121.20
102.61
102.44
88.76
94.17
127.09
111.50
115.91
95.55

MannWhitney
U statistics z
0.62
0.81
1.59
0.33
0.29
0.02
0.69
1.75
2.37*

206
Table 4.

B. Mak and P. Chik

(Continued).

Approach to
learning English

Academic
ability

Deep Approach

Deep Motive

Deep Strategy

Achieving
Approach

Achieving Motive

Achieving Strategy

Sum of rank

Mean rank

Low
Middle
Low
High
Middle
High
Low
Middle
Low
High
Middle
High
Low
Middle
Low
High
Middle
High
Low

108
77
108
129
77
129
112
77
112
133
77
133
109
77
109
130
77
130
107

9250.00
7955.00
10611.50
17591.50
7207.00
14114.00
9456.00
8499.00
10779.50
19355.50
7282.50
14872.50
9882.00
7509.00
11679.50
17000.50
7294.50
14233.50
9417.50

85.65
103.31
98.25
136.37
93.60
109.41
84.43
110.38
96.25
145.53
94.58
111.82
90.66
97.52
107.15
130.77
94.73
109.49
88.01

Middle
Low
High
Middle
High
Low
Middle
Low
High
Middle
High
Low
Middle
Low
High
Middle
High

75
107
125
75
125
110
75
110
128
75
128
110
77
110
131
77
131

7235.50
10514.00
16514.00
6520.50
13579.50
9646.00
7559.00
11000.00
1744.10
6811.00
13895.00
10233.00
7345.00
11469.00
17692.00
6888.50
14847.50

96.47
98.26
132.11
86.94
108.64
87.69
100.79
100.00
136.26
90.81
108.55
93.03
95.39
104.26
135.05
89.46
113.34

MannWhitney
U statistics z
2.22*
4.27***
1.85
3.23**
5.45***
2.00*
0.86
2.64**
1.72
1.07
3.83***
2.57*
1.64
4.06***
2.08*
0.29
3.42**
2.77**

Note: For each of the scales and subscales, MannWhitney U two-tailed test was run three times, each to
compare the medians of two of the ability groups (in the pairing of low-middle, low-high or middle-high
ability groups), in order to determine for any statistically significant difference in each pairing. Thus, with
different sets of data for comparisons of different pairings in each scale/subscale, a different mean rank
would appear for the same ability group depending on which of the other ability groups it was compared to.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Educational Review

207

As shown in Table 4, there was no significant group difference in the mean ranks
on the scale and subscales for the surface approach to learning English, except for the
subscale for surface strategy between the middle and high ability groups. In particular,
the middle ability group had a significantly higher mean rank (115.91) than that of the
high ability group (with mean rank = 95.55) in reporting their use of surface strategy,
on a scale 1 (never or only rarely) to 5 (always or almost always). The results therefore
suggest that the students in the three ability groups were in general similar in perceiving their use of the surface approach to learning English, except that the middle ability
group showed a significantly higher level of agreement with their use of surface
strategy to learn English than the high ability group.
A number of significant group differences were noted in the mean ranks on the
scale and subscales for the deep approach to learning English. The middle ability
group (with mean rank = 103.31) ranked significantly higher than the low ability
group (with mean rank = 85.65), but slightly lower than the high ability group (with
mean rank = 109.41) on the scale of the deep approach to learning English in general.
Also, the low ability group (with mean ranks = 84.43 and 96.25) ranked significantly
lower on the subscale of deep motive, than the other two ability groups (with the mean
ranks of the middle and high ability groups being 110.38 and 145.53, respectively).
The middle ability group gave significantly lower rankings (with mean rank = 94.58)
than the high ability group (with mean rank = 111.82) on this subscale as well. A
significant difference was further revealed in the mean ranks of the low (107.15) and
high (130.77) ability groups on the subscale for deep strategy, but not in those of the
other group pairings. The results then suggest that in general, the low ability group
showed less agreement that they have employed the deep approach to learning English
in general, when compared to the other two ability groups who shared similar
perceptions. Specifically, there was stronger agreement among students in the high
ability group that they had a deep motive for learning English than students in the
middle ability group. Students in the middle ability group, in turn, held a stronger
agreement to their having a deep motive in learning English than the low ability group.
There was, however, not much distinction between the low and middle ability groups
in their perception of using a deep strategy to learn English. The same was observed
between the middle and high ability groups.
The high ability group had significantly higher mean ranks on the scale and
subscales for the achieving approach to learning English (with mean rank = 136.26
compared to the low ability group; mean rank = 108.55 compared to the middle ability
group) than the other two ability groups (mean rank of the low ability group = 100.00;
mean rank of the middle ability group = 90.81) which rated similarly on those scales.
This indicates that students in the high ability group strongly agreed that they were
pursuing the achieving approach to learning English, both intentionally and strategically. By contrast, students in the other two ability groups did not have such strong
agreement as the high ability group about using the achieving approach to learning
English.
Differences in the perceived approaches to teaching English among English
language teachers with different backgrounds in teaching
Another purpose of this study is to identify possible significant differences in the
perceived approaches to teaching English among the English language teachers who
have different teaching backgrounds in terms of their highest qualification attained

