Implementing Andragogy in Teaching
English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) in
[Abstract] This
study investigated the possibility of whether Western andragogy could be
practiced in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) in
[Key Words] Andragogy, English as Foreign Language, TEFL
Introduction
Nothing has amazed Westerners more than the fact that there
has been growing interest in learning English well for the past few decades in
Crazy English”. Although teaching English is the job of the Chinese teachers
trained in
There have long been differences between Western approaches and Eastern approaches. Research indicates that Chinese TEFL tends to emphasize English language knowledge, content, teacher-centered classrooms and exam results while Western TEFL or ESL (English as Second Language) favors critical thinking skills, realistic use of language, student-centered classrooms and the process of learning (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996, p. 72). Specifically, Western educators do not prefer rote learning, memorization, and knowledge transmission, which is central to traditional Chinese pedagogy. Although these methods involve the internalization of pre-established, objective and empirical knowledge with already formulated procedures and skills (Jarvis, 1987), Westerners believe it is critical thinking (reflection) (Mezirow, 1991, 2000; Cranton, 1994; King, 2005) that implies the possibility of the creation of new knowledge and different techniques.
This dichotomy leads to the research question of this article:
“How is English taught in
Theoretical Framework
Westerners and Chinese differ in their teaching approaches: the former tends to believe in the distinction between the education of children and the education of adults; while the latter favors a uniform mode of teaching for both age groups. The education of children is defined as pedagogy in the West because it is considered the art and science of teaching children. In this mode of instruction, teachers are in control and make decisions regarding what to learn, how to learn and when to assess learning. Students assume a submissive role of simply following their teachers. The education of adults in the West is defined as andragogy because it is viewed as the art and science of helping adults learn (Knowles, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1986, 1998). Further, andragogy is characterized by student-centered learning because adult learners are believed to be self-directed. Because these adult learners are self-directed, teachers have to assume the role of being learning facilitators. A learning facilitator does not control learning. Instead, a learning facilitator may negotiate curricular priorities with his/her students at the beginning of a semester. A facilitator may give his/her students a learning contract. A facilitator is a co-learner in the learning process (Price, 1999). And so, a facilitator considers him/herself a peer with their students.
Indeed, adult education in the West is viewed as education
of equals (Jarvis). Most importantly, Westerners believe learners have the
potential to become self-motivated and self-directed; rational and empathic, to
participate in collaborative discourse and to become capable of exercising
individual agency and to act reflectively (Mezirow,
1991, 2000; King &Wright, 2003; Merriam, 2004). While Chinese teachers may
agree with their Western counterparts on these teaching concepts such as
andragogy, their teaching method is characterized by teaching the lower levels
of Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy. For instance, Chinese teachers view themselves as
knowledge transmitters. Those who are excellent transmitters of knowledge are
considered great performers. Naturally these Chinese performers are to be
emulated in
Review of the Literature
Political Aspect
What makes no sense is that the CCP appoints people to
positions in the Ministry of Education, who in most cases, do not have a degree
in English or Education. Yet, it is these appointees who, not only prescribe a
centralized curriculum for all schools and universities but also prescribe and
scrutinize teachers’ teaching methods. For example, all 350,000 junior middle
schools (ages 12-15) in
Cultural Aspect
Although foreign businesses have flourished throughout
Not only do Chinese teachers cite Confucius’ teaching
philosophies, but they also practice and live according to these philosophies.
Naturally, Chinese teachers of English strive to accumulate a reservoir of
knowledge in order to impart it to their students. To teach is to give out what
students expect their teachers to know.
If a teacher says that he/she does know the meaning of an English word,
this teacher is embarrassed before students. If this happens repeatedly, this
teacher may consider quitting his or her teaching career as this teacher has
not met the high standards expected by the Confucius based society.
