Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Teaching and Learning Practice in Vietnamese Higher Education

STUDENTS’ AND TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING PRACTICE IN VIETNAMESE HIGHER EDUCATION

TRAN, THI THANH THUY

ORCID identifier is 0000-0003-4537-4383

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

July, 2019

Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education Melbourne Graduate School of Education The University of Melbourne

ABSTRACT

In the past several decades, the Vietnamese Government has been attempting to modernise its higher education, aiming for Vietnamese higher education (VHE) to catch up with the world standards by the year 2020, and more specifically it intends to transform teaching and learning approaches so as to produce human resources that meet the increasing demands of a knowledge-based economy. Regardless of the implementation of multiple innovative policies, Vietnamese literature often describes teaching and learning in VHE as consisting of a traditional transmission-style approach, with passive and rote-based learning, examination-driven learning and a rigid and hierarchical learning environment. Contesting these characterisations, some recent studies have shown that teaching and learning in Vietnam has been shifting to a more student-centred approach. While these positive changes have been indicated, they appear to have occurred in advanced curriculum courses only. As such, complexity and diversity have been revealed in teaching and learning practices in the VHE context, a developing context which does not use English as a medium of instruction and which features centralisation in curriculum and the influence of classic Confucianism.

This research began five years before the year 2020, when the implementation of several government initiatives comes to an end. It investigated the fundamental question What are the key components of teaching practices that promote student learning in VHE, as perceived by teachers and students? The study is significant because it examined the perceptions of teachers and students, the two players in teaching and learning, to provide a ground-up approach in a centralised context. It aimed at identifying key components of teaching that promote student learning, as perceived by teachers and students. The study also examined the variations within the students’ perceptions and differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions. The study also sought to reveal the similarities and differences between teaching and learning practices in VHE and those that have been indicated in the research literature.

Using a mixed methods approach, the study consisted of three research phases, including the expert consultation (N=34); the questionnaires (N=643) and the

i interviews (N=36). It investigated not only the trends but also in-depth detail of students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching approaches that facilitate students’ learning within two public universities in Vietnam. Findings of the study indicated that some predominantly western-derived practices of teaching, learning and assessment can be translated into a unique higher education context such as that of Vietnam, but these practices are represented in slightly different ways. Findings of the study also revealed that there are similarities and some hybrid forms between teaching and learning in VHE and what has been represented in the research literature. The findings suggested that the perceptions of students and teachers in Vietnamese universities are more closely in line with teaching and learning approaches in developed western education. They showed that transformations have occurred in teaching and learning in Vietnamese universities, not only within advanced curriculum but also in more general education. Thus, these findings have helped debunk some stereotypes of teaching and learning in VHE, and enhanced understanding about the diversity and complexity in practices of teaching and learning in VHE. The findings provide insights into the contemporary situation of teaching and learning, and offer further understandings about the revolution of teaching and learning in VHE.

DECLARATION

This is to certify that:

i. The thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD, ii. Due acknowledgment has been made in the text to all other materials used, iii. The thesis is fewer than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, bibliographies and appendices.

Signature:

Tran, Thi Thanh Thuy July, 2019

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have experienced quite a bumpy journey in doing this Doctor of Philosophy; however, I have not been alone because I have received tremendous support from special persons to whom I am forever grateful.

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my beloved supervisors, Professor Sophie Arkoudis and Professor Gregor Kenney for their immense support, magnificent academic stewardship and constructive critiques without which my dissertation could not have been completed. Sophie’s wonderful supervision, brilliant criticality and constant encouragement have been an endless source of inspiration for me. I am equally indebted to Gregor for his outstanding scholarly expertise, genuine sincerity, and patience. For Sophie and Gregor, I am forever grateful.

I would like to give special thanks to Professor Hamish Coates, and Associate Professor Jason Lodge for their supervision in the early stage of my PhD candidature. I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to Associate Professor Chi Baik as the committee chair, and Associate Professor Shelley Gillis, as a committee member throughout my four-year journey. In each progress review meeting, they provided me insightful comments from which improvements have been made for my dissertation. I also highly appreciate the invaluable help of Associate Professor Graham Hepworth as a statistical consultant, who gave me crystal-clear explanations about statistical tests and enhanced my understanding about quantitative analysis. I wish to sincerely acknowledge Ms Rosemary Viete for her brilliant editing service. She proofread the thesis in its final draft, providing grammatical and semantic feedback, but preserving my meaning, style, organisation and voice.

My heartfelt thanks go to my sponsor, the Australian Government for offering me the Australian Awards Scholarship to take a PhD course, without which my dream to pursue doctoral study in Australia would not have come true. I would like to express my sincerest thanks to the two leaders of the two higher education institutions who

iv facilitated procedures and supported me during the time I collected data in their universities. I would like to acknowledge all of the participants who gave their valuable time to provide data for this study. Their voluntary and enthusiastic participation would be much appreciated.

I express my profound gratitude to my parents who have encouraged me to pursue a Doctor of Philosophy. They have given me unconditional love and tremendous emotional support. Without their assistance, especially in the late period of my candidature, I could not have been able to submit the dissertation on time. I am equally owe my parents-in-law who supported my decision for studying for a PhD and happily accepted their favourite son’s, my husband’s absence for four years when he could not take care of them because he accompanied me to Australia.

I would love to show my utmost gratitude to my husband, my soulmate who never complained about my coming home late from the office, and who was always willing to take over my responsibilities as a mother, just to let me have more time for my research. My journey would have been so much more stressful without his constant loving presence and psychological support. I would like to express my loving acknowledgements to our children, my biggest blessings in my life, Phuc Hung and Minh Hien. They were so helpful and supportive in their own lovely ways. This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, my son and my daughter.

I would also like to extend sincere thanks to my PhD friends and my colleagues and friends back in Vietnam. I especially thank Ms Loan Phan who was always willing to listen to my difficulties, and provided me invaluable advice as a fore-goer. Special appreciation goes to my peers Loan, Hang, Thao, Phuong, Umesha, Emeline and Claudia from Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. We have had many beautiful photographs taken together, parties together, discussions over lunch together and much more. Their companionship and encouragement has made my journey an infinitely more fulfilling experience.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... i DECLARATION ...... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi LIST OF TABLES ...... xi LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Rationale of the study ...... 2 1.3 Research question, aim and research approach ...... 8 1.4 Significance of the study ...... 9 1.6 Scope of the study ...... 10 1.7 Summary and structure of the thesis ...... 11 CHAPTER 2: COMPLEXITY AND DIVERSITY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN VIETNAMESE HIGHER EDUCAITON ...... 14 2.1 Introduction ...... 14 2.2 Vietnamese higher education context, policies and teaching and learning situation ...... 15 2.2.1 Vietnamese higher education prior to Doi Moi (The Innovation, 1986) ..... 15 2.2.2 Vietnamese higher education post-Doi Moi ...... 20 2.3 Teaching and learning in Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC) ...... 30 2.3.1 Teaching and learning in CHC countries in older research ...... 30 2.3.2 Teaching and learning in CHC countries in more recent research ...... 35 2.4 Questioning stereotypes of teaching and learning in CHC countries...... 38 2.5 Summary ...... 40 CHAPTER 3: KEY COMPONENTS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING PRACTICES AND STUDENTS’ AND TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING ...... 41 3.1 Introduction ...... 41

3.2 Three prominent principles and frameworks of teaching and learning practices in higher education ...... 42 3.2.1 Chickering and Gamson’s principles for good practice in undergraduate education ...... 43 3.2.2 Ramsden’s principles of effective teaching in higher education ...... 48 3.2.3 Biggs and Tang’s framework of constructive alignment ...... 52 3.3 Conceptual Framework ...... 56 3.4 Key components of teaching and learning practices in higher education ...... 59 3.4.1 Establishing learning goals ...... 59 3.4.2 Planning for assessment tasks...... 60 3.4.3 Selecting appropriate learning materials that engage students’ interest ...... 61 3.4.4 Planning for engaging classes...... 62 3.4.5 Motivating student learning ...... 63 3.4.6 Presenting topics by teachers and students ...... 64 3.4.7 Using skilled questioning ...... 65 3.4.8 Engaging students in the learning process ...... 67 3.4.9 Employing assessment to promote student learning ...... 68 3.4.10 Providing feedback to encourage student learning ...... 70 3.4.11 Generating a positive climate in class ...... 72 3.4.12 Establishing a culture for learning ...... 73 3.4.13 Promoting interaction and rapport ...... 74 3.5 Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices ...... 76 3.5.1 Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching ...... 76 3.5.2 Variations within students’ perceptions ...... 79 3.5.3 Differences between students and teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices ...... 81 3.6 Summary ...... 83 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH METHODS ..... 84 4.1 Introduction ...... 84 4.2 Mixed methods approach ...... 84 4.3 Research phases and method ...... 89 4.3.1 Phase 1: Construction of conceptual framework of key TLP ...... 90 4.3.2 Phase 2: Investigation of students’ and teachers' perceptions of TLP ...... 94

vii

4.3.3 Phase 3: In-depth exploration of the students’ and teachers' perceptions of key TLP in VHE ...... 99 4.4 Summary ...... 103 CHAPTER 5: THE EXPERTS’ FEEDBACK ...... 104 5.1 Introduction ...... 104 5.2 The four dimensions of teaching and learning practices ...... 104 5.3. Dimension 1: Planning Learning...... 106 5.4. Dimension 2: Teaching Strategies...... 113 5.5. Dimension 3: Assessment and Feedback ...... 119 5.6. Dimension 4: Learning Environment ...... 125 5.7 Summary ...... 130 CHAPTER 6: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 134 6.1 Introduction ...... 134 6.2 Key components of teaching and learning practices ...... 135 6.2.1 Factor analysis ...... 135 6.2.2 Descriptive and reliability analyses of the nine components of teaching practices ...... 145 6.2.3 Discussion on key components of teaching practices perceived by students in VHE ...... 149 6.3 Variations in students’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices ...... 154 6.3.1 Students’ year level ...... 156 6.3.2 Students’ majors ...... 158 6.3.3 Interaction effect of students’ year levels and students’ majors ...... 159 6.3.4 Interaction effect of students’ year levels and students’ majors and academic performance ...... 162 6.3.5 Discussion on students’ variations in perceptions of teaching ...... 162 6.4 Differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions ...... 166 6.4.1 T-test analyses ...... 166 6.4.2 Discussion on the student’s and teachers’ differences in perceptions of teaching ...... 168 6.5 Summary ...... 170 CHAPTER 7: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS...... 171 7.1 Introduction ...... 171 7.2 Planning Learning ...... 171

viii

7.2.1 Alignment of learning goals, learning materials and assessment tasks ..... 172 7.2.2 Mismatches between teachers and students in terms of learning goals, learning materials and assessment tasks ...... 174 7.2.3 Centralisation in the VHE curriculum ...... 176 7.3 Teaching Strategies ...... 178 7.3.1 Students’ perspectives of effective teaching ...... 178 7.3.2 Teachers’ perspectives of effective teaching ...... 182 7.3.3 Mismatches in teachers’ and students’ perspectives of effective teaching 186 7.4 Assessment and feedback ...... 189 7.4.1 Assessment for learning approaches within the constraints of VHE...... 189 7.4.2 Assessment as a main driver of student learning in VHE ...... 191 7.4.3 Assessments that promote a deep learning approach ...... 193 7.4.4 Feedback for learning ...... 197 7.5 Learning environment ...... 200 7.5.1 Enablers for promotion of class interaction and rapport ...... 201 7.5.2 Inhibitors of learning environments and interaction and rapport ...... 206 7.6. Summary ...... 208 CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 210 8.1 Introduction ...... 210 8.2 A brief review of the study ...... 211 8.3 Similarities between VHE and what is represented in the research literature regarding teaching practice ...... 213 8.3.1 Curriculum planning ...... 213 8.3.2 The employment of higher order thinking skills in teaching, learning and assessment practices ...... 214 8.3.3 The promotion of group presentation and group assignments ...... 216 8.3.4 Mutual responsibility for positive learning environment ...... 218 8.4 Some aspects of hybridity in teaching, learning and assessment in VHE...... 219 8.4.1 Incorporating lecturing and a student-centred approach to teaching and learning ...... 220 8.4.2 Students’ different perspectives of the role of questioning in learning ..... 222 8.4.3 Strategic approach to learning and assessment ...... 223 8.5 Variations within student perceptions, and differences between student and teacher perceptions ...... 224

8.6 Summary of findings ...... 225 8.7 Contributions and implications of the study ...... 227 8.7.1 Conceptual and practical contributions ...... 227 8.7.2 Implications of the study ...... 230 8.8 Limitations and suggestions for further studies ...... 232 8.9 Summary ...... 234 References ...... 236 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF DIMENSIONS, COMPONENTS AND THEIR INDICATORS DERIVING FROM LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 293 APPENDIX B: ONLINE SURVEY FOR EXPERTS’ FEEDBACK...... 298 APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 313 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 321 APPENDIX E: SUPPLEMENTARY STATISTICAL RESULTS ...... 323 APPENDIX F: VARIATIONS IN STUDENTS’ AND TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS FROM INTERVIEWS ...... 334

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Statistics of Vietnamese higher education from 2006 to 2016 ...... 27 Table 4.1: Participants in Phase 1 ...... 91 Table 4.2: Participants in Phase 2 ...... 97 Table 4.1: Participants in Phase 3 ...... 101 Table 5.1: Dimensions of teaching and learning practices ...... 105 Table 5.1: Experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 1 ...... 109 Table 5.2: Experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 2 ...... 114 Table 5.3: Experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 3 ...... 122 Table 5.4: Experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 4 ...... 128 Table 6.1: Nine-factor solution ...... 138 Table 6.2: Descriptive and reliability analyses of the nine components of teaching practices ...... 146 Table 6.3: Teaching components in the refined conceptual framework and from the students’ perspectives ...... 150 Table 6.4: Multivariate effect ...... 156 Table 6.5: Univariate analysis of students’ year level ...... 158 Table 6.6: Univariate analysis of students’ majors ...... 159 Table 6.7: Interaction effect of students’ year levels by students’ majors...... 159 Table 6.8: Interaction effect of students’ year levels by students’ majors and academic performance ...... 162 Table 6.9: Differences in frequency rate by teachers and students ...... 168

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Aligning intended learning outcomes, teaching and assessment tasks (Biggs & Tang, 2011, p. 105) ...... 54 Figure 3.2: Conceptual framework of teaching and learning practices ...... 58 Figure 4.1: Phases of the study ...... 89 Figure 6.1: Interaction effects for Learning Goals...... 160 Figure 6.2: Interaction effects for Learning Materials ...... 161 Figure 6.3: Interaction effects for Interaction and Rapport ...... 161

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

TLP Teaching and Learning Practice

VHE Vietnamese Higher Education

HEI(s) Higher Education Institution(s)

TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

SSH Social Sciences and Humanities

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

AUTC Australian University Teaching Criteria and Standards Framework

UKPSF The United Kingdom Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education

CHC Confucian Heritage Culture

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

CPV Communist Party of Vietnam

HERA Higher Education Reform Agenda

MOET Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam

GSO General Statistics Office

ILO Intended Learning Outcomes

TLA Teaching/Learning Activities

AT Assessment Tasks

TC Teaching Components

xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The study reported in this thesis explored teaching and learning practice (TLP) that was perceived to promote student learning in the Vietnamese higher education (VHE) system. Using participating university teachers’ and students’ perspectives, the study aimed to identify particular teaching approaches that facilitate student learning in two public Vietnamese higher education institutions (HEIs). The primary research question that this study investigated was What are the key components of teaching practices that promote student learning in VHE, as perceived by teachers and students?

This study was conducted because TLP has become important in contemporary higher education, although most of the innovations on teaching and learning have emerged from developed western higher education contexts. There have been many studies investigating general teaching and learning practices in Vietnam, however, there is a paucity of research paying specific attention to teaching practices that promote student learning in developing countries like Vietnam, where English is not a medium of instruction and in which the socio-economic, educational and cultural characteristics differ from western contexts. VHE has been affected by various external influences including China, France, America and Russia due to the country’s political and historical context. VHE system has also been influenced by many foreign higher education systems from other European and English speaking countries through the international collaborations between Vietnam and these countries in modern times. Therefore, the term “western” is used in this study to refer to foreign higher education systems from the “west” in general, and from English speaking countries such as the UK, the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand in particular.

VHE has been trying to improve its system since 1986, when the Vietnamese Government decided to switch from a centrally planned economy to a market economy. The Government has implemented many initiatives, agendas, and policies

1 with the aim that by 2020 VHE would achieve a higher education system that is broadly equivalent to international higher education systems. The present study was undertaken towards the end of the innovation period and sought to explore teachers’ and students’ perceptions of TLP. It took a ground-up approach to see how closely their perceptions aligned with the aims of the Vietnamese Government initiatives, and with what has been shown to be effective TLP in the global research literature.

The study employed a mixed method approach, looking at teachers’ and students’ perceptions to identify which key components of teaching were regarded as helpful for student learning. Interviews with selected participants then explored in greater detail exactly how the reported teaching, learning and assessment approaches were thought to promote student learning. Claims made in the thesis were based on the perceptions of these relatively small groups of teachers and students (there were 643 participants in total) from two public universities and in two discipline areas (TESOL and Social Sciences and Humanities). The study did not include class observations and did not measure the effectiveness of TLP.

In the remaining sections of this introductory chapter, the rationale of the study is provided, followed by the primary research question, the aim, and the research methods of the study. The study’s significance is highlighted, indicating theoretical and practical contributions of the dissertation to the policies and practices of teaching and learning in VHE. The constraints in the scope of the study are identified and a structure of the whole dissertation is also presented.

1.2 Rationale of the study

In the last several decades, higher education has changed substantially. The transition from industrial to knowledge-based economies has contributed to a dramatic increase in the demand for, and participation in, higher education all over the world. This in turn has resulted in the transition of higher education from “elite” education to “mass” education (Brown et al., 2008; Kivinen et al., 2007; Silvera et al., 2014; Strulik & Werner, 2014; Trow, 1999; West, 2000). Increases in enrolment rates and internationalisation in higher education have made student cohorts far more diverse in terms of socio-economic background, and differing expectations and needs (Kromydas, 2017; Park, 2009; Spencer-Oatey & Dauber, 2019).

Mass participation in higher education has placed increasing financial pressure on public funds (Barr & Crawford, 2005; Duerrenberger & Warning, 2018; Marginson, 2016). Higher education fees have increased, making the students feel that they have the right to high quality teaching and learning experiences, high services and great career outcomes (Akareem & Hossain, 2012; Henard & Roseveare, 2012). Increasingly, it has been argued that students, employers, governments and other stakeholders expect higher education institutions to educate graduates to ensure they obtain knowledge and skills so they are ready for the labour market (Bacchus, 2008; Briggeman & Norwood, 2011; Kavanagh & Drennan, 2008; Rao et al., 2014).