208

B. Mak and P. Chik

Table 5. Results of non-parametric MannWhitney U two-tailed tests on teacher approaches

to teaching English.
Approach to teaching
English
CCSF approach

CCSF intention

CCSF strategy

ITTF approach

ITTF intention

ITTF strategy

Collaborative
approach to teaching

Highest qualification
attained/number of
year of teaching

Sum of
rank

Mean
rank

Bachelor or lower
Post-graduate
10 years or less
More than 10 years
Bachelor or lower
Post-graduate
10 years or less
More than 10 years
Bachelor or lower
Post-graduate
10 years or less
More than 10 years
Bachelor or lower
Post-graduate
10 years or less
More than 10 years
Bachelor or lower
Post-graduate
10 years or less
More than 10 years
Bachelor or lower
Post-graduate
10 years or less
More than 10 years
Bachelor or lower

18
17
17
18
19
17
18
18
18
17
17
18
18
16
17
17
18
16
17
17
18
17
18
17
19

292.50
337.50
264.50
365.50
317.50
348.50
285.00
381.00
305.50
324.50
277.50
352.50
254.50
340.50
283.50
311.50
274.00
321.00
283.50
311.50
308.00
322.00
308.00
322.00
296.50

16.25
19.85
15.56
20.31
16.71
20.50
15.83
21.17
16.97
19.09
16.32
19.58
14.14
21.28
16.56
18.44
15.22
20.06
16.68
18.32
17.11
18.94
17.11
18.94
15.61

1.05

Post-graduate
10 years or less
More than 10 years

17
18
18

369.50
256.50
409.50

21.74
14.25
22.76

1.76

MannWhitney
U statistics z

1.38
1.09
1.53
0.62
0.95
2.10*
0.55
1.43
0.49

2.65**
0.53

2.44*

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

and number of years teaching experience. Again, non-parametric Mann-Whitney U

two-tailed tests were employed to analyse the data and the results are summarised in
Table 5.
As shown in Table 5, English language teachers having higher qualifications or
longer years of teaching did not differ significantly from those who had lower qualifications or shorter years of teaching in their ratings on the scale and subscales for the
CCSF approach to teaching the language. However, notable differences were
observed in their perception of their use of the ITTF and collaborative approaches to
teaching English. Teachers who had received postgraduate training showed considerably higher mean ranks (21.28; 18.94) than those who merely had a qualification at
the bachelor level or lower (14.14; 17.11) in their reported use of the ITTF approach