Preferred Teaching Approaches in Light of
Chinese teachers of English are cautious of introducing the
Western democratic form of education, andragogy. First of all, using the
Western method this will put the teacher in an inferior position. Students are
not supposed to interject or interrupt while a teacher is talking. What the teacher is addressing in the
classroom is very important as it will appear on nation-wide exams. For
example, all English majors take the national TEM 4 (Test for English Majors)
at the end of the first two years of their degree studies. This exam is
comparable to the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). And at the end
of the four year degree, they take the TEM 8. For students of hard sciences,
they are required to take TEM 4 and TEM 6 during their college years. Given the
nature of national exams, Chinese students prefer the exam-oriented approach of
their Chinese teachers (Boyle, 2000). Those who do not “teach to exams” (teach
the content material of the exams) are considered disorganized teachers. The
Western collaborative process of learning may be considered by Chinese teachers
of English as being interruptive and chaotic as it does not foster silent
reflection. Negotiating curricular priorities and using a learning contract
with the student is characterized by andragogy and simply has no place in
Current Situation of Teachers of English in
While Lu’s (2005) study indicated that Chinese teachers in institutions of higher education have an extremely positive attitude toward their careers, the low income of teachers of English remains a double burden. Many teachers are highly educated and highly skilled individuals who put a great deal of time and effort into their teaching. Yet, they receive a much lower income than others with comparable education and skills. Studies show that almost 50 percent of Chinese teachers have a second job to supplement their income. In order to make ends meet, teachers of English end up becoming teaching machines. Take for example, the teachers from the eight universities of foreign languages, who have to teach between 40 and 60 hours per week. This demanding schedule leaves them with little or no time for research. They are forced to become merely talking heads, repeating the same textbook material over and over again in different classrooms. Since all teachers use the same textbooks it is not surprising that students from different universities can recite the same American or British stories. . Despite problems with earning an adequate income and sharing office spaces the teachers still love their careers. Their colleagues who teach subjects other than English do not even have a chance at a second job.
Methodology
Babbie defines the purpose of survey research as
generalizing from a sample to a population so that inferences can be made about
some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of this population (1990). Because
of
Participants
Participants in this study are teachers of English who teach
in the schools of English studies at the eight universities of foreign
languages in
Instrumentation
Conti’s (1983, 2004) survey instrument is designed to promote the use of andragogy (student-centered teaching) in any teaching setting especially where teachers help pre-adults and adults learn. Because Westerners recognize a distinction between education of children and education of adults, it is all the more important that teachers use the correct method of teaching. This instrument is also designed to determine the general instructional modes of teachers. The modes of teaching can be andragogical or pedagogical depending on one’s particular social contexts, teaching philosophies, culture, and administrative preferences. Many experts believe that teachers of English should comply with the communicative movement or collaborative learning process to achieve the best learning outcomes. The andragogical mode of instruction corroborates this communicative movement or collaborative learning process. Therefore, it is appropriate to use this survey instrument. To make the instrument fit the particular Chinese teaching settings, one item in the instrument was changed and six more items were added to include a more andragogical/pedagogical nature of teaching characterized by learning contracts, rote learning, memorization and heavy emphasis on knowledge transmission.
The survey utilizes a Likert scale from five to zero with five being the highest (support for the concept in the factor name) and zero the lowest (support for the opposite concept). The alpha reliability coefficient for the instrument was .94. (N of cases = 148, N of items = 50).
The survey instrument is comprised of seven factors: Learner-Centered Activities; Personalizing Instruction; Relating Experience; Assessing Student Needs; Climate Building; Participation in the Learning Process; and Flexibility for Personal Development. The seven factors comprise the basic elements that make up an instructor’s general teaching mode of instruction. High mean scores for factors represent support for the concept implied in the factor name. Low mean scores indicate support for the opposite concept. If a score nears the mean score (2.5), it may indicate support for the concept implied in the factor name; it may also indicate support for the opposite concept.
Data Analysis
Data collected in this study were analyzed using SPSS (13.0 for Windows) software. Since the survey instrument (PALS) contains both positive and negative items, different values are assigned to these items. For positive items, the following values are assigned: “Always” equals five, “almost always” equals four, “often” equals three, “seldom” equals two, “almost never” equals one and “never” equals zero. For negative items, the following values are assigned: "always" equals zero, "almost always" equals one, "often" equals two, "seldom" equals three, "almost never" equals four and "never" equals five. Omitted items are assigned a neutral value of 2.5. Analysis was conducted for each item in the research question. For descriptive statistics, mean scores and standard deviations were reported for participants’ responses. To provide a better picture of the population surveyed, the overall scale mean scores and standard deviations were also calculated. The findings were entered into tables and figures, and a narrative was developed to report the findings.