The increased size and diversity of the student cohorts, along with the advances in information and communication technologies, have also brought about fundamental changes in the ways university teaching and learning is conducted in general and the roles of university teachers and students in particular (Crisol, 2011; Hunt & Sankey, 2013; Isman et al., 2004; Yengin et al., 2010). According to some, it is essential that university teaching staff keep up-to-date with these significant changes in teaching, learning, and assessment in higher education (Bennett et al., 2011; Biggs & Tang, 2011; McGee & Fraser, 2012; Skelton, 2005). These changes have also resulted in increasing attention to the quality of teaching and the need for innovation in the practices of teaching, learning and assessment in higher education.

Many initiatives related to university teaching practices for quality learning have been investigated throughout the world (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Ramsden, 2003; Trigwell, 2001). To support teaching staff at universities, national governments and international institutions have introduced frameworks of teaching, such as the Australian University Teaching Criteria and Standards Framework (AUTC, 2015); the UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education (UKPSF, 2011); nine principles guiding teaching and learning (the University of Melbourne, Australia); guidelines for excellent teaching (The University of Calgary, Canada), to name a few. Individual scholars have also published widely on effective teaching practices at universities and they support teaching practices that promote student learning (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Entwistle, 2009; Hartley et al., 2005; Hativa, 2000; Sambell et al., 2013; McGee & Fraser, 2012; Ramsden, 2003; Race, 2010; Skelton, 2005).

It is noted that most of the related initiatives of teaching and learning practices at universities have been conducted in developed western countries where teachers have high flexibility in deciding what to teach in their class and how they implement assessment practice (Bennett et al., 2011; Bennett, Thomas et al., 2011; Postareff & Lindblom-Ylanne 2008; Stark 2000). There has been a dearth of studies identifying critical components of teaching approaches that are perceived to promote student learning for developing, Confucianism-influenced countries like Vietnam, where “top-down” policies in teaching and assessment still exist (Pham, 2010; Welch, 2010) . The study reported in this thesis addresses this gap by investigating students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices in the VHE context, which has the socio-economic, cultural, educational features of a developing country where English is not a medium of instruction.

Historically, Vietnam’s higher education has been affected by many external influences mainly from China, France, America and Russia (See section 2.2, Chapter 2 for further details). Since Doi Moi (The Innovation, 1986), Vietnam switched to a market economy and has maintained partnerships with many foreign institutions and organisations from around the world, primarily from developed western countries. The Vietnamese Government has been attempting to renovate its higher education in order to emulate advanced education systems in the region and in the world through myriad policies, agendas and initiatives. These have included The Educational Development Strategy (Vietnamese Government, Decision No. 201/2001/QD-TTG, 2001); The Resolution No. 37/2004/QH11 (National Assembly, December 2004); Decision 1269/CP-KG (Vietnamese Government, September 2004); Vietnam Education Law (2005); Decree 14/2005/NQ-CP (Vietnamese Government, November 2005)- The Higher Education Reform Agenda (HERA, 2005); Decision No. 145/2006/QĐ-TTg (Prime Minister, June 2006); Decision of the 10th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam (2010); The Educational Development Strategy (No. 711/QD-TTg, 2011-2020) and The Law on HE (National Assembly, June 2012).

One of the most notable initiatives was the Higher Education Reform Agenda (HERA) for the period 2006 to 2020, which aimed to implement fundamental and comprehensive innovation in VHE. Another initiative was The Educational

Development Strategy (No. 711/QD-TTg, 2011-2020), which is continuously seeking to develop advanced curriculum and shows the continuing commitment of the Vietnamese Government to develop western-style education approaches (Harman, Hayden et al., 2010; London 201; Nguyen, 2013; Nguyen & Lehy 2015; Nguyen & Tran, 2018). The shared and ultimate aim of these two initiatives is to achieve a world-class higher education system by 2020, appropriate to the market mechanisms, yet still in accordance with socialist orientation and with state governance. In addition, the Prime Minister explicitly stated that higher education in Vietnam aims to “train people with creative capacity, independent thinking, citizen responsibility, professional ethics and skills, foreign language competence, work discipline, industrial manner, capacity to create employment and ability to adjust to the changes of the labour market, and to produce a proportion of graduates who are capable of competing in the region and in the world” (Prime Minister, 2012c, p. 9). From these initiatives, it is clear that the governmental leader and policies of Vietnam have all shown their determination to modernise its higher education with more advanced approaches to teaching and learning.

Yet, teaching in Vietnam has been mainly viewed as teachers lecturing and students taking notes, where rote and passive learning with little questioning and few thinking skills dominate (Thanh, 2011; Tran, 2013; Tran & Marginson, 2014). The curriculum has been perceived as mainly theory-laden, and in many cases impractical and out of sync with the global knowledge based economy and the developmental strategies of the country (Ellis, 1995; McCornac & Phan, 2005; Oliver, 2004; Pham, 2010; Phan, 2014; Tran, 2012; Tran & Marginson, 2014). Tran and Marginson (2014) claim these teaching and learning approaches and curriculum are the result of negative influence from classic Confucianism that persisted for a long time in Vietnamese education. In addition, they report that knowledge transmission is still a common teaching approach, and that assessment tasks still assess what the students noted and memorised from their teachers’ lectures rather than students’ ability to apply knowledge in practical cases or in solving problems. Tran and Marginson’s views are supported by the research on VHE. Do and Do (2014) suggest that passive learning is not suitable in the knowledge-based world of work, in which successful employees are required to be dynamic, active, flexible, and creative. Tran, Le et al. (2014) also indicate that the outdated curriculum, and the passive approaches to teaching, learning

5 and assessment emphasise the teacher as the knowledge provider while the world of work demands the teacher to facilitate, nurture, and develop attributes and skills for students’ employability.

Nonetheless, there has been some research indicating that a gradual shift has taken place from memorisation, repetition, and passive learning to the promotion of student- centred approach in which critical thinking, problem-solving and creativity receive greater emphasis (Binh, 2013; Harman & Bich, 2010; Harman & Nguyen, 2010; Huy, 2011; Mai & Hall, 2017; Tran, Le et al., 2014). Tran, Le et al. (2014) note that in the past two years, the university entrance examinations have included some tasks that require student candidates to reflect on their experience and demonstrate their thinking skills. Harman and Bich (2010) also indicate some positive changes in teaching and learning:

Teachers are also being encouraged not to come to the classroom to purely ‘teach’ but to know how the learners can learn and what they can achieve after each teaching period of 45 minutes. The one-way of teaching tradition is gradually experiencing an innovative shift by the introduction of updated curriculum and teaching approaches and emphasising new forms of evaluation and assessment (Harman & Bich, 2010, p.47).

Active teaching and learning approaches have also been introduced and promoted such as pair/group work, inquiry-based learning, task-based learning, practical projects, among others (Harman & Bich, 2010; Harman & Nguyen, 2010; Nguyen, Fehring et al. 2015; Thompson, 2009; Tran, Le et al., 2014). These examples demonstrate that in addition to the traditional transmission teaching method, a more student-centred approach to teaching and learning is also evident in VHE. This indicates that teaching and learning practices in Vietnamese universities are more complex and diverse than initially thought.

In much of the literature, Vietnam is categorised as one of the Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC). This is mainly due to the Chinese influence, even though Vietnam has also been influenced by other foreign countries such as France, America and Russia. Much research says that Vietnam is operating in a Confucian culture and has top-down policies in education as a legacy from the Socialist Bloc, even though the

6 country has been moving towards a market economy. Vietnam is a country that has various influences, so it cannot be categorised in this single way. Confucianism was indeed a dominant force for over one thousand years, while there were one hundred years of influence by France and over twenty years by America. There must have been many contradictions in VHE because it was influenced by many other western features as well. It was dominated by the Russian socialist system, at the same time as the economy began to open up, with the presence of many foreign corporations.

Much of the research argues that teaching and learning in Vietnam has been mainly influenced by Chinese Confucianism, characterised by knowledge transmission, rote learning, examination-oriented learning, and hierarchical learning environment (Nguyen & McInnis, 2002; Nguyen, 2003; Pham, 2010; Pham & Fry, 2004; Phan, 2014, Tran et al., 2014; Welch, 2010; Whitmore, 1984). These appear to be general stereotypes about VHE. Vietnam has complicated cultural influences from many countries around the world. It could be argued that teaching and learning in Vietnam are actually quite complex, diverse and contradictory. For this reason, the study examined particular teaching approaches that promote student learning, as perceived by teachers and students, to see whether and how their perceptions have been moving away from persisting traditions to more advanced approaches to teaching and learning. By doing so, the study attempted to illustrate that there are now many complexities and much diversity within teaching and learning practices in VHE. This has helped to question the generalisations and stereotypes of teaching and learning that were pervasive in the research literature.

Equal of importance, students’ conceptions of learning have been related to their descriptions of the teaching approaches they have previously experienced (Brok, 2001; Frenzel et al., 2007; Kember et al., 2004; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Teachers’ perceptions of effective teaching have also been associated with how they conducted teaching activities (Kember et al., 2004). While teachers’ and students’ perceptions of effective teaching practice have been well-researched in developed countries, this area was under-researched in the VHE context where students are presumed to hold less active roles in teaching and learning (Pham, 2010; Tran, 2013; Vietnamnet, 2012) and where centralisation in education is still dominant (Dao, 2015; Dao & Hayden, 2010; George, 2011; Hayden & Lam,

2007; Hayden & Lam, 2010; London, 2011). Therefore, exploring Vietnamese teachers’ and students’ perceptions as well as the variations in their perceptions offers insights into their conceptions of teaching approaches that promote student learning in this unique context. Furthermore, exploring the perceptions of teachers and students, the two main agents in teaching and learning, would be a ground-up approach to informing policy makers of the aspects of teaching that would be helpful for student learning growth. Such grounded knowledge would enrich decision-making in the top- down policy development and implementation that are common practice in VHE.

In brief, exploring the contemporary situation of teaching and learning approaches in VHE, from the perspectives of students and teachers is of great significance. It would offer further insight into the implementation of the government innovation in teaching and learning before it comes to its conclusion in 2020. The study would find out whether teaching and learning practices in Vietnamese universities are more closely in line with what has been represented as beneficial in teaching and learning in developed western higher education systems.

1.3 Research question, aim and research approach

The aim of this study is to explore students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching approaches that promote student learning in the Vietnamese higher education system.

The study has three interrelated objectives:

• To identify key critical components of teaching that facilitate student learning, as perceived by both teachers and students • To examine variations within students’ perceptions (e.g., by year level) and differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions • To investigate the similarities and differences between teaching and learning practices in VHE and what has been indicated in the research literature

Accordingly, one fundamental research question was addressed:

What are the key components of teaching practices that promote student learning in VHE, as perceived by teachers and students?

The research question framed the data collection and data analysis of the empirical components of the study, which, in turn, have influenced the interpretation of the results and informed the research outcomes. In order to answer the research question, the study used a mixed methods approach to help inform the data collection, increase validity in the findings, and assist with knowledge creation, bringing about a deeper, broader understanding of the phenomenon (Creswell & Clark, 2011).

More particularly, the context of Vietnamese higher education was examined as a background and rationale for the research. Major concepts of teaching and learning approaches, prominent and influential frameworks and principles of teaching were also reviewed to guide the theoretical understandings forming the basis of designing a conceptual framework of teaching and learning approaches. In addition, selected relevant experts were invited to provide feedback on dimensions and components of teaching and learning. Their expertise and experience enabled a more refined version of the conceptual framework, which framed questionnaire and interview questions. After this phase, trends of students’ and teachers’ perceptions were revealed through their responses to the questionnaire. Variations in students’ perceptions, as well as the differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions, were also examined through the quantitative data analysis. Lastly, to explore their perceptions in depth, individual interviews with selected teachers and students were conducted and analysed. The outcome from the employment of both quantitative and qualitative data helped identify more particular teaching practices that were thought to be helpful for the learning of students in VHE.

1.4 Significance of the study

This study is significant because it provides further insights to the research literature about student and teacher perceptions of teaching approaches that promote student learning in the particular context of VHE, a developing, Confucianism-influenced context, where English is not a medium of instruction and where centralisation in curriculum still exists. Although most of these teaching approaches have been derived from the research literature of developed western countries, the study sought to see whether and how these initiatives could be translated into VHE context, albeit with their own particular interpretation. In this respect, the study expands insights into the

9 implementation of advanced notions of teaching, learning and assessment in different contexts. The study also provides further understanding about the contemporary situation of teaching and learning in VHE under the implementation of Government innovation policies in its efforts to modernise its higher education system. At this point in time when these policies are reaching their conclusion (2020 is the final year), information about changes in practices is of great value.

This study is also of significance because it examines students and teachers’ perceptions, the two main agents in teaching and learning. While the Vietnamese government has been attempting to renovate its higher education into western-styled education by implementing multiple policies, a ground-up approach to exploring the current situation of teaching and learning practice would inform the leaders at all levels of the effects of their policy implementation, and help in planning the subsequent steps to be taken. Importantly, students’ thoughts of what particular approaches of teaching would promote their learning, may inform the teachers in their efforts to accommodate and adjust their practice in ways that could accommodate to stay on par with their students. For students, knowing more about what particular approaches to teaching and learning would be beneficial to their learning could inform their decisions about how they should engage in the learning process and direct their learning. The students’ and teachers’ perspectives would also provide institutional leaders with some critical information for developing more relevant and meaningful professional development programs that are closer to their teachers’ needs.

1.6 Scope of the study

Acknowledging that there are many possible approaches to investigate teaching and learning practices in higher education, the researcher has defined a set of limits to guide the study. Though the limits are outlined here, they are also discussed when relevant throughout this thesis. Coupled with the findings, many of them help open up new avenues for further research.

First of all, this research program did not explore teaching and learning practices in general but more specifically it examined practices of teaching and learning that promote student learning in the Vietnamese higher education institutional landscape, as perceived by students and teachers. Since the research program included two

10 selected public higher education institutions, its findings may apply to public HEIs only, due to some differences between the public and private institutions such as class size, facilities and resources, qualifications of teaching staff, and the autonomy of teachers and students in teaching and learning, among others.

This study mainly investigated students’ and teachers’ perceptions of what approaches to teaching would facilitate their student learning. However, the study neither measured the effectiveness of each practice nor indicated to what extent the practices of teaching and learning can enhance the learning growth of students. Hence, the study has used neither action research nor class observations. The two primary instruments for data collection were questionnaires and interviews.

Additionally, given the complexities in gaining access to a sample which is representative of the whole population of the higher education sector, the quantitative data for this research was collected from a sample of 643 students and teachers, and 36 students and teachers from this cohort for the qualitative data. Thus, the findings of this study cannot be generalised beyond the study sample, though they may of course inform further research in similar contexts.

1.7 Summary and structure of the thesis

This chapter has outlined why teaching and learning practices have increasingly become an issue of concern in higher education worldwide. It proposed that teaching and learning practices appear very much to be context-dependent given their diversity and complexity. This chapter also showed that VHE is characterised differently from that of developed western systems in terms of the influences of CHC, limited facilities and resources for teaching and learning, restricted autonomy of teachers in curriculum and assessment due to the top-down policy of the country, among many others. It also argued that by identifying the variations in students’ perceptions and disparities between teaching staff members’ and students’ perceptions of TLP, it would be able to critically examine the stereotypes and generalisations about teaching and learning in VHE, which has often been characterised as consisting only of knowledge transmission, rote learning and examination-oriented learning.

The remainder of the thesis is organised as follows:

Chapter 2 provides a detailed review on the VHE context including the traditional influences of foreign countries on VHE, mainly from Chinese Confucianism, government policies, current teaching and learning practices. Chapter 2 is a prelude to the discussion on critical teaching and learning approaches, mainly derived from developed western countries but aligned with the contextual and cultural characteristics of the VHE setting.

Chapter 3 presents influential frameworks and principles of effective teaching in the past decades from which key dimensions and components of TLP were framed. The synthesis provided literature-based inputs for the construction of an online survey used for expert consultation. The chapter also presents research literature on teachers’ and students’ perceptions, as well as variations among their perceptions.

Chapter 4 outlines the methodology and methods used to respond to the research question. It also details each phase of the research program, explaining the rationale behind the method, the sampling in each phase, the instruments for data collection and data analysis.

Chapter 5 reports findings from the expert consultation, along with the modifications to the framework and online survey recommended by the experts. It paved the way for the establishment of the refined form of the conceptual framework of the study.

Chapter 6 reports findings of the study from quantitative data analysis, indicating the trends in teachers’ and students’ perceptions of TLP. Chapter 6 also provides insights into diversities in students’ perceptions and disparities between teachers’ and students’ perceptions.

Chapter 7 details and deepens the content of the key components of TLP emerging from Chapter 6 with the analysis of the semi-structured interviews. It offers more robust understandings about student and teacher perceptions of what particular aspects of teaching promote student learning and how this occurs.

Chapter 8 discusses the major findings from Chapter 6 and Chapter 7, as key critical teaching practices that were thought to facilitate the learning of Vietnamese students. It presents the overlaps and hybrid aspects in teaching and learning between the VHE

12 context and those indicated in the predominantly western research literature. Chapter 8 also explains why these teaching practices are significant, conceptually and practically. The implications of the study, its limitations as well as some directions for future studies are also presented in Chapter 8.

CHAPTER 2: COMPLEXITY AND DIVERSITY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN VIETNAMESE HIGHER EDUCATION

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the historical, political and cultural context of Vietnam in which VHE emerged and developed. It shows that prior to Doi Moi (1986), a historical milestone marking Vietnam’s transition from a centrally planned economy to a market economy, VHE was affected by external legacies, mainly from China, France, the US and the USSR. This chapter also demonstrates that since Doi Moi, then Vietnamese government has been trying through a series of educational policies to transform VHE into a western-styled education. However, some stereotypes of teaching and learning in VHE prevail in the literature, particularly the notion that Chinese Confucianism, characterised by knowledge transmission and rote learning, still dominates higher education practices. Therefore, this chapter also presents a review of research literature on teaching and learning in Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) countries including Vietnam and argues that traditional expository teaching and learning by memorisation are indeed presented in stereotypical ways. Teaching and learning in CHC countries have been more complex, diverse and contradictory than was initially thought. Consequently, these stereotypes should be questioned.

The chapter begins with an in-depth review of Vietnamese higher education context, policies and teaching and learning situations both prior to and after Doi Moi, a critical innovation policy of Vietnam. Next, the chapter reviews both older and more recent research literature on teaching and learning in CHC countries. The chapter continues with critical analysis of stereotypes of teaching and learning in CHC countries including Vietnam. A summary completes the chapter.