Educational Review

209

in general and the ITTF strategy in particular respectively. Also, teachers with more
than 10 years experience had a notably higher mean rank (22.76) than those with less
than 10 years of teaching experience (14.25) in reporting a collaborative approach to
teaching English. The findings therefore suggest on the one hand that the English
language teachers who had attained higher qualifications were stronger than their
counterparts holding lower qualification in their reported use of the ITTF approach
and the ITTF strategy to teach English. On the other hand, the results showed a greater
tendency for the teachers who had more than 10 years teaching experience than those
who were less experienced to agree that they have engaged in peer collaboration and
sharing in teaching English.
Discussion
To recap, this study investigated differences in the perceived approaches to learning
and teaching English among the S1 students and the English language teachers from
three secondary schools in Hong Kong. Specifically, it examined if there would be any
significant differences among students with different academic abilities in perceiving
their use of surface, deep, and achieving approaches to learning English; and whether
the English language teachers who had different qualifications and teaching experience would differ significantly in their adoption of the CCSF, ITTF, and collaboration
approaches to teaching English. It is hoped that the results of this study could contribute to the current literature, especially in enlightening our understanding about
perceived approaches to learning and teaching in the domain of ESL as related to the
diversity in the students abilities and in teachers backgrounds.
Differences in the perceived approaches to learning English among S1 students
with different academic abilities in Hong Kong secondary schools
One of the major findings of this study concerns differences in the reported use of
deep approach to learning English among the S1 students who had different academic
abilities within the schools. In general, students in the low, middle, and high academic
ability groups did not differ much in reporting their use of a surface approach to
learning English. Rather, the low ability group showed a distinctively lower tendency
than the other two ability groups to adopt a deep approach to learning English, both
intentionally and strategically. These results partially coincide with Gow et al.s
(1991) study in which Hong Kong tertiary students, more capable in English, were
more likely to report using a deep approach to learning in general. This may then
suggest that differences in students academic abilities in general or in a specific
subject [e.g. English in Gow et al.s (1991) study] have substantial influence on their
reported use of the deep approach to learning. Particularly, students with higher
academic abilities in general or in a specific subject tend to focus their learning on
understanding what they are supposed to learn and making use of various skills or
strategies that can help them arrive at such understanding, for example, making their
own notes instead of copying from others and trying to relate different aspects of the
subject to the main topic.
However, there exists a discrepancy between the findings of the present study and
the study by Gow et al. (1991) about the students perceived adoption of a surface
approach to learning. Unlike the results of Gow et al.s study with tertiary students,
students in classes of low, middle, and high academic abilities in this study showed

210

B. Mak and P. Chik

similar preferences for using a surface approach to learning English. This may reflect
the characteristics of learning of ESL in Hong Kong secondary schools. Unlike the
tertiary students in Gow et al.s study who had passed the public examinations
indicating their basic competence in English required for entrance to universities,
students recruited for this study were in the junior grades of secondary education and
were still undergoing the initial stage of acquiring a basic competence in English. As
learning to acquire a second language elsewhere, vocabulary building and acquaintance with unfamiliar grammar and sentence patterns in English have been keys to the
acquisition of ESL among students in Hong Kong secondary schools (The Curriculum
Development Council 2002; The Curriculum Development Council and the Hong
Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority 2007). It may then lead students, either
low or high in academic abilities, to resort to memorising or retaining as much
information as possible while building up their vocabulary and deciphering the
grammatical aspects of the language in the initial stage of learning. This scenario may
be particularly relevant to the students in this study whose English proficiency was
limited to the range of medium to low levels.
It is also interesting to note the pattern of the students in the middle academic
ability group in reporting their approach to learning English. Unlike students in the low
ability group, the students in the middle ability group saw the learning of English as
more an issue of understanding the subject matter of English (reflecting a deep motive)
and less to reproducing facts and information (showing a surface motive). At the same
time, their strong inclination towards the use of a surface strategy may have hinted that
these students were trying to understand English through reproduction and repetitive
exercises. This result is apparently in line with the current literature on such a mixed
approach towards learning among Chinese learners (e.g. Kember and Gow 1990;
Leung et al. 2008). It also reinforces the importance of the nature of the subject on
students perception of their approaches to learning as pointed out in other studies (e.g.
Eley 1992; McCune and Hounsell 2005). As discussed earlier, the characteristics of
being in the initial stage of acquiring ESL in the junior grades of secondary schooling
may have necessitated a strong reliance on the use of the surface approach to learning
the language. Such reliance was apparently stronger in students with middle academic
abilities than those with higher academic abilities in this study. This may indicate that
this group of students with middle academic ability was actually progressing from
using surface strategy (they heavily depended on) to using deep strategy (they showed
as high a preference to it as the high ability group) in learning English.
Another area that warrants attention in the present study concerns the differences
in the students perception about their use of an achieving approach to learning
English. The results suggest that the high ability group was stronger than the other two
ability groups in their intention to strive for the highest possible achievement in learning English (denoting an achieving motive) and in their preference for using skills or
strategies to meet these ends (i.e. achieving strategy). This on the one hand suggests
that the students in the high ability group, besides having a higher intention to learn
English for understanding (a deep motive) as discussed earlier, were also strong in
their motive to learn the language for achievement. On the other hand, their lack of
significant difference from the middle ability group in the reported use of deep strategy supports the idea that they were more inclined to apply achieving strategies in
learning English. In other words, this group of students, with higher academic ability,
were keener on practising skills and strategies that help to boost their attainment, than
on those that help to facilitate their understanding in the subject.