Findings
The
tables presented below summarize the analysis of survey results on each of the
seven factors of Conti’s (1983, 2004) instrument. The mean responses for these
participants on each of the seven factors are presented in separate tables.
Each of the seven factors contains several items that make up the instructor’s
learner-centered or teacher-dominated teaching methods. The standard deviation
scores for these participants are also provided in the tables. For a better
picture of the population surveyed, the overall scale mean scores and standard
deviations were also included. Table 1 summarizes the participants’ responses
for Factor One.
Table 1. Mean Responses: Chinese Teachers of English on Factor 1
N = 160, n = 148
|
Factor 1:
Learner-Centered Activities Responses |
M |
SD |
|
2. I use appropriate forms of disciplinary
action when it is
needed. |
2.34 |
1.37 |
|
4. I emphasize teaching knowledge in class. |
3.10 |
1.32 |
|
11. I identify the educational objectives of
each of my students. |
2.60 |
1.13 |
|
12. I plan units that differ as widely as
possible from my students’
socio-economic backgrounds. |
2.40 |
1.08 |
|
13. I try to motivate students by confronting
them during group
discussions with their classmates. |
1.80 |
0.90 |
|
16. I use one basic teaching method because I
have found that
most adults have similar learning styles. |
2.60 |
1.16 |
|
19. I use written tests to assess the degree of
academic growth rather than to indicate new
directions for learning. |
2.50 |
0.87 |
|
21. I use what history has proven that adults
need to learn as my chief criteria for
planning learning episodes. |
2.20 |
1.15 |
|
29. I use methods that foster quiet, productive
deskwork. |
2.10 |
1.10 |
|
30. I use tests as my chief method of
evaluating students. |
1.80 |
1.10 |
|
38. I use materials that were originally
designed for students in
elementary and secondary schools. |
3.20 |
1.16 |
|
40. I measure a student’s long-term educational
growth by comparing his/her total achievement
in class to his/her expected performance as
measured by national
norms from standardized tests. |
2.80 |
1.35 |
|
50. I believe memorization can foster greater
autonomy in thinking. |
3.56 |
1.30 |
Table 1 shows that Chinese teachers of English had low scores in seven of the thirteen variables, slightly high scores in three of the variables and three high scores that make up Factor 1. These results suggest that Chinese teachers of English support a teacher-centered methodology, rather than student centered teaching. They favor formal testing over informal evaluation techniques and rely heavily on standardized tests. They emphasize teaching knowledge in class. They exercise disciplinary action when needed, and determine the educational objectives for each student. They tend to practice one basic method of learning. Above all, they believe memorization can foster greater autonomy in thinking. Table 2 contains the participants’ responses for Factor 2.
Table 2.
Mean Responses: Chinese Teachers of English on Factor 2
N = 160, n = 148
|
Factor
2: Personalizing Instruction Responses |
M |
SD |
|
3. I allow senior students more time to
complete assignments
when they need it. |
2.60 |
1.16 |
|
9. I use lecturing as the best method of
presenting my
subject material to adult students. |
1.70 |
0.47 |
|
17. I use different teaching techniques
depending on the students
being taught. |
3.30 |
0.94 |
|
24. I let each student work at his/her own pace
regardless of the amount of time it
takes him her/ to learn a
new concept. |
2.30 |
1.18 |
|
32. I gear my instructional objectives to match
the individual
abilities and needs of the students. |
3.00 |
0.94 |
|
35. I allow a student’s motives for
participating in continuing education to be a major
determinant in the
planning of learning objectives. |
3.20 |
0.74 |
|
37. I give all students in my class the same
assignment on a given
topic. |
1.60 |
0.95 |
|
41. I encourage competition among my students. |
1.90 |
1.13 |
|
42. I use different materials with different
students. |
2.80 |
0.84 |
|
49. I encourage a search for real-life
examples, develop assignments related to real-life situations and embed the
content of my course in everyday life. |
2.47 |
0.77 |
Table 2 indicates that Chinese teachers of English had low scores in five of the ten variables and high scores in five of the ten variables that comprise Factor 2. These results indicate that Chinese teachers of English engage in a variety of practices that personalize learning to meet the unique needs of each student. Objectives are based on individual methods and abilities. Instruction is self-paced. However, they tend to favor the lecture method, and assign the same assignment on a given topic. They do not encourage a search for real-life examples, develop assignments related to real-life situations and embed the content of the course in everyday life. Table 3 describes the participants’ responses for Factor 3.