2.2 Vietnamese higher education context, policies and teaching and learning situation

Vietnam has a different political system, economy and culture from many countries, and these have influenced its higher education context. Historically, Vietnam was under Chinese domination for one thousand and ninety-six years, when the Chinese policy for cultural assimilation was applied. Vietnam was also colonised by the French for nearly a century (1858-1954). The French colonisation ended with the American war (1954-1975), dividing Vietnam into North Vietnam and South Vietnam. On 30th April, 1975 the country was liberated and reunified. Subsequently, in political terms, Vietnam became a socialist country under the leadership of the Communist Party. Vietnam remains one of only a few socialist countries in the world, since the dissolution of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the Communist countries in Eastern Europe. Having developed in that historical background, Vietnamese Higher Education (VHE) has been influenced by successive external forces from various foreign countries (Nguyen & Tran, 2018; Tran, Marginson et al., 2014) and its development can be seen to have occurred in two distinctive phases: prior to Doi Moi (The Innovation, 1986) and post Doi Moi.

2.2.1 Vietnamese higher education prior to Doi Moi (The Innovation, 1986)

From 111 BC to AD 938, Vietnam was dominated by the Chinese emperors. During this period, Chinese policies on cultural assimilation were applied, in which Vietnamese education was strongly influenced by Chinese Confucianism as “part of the invader’s imperial policy” (Vu & Marginson, 2014, p. 155). The termination of Chinese domination in the 10th Century did not put an end to Chinese influences on Vietnam (Le & Sloper, 1995). In 1076, the first university of Vietnam named Temple of Literature, was established and it was embedded with Confucian philosophy. This university selected its students only from among princes and excellent commoners, who were trained to become mandarins (Le & Sloper, 1995). The Confucianism- based examinations and curriculum were maintained in Vietnamese dynasties for approximately another nine centuries (London, 2011). Competitive examinations were organised to choose mandarins for the dynasties. The curriculum for these

15 examinations consisted of a set of four Confucian classics and five Confucian classical books (Tứ Thư, Ngũ Kinh), which were the essential contents of Confucianism (Le & Sloper, 1995).

Another profound influence from the colonial Chinese related to the writing system (Pham & Fry, 2004). All teaching materials were written in Chinese characters (known as Chu Nho) until the 13th Century, when a Vietnamese system of writing, known as Chu Nom was developed. However, the mandarins continued to use the Chinese writing system. Chu Nom was used for official business and scholarship, while Chu Nho was used for popular literature, and these two writing systems continued until the 20th Century (Le & Sloper, 1995). The essential features of education of this period were that it was selective – available only to privileged classes, other than a few commoners who were excellent scholars. It was a structured system with a focus on examinations and formal awards (Le & Sloper, 1995).

While Confucian-based, feudal education was characterised by knowledge transmission and rote learning, it also focused on practical education (Tran, Le et al., 2014). The examinations for the selection of mandarins not only required candidates to master the set books but also asked them to connect their knowledge with some of the contemporary issues of the day and then to propose solutions to these issues (Tran, 2010; Tran, Le et al., 2014). Some well-known scholars of that time were Chu Van An, Le Thanh Tong, Nguyen Trai and Le Quy Don, who were celebrated for their deep and wide expertise, respectful personality, and their initiatives in the defense and development of the country (Tran, Le et al., 2014). As such, education during feudal dynasties in Vietnam was characterised by authoritative knowledge transmission and rote-based learning of set books for examinations. While this was the case, problem solving skills and knowledge application were also highlighted. In short, although Vietnam was officially under Chinese domination for over one thousand years, the influences of Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC) on Vietnamese education – through the examination system, curriculum and writing system – continued to be evident in the country for well into the 19th century when the French colonisation began in Vietnam (1858). This may help explain why Confucianism, a Chinese legacy, has exerted one of the most notable and long-lasting influences on teaching and learning in VHE (Welch, 2010).

Vietnamese Higher Education was also influenced by French imperialism from 1858 to 1954. In the first stage of colonialism, the French maintained the feudal system of Confucian education. After 1917, when they promulgated the first Education Act, the Chinese script was not taught in schools and the competitive examinations were abolished. From this time, the Vietnamese education system began to imitate that of the French (Pham, 1995). Before this, in 1867, a French scholar, Alexander de Rhodes developed a Latin alphabet, based on the employment of Romance scripts for the Vietnamese language. This was known as Quốc Ngữ, which has been used in Vietnamese literature since then. The use of Quốc Ngữ undermined the status of scholarly officials by “progressively giving the masses access to literature, learning and literacy, which were previously unattainable” (Pham, 1995, p. 46). The French objective was to privilege an elite education and the French language by abolishing the Chinese feudal Confucian system. Consequently, the French restructured the education system of Vietnam with an intention of serving “colonial imperatives” during their over 90 years in Vietnam (London, 2011, p. 9). The newly introduced French curricula were barely relevant to the Vietnamese educational context because they were simply taken from France (Pham, 1995). The education system aimed to serve the French officers’ children and to train a few Vietnamese to become servants in their colonial system (Ngo, 1973). The French influence on Vietnamese education was, as a consequence, modest, as only three percent of the population had enrolled in the schools at all levels, while the remaining population was largely illiterate. The elite approach to education was a remarkable influence of the French system on Vietnamese higher education (Le, Rowley et al., 2007; Nguyen, 2003; Welch, 2010). In 1954, the newly established republic of Vietnam decided to maintain the French system in its reform of the education system in South Vietnam (London, 2011; Vu & Marginson, 2014).

Since the declaration of independence in 1945, education in Vietnam was also shaped by the educational philosophy of Ho Chi Minh, the founding father of modern Vietnam and the greatest leader of Vietnam. The motto “the uneducated are a weak people” was an advanced argument in Ho Chi Minh’s philosophy (Le & Sloper, 1995, p. 49). Therefore, during his time, Ho Chi Minh aspired to develop educated and helpful citizens for an independent country. Another progressive feature in educational philosophy of Ho Chi Minh was that “practicality of learning is

17 accompanied with practice and theory is associated with reality” (Tran, Le et al., 2014, p. 89).

In 1954, France ended its colonisation of Vietnam after its loss in the Điện Biên Phủ battle, one of the most resounding victories of Vietnam’s modern history. The 1954- Geneva agreements divided Vietnam into the North and the South. The latter was under the control of the US, while the former was aligned with other socialist countries, mainly the Soviet Union, Eastern European countries, China and Cuba. America emphasised mass education, thus expanding education at all levels. For instance, higher education significantly increased its enrolments from 5,300 in 1957 to 64,000 in 1973 (Green, 1973). America also chose Vietnamese as the language of instruction and developed teaching and learning materials for Vietnam. America showed a desire to innovate the educational system in order to produce more trained labourers to facilitate Vietnamese economic development. This desire contributed to “winning the hearts and minds of the people” (Green, 1973, p. 54). More specifically, many South Vietnamese were granted scholarships to study higher education in the U.S. In the middle of 1972, almost 6,000 students were provided funds to study abroad by the South Vietnamese government (Green, 1973). America also expanded the university sector and developed a new community college system within South Vietnam (Green, 1973). The US colonial legacies in South Vietnam were the decentralisation of education and educational assessment methods (Nguyen, 2003). According to Nguyen (2003), there was alteration in the way education system was governed, which “encourages, strengthens and promotes state and local control” (p. 41). American experts also developed multiple-choice-question objective tests as a substitute for subjective questions for the national high-stakes examinations. However, this initiative did not last long because of “the teachers’ strong resistance and insufficient enabling structures” (Vu & Marginson, 2014, p. 157).

In North Vietnam, after 1960, many Vietnamese students were offered scholarships by the USSR and other countries in the socialist bloc to study tertiary education. Numerous Vietnamese university lecturers and researchers were sent to the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and the German Democratic Republic for either post-graduate education or professional development courses (Nguyen & Sloper, 1995). Higher education training within North Vietnam followed

18 the Soviet Union system which focused on narrow specialisation, resulting in a monodisciplinary university system in Vietnam (Nguyen & Sloper, 1995). According to Nguyen and Sloper (1995, p. 52), this system was appropriate for a “subsidies regime in which every student after graduation was guaranteed a position by the state plan”. As a legacy from Soviet Union, teaching was separated from research, and research-focused institutes were established, and run independently from universities (Lam, 2009; Lam & Vu, 2012). Also as a noteworthy influence from the Soviet Union system, Vietnamese higher education was transformed to focus on basic natural and social sciences, especially related to heavy industries. Between 1954 and Doi Moi, there was an increase in the number of polytechnic institutes that provided courses on industry, construction and transportation (Dang, 1997). The centralisation of education and the lack of linkage between teaching and research, the Soviet Union legacies, still exist in Vietnamese higher education today (Le & Sloper, 1995; Tran, Marginson et al., 2014; Welch, 2010).

It is clear from this brief review that prior to Doi Moi, higher education in Vietnam was passively influenced by various foreign countries. The authority and hierarchy in knowledge transmission as well as examination-oriented education were brought from Chinese Confucianism for roughly nineteen centuries. As opposed to the French approach to elite higher education, the Americans exercised a more liberal, democratic and decentralised approach to foster the expansion of higher education in South Vietnam. However, this influence was modest (Green, 1973; Vu & Marginson, 2014). In addition, higher education in Vietnam was also framed by the ideas of President Ho Chi Minh, who emphasised the incorporation of theory and practice in teaching and learning (Tran, Le et al., 2014). A further influence on higher education in Vietnam came from the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries, featuring top- down policies, mono-disciplinary specialisation in training, and separation of teaching from research (Lam, 2009; Lam & Vu, 2012; Le & Sloper, 1995; Welch, 2010). Consequently, higher education in Vietnam before Doi Moi was influenced by both Eastern and Western philosophies and its current state to a certain extent reflects the complexities and contradictions from these external influences.

2.2.2 Vietnamese higher education post-Doi Moi

The year 1986 is recognised as a significant milestone for Vietnam. The Doi Moi initiative transformed Vietnam from a subsidised economy to a market economy under socialist mechanisms and state control (Ngo et al., 2006; Nguyen, 2006; World Bank, 2008). Doi Moi enabled Vietnam to integrate into the global economy and to immerse itself in “global cultural flows”, including education and scientific knowledge (Tran, Marginson et al., 2014, p.134). Tran, Marginson et al. (2014) claim that “among the ideas that flowed freely into Vietnam after 1986 were neo-liberal ideas about economic development and state economic management, and about the organization of sectors such as education, ideas that have affected many other countries” (p.134). The market economy could allow the mobilisation of natural and human resources within the country and promote people’s creativity, which facilitated collaboration and partnerships with foreign countries in the cause of national development (Quy & Sloper, 1995). According to the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV), the market economy under state control was to build “a wealthy people, a strong country and a civilized society” (Le & Sloper, 1995, p.33).

To meet the requirements of a market economy, the Vietnamese state declared that “together with science and technology, education and training have to be regarded as a national priority policy to ensure the implementation of socio-economic goals, building and defending the country” (7th Congress of CPV, 1991). The objective of higher education was stated to be “elevating people’s knowledge, training human resources, fostering talent, and producing workers with cultural and scientific knowledge, professional skills, creativity, and discipline at work” (Le & Sloper, 1995, p.37). To achieve such objectives, well-qualified and highly motivated academic staff was a prerequisite (Le & Sloper, 1995, p.69). The state also realised that “Vietnamese higher education is lagged behind regional and international standards; graduate students were limited in their abilities in relation to creative thinking, practical skills, and team-work skills” (Prime Minister, 2001). Therefore, the country has reformed its higher education system to shift to new curricula and teaching methods, mainly derived from developed English speaking countries, to foster the graduates’ attributes and to catch up with the universities in the world league (Harman, Hayden et al., 2010).

Following Doi Moi and since the removal of the US embargo in 1994, Vietnam initiated the Open Door policy to enhance the market economy, which has generated and diversified diplomatic relationships between Vietnam and western capitalist nations such as the US, the UK, Australia, and other European countries (Nguyen 2013, Nguyen & Tran, 2014; Pham 2011; Tran et al., 2014). Nguyen and Tran (2018) called this transition an “outward looking of the government” (p.33), which the authors saw as translating into multiple laws and policies of higher education, five of which are relevant to curriculum, teaching and learning, which are presented below:

 Decision No. 201/2001/QD-TTG of 28 December 2001 with regard to the 2001–2010 Educational Development Strategy points out VHE has to, amongst many things, ‘create a breakthrough in educational quality compatible to international standard and at the same time, fits well into Vietnamese context’ (Vietnamese Government 2001);  Resolution No. 37/2004/QH11 issued by the National Assembly dated 3 December 2004 on HE specifies that VHE must critically select international advanced programmes for the sake of developing an advanced and modern curriculum and reforming thoroughly teaching and learning methodologies (Vietnamese National Assembly 2004);  Decision 1269/CP-KG, dated 6 September 2004 issued by the Vietnamese government, guides MOET on enhancing and expanding the network of universities and colleges. It provides basic guidance for Vietnamese universities and colleges on how to select and experiment, for the first time, advanced programmes and curriculum. The fields which can directly import these advanced programmes are natural sciences, technology and economic management offered at foreign universities suitable with the Vietnamese context (Vietnamese Government 2004);  In 2005, Vietnam Education Law, approved by the 11th National Assembly meeting and implemented by MOET a couple of months later, emphasizes that the content of VHE curriculum must be current and advanced; it has to balance the triad of basic science knowledge, foreign language, information and technology literacy and specialized

knowledge, all of which must be equivalent to regional and international standard (Vietnamese Government 2005);  Decree 14/2005/NQ-CP dated 2 November 2005 on the Government resolution on substantial and comprehensive renewal of Vietnam’s tertiary education in the 2006–2020 period reaffirms the need to selectively apply the advanced foreign curriculum and programmes (Vietnamese Government 2005)

(Nguyen and Tran, 2018, p.33)

To attain these objectives, facilities and human resources are essential. However, VHE has been reported as being under-resourced and having poor facilities, especially for teaching and laboratory experiments (Hayden & Lam, 2007; Nguyen, Nguyen et al., 1995; Pham, 2010; Sloper & Le, 1995). Moreover, it is significant that the curriculum and teaching methods focus mainly on developing skills and capabilities for students to meet the demand of global integration (Tran et al., 2014). Students have to be trained to be initiative takers, good problem-solvers, critical thinkers, good communicators and good team players in addition to mastering and applying knowledge in their field (Tran, Le et al., 2014). Finally, research work needs to be conducted and promoted within universities so that teaching is no longer separated from research, and is well informed and enhanced by research (Harman & Bich, 2010; Hayden & Lam, 2010; Nguyen 2014).

The Vietnamese Government continued its commitment to switching from a Soviet style education to western style education (Harman, Hayden et al., 2010) through implementing a “fundamental and comprehensive” reform of higher education during the period 2006–2020 (The Higher Education Reform Agenda-HERA). HERA aimed to have by 2020 a world standard higher education system “appropriate to the socialist-oriented market mechanism”. The main objectives stated in HERA that relate to teaching and learning practice are the following:

 develop the curriculum that supports research;  develop ‘as a matter of priority’ curriculum that has a strong applied/professional orientation;  upgrade training materials with links to research practice;

 upgrade training methodologies by introducing a diversity of learning styles, interactive teaching modes and application of ICTs to learning and teaching;  improve the quality of master’s and doctoral degrees;  develop a new policy on teachers’ terms and conditions of employment to ensure equitable workloads and opportunities for professional development; and  develop lecturing staff with high moral and ethical standards, acceptable political ideology, high professional qualifications and modern teaching methods

(MOET 2005b, p. 2–3)

In addition to HERA, the leader of the Vietnamese Government, the Prime Minister issued a decision No. 711/QD-TTg, approving the 2011-2020 Education Development Strategy with the following overall objectives:

 By 2020, to basically and comprehensively renovate national education toward standardization, modernization, socialization, democratization and international integration; to improve education quality comprehensively, including education of morals, life skills, creative ability, practice ability, foreign language and information technology proficiency; to meet the demand for human resources, especially high-quality ones, for national industrialization and modernization and formation of a knowledge-based economy; to assure social equity in education and lifelong learning opportunity for everyone, to step by step form a learning society.  to improve training quality to meet human resource requirements of socio- economic development; to train persons with creative ability, independent thinking, civic responsibility, professional ethics and skills, foreign language proficiency, sense of labor discipline, industrial working style, self- employment capacity and ability to adapt to labor market changes, with a segment of them being regionally and internationally competitive.  to renovate teaching contents and methods, exams, tests and education quality assessment

(Prime Minister, 2012, p.8-11)

In the current context, the purposes of VHE are defined in VHE law (2012) as follows:

a) Train the labour force, promote the public education, nurture talents, doing scientific and technological research to generate new knowledge and products to meet the demands of socio-economic development, national security and defence assurance and global integration b) Produce graduates with good political and ethical moralities; with good knowledge, professional skills, capability of research and development conform to educational level, with good health, creativeness, and responsibility in their jobs, with good adaptability to the working environment and a sense of community engagement

(Source: VHE, 2012 law, translated from the Vietnamese to English by me as the author of the thesis)

Without doubt, the Vietnamese government has been attempting to renovate its higher education system, as Yang (2011) said “to have a strong western catch-up with the region and the world” (Yang, 2011, p.119). Nguyen and Tran (2018) also suggest that the post-1986 policies reveal a strong aspiration and determination of the Vietnamese government in borrowing western higher education models in general, and the top 200 world university’s programs and curricula in particular.

More specifically, in response to Resolution No. 37/2004/QH11 (National Assembly, December 2004), in 2006, The Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) started piloting advanced programs with nine universities. MOET explicitly stated the primary objective of the project was “to develop advanced curriculum in a number of disciplines at selected Vietnamese universities, to ensure these universities reach world standards and international ranking, with the ultimate objective of achieving some Vietnamese universities in the world top 200” (MOET, 2008, p.2). In the advanced programs, English is used as a medium of instruction. Curricula are transferred from some of the prestigious universities in the top 200 world league. In some courses, curriculum, teaching approaches and assessment methods have been

24 entirely adopted from foreign partners (Nguyen, 2009a). Between 2006 and 2008, fourteen advanced programs were developed in collaboration with universities from the US and three programs with universities from the UK (Nguyen, 2009). In 2008, more universities were involved in piloting advanced programs (MOET, 2008). Nguyen and Tran (2018) called this “the most developed initiative” (p.144). The budget for the first three years of the implementation of this initiative was US $ 40 million (MOET, 2008; Pham, 2011).