Educational Review

211

As discussed earlier, although both the middle and high academic ability groups
showed an intention to learn to understand English, the former reported a strong
tendency to use surface strategy and the latter to use achievement strategy. Such a gap
between these students preference to learn to understand English and their reported
use of the respective skills or strategies in the learning may further suggest that there
was a need in these students to further develop the skills or strategies that help
students to advance in their understanding of English. Providing proper training in
these skills or strategies in the curriculum may therefore be advisable.
Differences in the perceived approaches to teaching of English language teachers
with different backgrounds in teaching in Hong Kong secondary schools
The teacher data suggest differences among different groups of English language
teachers in their perceived approaches to teaching the language. On the one hand,
teachers differing in their highest qualification obtained or in number of teaching
years, showed similar tendencies in teaching with a focus on students ways of thinking or experiencing the subject matter (denoting a CCSF intention) and often made use
of student-focused strategies, such as questioning, student group discussion and
presentation (i.e. the CCSF strategies). In other words, the English language teachers
in this study apparently shared a common concern with what their students experienced and how to engage them in learning in the subject. Yet, the significant difference noted between teachers with different qualifications in their perception about
using the ITTF approach suggests a variation in their emphasis on knowledge transmission in their teaching. Despite their similar concern about students experience in
learning, teachers who had received postgraduate training emphasised more strongly
than their counterparts who had merely obtained a bachelor or lower degree, the need
to equip students with knowledge and information important for them to learn
English. In particular, they reported a remarkably stronger emphasis on forward planning, classroom management, and techniques that can facilitate their transmission of
knowledge or information to the students (e.g. use of IT). This result may have
reflected different orientations in the bachelor and postgraduate training. It is possible
that a stronger emphasis on advancing teachers professionalism was placed on
subject content knowledge in higher degrees. For instance, the English Language
Proficiency Assessment initiative implemented in 2000 and the recommendations
made by the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research in June 2003
that all language teachers should possess relevant knowledge about teaching (pedagogy) (see Shulman 1986, 1987, 2000a, 2000b), relevant teacher training (professionalism) and appropriate language proficiency skills (proficiency) are some of those
efforts to help elevate ESL teachers knowledge and skills in the teaching of English.
However, it will require more detailed analysis about the kinds of training the teachers
had had before any conclusion can be drawn, which is beyond the scope of this study.
Another interesting phenomenon concerns the notable difference between teachers
with different number of teaching years in their perceptions of using a collaborative
approach to teaching English. As shown by the data, it was obvious that teachers with
more than 10 years teaching experience reported remarkably greater engagement in
peer collaborative work than those who had less teaching experience, such as co-planning lessons, lesson observation, and sharing the skills/knowledge acquired in professional development activities with English panel members. This may then reflect the
different stages the two groups of teachers had reached in developing their teaching

212

B. Mak and P. Chik

profession. As Villegas-Reimers (2003, 129) has pointed out in reviewing different

models of teacher professional development, teachers traverse different stages of
their development at different times in their career. Despite the individual differences
in teachers own characteristics and exposure to learning opportunities that may possibly affect their progress, those who have stayed in the profession for a longer period
of time are, in general, more likely to have reached a competent or proficient level in
dealing with their daily teaching practices (Dreyfus and Dreyfus 1986) and begin to
engage in a process of self-reflection and reassessment with a focus on finding out
what needs to be changed and how it can be done (Huberman 1989). Working in
collaboration with peers to plan and observe lessons, and to reach out and share
various innovative strategies is, with no doubt, a means to this end.
Conclusion
This study aimed at identifying differences in the perceived approaches to learning
and teaching ESL in Hong Kong secondary schools. The significant differences
observed between students of different academic abilities in their perceived
approaches to learning English provide some insights into how they go about the
learning of the language, especially in medium to low banding schools. As mentioned
earlier, students of medium to low banding schools are relatively low in English proficiency and are still undergoing the process of vocabulary building and grammatical
understanding in learning English; and thus in general rely heavily on the use of a
surface approach to reproducing as many facts and as much information as possible.
Despite this, in this study, students with higher abilities began to show an interest in
trying to make sense of what they learn about English. This may somehow reflect a
positive influence of the current educational reform in encouraging the use of learnercentred instruction and students independence in learning English. In this study,
though the teachers had different qualifications and number of years of teaching
experience, they showed a similar preference to teach with a focus on students ways
of thinking or experiencing the subject. In other words, they might have actually
created opportunities for students to explore and experience their learning of English.
This in turn might serve to trigger students motivation to gain a deeper understanding
of the subject matter. However, the strong tendencies to use surface and achievement
strategies in students with higher abilities in this study suggest that teachers should
consider incorporating the training of skills and strategies that facilitate students to
advance in their understanding and usage of English, while helping them to build their
basic competence and to meet school assessment criteria. However, in this study,
teachers with higher qualifications and greater number of years of teaching experience
rated significantly higher on the Information Transmission Approach and the collaborative approach to teaching English, respectively. This indicates a possible imbalance
of current professional development programmes and activities for English language
teachers, such as the overemphasis of content knowledge at the expense of pedagogical skills in teacher training (Richards 2008; Johnson 2009) and the lack of opportunities for novice teachers to take part in collaborative works. It thus warrants attention
of English language teacher educators and policy-makers in formulating plans to
facilitate teacher professional development in the area.
We should, however, be cautious as this study only focused on a limited sample of
students, whose English proficiency fell in a range of medium to low levels, and English
teachers who were serving in three participant schools in Hong Kong. The interpretation

