Characteristics of Chinese Student Learning:
Implications for
the General Education Program
Hongshia Zhang
张红霞
Institute of Education
Nanjing University, China
2014, 5, 21
Chinese Student Learning
Characteristics
Paradoxes：the Causes
Implications for General Education
Program
 Chinese Student
Learning Characteristics
International Research:
1960s-1980s: Descriptive period
•Learning styles: surface/deep; time spend;
group/independent
•Learning process: participation; engagement;
involvement; environment and strategies
•Cognitive style: critical thinking/rote learning
•Cognitive development progression
Based on Piaget and Kemberg’s, William G.
Perry’s Theory (1970): Cognitive progression
throughout the four-year study:
Stage 1. Dualism（二元论）
Stage 2. Multiplicity （多元论）
Stage 3. Relativism （相对主义，批判性思维）
Stage 4. Commitment (付诸行动、献身目标）
It has been a good framework for instruction and
curriculum planning (e.g.Knefelkamp,1974；
Touchton et al.1977) .
1980s-present: Correlative and modeling period
•Dependents:
Achievement; Gains；Outcome.
•Independents or mediators:
Gender; First generation; Family class
Ability (SAT background V participation)
Beliefs about knowledge (dualistic/relativistic; rote
or enquiry)
Institution; Discipline ( V collaboration)
Culture
Summary
for International research
Many controversial findings except:
•Low participation. 参与度较低
•Critical thinking: low level.批判性思维低
•Cognitive progression: minor, opposite. 发展缓慢
•Learning behavior (participation, involvement) does not
correlate so much to achievement as in the West.
学习方式与成绩关系弱
Knowledgeable, less creative;
Good for popularizing, not for top-talents.
Domestic student researches from:
Qinghua University (NSSE)
Nanjing University (SERU)
 Cognitive Development 认知
(Luo, Y. , Shi, J., Tu, D. 2009)
Qinghua
Univ.
From NSSE
Years Means
USA
Tops
Means
T-test
E-size
Memory of facts, ideas 1-2
& methods
3-4
54.8
50.2
65.0
60.0
-8.51*** -0.39
-7.17*** -0.35
Analysis of constructs
of an idea or theory
1-2
3-4
63.5
59.5
71.7
75.0
-7.71*** -0.33
-13.9*** -0.64
Synthesis of various
information to a new
comprehensive one
1-2
3-4
54.3
52.9
63.7
67.3
-8.08*** -0.35
-11.5*** -0.54
Assessment of ideas
and methods
1-2
3-4
50.7
47.9
61.7
64.7
-9.25*** -0.41
-12.7*** -0.60
Application
1-2
3-4
54.2
55.5
69.0
72.0
-12.7*** -0.55
-12.9*** -0.60
 Knowledge Acquisition 知识
NSSE
Qinghua USA
Univ.
Tops
Means Means
T-test
E-size
Years 1-2 51.7
Years 3-4 55.5
74.0
76.0
-21.02***
-17.25***
-0.90
-0.80
Specialized Years 1-2 57.4
disciplinary Years 3-4 62.8
knowledge
60.0
66.7
-2.01*
-2.71**
-0.09
-0.14
General
Education
knowledge
 Student Learning Ability 能力
From NSSE
Qinghua USA
Univ.
Tops
Years Means
Means T-test
E-size
Expression
1-2
3-4
46.8
50.8
56.3
62.7
-7.2***
-8.5***
-0.34
-0.42
Problem
Solving
1-2
3-4
52.4
55.6
56.7
59.7
-3.3***
-2.9***
-0.15
-0.14
Collaboration 1-2
3-4
57.9
60.7
64.7
70.0
-5.5***
-7.2***
-0.26
-0.35
 Coursework Rigorousness 难度
NSSE
Qinghua USA
Univ.
Tops
Year
Means
Means
T-test
E-size
Reading quantity
1-2
3-4
83.0
72.4
46.0
43.6
26.4***
15.7***
0.92
0.56
Long-writing
quantity
1-2
3-4
18.6
30.9
4.6
12.0
18.5***
18.5***
0.58
0.61
Medium-writing
quantity
1-2
3-4
40.7
39.2
26.0
31.2
9.2***
0.2
0.29
0.01
Short-writing
quantity
1-2
3-4
47.5
44.4
39.8
40.2
-2.0*
-4.6***
-0.07
-0.17
Examination
benefit for learning
1-2
3-4
56.6
50.9
75.5
71.7
-23.0***
-21.6***
-0.86
-0.88
• “Students have strong motivation to learn, but their
understanding of learning goals and significance is
relatively poor, only 27 % of the students reported
positively.”
• “America’s strength lies on curriculum.”
• “We believe that（about examination）……
more of cultural difference, rather than the gap in
academic competence of the faculties.”