According to MOET (2008), the first advanced program was coordinated by foreign lecturers and Vietnamese overseas lecturers. These were subsequently led by Vietnamese academics. The borrowed curriculum manifested in advanced programs raised a concern about the appropriateness of these programs for Vietnam’s economic, social and cultural characteristics (Nguyen & Tran, 2018). As a result, according to Dang (2011), in the past two decades, Vietnam has progressed from being “a genuine importer of education to becoming a partner in educational cooperation” (p.7). This has been attributed to the development of joint-programs and foreign-owned university campuses in Vietnam. A total of eighty-eight Vietnamese universities have partnerships with 255 overseas institutions from thirty-three countries worldwide (Department of International Collaboration, 2016). It is estimated that this partnership exists for 255 undergraduate degree programs, 200 postgraduate and 12 doctoral programs. Western countries such as America, France and Australia have the most established partnership links with VHE, and China is also represented in a significant sector of Vietnam’s international collaborations. The “Advanced Program” continued to be an innovative pillar of the Strategy for Education Development for Vietnam 2011–2020 (Prime Minister, 2012). Nguyen and Tran (2018) argue that the Advanced Program best exemplifies VHE’s aspiration to model itself after Western education. However, Tran, Phan & Marginson (2018) state that “its impacts on curriculum reform and graduate capacity have been fragmented and narrow, since it has been implemented among a small proportion of students in selected disciplines, in certain major universities only” (p.56).

In response to HERA (2005), and in order to improve the qualifications of academic staff, the Vietnamese government also engages students and university lecturers in education abroad through a number of fundamental projects. Project 322, operated by

MOET since 2000, has provided financial support for 450 excellent students and academics each year to study in the US, UK, Australia, Europe, Korea, Japan and other countries at a cost of 100 billion Vietnamese Dongs (Nguyen, 2009; Pham, 2011; Prime Minister, 2000; Welch, 2010). By the end of 2010, up to 4590 Vietnamese citizens including 3000 lecturers, researchers and government officials had been granted scholarships to study overseas through this project at a total cost of 2500 billion Vietnamese Dongs (BBC, 2012). Project 322 was expected to continue until 2014, however, in May 2012 MOET suddenly terminated the project due to insufficient national funds in the budget (Vietnam Net, 2012).

Project 911 was approved by the Government in replacement for Project 322 for the period 2010-2020 (Prime Minister, 2010). This project aimed to fund university lecturers and institute researchers to study doctoral education at a cost of 14,000 billion Vietnamese Dongs. Under project 911, financial support is offered to 23,000 doctoral candidates, 10,000 of whom study at higher education institutions overseas, 10,000 of whom are enrolled in domestic institutions, with 3000 studying in bilateral doctoral programs (Nguyen, 2012). Project 911 is different from Project 322 regarding the amount of funding. While both academics and government senior officers were eligible for Project 322, Project 911 is just entitled for the former group. The budget of Vietnamese Government for Project 322 was roughly seven times larger than that for Project 911. While Project 322 sent the funding recipients to overseas education, Project 911 has more alternatives of study modes, including overseas study, domestic education and bilateral program.

With such a huge investment and the strong determination of the Vietnamese Government over the past thirty years since Doi Moi, there have been fundamental changes in higher education in Vietnam. Table 2.1 shows that in more recent times, 2006 to 2016, the VHE system has experienced substantial expansion. The number of universities as well as of enrolments has risen dramatically. The number of teaching staff has also increased significantly, which has resulted in a considerable decrease in the student to teacher ratio. This ratio, which dropped from 31.2 in 2006 to 23.4 in 2016, might bring about improvements in teaching and learning in VHE given that large class sizes can hinder teachers from adopting innovations in teaching such as the application of student-centred approaches, interactive learning and formative

26 assessment (Harman et al., 2010; Nguyen, 2003; Pham, 2010). Notably, as a result of projects such as 322 and 911 and other international collaborations, the number of university teachers holding either doctoral or master degrees has also increased significantly. This increase in teachers’ qualifications may also lead to positive changes in teaching and learning practices in VHE.

Table 2.1: Statistics of Vietnamese higher education from 2006 to 2016 (Sources: GSO & MOET, 2019)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

HEIs* 322 369 393 403 414 419 421 428 436 445 445

Teachers** 53.4 56.1 60.7 69.6 74.6 84.1 87.7 91.6 91.4 93.5 93.8

Students** 1,666 1,604 1,720 1,956 2,162 2,208 2,179 2,062 2,364 2,119 2,202

Student: 31.2 28.6 28.3 28.1 28.9 26.2 24.8 22.5 25.8 22.6 23.4 teacher ratio

Teachers with Doctoral degree 9,653 10,424 13,598 16,514

Teachers with Master degree 34,152 37,090 40,426 43,127

* higher education institutions, ** in thousands

There have been some positive changes in teaching, learning and assessment practices in piloted advanced programs in VHE. Interactive models of teaching and learning are now promoted in Vietnamese universities (Harman & Nguyen, 2010; Nguyen, Fehring et al., 2015; Nguyen, Terlouw et al. 2012). Both students and teaching staff have reported improvements in teaching pedagogy (Binh, 2013; Tran, Le et al., 2014). Some Vietnamese universities have collaborated with academics from Dutch institutions to promote active learning, inquiry-based learning, and problem-based learning (Silvera et al., 2014). Students now have more group assignments, practical projects, and laboratory work rather than passively listen to their teacher’s lectures and take notes, which were common practices in the past (Binh, 2013; Harman & Bich, 2010; Mai & Hall, 2017; Tran, Le et al., 2014). The Advanced Programs piloted in some Vietnamese universities, which, based on foreign models, have developed their own curricula. These universities have also shifted from a unit-based to a credit- based system in accordance with MOET’s regulations (Tran, Le et al., 2014). Teachers are being professionally developed not to merely teach what but facilitate

27 students’ awareness and skills in how to learn and why to learn (Harman & Bich, 2010; Tran, Le et al., 2014). Active teaching and learning approaches are being introduced, such as mind mapping, role playing, online discussion boards, inquiry- based learning, group assignments and group projects (Harman & Bich, 2010; Silvera, Angle et al., 2014; Tran, Le et al., 2014). Educational technology is also being encouraged to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning outcomes (Harman & Bich, 2010).

Regarding assessment, students tend to have more frequent assessments rather than a single summative assessment as commonly indicated in the past practice (Ho, 2015; Luong, 2015; Pham, 2013). In the last five years, several tasks requiring student candidates to exhibit their highly cognitive skills such as critical and creative thinking have been included in the university entrance examinations (Tran, Le et al., 2014). To successfully perform in the entrance examinations, the candidates were required to reflect on their experiences and synthesise ideas from different sources of knowledge rather than merely from knowledge imparted from their teacher (Tran, Le et al., 2014). If this type of assessment continues to be included in other national examinations at all levels, it is likely to lead to positive changes in curriculum development, teaching and learning approaches within Vietnamese universities (Tran, Le et al., 2014).

Another crucial change has been the gradual shift from the academic year training system to the credit-based system. This shift is seen as a significant step towards a more modern and flexible curriculum. This new mode of education provides students with more flexibility and practical experiences, but also requires students to take greater ownership of their learning (Le, 2010b). In short, traditional expository teaching methods are gradually moving towards an innovative teaching and learning approach with updated curricula, new forms of assessment, and creative activities (Harman & Bich, 2010). However, these changes have been small scale, mostly occurring in the Advanced Programs in national universities where teachers have been supported by foreign academics, the programs empowered by new curricula and assessment, and where there has been more investment in modern facilities.

Despite such positive changes, VHE has confronted some challenges. The government has already recognised serious issues in the system with regard to 28

“training processes, teaching and learning methods and limited capacity of teaching staff and educational managers” (Do, 2014, p.62). Students are often faced with poor conditions for study such as crowded classrooms, limited access to modern libraries and laboratory facilities, or restricted student services (Harman & Bich, 2010; Pham & Fry, 2004). Although deliberate attempts have been made to stimulate the training processes (e.g., the introduction of the credit-based training system), and to decrease the class size (e.g., the reduction in teacher to student ratio), further improvements are still needed (Dang, 2011; Dao, 2015; Pham, 2010).

Other quality problems include outdated teaching and learning methods and curriculum are still persisting across the system (Le, 2007; Tran, Le et al., 2014; Tran, Phan et al., 2018). In addition, the VHE is also facing the absence in linkage between training and industry, and the shortage of diversity and practicality in training curricula (Harman & Bich, 2010; Nguyen, 2014; Tran, Le et al., 2014). Some studies such as Chirot and Wilkinson (2009); Do (2014) and the report by World Bank (2000) suggest that curriculum innovation in VHE should focus on preparing students for their prospective employment with meaningful association with the knowledge-based world.

In summary, after Doi Moi (1986) and especially after the Open Door policy (1994), the VHE system has been affected mainly by the non-communist world, including those in developed western countries (Le & Sloper, 1995). Teaching, learning and assessment practices in the past few years have brought some western features and have changed higher education positively. However, the pace of change remains slow, and the changes occur on a small scale. There have been uncertainties over these changes (Le, 2010b; Tran, Le & Nguyen, 2014). Research literature shows that the traditional values, colonial legacies, as well as borrowed western features, all appear to be evident in teaching and learning practices in the era of post Doi Moi (Nguyen, 2003; Nguyen & McInnis, 2002; Pham, 2010; Pham & Fry, 2004; Phan, 2014; Tran et al., 2014; Welch, 2010; Whitmore, 1984). The next section explores in more detail the practices of teaching and learning in Vietnam and in other Confucian heritage countries.

2.3 Teaching and learning in Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC)

The previous section shows that educational policies in Vietnam have been attempting to renovate and modernise its higher education into western-style education. Nevertheless, the research literature indicates that the influence of Confucianism is still very much alive in teaching and learning in Vietnam in different ways (Pham & Fry, 2004; Welch, 2010; Whitmore, 1984). Teachers still hold an authoritative position in transferring knowledge (Nguyen, 2003; Pham, 2010; Phan, 2014; Tran et al., 2014). The relationship between teachers and students in Vietnam is formal and hierarchical (Nguyen & McInnis, 2002), which has a negative effect on the development of the students’ creativity since this respect implies learning without question (Nguyen & McInnis, 2002). This section presents an extensive review of both older and more recent research on learners and teachers in Confucian Heritage Cultures to see if this situation has also occurred in other Confucian countries including China, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Malaysia other than in Vietnam (Nguyen, Terlouw et al., 2005). This range of research over time indicates variance and complexity in the teaching and learning styles of CHC students in both their countries and overseas, as is detailed in the following section.

2.3.1 Teaching and learning in CHC countries in older research

Early research on teaching and learning in CHC countries featured knowledge transmission and rote learning (Ballard, 1987, 1989; Bourke, 1986; Burns, 1991; Chalmers & Volet, 1997; Samuelowicz, 1987; Gassin, 1982; Kember, 1996; Kim & Crowley, 1990; Li & Kaye 1998; Morris, 1985; On, 1996; Quintrell & Westwood, 1994; Watkins et al., 1991). On (1996) indicated that memorisation is regarded as a significant feature of the learning approach in the Confucian tradition, and teaching associated with memorisation asks students to learn the materials by heart. Kember (1996) also explained that the Confucian tradition placed “emphasis on obedience, proper conduct, moral training, and the acceptance of social obligations, in contrast to the lack of emphasis placed on independence, assertiveness, and creativity” (p.87). Watkins et al. (1991) also suggested that rote learning, memorisation, and reproductive forms of learning are used to describe Confucian students overseas by the academic staff who observed them and claimed that overseas Confucian students

30 had difficulties in switching to teaching and tutoring approaches where students usually get involved in class discussions, as many of them were used to a memory- based learning approach (Burns, 1991; Li & Kaye, 1998; Quintrell & Westwood, 1994; Samuelowicz, 1987). Other observers also complained that Confucian students are more inclined to rote-based learning with lower order thinking skills involved both in their own country and in Australian universities (Ballard & Clanchy, 1984; Biggs, 1989, 1990; Bradley & Bradley, 1984; Samuelowicz, 1987; Watkins et al., 1991). These perceptions are evidenced by their behaviour in the classroom, which is seen as passive and compliant (Samuelowicz, 1987; Watkins et al., 1991). Some researchers have noted that overseas CHC students rarely ask questions or volunteer answers, or make comments on course content (Biggs, 1996b). They are also claimed to utilise surface approaches to learning by attempting to memorise enough facts and information to pass examinations (Watkins et al., 1991).

The initial research in this area also shows that due to their cultural tradition, Confucian students have a high respect for their lecturers’ authority and thus they are more likely to adopt obedient and compliant attitudes to learning under the instruction of their lecturers (Kember, 1996; Watkins et al., 1991). Hu (1944, p.98) stated that “The lecturer is the authority, a respected elder transmitting to a subordinate junior”. After nearly fifty years, Ginsberg (1992, p. 6) similarly affirmed that “In China, knowledge is not open to challenge and extension. The teacher decides which knowledge is to be taught, and the students accept and learn that knowledge”. The authoritative role of teaching in knowledge transfer is clearly reflected in a Chinese proverb “to give students a bowl of water, the teacher must have a full bucket of water to dispense” (Hu, 1944, p.98).

Such approach to teaching and learning is characterised by the delivery of knowledge primarily through imitation and repetition (Paine, 1992; Tang & Absalom, 1998). Classes in CHC are typically large and highly authoritative; the teaching would be mostly expository; the teaching process would be dominated by the teacher and sharply focused on preparation for external examinations (Beeby, 1966; Biggs, 1991; Morris, 1985). The research of John Biggs in particular has found that these conditions are usually related with surface learning strategies and undesirable learning outcomes (Biggs, 1987, 1991, 1996b, 1998; Biggs & Moore, 1993; Crooks, 1988; Ho,

1991; Morris, 1985). Due to the authority of teachers in CHC classes, students rarely ask their teachers questions (Biggs, 1996; Burns, 1991; Morris, 1985; Murphy, 1987) and they expect the authority to provide correct answers (Kember & Gow, 1990; Samuelowicz, 1987). Murphy (1987, p.43) points out that students from Hong Kong exhibit an “unquestioning acceptance of the knowledge” of the lecturer. Jin and Cortazzi’s (1998) research indicates that Chinese students do not ask questions because they do not want to disturb the class or waste time; they respect the teacher and do not want to present problems to the teacher. Therefore, in this study, these Chinese students asked questions after learning because they felt that asking the teachers questions should be on the basis of confirming what they, the students, know. Thus, students would often postpone questions until they knew more (Jin & Cortazzi, 1998). In another study conducted about CHC students studying in Australian universities, Volet and Kee (1993) stated that Singaporean students believe that local students waste valuable time in tutorials and lectures with very easy questions. They said that “The Aussie students, they ask even the simplest questions that you would just keep quiet and try to find out from your friends later" (Volet & Kee, 1993, p. 15).

Early research also claims that students who have grown up and been influenced by Confucianism are passive learners who primarily obtain knowledge imparted from their teachers (Beeby, 1966; Ballard, 1982; Bradley & Bradley, 1984; Burns, 1991; Go & Mok, 1995). This literature often reports that East Asian students are in need of the skills to analyse, question, think and reflect critically, and to raise their own ideas and comments (Ballard, 1989; Ballard & Clanchy, 1984; Barker et al., 1991; Chalmers & Volet, 1997; Samuelowicz, 1987; Waller, 1991). For example, Samuelowicz (1987, p. 124) indicates that “in many CHC countries, the intellectual skills of comparing, evaluating different points of view, arguing and presenting one’s point of view are not developed”. Similarly, Barker et al. (1991, p. 80) also state that “East Asian students adopt passive learning styles and avoid debate or criticism of the material raised in class”. Burns (1991) compared teaching and learning approaches in CHC nations and Australia and he states that in CHC countries teachers deliver all the content, knowledge and notes, whereas the students in Australia have to be proactively involved in learning activities, doing the reading, making notes themselves, and engaging in class discussions. In Burns’ (1991) study, one student wrote “In Singapore, we were spoon-fed; here we are made to think not just

32 memorise” (p.72). In brief, early research in the literature describes teaching and learning practices in CHC countries as transmissionist, involving rote learning, unquestioning acceptance and being passive recipients of knowledge.

Nevertheless, CHC learners have scored highly on achievement tests in both their own countries and in Western countries. Many studies have found that these students are not only industrious, they are also high-performing students (Kember, 1996; On, 1996; Yang, 1986). According to Biggs (1996), Volet and Renshaw (1996) and On (1996), high achievement in examinations could not be obtained by passive rote learning. University students in CHC countries spent a lot of time learning by heart the notes taken during the lectures, yet they did this in order to remember and understand the provided information (Hess & Azuma, 1991; Hollaway, 1988; Kember & Gow, 1990; Watkins et al., 1991; Tang, 1993). These studies suggested that understanding can be gained through memorisation (Marton et al., 1997; Tang, 1993). Marton et al. (1997) found that students and teachers in their study believed there is a strong correlation between memorisation and comprehension, and that memorisation is a prerequisite for comprehension.

According to Chalmers and Volet (1997), western students’ learning approaches through repetition and memorisation are often seen as a surface approach to learning. Nevertheless, it does not necessarily mean that Asian students are embracing a low cognitive approach to learning if they utilise the same strategies (Chalmers & Volet, 1997). Kember and Gow (1990) made an interesting claim in their study about the role of memorisation when native language is not the medium of instruction. They indicated that the employment of rote-based learning could be efficient for students when they are studying in a language different from their native language because this strategy was able to help reduce the memory usage. Chalmers and Volet (1997) shared this finding and further explained that when many Asian students study overseas, they usually study in a foreign language. Memorisation can be an effective strategy because it “enables students to deal directly with content and ideas rather than with the mechanics of decoding the language” (Chalmers & Volet, 1997, p.342). Consequently, researchers and lecturers in Australian universities have been accurate in observing and claiming that Asian students frequently use memorisation strategies in learning. However, they have inaccurately ascribed the employment of

33 memorisation and rote learning to a low cognitive approach to learning (Biggs, 1992; Kember, 1996). As Chalmers and Volet (1997) suggested, Asian students' emphasis on memorisation should not be interpreted as repetition without understanding, because they use accurate recall as a strategy to acquire deep comprehension.

Biggs and More (1993) distinguish between rote learning and repetitive learning. In their opinion, rote-learning is an automatic method of learning without thought of meaning and much understanding, whereas repetitive learning uses repetition to ensure accurate recall with comprehension involved (Biggs & More, 1993). Repetitive learning might be rigid, but it is embedded in meaning along with students’ activity and involvement (Biggs, 1996; Biggs & Moore, 1993; Thomas & Bain, 1984). Some studies also pointed out that close memorisation is recognised as the path to a deeper understanding of the material being learned (Kember, 1996; Marton, Dall’Alba et al., 1993). For Japanese students, repetitive learning is valued as a means whereby certain skills become automatic, resulting in entire comprehension (Ballard & Clanchy, 1997; Rohlen & LeTendre, 1996). Tang (1991) suggested that Hong Kong students used deep memorising strategies in coping with examination requirements; they learned meaningfully, then memorised the result (Tang, 1991).