Educational Review

213

of the data in this study is thus subject to further exploration with a large sample size,
representative of the whole population, enhanced by the collection of complementary
qualitative data in order to obtain more insights into the related issues. Also, the data
collected in this study primarily looked into the participants perceptions of their
approaches to learning/teaching English and an expansion of the scope in future
research to include more details, such as teachers training should be revealing.
References
Biggs, J. 1987. Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. 1991. Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong:
Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal 6: 2739.
Biggs, J. 1993. What do inventories of students learning processes really measure? A theoretical
review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 319.
Biggs, J., D. Kember, and D.Y.P. Leung. 2001. The revised two-factor Study Process
Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology 71: 13349.
Dahlin, B., and D. Watkins. 2000. The role of repetition in the processes of memorising and
understanding: A comparison of the reviews of German and Chinese secondary school
students in Hong Kong. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70: 6584.
Dreyfus, Hubert L., and S.E. Dreyfus. 1986. Mind over machine. New York: Free Press.
Education Bureau. 2006. Education Bureau circular memorandum no. 47/2006: Provision
of resources to support the teaching and learning of English in schools adopting
Chinese-medium
teaching.
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_8275/
edbcm06047e.pdf [20 April 2011].
Education Bureau. 2009. Legislative council brief: Fine-tuning the medium of instruction for
secondary schools, (ECP) 48/02(N). http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_
7372/legco brief finetuning moi_e_on 290509_final.pdf
Eley, M.G. 1992. Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher
Education 23: 23154.
Entwistle, N., and P. Ramsden. 1983. Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Falvey, P. 1998. ESL, EFL and language acquisition in the context of Hong Kong. In
Teaching language and culture: Building Hong Kong on education, ed. B. Asker. Hong
Kong: Addison Wesley Longman.
George, D., and P. Mallery. 2003. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference. 11.0 update. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gibbs, G. 1992. Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: Technical and Educational
Services.
Gibbs, G., and M. Coffey. 2004. The impact of training of university teachers on their skills,
their approaches to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active
Learning 5: 87100.
Gow, L., J. Balla, D. Kember, and K.T. Hau. 1996. The learning approaches of Chinese
people: A function of socialization processes and the context of learning? In The handbook of Chinese psychology, ed. M.H. Bond. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Gow, L., D. Kember, and R. Chow. 1991. The effects of English language ability on
approaches to learning. RELC Journal 22, no. 1: 4968.
Hodgson, V.E. 1984. Learning from lectures. In The experience of learning, ed. F. Marton, D.
Hounsell and N.J. Entwistle. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Hong Kong Education Department (HKED). 1997. Medium of instruction guidance for secondary schools. http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr97-98/english/panels/ed/papers/ed1508-6.htm
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. 2009. Report of the 2008 territory-wide
system assessment. http://www.systemassessment.edu.hk/2008tsaReport/subject_report
_eng.htm [4 August 2009].
Hounsell, D. 1984. Learning and essay-writing. In The experience of learning, ed. F. Marton,
D. Hounsell and N.J. Entwistle. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Huberman, M. 1989. The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record 91:
3157.