(Luo, Y. , Shi, J., Tu, D. 2009)
Experience in NJU (Gong and Lu, 2012)
From SERU
Year
NJU
Berkeley
T
E-size
Participation in 1-2
classroom
3-4
2.99
3.56
-15.616***
-0.07
3.06
3.67
-25.096***
-0.07
Peer
collaboration
1-2
3.46
3.86
-9.183***
-0.03
3-4
3.50
3.78
-9.766***
1-2
2.32
2.68
-12.703***
-0.05
3-4
2.38
2.70
-16.396***
-0.03
1-2
3.52
4.44
-26.663***
-0.20
3-4
3.56
4.52
-44.072***
-0.21
Communication 1-2
with faculty
3-4
2.64
2.88
2.52
2.88
3.576***
0.046
-0.00
Learning
attitude
Critical
thinking
-0.01
0.00
• Similar to Qinghua, students in Nanjing University
responded: “the teacher in the class is very serious,
knowledgeable, but I do not why we should know
what is learned by these ancient texts?”
Factors for dissatisfaction
• 2006 survey (Gong, Zhang, Yu and Qu, 2008)
Samples form 8 within top 20 universities
Factors
Faculty
qualification
Teaching
method
IT facilities
Response
Low academic level
Outdated teaching material
37%
Lack of appropriate textbooks
Lack of famous professors
34%
Poor course preparation
32%
Litter communication with after course
32%
Poor examination system
32%
Generation gap with faculties
29%
Often ask substitute faculty to teach
28%
Suspend class quite often
28%
Lack of IT facilities
27%
36%
34%
Regret for Attending the Institution? Yes.
(Gong, Zhang, Yu and Qu, 2008)
Factors
Poor campus culture
Poor living environment
Poor campus academic atmosphere
Learning facilities
Without contact famous faculties
Teaching quality
Tension relationship with faculty
Response
Percentage
49%
38%
37%
36%
28%
27%
07%
Reform Policies
Professor’s teaching
hours!
Learning behavior!
Curriculum?
controversial
School-level Curriculum
Internationalization Project,
2012, Nanjing University
 Paradoxes: the Causes
• Traditional ethics / Civic responsibility (critical
thinking)
• Scientific & technological thinking / Traditional
humanities（Jin, Shi, Zi, and Ji）
• Traditional humanities / Modern humanities
• General education / Literacy competence education.
(Zhu Jiusi,2004; Yang Shuzi; Wang Yiqiu,2006;
Zhang Qizi,2004; Song,2000; Zhang,2010; )
 A Survey of undergraduates in Shanghai
51% undergraduates in 5 universities believe that it’s
unnecessary to study “The History of China” course
any longer (Fan, 2009).
 Faculty’s concept of knowledge
Chinese archaeologists’ belief and attitude towards
“the Ancient”. There are two tracks of conceptions of
“the Ancient”: the reality and ideology (Tang, 2010) .
Cluster Analysis of Learning Behavior
(Lu and Zhang, in preparation)
Group A
Group B
Nanjing University,
Hunan University,
Xian Jiaotong University,
Seoul National University,
Cape Town University,
Malaysia University.
Berkeley,
Oregon State University,
North Carolina State University,
Texas State University,
Minnessota State University,
Unicamp University (Brazil),
Amsterdam University.
Culture matters rather than ranking positions.
A survey after a training program in a hugeconference hall with more than 620 trainees.
Reasons for “why keeping silence”
Ego-centered
Custom
Altruism
Cluster analysis of the reasons?
(Lu and Zhang, 2014, in preparation)
(24%)
Lu and Zhang et al, in preparation;
Paletz, Peng et al, 2009;
Critical
Thinking
Understanding of science by students in science major
in normal universities.
(Wan Dongsheng, 2014，Ph.D. Thesis)
A
Objectivity
Minddependent
B
Evidence
Authority and
Experience
C
Experiment
D
E
A’
B’
Test
C’
Methodology
Effects
D’
Communication
Dialogue
Human
World
E’
Culture matters!
• We have to pay more attention to teaching content,
rather than teaching manner.
• The belief of “knowledge” affects the approaches and
achievement of student learning (Perry, 1970; Säljö,
1978,1979; Schommer, 1990).
What is Knowledge?
(Dewey, 1916)
Organized
ethics
Learning to
become officials
Science-based
knowledge
Hierarchical Natural growth
of students
social strata
Democratic
society
Targets of Improvement
 Strengthen the link with reality of Chinese society.
 Strengthen curriculum internationalization. Put
Chinese issues in an international perspective.
• Only if being placed in today's globalized social
context, can Chinese classics have contemporary
educational value in general education.
• The paradoxes, the cognitive dissonance itself, are
good teaching materials.
 Implications for GEP
Why GEP?
•Survey findings of poor GEP knowledge.
•It is a concentrated reflection of a university education
aims
•Easier for management given the limited curricular
resources in China.
Nanjing University’s Double-Three Program
Year 4
Year 3
1. Focused major
2. Multi-majors
3. Start a career
Year 2
Year 1
3000 courses open for all
15000 undergraduates
Selective ~ individual needs
A:
C:
H:
J:
T:
Sciences
America
China
HK
Japan
Taiwan
J
A
Traditional
Humanity
T
H
Modern
Humanity
C
Humanity
Qualitative Comparison General Education Programs
General education aims
for a globalized world
• Re-structuring and integrating students’ fragmentary
knowledge through improving cross-cultural
cognitive competence.