Despite common beliefs about how large class lecturing occurs in CHC, in some studies, CHC teachers were observed spending only a limited amount of time lecturing (Biggs, 1998; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992). These teachers presented interesting problems, posed provocative questions, probed and guided. The students worked diligently, generating diversified strategies to solve a problem, explaining the rationale behind their approaches, and gained lessons from incorrect answers (Biggs, 1998; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992). As such, teachers in CHC classes incorporated multiple learning strategies in their teaching and they also engaged students in the process. Likewise, Biggs (1989; 1990; 1991; 1992; 1993b) suggested that students in China consistently scored higher than their Australian counterparts in assessment tasks that required either deep approaches or surface approaches to learning. Biggs (1993b) found that Chinese students also consistently reported that they favoured highly cognitive, meaning-based learning approaches when studying in their local country and overseas. Volet and Kee (1993) also reported that Singaporean students

34 were encouraged to raise their own voices in class discussions, especially in courses of Social Sciences and Humanities majors.

Regarding assessment, CHC students adopt highly adaptive strategies in response to assessment tasks, and they achieve higher results than most of their western peers (Biggs, 1994; Watkins & Biggs, 1996; Tang & Biggs, 1996). Hong Kong students are claimed to rapidly and appropriately adjust their learning and assessment strategies to what they perceive to be the most advantageous for their new context (Biggs, 1998; Volet & Renshaw, 1996). When Biggs (1996, p.45) investigated the apparent contradiction between “bad teaching and learning habits and good results among CHC students”, he observed that “the students had in fact achieved not a superficial but a deep understanding of the problems raised”, and he commented that “one of the reliable outcomes of a deep approach is a correct answer”.

In summary, earlier research shows that teaching and learning in Confucian countries were varied and complex. Some studies indicated the prevalence of a traditional expository teaching approach, rote-based learning. Some other studies also claimed that CHC students used memorisation appropriately in learning accompanying it with deep comprehension and knowledge application. There were also student-centred activities in the classroom, given that questioning and class interactions, reasoning and justifying ideas were also seen in teaching and learning in these countries. The following section explores whether this variance and complexity has been found in more recent research.

2.3.2 Teaching and learning in CHC countries in more recent research

Emerging empirical evidence from recent studies show that teaching and learning in Confucian countries vary. Thomas (2006) provided evidence to show that students in Hong Kong appreciated more cognitive activities and development in the class. Watkins and Biggs (2001, p. 6) claim that Chinese students did not rote learn but they frequently learn through repetition to “ensure and enhance understanding”. Marginson (2011, p. 607) provides a Confucian model for East Asian higher education and notes that the model is “an organic hybrid of old and new: a distinctive Confucian form of modernization in the knowledge economy”. Underlying this model, he emphasises

35 reforming and modernising educational aspects including the “universal examinations for educational and social selection” (Marginson, 2011, p. 605).

In Vietnam, fundamental aspects of education including curriculum and textbooks, teaching approaches, testing and assessment methods are being innovated (Mai & Hall, 2017; Thanh, 2010; Tran et al., 2014). Thanh (2010) examined the implementation of a student-centred learning approach in Vietnamese higher education institutions and concluded that the traditional learning method was seen as out-of-date and needing to be replaced with new initiatives. Thanh (2010) also pointed out some inhibitors of shifting to a student-centred teaching and learning approach, including infrastructure conditions, resource limitations in the local context, and the potential conflict of Vietnamese learning traditions with principles of the student-centred approach.

In a similar vein, Mai and Hall’s (2017, p. 251) study on pre-service teachers, reported that there was a “cautious willingness among the younger generation of Vietnamese teachers to accommodate new ideas about teaching and teachers’ roles”. They pointed out that the students in their study were not passive. They were active in group work. If there was anything they did not know, they asked the teachers. In this study, Mai and Hall (2017) also showed evidence that the student teachers in their study took part in the lessons actively, and were aware of – and understood – the principles and techniques which their teachers provided. They also stated that both teacher educators and student teachers in their study were positively used to the terms “student-centred”, “cooperative learning”, “active learning”, “peer learning” and “group work” (Mai & Hall, 2017, p.252).

Nonetheless, recent studies have also shown that teaching and learning is still traditional and expository as indicated in the earlier studies. Kumaravadivelu (2003) described CHC students as rote-oriented, passive, and surface learners who lack critical thinking skills. Wen and Clement (2003) agreed with this view arguing that CHC students are passive due to their high regard for their teachers’ authority and claiming that this explains their apparent unwillingness to participate in class. Signorini et al. (2009) also stated that teachers have high control over class activities, so that students can only show their own opinions when being invited personally. Debate, critiques and discussions are usually avoided, while harmony and face-saving 36 acts are prioritised in the classroom (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Kennedy, 2002; Nguyen, Terlouw et al., 2006; Scollon & Scollon, 2001). Robertson et al. (2000) found that academics teaching international students are often discontented with them because they lack critical thinking and analytical skills, while Saihua (2009) also reported academics’ perceptions of Asian students as quiet and passive and not proactively participating in classroom discussions. College professors in a study by Lee and Carrasquillo (2006, p. 451) saw students from Korea as having “difficulty in openly expressing critical thinking”. It would appear, then, that academics often perceive students from Asia as less shown openly or less eloquent in classrooms. These behaviours are often interpreted as signs of a lack of critical thinking. This might be because critical thinking involving overt discussion, analysis, and evaluation are often seen in western academic standards (Durkin, 2008; Lun et al., 2010).

In Vietnam, Tran and Marginson (2014, p.19-20) state that “students are used to studying without much critical reflection and without learning knowledge that is challenging and helps them to think new thoughts. Most students find it hard to think creatively or to respond flexibly to merging challenges.” Similarly, Tran, Le and Nguyen (2014) emphasise that the traditional expository teaching method is still dominant in Vietnamese higher education. They also state that “transmission pedagogy shaped by the Confucian tradition constructs students as passive recipients of knowledge and teachers as transmitters of knowledge, as opposed to facilitators of learning and nurturers of creative and transformative learning” (Tran, Le et al., 2014, p.95). Regarding assessment practices, Tran, Le et al., (2014) report that assessment primarily assesses what has been taught and learned rather than how students have changed their perceptions or how they have developed certain skills and attributes during the process of learning. Assessment in VHE is still focused on measurement of learning outcomes rather than assessment for learning feedback and learning improvement. This aligns with how Nguyen (2012) describes assessment in Vietnam. He states that assessment tasks often require students to demonstrate their knowledge through their memorising ability rather than their capability to apply knowledge in particular cases or to solve problems.

In conclusion, earlier research and recent research both indicate that the practices of teaching and learning in CHC countries hold a lot of variances. Some variances

37 frequently mentioned in the research literature include on the one hand “expository methods”, “harsh classroom climate”, “rote learners”, “lack of higher order thinking skills”, while on the other hand learners are seen as “high achievers”, using “memorisation with deep understanding”, and engaging in “cue-seeking”, “student activity with much cooperative and other group work”. Obviously, within CHC countries, and in Vietnam in particular, some teaching and learning practices reflect western approaches. CHC learners are not all passive, they are not all rote learners, and they are not all learning just for examination. They are also really interested in deep approaches to learning. Some important components of deep learning experiences for students (constructive alignment, deep approaches to learning, assessment for learning, student-centred learning, inquiry-based learning, etc.) that have been really prominent in the last twenty years of this century in the west, have also been adopted in elements of the higher education sector in Vietnam and also in teaching, learning, and assessment practices in CHC countries. Consequently, claims that teaching and learning in CHC countries consist prevalently of knowledge transmission and rote learning are over-generalised and stereotyped. These stereotypes should be questioned.

2.4 Questioning stereotypes of teaching and learning in CHC countries This section demonstrates how generalisations and stereotypes of teaching and learning in CHC countries have been vigorously contested by some major authors. Ryan (2010) claims that the stereotypes of teaching and learning practices in CHC countries are problematic, have negative impacts on individual students and may not be helpful for teachers to understand the learning needs of their students (Ryan, 2010). The polarities encourage the labelling and positioning of whole groups of students without looking at their teaching and learning contexts (Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Ninnes et al., 1999) and the students’ learning styles associated with different methods of learning or types of assessment (Littlewood, 2009; Ryan, 2002; 2010). Negative or positive stereotyping of students can have harmful effects on individuals (Hellmundt & Ryan, 2003; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Ryan, 2002) and can cause “misunderstandings and inhibit opportunities for the development of innovative, creative, and generative ways of teaching and learning” (Ryan, 2010, p. 37). Western

38 research in English speaking countries often ignores the contemporary complexities and diversity to be found within CHC cultures (Hu, 2002).

Ryan and Louie (2007) explicitly state that the dichotomies do not take into account the complexities and diversity of the nature of teaching and learning within or between educational systems. Li (2001, p. 133) also argues that dichotomous conceptualisations of learning are not useful since “teaching and learning cannot just rely on one or two isolated ideas but must be based on essential ideas of the whole cultural system”. Similarly, Ryan (2010) argues that polarised views are not helpful in establishing genuine dialogue about teaching and learning practices. CHC students’ learning characteristics are often “inaccurately attributed by western educators to the influence of Confucian values. These values are not just Asian: they can be found in other societies as well” (Ryan, 2010, p. 48). Critical thinking, interactive learning, and autonomous learning are often indicated as the common teaching and learning approaches of western education but these concepts are also found in other contexts of teaching and learning (Ryan & Louie, 2007). Ryan and Louie (2007) argue that in general, educators and researchers need to recognize the distinctions and complexities within cultures before they explore and contrast teaching and learning between cultures. They should not take a purely “deficit” or “surplus” view of either western or Confucian education. Instead, they need to be aware of the diversity and complexity within their own culture and other traditions (Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Louie, 2007).

Equally important, the myths about CHC teaching and learning ignore the constantly changing, dynamic nature of cultures (Ryan, 2010; Signorini et al., 2009). Some scholars claim that cultures of learning are evolving so fundamentally that stereotyped and generalised descriptions of teaching and learning practices by Chinese students and teachers are becoming outdated (Hu, 2003; Jin & Cortazzi, 2006; Ryan & Louie, 2005; Shi, 2006). Ryan and Louie (2007) also state that it is getting increasingly difficult to define distinctively Confucian features as perceptions of Confucian nature are also evolving with changes of society. Therefore, teachers need to be sensitive to different cultural knowledge and perspectives. They need to act as a bridge for their students to assist them in adapting to and learning about new ways of thinking and

39 doing, so that both teachers and learners can become effective intercultural operators and communicators (Ryan, 2010).

2.5 Summary

This chapter has set out the context in which this research has been positioned. It has reviewed the historical context of VHE which explicitly featured the varying influences of Vietnam from external foreign countries mainly from China, France, the US and the USSR. It has also reviewed the educational policies of the Vietnamese government in the past thirty years since Doi Moi (1986) and shows that there has been a shift to a more Western-styled education. Yet, teaching and learning has been commonly characterised as a traditional expository teaching approach, involving rote- based learning for students with little focus on critical thinking skills, and it has been claimed to be prevalently influenced by Chinese Confucianism. Consequently, the chapter has extensively reviewed literature on teaching and learning practices not only in Vietnam but also in other Confucianism-influenced countries and demonstrates that the practices of teaching and learning there have been stereotyped, which should be questioned. Indeed, it has been argued that teaching and learning in Vietnam is actually more complex and diverse.

CHAPTER 3: KEY COMPONENTS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING PRACTICES AND STUDENTS’ AND TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter presented the Vietnamese higher education context, government policies and teaching and learning practices in Confucian Heritage Cultures including Vietnam and it argued that teaching and learning in Vietnam has been more complex and diverse than suggested by the accounts of these in much of the literature. This chapter presents a synthesis of existing research literature in relation to more specific components of teaching and learning practices in higher education. It reviews three prominent principles and frameworks from which thirteen components of teaching and learning practices are derived. Specific details are presented about the attributes of each component, providing clear indicators for the identification of components and items in this research. The outcome of this chapter functions as a foundation for the conceptual framework of the study which guides the data collection and data analysis.

As teachers and students are the central agents in teaching and learning, examining their perspectives on teaching and learning practices is important. Therefore, this chapter also reviews the research literature on students’ and teachers’ perceptions, variations within students’ perceptions and differences between teachers’ and students’ perceptions. This is especially important for Vietnam, where centralisation in education is still prevalent. Therefore, a ground-up approach to teaching and learning may inform the study regarding practices of teaching and learning that teachers and students perceive as facilitating student learning. The conceptual framework is informed by the research literature and informs the primary research

41 question: “What are the key components of teaching practices that promote student learning in VHE, as perceived by teachers and students?”

3.2 Three prominent principles and frameworks of teaching and learning practices in higher education

A wide body of research has examined teaching and learning approaches in higher education and a number of research studies have proposed key dimensions of teaching and learning. Although the research literature generally shows that effective teaching is multidimensional (Abrami & d’Apollonia, 1991; Burdsal & Bardo, 1986; Marsh, 1991; Marsh & Hocevar, 1984), there has not been much general agreement on the components of teaching and learning practices (Jackson et al., 1999). This section presents three influential principles and frameworks of teaching and learning. They are:

 seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education by Chickering and Gamson (1987);  six key principles of effective teaching in higher education by Ramsden (2003);  a framework of constructive alignment by Biggs and Tang (2011)

From the analyses of these principles and framework, this section presents what components of teaching practices informed the research undertaken in the study for this thesis. The principles of Chickering and Gamson and Ramsden, and the constructive alignment framework of Biggs and Tang were chosen because they have been highly influential and indicative of teaching and learning practices that facilitate student learning. These principles and framework also illustrate teaching and learning practices chronologically from 1987 to 2011, which is the period spanning the Doi Moi in Vietnam. They also provide a comprehensive number of teaching and learning aspects and have been applied in many advanced education systems such as those in the US, Canada, and Australia, and consistently supported by many other studies.

3.2.1 Chickering and Gamson’s principles for good practice in undergraduate education

Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education proposed by Chickering and Gamson (1987) formed one of the first and the most widely used sets of principles to address teaching and learning practices. The seven principles were generated from a review of “50 years of research on the way teachers teach and students learn” (Chickering & Gamson, 1991, p.1). The seven principles cover the following aspects of good teaching:

 Good practice encourages student-faculty contact  Good practice encourages cooperation among students  Good practice encourages active learning  Good practice gives prompt feedback  Good practice emphasises time on task  Good practice communicates high expectations  Good practice respects diverse talents and ways of learning

(Chickering & Gamson, 1987, p.1)

According to Menges and Mathis (1988, p. 2), the review of “50 years of research on the way teachers teach and students learn” was “voluminous, amazingly diverse in content, and highly variable in quality and style”. Sorcinelli (1991, p. 13) noted that Chickering and Gamson’s principles are “generalizable”, providing both general features and fine details of teaching and learning practices. The principles have been supported by many research studies. For example, Koeckeritz et al. (2002) argued that the Seven Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education function as a framework for successful operation of online courses. Bangert (2004) indicated that the application of Seven Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education brought about positive learning experiences for most learners who thought that their lectured employed constructivist-based principles to stimulate their learning growth. Attar (2010) provided evidence of successfully applying the Seven Principles to Music discipline and suggested that this application provided varying opportunities for both the students and teacher in promoting their learning and their relationship.

Ugras and Asiltürk (2018) found that the surveyed teachers implemented each of these seven principles at different levels, and teachers adopted different strategies to implement the seven principles. These are just a few examples of the studies that reinforce the application of Chickering and Gamson’s principles in teaching and learning.

The first of Chickering and Gamson’s principles encourages student-faculty contact. Chickering and Gamson (1987) noted that a good relationship between students and lecturers enhanced student motivation, academic involvement, and individual learning growth. Many studies of that time emphasised enthusiasm, interaction and rapport with students. They described good teachers as friendly, welcoming, helpful, willing to invite student questions and comments, and concerned about students’ interests and progress (Hildebrand et al., 1971; Murray, 1985; Wilson et al., 1975). Hildebrand et al. (1971), Murray (1985) and Wilson et al. (1975) all indicate that an increase in student engagement in learning results from more contact with faculty. Wilson et al. (1975, p. 107) suggest that “the relationship that faculty and students develop outside the classroom may be the part of teaching which has the greatest impact on students”. This first principle by Chickering and Gamson implies that some components of teaching practice such as interaction and rapport, and a positive learning climate in the class may enhance students’ motivation and engagement.

While the first principle focuses on interaction between students and teachers and administrators, the second principle emphasises cooperation among students. According to Chickering and Gamson (1987), working with other students can improve students’ engagement in learning. Cooperative learning has been strongly supported by extensive literature for its capability of increasing learning efficiency, developing positive and long-lasting bonds among students, and enhancing self- confidence for students (McKeachie et al., 1986; Sorcinelli, 1991; Whitman, 1988; Goldschmid & Goldschmid, 1976). Many research studies suggest that working in small group activities with their peers would help students more effectively engage with materials (Cooper & Robinson, 2000; Griffiths et al., 2010; Lumpkin et al., 2015). Lavy and Yadin (2010) found that collaboration in learning allowed students to listen to each other, thus, prompting them to obtain better answers. Griffiths, et al. (2010) also noted that students working collaboratively could better generate quality

44 ideas because they were aware that their peers were listening to them. These findings are supported by Cooper and Robinson (2000) and Lumpkin et al. (2015) who argue that pair and group work activities enhance critical thinking skills, confidence in students, and increased class attendance. From Chickering and Gamson’s second principle, some components of teaching can be derived, including student engagement, interaction and rapport, and a positive learning environment.

In addition to cooperative learning, Chickering and Gamson’s principles encourage active learning (Principle 3) in which students discuss, and raise questions, analyse and solve problems. Research studies indicate that teaching approaches that encourage students to engage and interact proactively in activities, are possibly “superior to more passive methods when higher-level cognitive or affective learning is the goal” (Sorcinelli, 1991, p.18). Lumpkin et al. (2015, p. 123) conclude that proactive learning activities engage students in course materials and enhance their thinking skills as they make “applications beyond the classroom”, while Hyun et al. (2017) argue that active learning results in a positive effect on student learning because they can remember, understand and apply new knowledge in better ways. In a more recent study, Gordy et al. (2018) indicate that active learning generates greater satisfaction in teaching and learning, enhances involvement, deepens interaction, increases effectiveness in group activities, and facilitates the formulation of more creative ideas. Similar findings have been made by other studies including those of Sibona and Pourreza (2018) and Riley and Ward (2017). Again, through this principle of good teaching, the components of students’ motivation, students’ engagement, and rapport among students are reiterated. Presenting the materials by students and teachers, and teachers’ questioning are also implied in this principle.