214

B. Mak and P. Chik

Johnson, K.E. 2009. Second language teacher education. New York: Routledge.
Kember, D., J. Biggs, and D.Y.P. Leung 2004. Examining the multidimensionality of
approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning
Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74, 26180.
Kember, D., and L. Gow. 1990. Cultural specificity of approaches to study. British Journal of
Educational Psychology 60, 35663.
Kember, D., and K.P. Kwan. 2000. Lecturers approaches to teaching and their relationship to
conceptions of good teaching. In Teaching thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher
education, ed. W. Hativa and P. Goodyear. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lam, B., and D. Kember. 2006. The relationship between conceptions of teaching and
approaches to teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 12, no. 6: 693713.
Laurillard, D. 1978. A study of the relationship between some of the cognitive and contextual
factors in student learning. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford.
Leung, D.Y.P., P. Ginns, and D. Kember. 2008. Examining the cultural specificity of
approaches to learning in universities in Hong Kong and Sydney. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 39, no. 3: 25166.
Lu, D. 2002. English medium teaching at crisis: Towards bilingual education in Hong Kong.
GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 2, no. 2: 116.
Luke, K.K., and J.C. Richards. 1982. English in Hong Kong: Status and functions. English
Worldwide 3, no. 1: 4764.
Marton, F., and S. Booth. 1997. Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Marton, F., G. DallAlba, and T.L. Kun. 1996. Memorising and understanding: The keys to
the paradox? In The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences,
ed. D. Watkins and J.B. Biggs. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research
and the Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Marton, F., and R. Slj. 1976a. On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process I
outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 411.
Marton, F., and R. Slj. 1976b. On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process
II outcome as function of the learners conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 11527.
Marton, F., D. Watkins, and C. Tang. 1997. Discontinuities and continuities in the experience
of learning: An interview study of high school students in Hong Kong. Learning and
Instruction 7: 2148.
McCune, V., and D. Hounsell. 2005. The development of students ways of thinking and
practising in three final-year biology courses. Higher Education 49: 25589.
Prosser, M., and K. Trigwell. 1999. Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in
higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open
University Press.
Prosser, M., and K. Trigwell. 2006. Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to
teaching inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 40519.
Richards, J.C. 2008. Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal 39, no. 2:
15877.
Richards, J.T.E. 2005. Students approaches to learning and teachers approaches to teaching
in higher education. Educational Psychology 25, no. 6: 67380.
Scouller, K. 1998. The influence of assessment method on students learning approaches:
Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education 35:
45372.
Shulman, L. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher February: 414 (AERA Presidential Address).
Shulman, L. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reforms. Harvard
Educational Review 34, no. 1: 121.
Shulman, L. 2000a. From minsk to pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning? The
Journal of Teaching and Learning 1, no. 1: 16.
Shulman, L. 2000b. Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical knowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21, no. 1: 12935.
Svensson, L. 1977. On qualitative differences in learning III studying skill and learning.
British Journal of Educational Psychology 47: 23343.

Educational Review

215

Slj, R. 1982. Learning and understanding: A study of differences in constructing meaning

from a text. Gteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Tang, K.C.C. 1991. Effects of different assessment methods on tertiary students approaches
to studying. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Tang, T. 1993. Inside the classroom: The students view. In Learning and teaching in Hong
Kong: What is and what might be, ed. J.B. Biggs and D.A. Watkins. Hong Kong:
University of Hong Kong.
The Curriculum Development Council. 2001. Learning to learn: The way forward. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government Printer.
The Curriculum Development Council. 2002. English language education: Key learning area
curriculum guide (primary 1secondary 3). Hong Kong: HKSAR, The Education
Department.
The Curriculum Development Council and the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment
Authority. 2007. English language curriculum and assessment guide (secondary 46).
Hong Kong: HKSAR, The Education and Manpower Bureau.
Trigwell, K. 1995. Increasing faculty understanding of teaching. In Teaching improvement
practices: successful faculty development strategies, ed. A.W. Wright et al. Bolton, MA:
Anker.
Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 1993. Approaches adopted by teachers of first year university
science courses. Research and Development in Higher Education 14: 22328.
Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 1996. Congruence between intention and strategy in science
teachers approach to teaching. Higher Education 32: 7787.
Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 2004. Development and the use of the Approaches to teaching
inventory. Educational Psychology Review 16, no. 4: 40924.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, P. Ramsden, and E. Martin. 1998. Improving student learning
through a focus on the teaching context. In Improving student learning, ed. G. Gibbs.
Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and P. Taylor. 1994. Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education 27: 7584.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse. 1999. Relations between teachers approaches to
teaching and students approaches to learning. Higher Education 37: 5770.
Tsui, A.B.M., M.S.K. Shum, C.K. Wong, S.K. Tse, and W.W. Ki. 1999. Which agenda?
Medium of instruction policy in post-1997 Hong Kong. Language, Culture and Curriculum
12, no. 3: 196214.
Villegas-Reimers, E. 2003. Teacher professional development: An international review of the
literature. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Education Planning.
Watkins, D. 1996. Hong Kong secondary school learners: A developmental perspective. In
The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences, ed. D. Watkins
and J.B. Biggs. Melbourne and Hong Kong: Australian Council for Educational Research
and the Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Watkins, D., and J. Biggs. 1996. The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual
influences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, Faculty of Education,
University of Hong Kong and the Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.