• Develop “One-world Thinking” : civilizations equal.
Natural resources • S&T
Population ∙ Consumption per capita
克里特岛8000多km2
（崇明岛1300km2）
参考文献
• 罗清旭，杨鑫辉.《加利福尼亚批判性思维倾向问卷》中文
版的初步修订[J].心理发展与教育，2001（3）.
• 张红霞，郁波.小学科学教师科学素养调查研究[J].教育研究
，2004(11).
• 杨中芳、林升栋. 中庸实践思维体系构念图的建构效度研究
[J].社会学研究，2012(4).
• 杨中芳.如何研究中国人[A].心理学研究本土化论文集[C]，
重庆大学出版社，2009.
• 赵志裕. 中庸思维的测量，一项跨地区研究的初步结果[J].
香港社会科学学报(香港), 2000(18).
• 樊娟.新生代大学生文化认同危机及其应对[J].中国青年研究
,2009(7).42.
• 彼得·费希万，诺琳·费希万，爱格尼丝·蒂瓦里，费利克斯
·尤恩. 作为普遍人类现象的批判性思维——中国和美国的
视角[J]. 北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2009（1）
:55—62.
• 中国科学技术协会. 2001 年中国公众科学素养调查报告
[M] . 北京:科学普及出版社,2005.
• 钱穆.中国文化史导论[M].北京：九州出版社，2011.
• 朱九思Zhu, J S. 似曾相识燕归来——评《中国现代大学通
识教育》[J].高等教育研究，2004（2）.
• 龚放, 吕林海. 中美研究型大学本科生学习参与差异的研
究——基于南京大学和加州大学伯克利分校的问卷调查[J]
，高等教育研究，2012，33(9)。
• 朱九思. 似曾相识燕归来——评《中国现代大学通识教育
》.高等教育研究，2004（2）.
• 王义遒. 大学素质教育与文化素质教育[J].北京大学教育评
论, 2006（3）.
• 张岂之. 加强大学文化素质教育课程建设[J].中国高教研究,
2004（4）；
• 杨叔子，余东升. 文化素质教育与通识教育之比较[J].高等
教育研究, 2007（6）.
• Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D. and Gonyea, R. M., 2003. The
relationship between institutional mission and students’
involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher
Education. 44(2), 241-261.
• Osborne, J. Beyond Constructivism. Science Education ,1996,
80(1): 53-82.
• Niaz, M. What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in
school science? A chemistry teachers’ perspective,
Instructional Science , 2008.36,233–249.
• Paletz, S. and Peng, K. Problem Finding and Contradiction:
Examining the Relationship between Naive Dialectical
Thinking, Ethnicity and Creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 2009，21(2–3): 139–151, 2009.
• Zhang, L. F. & Watkins, D. 2001. Cognitive development and
student approaches to learning: An Investigation to Perry’s
theory with Chinese and U.S. university students. Higher
Education: Vol. 41:239-261.
• Liang, L. Chen, S., Chen, X., ed.al. Assessing preservice
elementary teachers’ views on the nature of scientific
knowledge: a dual-response instrument. Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching.Vol9, Issue1. Jun. 2008.
• Smith, P. B.. Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural
communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
2004, 35(1): 50-61.
• Stankov, L. 2010. Unforgiving Confucian culture: A breeding
ground for high academic achievement, test anxiety and selfdoubt? Learning and Individual Differences, Vol.20 (6):555563.
• HKPISA Centre ,2011. The fourth HKPISA report PISA 2009:
Monitoring the quality of education in Hong Kong from an
international perspective. Hong Kong: HKPISA Centre.
• Watkins, D.A., Regmi,M.& Astilla, E. The Asian learner
as a rote learner stereotype: Myths or reality?[J].
Educational Psychology, 1991,(11):21-34.
• Kember, D. International students from Asia. In: Tight,M.
(Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Higher
Education[M], New York and London: Routledge.2009.
• Dahlin, B. & Watkins, D.A. The role of repetition in the
processes of memorizing and understanding: A
comparison of the views of Western and Chinese school
students in Hong Kong[J]. British Journal of Educational
Psychology,2000,70:65-84.
• Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. Cultural contexts of schooling
revisited: A review of the learning gap from a cultural
psychology perspective. In S.G.Paris & H.M.Wellman
(Eds.), Global prospects for education: Development,
culture, and schooling[M], Washington DC: American
Psychological Association, 1998.
• Schommer, Marlene, Effects of beliefs about the nature
of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol 82(3), Sep 1990, 498-504.
• Zhang, L.F. and Hood, A.B. (1998). 'Cognitive development of
students in China and USA: Opposite directions?',
Psychological Reports 82, 1251-1263.
• Zhang, L.F. (1995). The Construction of a Chinese Language
Cognitive Development Inventory and Its Use in a CrossCultural Study of the Perry Scheme. Ph.D. thesis: The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
• Richardson, J. T.E (2013). Epistemological development in
higher education. Educational Research Review Volume 9,
June, Pages 191–206.
Thank You!
hzhang@nju.edu.cn