The fourth principle involves providing prompt feedback. The significance of timely feedback has been consistently supported by the research literature (Churchill, 2016; Cross, 1987; Dunkin, 1986; Gravells, 2008; Hativa, 2000; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; McKeachie et al., 1986; Menges & Mathis, 1988; Sambell et al., 2013). Dunkin (1986) noted a positive relationship between prompt feedback and student achievement and satisfaction. Hattie and Timperley (2007) support this finding, showing that feedback resulted in positive outcomes for students. They defined “the purpose of feedback as reducing discrepancies between current understandings of

45 performance and a desired goal. Teachers can reduce the discrepancy by changing the difficulty or the specificity of the goals, or by providing more support to students” (p.86). This principle clearly implies the practice of providing feedback to promote the learning of students.

Chickering and Gamson (1987) also emphasise time on task (Principle 5). Time on task is defined by Chickering and Gamson (1991, p. 19) as “the amount of time students are actively engaged with the material and should focus on cognitive engagement with material rather than on simply completing the task”. Time on task has been significantly correlated with the overall ratings of the course, instructor and knowledge gained (Franklin, 1991). According to Karweit and Slavin (1981), the time that students spend on-task is an important contributing factor to academic achievement. Similarly, McKeachie et al. (1986) also found positive correlation between the amount of time students engaged in learning and their achievement. Sipes (2017) suggest that in order to increase students’ time on-task, it is necessary for teachers to conduct multiple active learning approaches. In addition, this principle also emphasises developing appropriate time management skills for students (Chickering & Gamson, 1991). These essential skills can be developed as a result of teachers’ careful scaffolding of teaching and learning activities and assessment tasks. This principle again mentions the component of student engagement in learning.

Furthermore, Chickering and Gamson (1987) emphasise communicating high expectations in teaching and learning (Principle 6). This principle was supported by many research studies around that time. Berliner (1984) shows that if the teacher sets high but achievable learning goals, the students’ learning performance can improve. On the contrary, if the teacher sets low goals, the learning outcomes of students usually decrease (Berliner, 1984). Other studies indicate that students usually feel more satisfied with courses that require them to work hard (Cashin, 1988; Cashin & Slawson, 1977; Marsh, 1984). Some other studies show that high expectations result in higher student attendance rates and students’ accountability (Cross, 1987; Rutter et al., 1979). The higher education transformation agenda tends to include the practice of setting high but realistic learning expectation for students as a central theme (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Cross, 1987). This practice is effective in boosting

46 learning. Therefore, setting learning goals can be inferred to be an important teaching component from this Chickering and Gamson’s principle of teaching.

The last of Chickering and Gamson’s principles of teaching focuses on respect for diverse talents and ways of learning. A major finding in Claxton and Murrell’s (1987) study relates to this principle of teaching; it showed that when students learnt according to their favourite learning styles, they had a greater chance of success in their courses. Chickering and Gamson (1991) also suggest that if instructional methods can match student learning styles, students’ learning can be improved. Thus, Chickering and Gamson advise teachers to adopt diversified teaching approaches to increase the potential success in learning of students. On the basis of this principle, an important component of teaching can be formulated: the need to establish a culture for learning, a culture of inclusion and acceptance of students’ diversity. The discussions about each principle above have resulted in the development of ten components of teaching and learning practice below:

 Setting learning goals  Providing feedback to  Planning engaging classes promote student learning  Motivating student learning  Interacting and developing  Presenting the materials by rapport students and teachers  Creating a positive learning  Teachers’ Questioning climate  Engaging students in the learning  Establishing a culture for process learning

In summary, principles for good practice in undergraduate education provide “substantive, research-based advice that can enrich our understanding and practices of teaching and learning” (Chickering & Gamson, 1991, p.20). These principles thoroughly cover aspects of teaching practice. These principles have been highly supported by the literature and have been adopted as teaching and learning guidelines by some universities, including The University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong), and The University of Tennessee, Chattanooga (USA). Yet, some critical aspects of teaching and learning practices, including assessment and learning materials, are not included. The principle ‘time on tasks’ seemed to be no longer as highly significant as it used to be due to the technological advances in education, the rapid development of the online

47 learning environment, and the greater autonomy in learning that students are empowered with today. Consequently, there is a need for this chapter to review more updated set of principles of teaching and learning practices, which are presented below.

3.2.2 Ramsden’s principles of effective teaching in higher education

Ramsden’s (2003) six principles were proposed sixteen years after Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) principles of teaching. Ramsden developed six principles of effective teaching in higher education:

 Interest and explanation  Concern and respect for students and student learning  Appropriate assessment and feedback  Clear goals and intellectual change  Independence, control and engagement  Learning from students

(Ramsden, 2003, p.93-p.99)

Ramsden (2003) also suggested the following corresponding properties of his set of teaching principles:

 A desire to share your love of the subject with students  An ability to make the teaching material stimulating and interesting  A facility for engaging with students at their level of understanding  A capacity to explain the material plainly  A commitment to making it absolutely clear what has to be understood, at what level, and why  A show of concern and respect for students  A commitment to encouraging student independence  An ability to improvise and adapt to new demands  An adoption of teaching methods and academic tasks that require students to learn thoughtfully, responsibly and cooperatively  A use of valid assessment methods

 A focus on key concepts, and students’ misunderstandings of them, rather than on covering the ground  A delivery of the highest-quality feedback on student work  A desire to learn from students and other sources about the effects of teaching and how it can be improved

(Ramsden, 2003, p.86-p.87)

Although the properties can already imply some components of teaching, the following paragraphs analyse each of Ramsden’s principles in relation to research, before drawing conclusions about teaching components to be derived from Ramsden’s set of principles. The first of Ramsden’s principles focuses on explanation and the stimulation of student interest. Ramsden states that teachers should be able to make the learning materials and content truly fascinating so that it is interesting for students to learn. Sharing this view, Sawyer (1943, p. 9) suggested long ago that “the main task of any teacher is to make a subject interesting. From the beginning of any course there should be painted a vivid picture of the benefits that can be expected from mastering the subject, and at every step there should be some appeal to curiosity, to interest, which will make that step worthwhile”. This principle of teaching requires teachers to present, explain and carry out the learning activities that capture the students’ interest, stimulate their motivation and enhance their engagement. As such, the first of Ramsden’s principles introduces some important components of teaching, including planning and designing interesting material, presenting, questioning, and planning and implementing engaging classes.

The second principle indicates that teachers should be conscious and considerate of their students. This principle of teaching is supported by Feldman (1976) and Entwistle and Tait (1990), who emphasise the ultimate importance for effective university teaching of respect and careful thought about students’ needs. In arguing for this principle, Ramsden (2003, p. 95) claims that “truly awful university teaching is most often revealed by a lack of interest in and compassion for students and student learning”. Some empirical studies indicate that showing respect and consideration for students and their learning make the learning environment positive and enhance the students’ motivation and passion in learning (see Batten et al., 1993; McGee & Fraser,

2012; Salter, 2013; Zietz et al., 2001). Ramsden’s second principle indicates the importance of two components of teaching: a positive learning climate and establishing a culture for learning.

In addition to explanation, respect and interest in students and their learning, Ramsden (2003) focuses on another critical aspect of teaching and learning practice: assessment and feedback. He emphasises that giving helpful comments on students’ work is an essential task of teachers and providing feedback on students’ work is perhaps one of the most common practices of good teaching (Ramsden, 2003). Moreover, he stresses the usefulness of setting a variety of assessment tasks that provide evidence of students’ understanding, rather than using only those that require students to memorise or merely have the learning content reproduced. These approaches to assessing and providing feedback have been consistently supported by the research literature and have been indicated to have a positive influence on student achievement (Black & William, 1998; Brown, 2015; Brown & Race, 2012; Carless, 2011; Hattie, 2009; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sambell et al., 2013; Race, 2010; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). Ramsden’s third principle discusses assessment and feedback, clearly a critical component of teaching.

Like Chickering and Gamson (1987), Ramsden (2003) focuses on clear goals and intellectual change. Transparent learning goals and clarity in communication with students in terms of expectations have been reiterated in many studies in the research literature (Blumberg, 2009; Churchill, 2016; Fry et al., 1999; Gravells, 2008; Hativa, 2000; Hattie, 2009; Hattie, 2012; Hill, 2014; Kember & Ginns, 2012; Killen, 2007; Lizzio et al., 2002; McGee & Fraser, 2012; Prosser, 2013; Race, 2010; Thistleton- Martin, 2010; Wong et al., 2015). Whitton et al. (2004) argue that setting explicit learning goals helps to make student learning purposeful and effective. Blumberg (2009) states that knowing the expectations of what is to be done and learned is critical to effective teaching and learning, contending that when students understand what they are expected to learn, they become more motivated and task-oriented, so they can set their sights on specific targets and work purposely towards being able to show that they have achieved their learning goals. This principle of good teaching emphasises setting transparent learning goals, an important component of teaching practice.

While Chickering and Gamson (1987) focus more on cooperative and active learning, Ramsden (2003) pays greater attention to students’ independence, control and engagement (Principle 5). However, both aim to foster students’ motivation and engagement in learning. A wide body of research literature has established positive correlations between student engagement, student autonomy and positive outcomes of student growth (Astin, 1985; Berger & Milem, 1999; Krause & Coates, 2008; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lizzio & Wilson; 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Trowler, 2010). Ramsden (2003) places greater emphasis on students’ independence and autonomy in learning, which was not explicitly addressed by Chickering and Gamson (1987). Ramsden (2003, p. 97) argues that “good teaching fosters student control over learning and interest in the subject matter”. He also states that sharp engagement and imaginative inquiry are more likely to occur when teaching strategies are employed that stimulate students’ active participation and collaboration in solving problems. These approaches to teaching allow students to gain control over their learning, thus, accommodating individual preferred ways of seeking comprehension, as well as increasing the potential to avoid over-reliance of students on teachers (Ramsden, 2003). This principle of teaching of Ramsden’s implies two important components of teaching: student motivation and engagement.

The last principle discusses teachers learning from students, involving reflection on and evaluation of teaching. Ramsden (2003, p.98) contends that “good teaching is constantly trying to find out what the effects of instruction are on learning and modifying that instruction in the light of the evidence collected”. He suggests making adjustments after reflection and evaluation of teaching by appropriately structuring the curriculum and assessment. Ramsden also emphasises that knowledge about students should be used to select and deploy teaching strategies. Reflective teaching has been well-researched and studies show that students are a good channel of information for teachers to better adapt their teaching approaches (see Chamoso & Cáceres, 2009; Edwards, 2014; Lee, 2010; Luttenberg & Bergen, 2008).

In summary, the six principles of effective teaching in higher education outlined by Ramsden (2003) address many aspects of teaching and learning practices. From the properties of these principles, as well as the analysis of the six principles, thirteen components of teaching have been derived. Ramsden’s set of teaching principles has

51 been consistently supported by many studies in the research literature. Although these principles have been well-established in the literature and have been applied in many higher education institutions, they may not be applicable to the Vietnamese higher education context where class sizes are large, teacher-centred approaches for teaching and learning are dominant, and assessment and curriculum design is not flexible. Furthermore, the relationship between principles is not covered by either Chickering and Gamson or Ramsden. This, to a certain extent, is taken up by Biggs and Tang’s framework of constructive alignment.

3.2.3 Biggs and Tang’s framework of constructive alignment

Constructive alignment is an approach to curriculum design aiming that “less motivated students in the higher education system reach the same level as motivated students” (Biggs & Tang, 2007, p. 108). This is critical because maintaining academic standards in today’s larger and more diversified classes has become one of the major concerns among many teachers (Fransson & Friberg, 2015).

Constructive alignment consists of two aspects. “Constructive” refers to the approach that students seek and create knowledge through engaging in relevant learning activities. Knowledge is not delivered by teacher to learner, but is something learners have to seek and construct for themselves (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Trigwell & Prosser, 2014). Teaching is simply a medium that makes learning happen more quickly and easily. This had been argued by Shuell (1986, p. 429), who stated that

if students are to learn desired outcomes in a reasonably effective manner, then the teacher's fundamental task is to get students to engage in learning activities that are likely to result in their achieving those outcomes. It is helpful to remember that what the student does is actually more important in determining what is learned than what the teacher does

This perspective is similar to Ramsden’s view. The ‘alignment’ aspect refers to teaching and learning activities and assessment tasks designed in a way that supports and facilitates students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The elements in the teaching system, including the teaching approaches adopted and the assessment tasks

52 designed need to align with the learning activities aimed for the intended learning outcomes and the intended learners.

Figure 3.1 presents the three main elements of constructive alignment: Teaching/Learning Activities, Curriculum Objectives, and Assessment Tasks. The intended learning outcomes (ILO) are formulated first, from which the assessment criteria are developed. Once an appropriate assessment regime has been designed, activities are organised to show the students how to meet the assessment criteria (and learning outcomes). What the teacher does and what the students do are aimed at achieving the learning outcomes by meeting the assessment criteria. All elements in the system aim at the same objective and support each other. According to Biggs (2003, p. 16) the students are “entrapped in this web of consistency, optimising the likelihood that they will engage in the appropriate learning activities”.

Intended learning outcomes (ILO)

Incorporate verbs that students have to enact as appropriate to the context of the content discipline Assessment Teaching/Learning Tasks (AT) Activities (TLA) The very best outcomes that could be reasonably expected Format of tasks Designed to generate or elicit such that the containing verbs such as desired verbs in large classes, target verbs are small classes, groups or hypothesise, reflect, apply to elicited and individuals activities. Such ‘far’ domains, relate to displayed in activities may be: principle context

 Teacher-managed Highly satisfactory outcomes  Peer-managed containing verbs such as solve  Self-managed Criteria expected problems, explain specified clearly As best suits the ILO complex ideas, apply to to allow professional practice judgement as to student’s Quite satisfactory outcomes performance containing verbs such as solve basic problems, explain basic ideas, use standard procedures Minimally satisfactory outcomes and applications; inadequate but salvageable higher level attempts

Figure 3.1: Aligning intended learning outcomes, teaching and assessment tasks (Biggs & Tang, 2011, p. 105)

The framework of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996, 1999; Biggs & Tang, 2007) has long been promoted as an influential approach to improving student outcomes for a wide range of student cohorts (Larkina & Richardson, 2013). According to Biggs and Tang (2011, p. 102), constructive alignment provides a “structured reflective framework to anchor teaching decisions in achieving or assessing the intended

54 learning outcomes”. Kandlbinder (2014) contends that constructive alignment has had a major impact on higher education curriculum development. McCann (2017) also states that constructive alignment has become a prominent theme in many debates about effective teaching and learning in higher education. Those who advocate a constructive alignment framework argue that learning is fostered by making the creation of meaning central to the learners’ learning activities (Biggs, 1996; Healey & Jenkins, 2000; Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

Biggs (1996) states that traditional transmission methods of teaching ignore this alignment. He also argues that teaching, learning and assessment should be aligned to facilitate student learning. Fransson and Friberg (2015) provide empirical evidence of successfully applying constructive alignment in two teaching approaches: problem- based learning and the learning portfolio, and note that when it is applied students become more engaged in learning, while their teacher is the facilitator in learning and learning environment. In the same vein, Larkina and Richardson (2013) found that constructive alignment facilitated students’ learning and experiences. This finding was also supported by Marais (2013) and McCann (2017) who conclude that an appropriate alignment of teaching, learning, and assessment provides students with motivation that involves them in deeper learning. Hoddinott (2000) and Boyle (2007) both found that constructive alignment results in improvement in student learning in biology and earth sciences. Morris (2008), a statistics lecturer, found that when the curriculum was constructively aligned, there was an increase in students’ grades in summative assessment. Morris also indicated that there was a positive correlation between the students’ confidence in their learning of the topic and their actual exam performance. Raeburn et al. (2009) report that the student engagement and learning outcomes significantly increases thanks to the application of constructive alignment to several online courses.

Constructive alignment has been implemented in many institutions. McMahon and Thakore (2006) who examined higher order thinking skills of students in constructively aligned courses at University College Dublin, concluded the following results:

 greater standardisation leading to fairer and more reliable assessment: when assessment criteria follow from stated outcomes, decisions on how many marks are awarded are much easier to compare and defend  greater transparency leading to  easier and more accurate inter-university and international comparisons  students being able to focus more effectively on the key learning goals  more effective evaluation of both modules and courses: given the outcomes, an evaluator can estimate how well teaching and learning strategies, content, materials, other resources and assessment procedures actually support students in achieving them  greater coherence in programmes of learning  an increase in the criticality and depth of student work

(McMahon & Thakore, 2006, p.17)

In brief, constructive alignment basically addresses three elements including intended learning outcomes, teaching/learning activities and assessment tasks. Many studies have provided empirical evidence to promote the application of constructive alignment because of the positive outcomes it brought about for student learning. Therefore, in a broader sense, Biggs and Tang’s (2007) framework of constructive alignment covers many other aspects of teaching and learning including student motivation, student engagement, presenting, questioning, assessment and feedback, interaction and rapport.

3.3 Conceptual Framework

The discussions and synthesis of the three chosen systems involving a framework for and principles of teaching and learning practices, presented in previous sections, led to the generation of thirteen key components of teaching and learning (See figure 3.2). These thirteen components can be usefully grouped into four dimensions: Planning Learning, Teaching Strategies, Assessment and Feedback, and Learning Environment for the following rationales.

Firstly, planning learning is critical because it plays a central role in teachers’ teaching effectiveness; planning identifies, justifies and selects what should be provided within the constraints of time, place and autonomy (Churchill, 2016; Killen, 2007; Whitton et al., 2004). To make student learning purposeful and efficient, planning requires teaching staff to forward plan the learning goals that they expect their students to achieve, the assessment tasks that will be conducted during the process of student learning, learning materials and resources, and teaching strategies to generate engaging classes for students (Blumberg, 2009; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Danielson, 2007; Hativa, 2000; Hattie, 2009; Hunt, 2013; Killen, 2007; Prosser, 2013; Race, 2010; Ramsden, 2003; Henard & Roseveare, 2012).

However, students may not always acquire “what teachers intend to teach, and students may also learn what teachers do not plan them to learn” even though teaching is an interactive and intentional process (Brown & Atkins, 1988, p. 2). Therefore, teaching involves “a series of reflective actions between teachers and students” (Biggs, 1999, p. 3) to obtain the goal of the learning of the students; thus, teaching strategies is another dimension of paramount importance (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Danielson, 2007; Hativa, 2000; Hattie, 2009; Hunt, 2013; Prosser, 2013; Race, 2010; Ramsden, 2003; Henard & Roseveare, 2012).

In addition, assessment and feedback also emerge as a critical dimension of teaching and learning practice. Assessing how well something has been learnt is crucial from time to time to provide feedback about achievement and progress (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Brinko, 1993; Prosser, 2013; Henard & Roseveare, 2012). Brown and Race (2012) put that “Assessing student learning is fundamental to making informed decisions about lesson planning and future teaching” (p.81). Regarding feedback, several scholars indicate that through feedback students can engage in reflection and make adjustments to better regulate their learning (Black & William, 1998; Crooks, 1988; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996).