Table 3. Mean Responses:
Chinese Teachers of English on Factor 3
N = 160, n = 148
|
M |
SD |
|
|
14. I plan learning episodes to take into account my students’ prior experience. |
3.40 |
0.63 |
|
31. I plan activities that will encourage each student’s growth from dependence on others to greater independence. |
3.10 |
0.74 |
|
34. I encourage my students to ask questions about the nature of their society. |
2.80 |
1.35 |
|
39. I organize adult learning episodes according to the problems that my students encounter in everyday life. |
3.30 |
0.95 |
|
43. I help students relate new learning to their prior experiences. |
4.10 |
0.89 |
|
44. I teach units about problems of everyday living. |
3.20 |
0.82 |
Table 3 indicates that
Chinese teachers of English had very high scores in all six of the variables in
Factor 3. These results show that Chinese teachers of English planned learning
activities that take into account their students’ prior experiences and encouraged
students to relate their new learning to prior experiences. To make learning
relevant, learning episodes were organized according to the problems that the
students encounter in everyday living. Students were encouraged to ask basic
questions about the nature of their society.
Table 4 describes participants’ responses for Factor 4.
Table 4. Mean Responses:
Chinese Teachers of English on Factor 4
N = 160, n = 148
|
M |
SD |
|
|
5. I help students diagnose the gaps between their goals and their present level of performance. |
2.80 |
1.19 |
|
8. I counsel students informally. |
3.10 |
0.82 |
|
23. I have individual conferences to help students identify their educational needs. |
3.00 |
1.15 |
|
25. I help my students develop short-range as well as long-range objectives. |
3.30 |
0.81 |
Table 4 indicates that Chinese teachers of English had high scores in Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs. These results show that Chinese teachers of English treated students as adults and attempted to find what each student wants and needs to know. They relied on individual meetings and informal counseling. They diagnosed existing gaps between a student’s goals and the present levels of performance. They assisted students in developing short-range as well as long-range objectives. Table 5 describes the participants’ responses for Factor 5.
Table 5.
Mean Responses: Chinese Teachers of English on Factor 5
N = 160, n = 148
|
Factor 5: |
M |
SD |
|
18. I encourage dialogue among
my students. |
3.70 |
0.78 |
|
adults already possess to achieve educational objectives. |
3.20 |
0.77 |
|
22. I accept errors as a
natural part of the learning process. |
4.10 |
0.82 |
|
28. I allow my students to
take periodic breaks during class. |
4.10 |
0.95 |
|
48. I design activities that
build students’ self-esteem and
sense of accomplishment while delivering course content. |
3.40 |
1.23 |
Table 5 shows that Chinese teachers of English had high scores in the five variables. The results suggest that Chinese teachers established a friendly and informal climate as the first step in their andragogical model. Dialogue and interaction with other students was encouraged. Barriers were eliminated by using the numerous competencies that learners already possess as building blocks for educational objectives. Risk taking was encouraged, and errors were accepted as a natural part of the learning process. Learners could experiment and explore elements related to their self-concept and practice interpersonal skills. Failures served as a feedback device to direct future positive learning. Table 6 contains the participants’ responses for Factor 6.
Table 6. Mean Responses:
Chinese Teachers of English on Factor 6
N = 160, n = 148
Factor 6:
Participation in the Learning Process
|
M |
SD |
|
1. I allow students to participate in
developing the criteria for evaluating
their performance in class. |
1.90 |
1.27 |
|
10. I arrange the classroom so that it is easy
for students to interact. |
3.40 |
0.97 |
|
15. I allow students to participate in making
decisions about the
topics that will be covered in class. |
2.00 |
1.05 |
|
36. I have my students identify problems that
they wish to solve. |
3.20 |
1.03 |
|
45. I negotiate curricular priorities with my
adult students at the
beginning of each course I teach. |
2.13 |
1.09 |
|
46. I use learning contracts when assessing
adult students’ learning. |
1.09 |
1.10 |
|
47. I involve adult students when planning
lessons. |
1.14 |
1.11 |
Table 6 indicates that Chinese teachers of English had four low scores and three high scores in the seven variables that make up Factor 6. These results suggest that Chinese teachers of English had students identify the problems they wished to solve. An adult-to-adult relationship between teacher and students was encouraged. However, they did not involve the students in developing the criteria for evaluating classroom performance. They did not negotiate curricular priorities with students or use learning contracts when assessing students’ learning. They never involve students when planning lessons. They do not allow students to participate in making decisions about the topics that will be covered in class. Table 7 describes participants’ responses for Factor 7.