When I am studying, I often try to think of how useful the material that I am learning would
be in real life.
I regularly take notes and put them with my class notes.

I am put off by a poor mark on a test and worry about how I will do on the next test.

I have a strong desire to do best in all of my studies.

I find that the only way to learn many subjects is to learn them by rote.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

(DS)
(AS)
(DM)
(AM)

11. I find that many subjects can become very interesting once I get into them.

12. I like the results of tests to be put up publicly so I can see how much I beat some others in
the class.

(SS)

(AM)

(SM)

(DS)
(AS)

(AM)
(SS)

In reading new material, I am often reminded of material I already know and see the latter
in a new light.
10. I try to work solidly throughout the term and revise regularly when the examinations are close.

9.

3.

Never/ Only
Rarely
True of Me
1

2
2

Sometimes
True of Me

1
1

3
3

True of Me About
Half the Time

(DM)

4
4

Frequently True
of Me

I find that my school work can make me feel really satisfied.

I try to obtain high marks in all my subjects because of the advantage this gives me in
competing with others when I leave school.
I tend to study only whats set; I usually dont do anything extra.

5
5

Always/Almost
Always True of Me

1.
2.

A sample of the student questionnaire used in this study to gauge students perception of their approach to learning English
(Please read the following statement carefully, and indicate how true each statement is of you)

Appendix 1

216
B. Mak and P. Chik

25.

23.
24.

(AS)
(SM)

(SS)
(DS)

(AM)
(SS)
(DS)
(AS)
(SM)
(AM)

Never/ Only
Rarely
True of Me
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2

Sometimes
True of Me

1
1
1
1

3
3

3
3
3
3
3
3

3
3
3
3

True of Me About
Half the Time

17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

(AS)
(SM)
(DM)

4
4

4
4
4
4
4
4

4
4
4
4

Frequently
True of Me

I always try to do all of my assignments as soon as they are given to me.

Even when I have studied hard for a test, I worry that I may not be able to do well on it.
I find that studying some topics can be really exciting.
I would rather be highly successful in school even though this might make me unpopular with
some of my classmates.
In most subjects, I try to work things so that I do only enough to make sure I pass, and no more.
I try to relate what I have learned in one subject to what I already know in other subjects.
Soon after class or lab, I re-read my notes to make sure I can read them and understand them.
I think teachers shouldnt expect me to work on topics that are outside the set course.
I will work for top marks in a subject whether or not I like the subject.
I find it better to learn just the facts and details about a topic rather than try to understand all
about it.
I find most new topics interesting and often spend extra time trying to find out more about them.
When a test is returned, I go over it carefully correcting all errors and trying to understand why
I made the mistakes.
I will continue my studies only for getting a good job.

5
5

5
5
5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5

Always/Almost
Always True of Me

13.
14.
15.
16.

Appendix 1 (Continued)

Educational Review
217

DM=deep motive
AM=achieving motive
SS=surface strategy
DS=deep strategy
AS=achieving strategy
SM=surface motive

(AS)

Never/ Only
Rarely True of Me

28. I usually try to read all the references and things my teacher says we should.

Sometimes
True of Me
2

2
2

3
3

True of Me About
Half the Time

1
1

4
4

Frequently
True of Me

(AM)
(SS)

5
5

Always/Almost
Always True of Me

26. I see doing well in school as a sort of game, and I play to win.
27. I dont spend time on learning things that I know wont be asked in the examinations.

Appendix 1 (Continued)

218
B. Mak and P. Chik

Copyright of Educational Review is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.