Equally important for the learning growth of students is the positive learning environment where they feel welcomed and socially comfortable, where they feel safe to take risks and motivated in a committed learning community, and where they are encouraged to have interactions with their teachers and with their peers (Bain, 2004; Biggs & Tang, 2011; Blumberg, 2009; Hunt & Chalmers, 2012; Entwistle, 2009; 57

Hoskins & Newstead, 2009; Hunt, 2013; Salter, 2013; Sambell et al., 2013). Thus, learning environment is also a teaching dimension of high significance.

The four dimensions and thirteen components shown in Figure 3.2 below were used as a conceptual framework of teaching and learning practice for the present study. These dimensions and components were supported by multiple relevant studies, which focused on similar components, although they were sometimes labelled differently. This conceptual framework drove the data collection and data analysis of the study. As discussed in Chapter 2, teaching and learning practices in Vietnam have become more complex and diverse. This conceptual framework was developed to enable the research program to capture and reflect the complexity and diversity of teaching and learning in Vietnam.

TEACHING AND LEARNING PRACTICES

Learning Planning Teaching Assessment Strategies and Environment Learning Feedback 5. Motivating student 11. Generating a 1. Establishing learning 9. Employing positive climate in learning goals assessment to class 6. Present topics by promote student 2. Planning for teachers and learning assessment task 12. Establishing a students culture for learning 10. Providing feedback 3. Selecting 7. Using skilled to promote student 13. Promoting appropriate learning questioning learning interaction and materials that 8. Engaging students rapport engage students’ in the learning interest process 4. Planning for engaging classes

Figure 3.2: Conceptual framework of teaching and learning practices

3.4 Key components of teaching and learning practices in higher education The previous sections have presented how thirteen components in the conceptual framework were derived from and supported by the relevant research literature. The following sections provide specific details about the definition and attributes of each component. This will clearly indicates how items for each component can be established.

3.4.1 Establishing learning goals

The process of developing clear learning goals requires teachers to clarify what they want students to learn and involves consideration of multiple ways of assisting students to achieve these goals (Gravells, 2008; Killen, 2007; Yin et al., 2016). Therefore the research indicates that knowing the expectations of what is to be done and learned is critical to effective learning and teaching (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Blumberg, 2009; Churchill, 2016; Hill, 2014; McGee & Fraser, 2012). According to Blumberg (2009), when students understand what they are expected to learn, they become more motivated and task-oriented, so they can work purposely towards achieving specific targets. This finding was also established by Hill (2014) and Churchill (2016) who state that once learning goals are transparent to students, they have a chance to prepare themselves to learn by making connections with what they already know and to take more responsibility for their learning process, thus promoting their learning.

In addition to transparent learning goals, specific learning goals can help a teacher identify the content, skills and knowledge that students are expected to develop. They can also provide teachers with a clear sense of direction and can help break material into organised, sequenced and manageable pieces (Ashwin et al., 2015; Race, 2010). Race (2010) argues that specific learning goals also help students more easily imagine the standards they are reaching, therefore they can adjust their own pace of learning to achieve the goals. Ashwin et al. (2015) also emphasise that learning goals need to be challenging as well because this will prevent more advanced students in the class from becoming bored. The challenges of learning would motivate students to make their best efforts and push their thinking to their limits (Ashwin et al., 2015;

Entwistle, 2009; Fry et al., 1999; Ramsden, 2003). This is consistent with one of the seven principles of Chickering and Gamson (1987), who state that communicating high expectations is excellent teaching practice in undergraduate education. It also aligns with Ramsden’s principles of effective teaching, which stresses that clear goals could bring about active learning and teaching.

In addition, research indicates that learning goals should be set in relation to students’ existing knowledge and experience because the experiences and what the students have known and achieved are also a significant influence on their learning (McGee & Fraser, 2012; Race, 2010). Race (2010) found that students feel engaged in learning if they can connect what they have acquired with new information and skills to build new knowledge. By doing this, students are involved in deep learning approaches because they need to use cognitive skills such as comparing, contrasting, synthesising and speculating in learning to make such connections (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Blumberg, 2009; Race, 2010).

3.4.2 Planning for assessment tasks

Apart from learning goals, research literature indicates that teachers need to decide how to assess student learning. It is logical to think about how teachers will determine how well their students have achieved the learning goals (Brown, 2015; Brown & Race, 2012, Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013). Sambell et al. (2013) suggest that if teachers think about assessment at this early stage of lesson planning, they are more likely to take an assessment-for-learning approach, which has consistently been found to be beneficial to student learning. With an assessment-for-learning approach, teachers can implement assessment as teaching activities to further engage students in learning and to adjust their teaching practice when necessary (Sambell et al., 2013).

According to Race (2010) and Brown (2015), assessment tasks need to be specified with explicit directions including instruction and marking rubrics. They both suggest that if provided with these in advance, students can self-assess or be involved in peer assessment so that they can learn from their mistakes either by themselves or with their peers. The success criteria for each assessment task needs to be clearly explained to students as well so they can determine what a successful assignment looks like in order to see what they need to do to reach success (Brown, 2015; Race, 2010). Killen

(2007) contends that if assessment directions and success criteria are planned and communicated with students beforehand, students will imagine what level of learning they are aspiring to and might visualise the steps to make that happen to them. Through this, planning assessment helps to balance what students know and what is needed to enable them to develop new knowledge.

Apart from designing instruction and success criteria, research studies also indicate that teachers could consider developing assessment tasks that gradually foster students’ capabilities (Brown, 2015; Brown & Race, 2012; Sambell et al., 2013). Sambell et al. (2013) found that planning in advance helps teachers avoid assigning either too easy or too difficult assessments for students, both of which might demotivate students. Brown and Race (2012) add that with forward planning, teachers can see the overall picture, so as to develop each assessment task at an appropriate level of difficulty for students, which may motivate students and step by step enhance students’ knowledge and skills. This in return would function as a stepping stone to help students gradually achieve the intended learning outcomes (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Killen, 2007).

3.4.3 Selecting appropriate learning materials that engage students’ interest

Planning materials for student learning is of high significance because well-planned materials engage students with the lesson content (Danielson, 2007; Tucker & Stronge, 2005). As suggested by Blumberg (2009), planning materials involves not merely choosing appropriate teaching and learning materials within the class, but also helping students develop their searching skills which would be beneficial for their self-directed and life-long learning. This is more significant in the higher education context where students are more empowered in their learning (Bird & Savage, 2015; Brown, 2015; Tucker & Stronge, 2005).

Apart from the materials that are regularly used in the class, many research studies indicate that teachers could consider providing students with a list of reference materials, so that excellent students can expand the lessons themselves (Bird & Savage, 2015; Gravells, 2008; Salter, 2013). Furthermore, other studies advocate teachers opening up opportunities for students to contribute to learning material 61 development themselves (Allan et al., 2009; Entwistle, 2009; Zietz et al., 2001). These research studies indicate that should teachers do so, students would be involved in searching and studying the topics so that they could find relevant materials for their learning. As a result, their searching skills would be improved, which enables their life-long learning. They would also experience extensive reading while searching and finalising their own contribution of materials for their presentations (Allan et al., 2009; Bird & Savage, 2015; Blumberg, 2009; Brown, 2015; Entwistle, 2009; Salter, 2013; Zietz et al., 2001).

3.4.4 Planning for engaging classes

Student engagement and motivation is claimed to be one of the most important factors for teaching and learning, and research suggests that it comes from purposeful and carefully planned learning activities (Danielson, 2007; Killen, 2007; Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004). When a class is planned carefully, the teaching strategies and student activities are structured and sequenced, and positive results would be evident in the classroom (Blumberg, 2009; Danielson, 2007; Killen, 2007; Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004). However, engaging students in the lessons is not the same as simply keeping them busy or on task (Brown & Race, 1995; Hativa, 2000). Hativa (2000) argues that logical and well-structured lessons can improve student engagement. Research shows that the quality of the course and student satisfaction are correlated with well-planned lessons whose procedures enable students to grasp the main points quickly and experience the lessons positively (Hativa, 2000; Killen, 2007; Loughran, 2010).

To encourage students to be motivated and engaged in learning, research suggests that teachers plan appropriate teaching strategies (Blumberg, 2009; Killen, 2007). Killen (2007) argues that learning is most effective when students have opportunities to think and reason and debate their understanding. Hativa (2000) and Blumberg (2009) also maintain that teachers need to deliberately create these opportunities by employing appropriate teaching strategies such as planning group work assignments and small projects, self-directed learning activities, and hands-on experiences. Sambell et al. (2013) state that empowering students in learning with self-directed activities can promote student independence and activeness not only in a particular course but also

62 in life-long learning. Some scholars claim that learning by doing is one of the most effective learning strategies, so planning to include hands-on activities in learning helps students do and experience the activities either by themselves or with their peers (Blumberg, 2009; Sambell et al., 2013). By doing so, students can understand and apply the knowledge they gained in new situations and contexts (Blumberg, 2009; Killen, 2007).

Research also indicates that student engagement can be enhanced by the learning environment, which needs deliberate planning by teachers in advance (Lizzio et al., 2002; Sambell et al., 2013; Hill, 2014). Sambell et al. (2013) suggests teachers plan for a favourable class climate where a respectful and caring relationship is emphasised. When students feel socially comfortable in their class, they will feel relaxed, and their experience of learning is more likely to be positive. The comfort and relaxation can encourage students to work with their friends and make the lessons relevant and interesting to them (Sambell et al., 2013).

3.4.5 Motivating student learning

The previous component of teaching involves teachers’ planning for engaging and motivating classes. This component discusses more specifically how students’ motivation can be enhanced. Driving students to learn is of great significance as once students have intrinsic motivation, they will become more interested in their learning. Some studies indicate that they may take ownership of their learning and actively engage in the process of learning (Blumberg, 2009; Hartley, 2005; Hoskins & Newstead, 2009). One of the most effective approaches to boosting student motivation is to provide them with diverse opportunities to reflect on the learning goal and their progress and experience (Ashwin et al., 2015; Hartley, 2005; Hattie, 2012). This can involve students in self-evaluation of the goals they have achieved, and students may then adjust their learning to increase the likelihood of obtaining their goals (Hartley, 2005; Hoskins & Newstead, 2009). Hattie (2009) suggests that when students become their own teachers, visible learning occurs, and learning growth will happen. Likewise, the reflection process can inform students of further plans and specific actions that they can consider taking to make the learning goals possible (Aregbeyen, 2010; Hartley, 2005; Sanders & Rivers, 1996).

Hattie (2012) contends that learning is fostered by opportunities for students to think, argue, and justify their understanding and that teachers can create these opportunities by deliberately employing appropriate teaching strategies. The motivation of students can also be enhanced when they are given chances to push their cognitive skills, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, synthesising, and making connections between information and arguments (Hoskins & Newstead, 2009; Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013). Students might become bored if they are not involved in learning situations in which they need to think and solve problems (Kember, 2007; Race, 2010; Hill, 2014).

Kember (2007) indicates that student motivation can be strengthened by clear communication. Teachers communicate clearly and accurately, mainly through classroom performance, which is usually represented by giving instructions, providing and sharing information, lecturing, asking questions, giving comments and providing feedback (Campbell et al., 2001; Hativa, 2000; Smimou & Dahl, 2012). Hativa (2000) claims that clear teachers are usually those who can make students comprehend the lessons. To improve the clarity, a number of studies suggest some of the primary indicators such as: using examples and demonstrations; having logical and straightforward presentation of the materials; modifying the speed and level of teaching to suit the students; questioning in class to stimulate student understanding; and stressing and summarising essential points (Hartley, 2005; Hativa, 2000; Race, 2010).

3.4.6 Presenting topics by teachers and students

Teachers can gain clarity in lecturing by employing some simplification strategies such as teaching in small steps, informing students about the main points of the lectures or building explanations coherently and logically (Hartley, 2005; Hativa, 2000; Race, 2010). Research literature indicates that clarity is a valid, clear and stable variable, unchanged by student and teacher factors (Hartley, 2005; Hativa, 2000). Students are able to recognise the attributes of clear teachers and to identify the behaviours and indicators of clear presentation (Alia et al., 2009; Hartley, 2005; Hativa, 2000).

Apart from clarity in explanation and communication, some studies also suggest teachers should speak with emotion and enthusiasm in lecturing (Bain, 2004; Light,

Cox & Calkins, 2009; Cishe, 2014). This emotional way of presenting can be inspiring, and students would feel encouraged to get into the discussed ideas with teachers’ devotion towards teaching (Bain, 2004; Cishe, 2014; Light et al., 2009). Moreover, Hunt and Chalmers (2012) indicate that teachers’ passion and enthusiasm is very important in the class, making the knowledge acquisition exciting and inspirational, thus making the students feel welcomed and energised in learning.

Furthermore, student communication in class is also important in learning as a learner-centred approach to teaching and learning is encouraged (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Prosser, 2013). Instead of presenting a topic themselves, teachers can involve students in group presentations for each topic of the course (Hativa, 2000; Prosser, 2013; Ramsden, 2003). Consequently, students need to study the topic, search and work with their peers to agree on the presentation (Hativa, 2000; Prosser, 2013; Ramsden, 2003). Teachers may let students have time to explore and reflect on the topics, inspire them and show them the way to discover the knowledge themselves. This independent learning can provide students with opportunities to promote their searching skills, reading skills, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking skills (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Cishe, 2014; Prosser, 2013; Ramsden, 2003). Teachers can act as a facilitator and let students explore and create the knowledge themselves (McGee & Fraser, 2012; Wong et al., 2015).

3.4.7 Using skilled questioning

Many studies indicate that a teacher’s capability in questioning makes a positive contribution to student learning because it facilitates students’ exploration of new concepts, ascertains student understanding, and promotes student engagement (Batten et al., 1993; Danielson, 2007; Fry et al., 1999; Hartley, 2005; Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013). Some of these studies indicate that teachers’ questions can provoke students’ critical thinking, enable the analysis of the concepts, and intrigue students’ curiosity (Danielson, 2007; Hartley, 2005; Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013). Many other studies also suggest that once students feel interested in the topics, they will be motivated and engaged in learning (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Danielson, 2007; Hativa, 2000; Hunt, 2013; McGee & Fraser, 2012; Prosser, 2013; Henard & Roseveare, 2012).

Research studies reveal that asking and answering questions in the classroom can reveal what students might be thinking and learning (Aregbeyen, 2010; Race, 2010; Ramsden, 2003; Smimou & Dahl, 2012; Witcher et al., 2008; Zietz et al., 2001). The response from the students will provide input towards teachers’ understanding of their students, and the teachers will know how well their students have understood the lessons (Cishe, 2014; Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013; Trigwell, 2001, 2012). Research indicates that if teachers are to challenge and develop the thinking of their students, it is suggested they ask questions that range from lower levels, such as memorising to higher levels or more sophisticated thoughts (Cishe, 2014; Trigwell, 2001, 2012).

Trigwell (2001; 2012) also suggests that students feel motivated if the questions help them explore and then achieve the intended learning goals. Therefore, teachers can consider posing questions that focus efforts on learning goals, which can help maintain student interest and passion for learning (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Hunt, 2013). Furthermore, research indicates that students feel safe and comfortable when working with their peers, so it would be beneficial for their learning if teachers can address questions that encourage group discussion and allow time for students to think or consult peers before responding to the questions; in giving thoughtful responses, students would be more confident and have positive learning experiences (Cishe, 2014; Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013; Trigwell, 2001, 2012).

McGee (1980) developed a system of classifying teacher questions and suggests that teachers can employ a diversity of questions in the class to involve students of different levels in learning. Quick and straightforward questions are for lower students whereas more challenging questions are for more advanced students (Guilford, 1967; McGee, 1980; Trigwell, 2001, 2012). If the questions are too difficult for students, teachers can use follow-up questions to help students work out the answer, so that student interest and enthusiasm is maintained (Barker, 2012; Guilford, 1967; McGee, 1980; Trigwell, 2001, 2012). Furthermore, Govender (2015) suggests that teachers could encourage students to generate their own questions to help their thinking and learning. Their questions might reveal whether they understood the lesson and might reveal further areas of interest. If they can raise questions in class, their communication and thinking skills will be promoted to some certain extent (Biggs &

Tang, 2011; Danielson, 2007; Govender, 2015; Guilford, 1967; Hativa, 2000; Henard & Roseveare, 2012; Hunt, 2013; Prosser, 2013).

3.4.8 Engaging students in the learning process

Myriad approaches can engage students in learning. In addition to previously discussed approaches, research indicates further strategies that can be used to enhance student engagement. Firstly, many studies found that making the lesson exciting and attentive can promote students’ participation in learning (Biggs, 1999; Brown, 2015; Chalmers & Partridge, 2012; Hartley, 2005; Kember & Ginns, 2012; Knight & Yorke, 2004; Race, 2010; Tucker & Stronge, 2005; Walan & Rundgren, 2015). Some other studies also show that relevant situations can make the students’ learning engaging as they aspire to join in situations which are similar to their working context because they want to practise and get prepared for their future jobs (Hartley, 2005; Knight & Yorke, 2004). Therefore, if students are provided with different opportunities to work in varied working situations, their engagement in learning might be promoted (Hartley, 2005; Knight & Yorke, 2004; Race, 2010).

Secondly, encouraging students to reflect on their learning progress and set additional learning goals of their own might be useful in fostering student engagement (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Chalmers & Partridge, 2012; Trigwell, 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). To establish more goals, Chalmers and Partridge (2012) argue that students need to self- evaluate, and link their learning with their current knowledge. This process itself further involves students in learning, and once they set additional goals, they would be more committed and employ all possible resources including their teachers and their peers (Chalmers & Partridge, 2012; Race, 2010). In doing so, involvement in learning comes naturally.

Thirdly, research studies indicate that teachers need to adjust teaching to the learner diversity so that teachers can respond to the strengths and needs of all students in the class (Biggs, 1999; Brown, 2015; Kember & Ginns, 2012). Kember and Ginns (2012) suggest that teachers need to be concerned with students’ previous knowledge and experiences, their capabilities and interests, their needs and expectations in learning. Teachers also need to assess student comprehension continuously throughout the course. They should adjust their teaching practices according to student diversity

67 through a wide range of teaching strategies, all of which actions are aimed at making the lessons exciting and engaging (Kember & Ginns, 2012; Tucker & Stronge, 2005; Walan & Rundgren, 2015).

Fourthly, some of research suggests that teachers can group students either in small or large groups and the groups can be teacher- or student-led (Danielson, 2007; Kennedy, 2010; Salter, 2013; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Salter (2013) indicates that grouping depends on what teaching and learning is trying to achieve and should aim at the learning goal (see also Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Danielson, 2007)). Teachers could use life situations in group discussions that students feel meaningful and then become interested and motivated in learning (Danielson, 2007; Salter, 2013). This is because when students see the meaning of the learning activities, they will see the connection of those activities with their learning goals and being involved in those activities enables the achievement of learning goals (Chalmers & Partridge, 2012; Salter, 2013; Sambell et al., 2013).