Table 7. Mean Responses:
Chinese Teachers of English on Factor 7
N = 160, n = 148
|
Factor 7: Flexibility
for Personal Development Responses |
M |
SD |
|
6. I provide knowledge rather than serve as a
resource person. |
1.80 |
0.78 |
|
7. I stick to the instructional objectives
that I write at the beginning of a program. |
1.50 |
0.97 |
|
26. I maintain a well-disciplined classroom to reduce
interference
to learning. |
1.30 |
0.42 |
|
27. I avoid discussion of controversial
subjects that involve value
judgments. |
2.60 |
1.62 |
|
33. I avoid issues that relate to the student’s
concept of himself/herself.
|
2.00 |
1.41 |
Table 7 shows that Chinese teachers of English had low scores in all five variables that comprise Factor 7. The results show that Chinese teachers of English viewed themselves as providers of knowledge rather than facilitators. They determined the objectives for the students at the beginning of the program and adhered to them regardless of the idiosyncrasies that may have arisen from divergent student needs. A well-disciplined classroom was viewed as a stimulus for learning. Table 8 describes the overall scale, mean scores and standard deviations of the Chinese teachers’ responses.
Table 8. Mean Responses: All
148 Chinese Teachers of English on the Seven Factors
N = 160, n = 148
|
All Factors |
M |
SD |
|
1. Learner-Centered Activities. |
2.54 |
1.09 |
|
2. Personalizing Instruction |
2.49 |
0.91 |
|
3. Relating to Experience |
3.12 |
0.90 |
|
4. Assessing Student Needs |
3.05 |
0.99 |
|
5. |
3.70 |
0.91 |
|
6. Participation in the Learning Process |
2.12 |
1.09 |
|
7. Flexibility for Personal Development |
1.84 |
1.04 |
Table 8 indicates that Chinese teachers of English had low
scores in Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 6 and Factor 7. They had high scores in other
factors. These results show that although they taught English courses to some
extent in an andragogical manner such as relating to experience, assessing
student needs, and building climate, their classroom techniques did not focus
upon the learner or include learner-centered activities. Their score in Factor
7 indicates that these participants opposed the collaborative mode of
instruction. They viewed themselves as providers of knowledge rather than
facilitators. They never used Western educational approaches such as
negotiating curricular priorities with students, or using learning contracts.
They valued memorization as a great teaching technique. Above all, these Chinese teachers welcomed
this rigidity and lack of sensitivity to the individual. This indicates that
learners in
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the
Western teaching theory of andragogy designed to help adult learners learn
effectively, is being practiced in the Chinese context since Chinese students
have been eager to learn English well to become part of the global community.
The teaching methodology of andragogy honors adult learners so that their
energy can be enormously released in order to become self-directed in learning
of any kind. There is no alternative to learning English as a foreign language
(EFL) than to continue with what is currently used in
The findings confirmed the theoretical framework of this study in that Chinese teachers teach the lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. According to Bloom and his associates (1956), this taxonomy is comprised of six levels, from lower levels to higher levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The first three levels are considered lower levels and the other three levels are seen as higher levels of this taxonomy. All Western teachers, whether they are teachers of children or teachers of adults are encouraged to emphasize the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. It is true that if students can analyze, synthesize and evaluate freely what they have learned, they have a good command of the lower levels of this taxonomy. Further, the higher levels of this taxonomy are believed to lead to greater autonomy in thinking. In other words, critical thinking skills are far more important than just mastery of knowledge. Knowledge without being properly analyzed, synthesized or evaluated is considered useless information. That is why Western teachers frown upon those who teach the lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. There are numerous examples to show that rote learning characterized by memorization can be detrimental to students in the long run. For example, many Chinese students (adult learners) who have scored significantly higher in Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and in Graduate Record Exams (GRE) and who have been matriculated to universities in the West with scholarships cannot communicate well with their professors. To make matters worse, their English writing contains many problems; professors do not understand what they have written. More than likely, Chinese students have mastered more English words than their Western counterparts. The truth is, simple mastery of knowledge does not equal free use of the English language. It is the critical thinking and problem solving skills that need to be emphasized in teaching of any kind.
It is beyond this research to answer why Chinese teachers of English do not buy into Western concepts in teaching. However, this study reminds researchers of the findings by Biggs (1996, p. 75) in which he argued vehemently for Chinese teachers:
There is an important distinction
between ‘rote learning’ – mechanistic and without thought – and learning which
uses repetition as a strategy to ensure accurate recall. If learning aims at
understanding, and repetition is a means to this, it can be a strategy for deep
rather than surface learning. It is a mistake to assume that all use of
repetition in learning is a ‘surface’ approach: the key is in the context of
the technique, rather than the specific technique itself.
Although some scholars such as Biggs support Chinese concepts on
teaching, no further research or statistics have indicated any positive
correlation between critical thinking, problem solving skills and the lower
levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. If learning aims at growth and
development (Merriam, 2004), then “participating
freely and fully in critical-dialectical discourse” leads to highly developed metacognitive skills of critical self-reflection (p. 63). Another scholarly source supports the notion
that Chinese teaching methods have been accused of promoting narrow,
dependent, docile students “high in score, but low in ability” (Ross, 1992, p.
245).
Implications for Research and Practice
Behind these findings lie more significant implications for
research and practice. At this historic point in
If
Finally, Chinese teachers of English should be given more time to do research. If they are made to become teaching machines, they will have no time left to look for alternative teaching methodologies. If every teaching method is prescribed from above, their initiative to be innovative in their teaching methods is taken away from them.
This article brings together two prominent teaching
methodologies to give our researchers, scholars and students an idea as to
which praxis leads to effective learning. Quantitative analysis alone does not
answer many of the questions implied by this research. Qualitative research
coupled with interviews and in-depth observations may well answer some of the
questions derived from this study. English teaching is quite an undertaking in
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd
ed.).
Biggs, J. (1996). Western misconceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture.
In
D.
Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner (pp. 46-47).
Bloom, B.
S. (Ed.). (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives.
Boyle, J. (2000). Education for teachers of English in
Chai, C., & Chai, W. (1965). The sacred books of Confucius
and other Confucian classics.
Conti,
G. (1983). Principles of adult learning scale. Retrieved
Conti, G. (2004). Appendix
B: principles of adult learning scale. In M. Galbraith (Ed.). Adult learning methods: A
guide for effective instruction (pp. 87-91).
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). English teaching and learning in
Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and
promoting transformative learning.
Creswell,
J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches(2nd
ed.).
Dong, W. (1996). English
language teaching in
King, K. P. (2005). Bringing transformative
learning to life. Krieger: Malabar Fl.
King, K.
P., & Wright, L. (2003). New
perspectives on gains in the ABE classroom: transformational learning results
considered. Adult Basic Education, 13(2), 100-123.
Knowles, M. S. (1970).
The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy.
Knowles,
M. S., & Hulda, F. (1973). Introduction to group dynamics.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed
learning: A guide for learners and teachers.
Knowles, M. S. (1986). Using learning contracts.
Knowles, M. S. , Holton, E. , & Swanson, A. (1998). The adult learner.
Lu,
H. L. (2005). The current situation of teachers in
institutions of higher education with regard to their work and how they
perceive their careers (S. Wiles, Trans). Chinese Education and Society, 38(5), 9-17. (Original work
published in 2003)
Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning
as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.
Nesbary, D. K.
(2000). Survey
research and the world wide web.
Paine, L. (1992). Teaching and modernization in contemporary
Price, D.
M. (1999). Philosophy
and the adult educator. Adult Learning, 11(2), 3-5.
Ross, H. (1992). Foreign languages education as a barometer of modernization.
In R. Hayhoe (Ed.). Education
and modernization: The Chinese experience (pp. 239-254).
Vachhani, A. (2005).