3.4.9 Employing assessment to promote student learning

The studies by Race (2010) and Sambell et al. (2013) both suggest that the quantity of assessment needs to be reduced so that teachers can better implement assessment and so students have time for their learning and are not entirely assessment-driven. Furthermore, other research indicates that different assessments should be employed so that students are provided opportunities to show their strengths (Blumberg, 2009; Brown, 2015). As Race (2010) posits, assessments are used to collect the evidence of what learners have learned, not just what teachers have taught them. Once students can see this evidence, assessments enable students to evaluate their achievement, determining their strengths and weaknesses (Race, 2010; Brown & Race, 2012). The teaching and learning cycle continues until assessment, aligned with identified learning outcomes and teaching activities, demonstrates that learning has occurred (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Chalmers & Partridge, 2012).

Research also suggests using either self or peer assessment so that students can themselves identify the evidence of the quality of their work against the success criteria (Alkharusi et al., 2014; Blumberg, 2009; Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013). Race (2010) states that involving learners in assessing their own and each other’s

68 work deepens their learning and helps them clearly see how assessment is conducted. Carless (2011) agrees, claiming that self and peer assessment are effective in supporting any form of learning in undergraduate courses. This is because this critical process enables students to self-reflect on their learning, and through regular self- reflection, self-adaptation and self-regulation in learning will occur, which can be beneficial to student learning growth (Hattie, 2009).

In defining types of assessment, Brown (2015) points out that the majority of assessments that take place within the classroom are formative assessment, which is conducted throughout the process of learning, and summative assessments are most commonly linked to the more formal high-stakes examinations. While formative assessment practices have a much more significant impact on education achievement than most other forms (Black & William, 1998), summative assessment is formally used to report the students' progress (Blumberg, 2009; Brown, 2015). Therefore, there should be a balanced combination of these two types of assessment, but summative assessment should not be allowed to dominate and drive the whole process of teaching, learning and assessment (Sambell et al., 2013). Many studies indicate that both summative and formative assessment can be used as a source of learning for students and in alignment with the learning goals (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Brown, 2015; Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013).

Sambell et al. (2013) state that problems can be caused by any mismatch between what teachers teach in higher education, what and how students are assessed, and the skills required for prospective employment. Therefore, Sambell et al. (2013) suggest embedding authentic assessment tasks to promote learning. This is because authentic assessment promotes much more active and student-led approaches to learning (Biemans et al., 2004; Brown & Race, 2012; Sambell et al., 2013) and it links with what practitioners and professionals do in the real world where students are trying to qualify to enter (Blumberg, 2009; Brown, 2015; Brown & Race, 2012; Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013). Sambell et al. (2013) add that if students find assessment tasks to be inherently meaningful and relevant, teachers can make learning more productive.

3.4.10 Providing feedback to encourage student learning

Hattie and Timperley (2007, p. 81) assert that “feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement, but this impact can be either positive or negative”. They suggest that assessment should result in feedback that assists students in making progress in learning. Generally, feedback is described as either descriptive or evaluative (Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). Crooks (1988) suggests that evaluative comments can have both motivating and devastating effects on learners. Black and William (1998) indicate that descriptive feedback too has a powerful influence on student achievement, particularly when it is given about learning while it is happening. Through focusing on the learning intention of the task, and providing precise, specific information to the learner about how he or she is coping and how to adjust the performance, the learners’ comprehension and performance would be improved (Brown & Race, 2012, Churchill, 2016; Dowden et al., 2013). In addition, some other studies indicate that descriptive feedback should come in a timely manner (Brown, 2015; Brown & Race, 2012; Race, 2010). Race (2010) suggests that feedback on students’ work is most effective when it is provided early, while students still remember precisely what they are trying to do in their efforts.

Some leading scholars support the claim that students should be provided comments on their work while they are producing it (Brown, 2015; Brown & Race, 2012, Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013). They consistently stress the significance of formative feedback in improving student learning. Students should receive as much feedback as possible in rehearsal contexts before they submit their formal work. This will enable them to learn from their own mistakes, improve through descriptive feedback and make positive changes in their learning (Brown, 2015; Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013). Brown and Race (2012) suggest that teachers should give students marks only when they have made an effort to make use of feedback given on their work. This will help students try out their learning, practise, and improve competence and confidence before summative assessments are conducted (Sambell et al., 2013). Teachers should create opportunities for students to practice something, then provide students with feedback and suggestions for improvement before they sit for either mid-course or end-of-course assessments. Practice and rehearsal build confidence in students, and

70 they do not feel scared of assessments (Henard & Roseveare, 2012; Hunt, 2013; McGee & Fraser, 2012).

Research also indicates that teachers can offer feedback in alternative formats because the more diverse ways teachers use to give feedback to their students, the more likely they are to ascertain that their students receive the feedback in ways that suit their preferred approaches to learning (Brown, 2015; Race, 2010). This is important for their student learning because when students feel motivated by feedback, they are more likely to absorb and take actions according to their teachers’ suggestions. As a result, they can make use of the provided feedback to improve their work and progress in their learning. In addition, teachers can give students the choice of when to receive feedback (Sambell et al., 2013). In that way, students take the ownership of their learning and are active in regulating their learning.

Another approach in providing feedback to promote student learning is to give feedback to groups and some studies indicate several advantages to implementing this practice (Brown & Race, 2012; Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013). Firstly, it will save time for teachers, especially those who are teaching large classes (Race, 2010). Secondly, when feedback is given to groups, standard errors and shared areas for improvement within the classroomcould be provided, and this makes feedback a shared learning experience (Brown & Race, 2012). Through group feedback, students also can learn from listening to the feedback on the mistakes or inadequacies of other students’ work and from hearing the feedback on the best performance (Race, 2010). The effects can be multiplied by using the production of a class report on an assessment task and use it for a whole-class discussion or debriefing session (Sambell et al., 2013).

Research also suggests that while practising and rehearsing for the assessments, teachers should encourage students to have a self- or peer-review of drafts (Brown, 2015; Sambell et al., 2013). This is because this practice enables students to receive more feedback and to do so faster than when their teachers alone are providing comments (Sambell et al., 2013). Peer feedback can act as an essential means of helping students begin to develop crucial skills for life-long learning, such as self- evaluation and justifying one’s judgement (Sambell et al., 2013). Peer review can valuably be used as a means of enabling students to receive feedback on draft work 71 which they subsequently rework and improve for final submission. Suitably organised by the teacher, the process of student involvement in generating input for peers can also begin to draw students’ attention to the goals and standards of the subject, which is a precondition of taking responsibility for their own work (Brown, 2015; Brown & Race, 2012).

3.4.11 Generating a positive climate in class

Some studies suggest that when students remember their teacher many years later, it is often for the teacher’s competence in generating a positive climate in class (Batten et al., 1993; Danielson, 2007; Li et al., 2008). Students recall the warmth, passion in teaching with positive eye contact, friendly facial expressions and gestures that their beloved teachers demonstrated (Blumberg, 2009; Hoskins & Newstead, 2009; Race, 2010). Students feel safe with these teachers as the class climate is created in a way that students feel welcoming and socially comfortable. Therefore, students are sensitive to the teacher’s passion about their teaching; they are intrigued by teachers who care about students, who love their subjects, and who put their heart into their teaching (Bain, 2004; Danielson, 2007; Hunt & Chalmers, 2012; Hornstra et al., 2015; Sieberer-Nagler, 2016).

Research indicates that teachers can create an exciting atmosphere of learning and emphasise how significant the content is. They are genuine about their subject and involve students to share the experiences of learning about it by welcoming the students’ questions and comments (Entwistle, 2009; Fry et al., 2009; Hunt, 2013; Prosser, 2013; Salter, 2013; Sambell et al., 2013). These teachers respect their students who have their own interests, concerns, and intellect. In return, the students also respect their teachers who are passionate, caring and willing to make a commitment to the student learning. These teachers are usually remembered for long with appreciation (Bain, 2004; Blumberg, 2009; Hornstra et al., 2015; Hoskins & Newstead, 2009; Hunt & Chalmers, 2012; Race, 2010; Sieberer-Nagler, 2016).

Research literature also suggests that the classroom should be a place where students feel safe to take risks (Entwistle, 2009; Fry et al., 2009; Sambell et al., 2013; McGee & Fraser, 2012; Salter, 2013). This means that negative criticism and derision are to be avoided among students and between teachers and students (Hunt, 2013; Sambell

72 et al., 2013; McGee & Fraser, 2012). In such classrooms, people are treated with respect. McGee and Fraser (2012) suggest that in those classrooms, “debate, argument, challenge and dissent are encouraged in an atmosphere of thoughtful speculation rather than angry outbursts” (p.13). Teachers can also change the physical setting of the class when necessary to refresh the class atmosphere, such as changing the layout of the class and the seating of the students (Entwistle, 2009; McGee & Fraser, 2012). Some studies claim that when students change their seats, they might feel more motivated by the new space and the new peers with whom they work (Entwistle, 2009; Hunt, 2013; McGee & Fraser, 2012; Prosser, 2013).

Many studies suggest that if teachers increase and vary interaction with their students, the learning climate in the class can be improved (Blumberg, 2009; Hoskins & Newstead, 2009; Race, 2010). This is self-evident as students feel safe and comfortable in the ecosystem which is created not only by their teachers but also their peers. Students feel more motivated if they learn in a committed learning community where most of the people are interested in learning (Emmelman & DeCesare, 2007; Hill, 2014; Lizzio et al., 2002). Therefore, research studies suggest that students should be provided more opportunities to interact so that mutual understanding in the class is promoted (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Biggs & Tang, 2011; Blumberg, 2009; Bain, 2004; McGee & Fraser, 2012; Race, 2010). In that way, a favourable climate can be naturally generated and maintained for longer.

3.4.12 Establishing a culture for learning

McGee & Fraser (2012) suggest that a culture for learning is created when students are engaged in learning, interested in their subject, and extended in their learning. Many studies find that teachers in higher education can establish a culture for learning through communication, sharing, involving students in the decision-making process, mutual trust and commitment (Bain, 2004; Blumberg, 2009; Churchill, 2016; McGee & Fraser, 2012; Reyes et al. 2012). Teachers can involve students in decisions about their learning such as assessment tasks, and feedback, and other extra-curricular activities such as excursions, field trips. If these practices occur regularly, students will feel a part of a community committed to learning (Churchill, 2016; Prosser, 2013). As a result, the favourable climate and culture in learning spread across the

73 class, and students feel a sense of belonging. This could have a positive influence on their psychology and their learning outcomes (Chalmers & Hunt, 2012; Churchill, 2016; Hoskins & Newstead, 2009; McGee & Fraser, 2012). McGee and Fraser (2012) and Churchill (2016) both suggest that teachers can communicate academic and behavioural expectations to students in a clear, concise and reasonable manner. Transparent learning goals, explicit instructions for assessment, and specific suggestions for student improvement while providing feedback might have a positive impact on student learning growth (Churchill, 2016; Hattie, 2009; McGee & Fraser, 2012).

McGee and Fraser (2012) put that “developing classroom culture is a dynamic process that requires considerable skill, knowledge, talent and hard work. Teachers must have a genuine regard for their students – their progress, their humanity, the essence of who they are (p.2). Churchill (2016) supports this point and further suggests that teachers should include all students in respectful ways that value each person. Sharing ideas and concern in a climate of acceptance is an integral part of building a respectful classroom culture (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Chalmers & Hunt, 2012; Hoskins & Newstead, 2009). Students are encouraged to share their ideas, comments and discussions on learning, which makes their learning memorable because they can articulate their thoughts. Students are also encouraged to share their concerns, which could be their challenges in learning, their difficulties in transition in learning or just a concern about a small part of a lesson that needs more discussion. Once they feel comfortable in sharing, they feel confident in learning (Churchill, 2016; Hunt, 2013; Prosser, 2013).

3.4.13 Promoting interaction and rapport

Many research studies suggest that a positive student-teacher relationship can produce considerable satisfaction and reward for both teachers and students (Hoskins & Newstead, 2009; Li et al., 2008; Smimou & Dahl, 2012). It takes time for teachers to develop effective student-teacher relationships and procedures and feel comfortable with them. Some studies suggest that teachers should give students more opportunities and options to interact with each other, which is the key to creating an active learning environment (Bain, 2004; Churchill, 2016; McGee & Fraser, 2012).

To help maintain positive relationships, research suggests that a wide range of interaction patterns associated with different learning activities should be present within the classroom (Batten et al., 1993; Churchill, 2016; Jones, 2003). McGee and Fraser (2012) and Churchill (2016) indicate that teachers can employ different approaches to interaction, one of which involves collaborative pedagogy by using extra-curricular activities such as excursions, picnics and field trips when students have many opportunities to talk, share with and understand each other (Churchill, 2016; McGee & Fraser, 2012). They usually get closer after each trip and have more effective collaboration in fulfilling learning tasks (Churchill, 2016). The relationship in the class will also be strengthened through interactive and collaborative learning activities where students can work on group projects, and where they have opportunities to work with each other to answer questions and solve problems (Bain, 2004; Biggs & Tang, 2007, 2011; Chalmers & Hunt, 2012).

In summary, this section has provided the indicators of items under each of the thirteen components. The items’ attributes emerged from the literature review. Some components seem to share similar properties, yet they also have their own attributes. For example, while the component Motivate student learning and Engage students in the learning process both afford and promote student learning, there are also some distinctions between them. Motivate student learning focuses more on creating learning opportunities that involve students in meaningful discussions and push their higher order thinking skills such as reasoning, justifying, connection to information and arguments, reflection and self-evaluation. Engaging students in the learning process is more concerned with promoting student participation in learning by adapting teaching strategies to learner diversity. Two components, Generate a positive climate in class and Establish a culture for learning also have distinguishing features. While a positive climate in class is usually created by the teacher’s warmth and passion so that students feel academically and socially comfortable, and feel secure to take risks, establishing a culture for learning places more emphasis on mutual trust and commitment, sharing and involving students in the decision-making process, and communicating academic and behavioural expectations in a clear and reasonable manner. The summary of indicators of components and items was presented in appendix A. It was the basis for the stage of developing the

75 questionnaire. The references to the sources of these items and indicators appear across the text of this chapter.

3.5 Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices

3.5.1 Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching

The importance of students’ perceptions has been well-documented by previous studies (Aleamoni, 1981; Entwistle, Skinner et al., 2000; Goodman et al., 2011; Jackson et al., 1999; Kember et al, 2004; Prosser, 2013). Entwistle, Skinner et al. (2000) suggest that students’ perceptions are of high significance because student learning is influenced by perceptions of teaching rather than teaching approaches. Similarly, Kember et al. (2004) also suggest that how students approach learning can be associated with how they describe good teaching. Many other studies also advocated this idea and emphasised that it was the students’ perceptions of teaching that affect how they learn and feel, not the instruction itself (Brok, 2001; Frenzel et al., 2007; Davidson & Phelan, 1999; Schutz & Lenehart, 2002; Stephanou & Kyridis, 2008, 2009; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001; Wentzel, 2002).

Cotterall (1999) more specifically investigated student beliefs about different attributes and indicators of effective language teaching and suggested that students’ thoughts are helpful in informing teachers about students’ expectations and their desired teaching and learning approaches on which teachers need to focus. Darling- Hammond (1996) claims that, given the complexity in the nature of the teaching job, it would be challenging for teachers to facilitate learning for students without an understanding of how students think and perceive learning. Zimmerman and Schunk (2001) explored effective teaching in sciences and also suggest that a thorough understanding of student perception supplies classroom science teachers with valuable inputs that enable them to adjust their approaches to, pace and level of teaching. Previous research studies have emphasised that students’ perceptions of teaching affect the learning approaches they adopted, and then affect their academic achievement (Crawford et al., 1998; Entwistle, 1988; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Entwistle, Skinner et al., 2000; Ginns et al., 2007; Kember et al., 2004; Lizzio et al., 2002; Marton & Booth, 1997; Prosser, 2013; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 76

1991; Ramdsen & Entwistle, 1981; Rossum & Taylor 1987). Entwistle, Skinner et al. (2000) suggest that students’ perceptions lead to their corresponding attitudes towards learning, which in turn affect their learning outcomes.

There is a wide body of research examining the students’ perceptions of the learning environment, a critical aspect of teaching practice. Many studies have suggested that there is a positive correlation between students’ perceptions of the learning environment, the learning approaches they adopted and their learning outcomes (Jackling, 2005; Marton & Booth, 1997; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 1991). Those who perceive learning positively are more likely to adopt deep learning approaches to learning (Jackling, 2005; Ramsden, 1991), whereas those who hold negative perceptions often tend to use surface learning approaches (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999).

The influences of learning approaches on academic performance have been well researched. There have been a few studies investigating the relationship between approaches to learning and learning outcomes including different types of outcomes: understanding, achievement, motivation or satisfaction (e.g., Trigwell & Sleet, 1990). Biggs (1987) indicates that the deep learning approach is correlated with higher academic performance, whereas the surface learning approach is associated with lower performance. Goodman et al. (2011) suggest that students’ perception of the lectures, tutorials, or any other teaching and learning practices can influence the level of effort they put into engaging with the activity or task. As such, their perceptions can contribute to their intrinsic motivation. Highly intrinsically motivated students will then attend classes regularly and actively engage in lessons, leading to better performance in tests and exams (Bakker et al., 2015; Ferrell & Barbera, 2015; Mukorera & Nyatang, 2017; Sikhwari, 2007).

Williams and Burden (1997, p.98) noted that “learners’ perceptions have been found to have the greatest influence on achievement”. This might be because their approaches to learning are, in turn, related to how they have experienced teaching and learning previously and how they perceive and see their current teaching and learning context, which all influence their learning outcomes (Biggs, 1987, 1999; Elen & Lowyck, 1999; Ginns et al., 2007; Kember et al., 2004; Marton & Säljö, 1976; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 2003). Elen and Lowyck (1999) indicate that students’ 77 learning may be helped or impeded by having much previous learning experience and developed conceptions about the way teaching is implemented. According to Kember et al. (2004), students who perceive teaching as transmission usually see learning as absorbing facts and information, whereas those who see teaching as facilitating learning usually perceive learning as creating meaning and constructing knowledge. Similarly, Biggs (1987), through a questionnaire on study processes, found that students who employed deep approaches to learning usually experienced good teaching, transparency in goals and learning standards, and self-directed learning. In contrast, students with surface approaches to learning experienced high workload and assessments that focused on rote learning and knowledge reproduction. The findings indicated that students in the former group achieved better performance than those in the latter group (Biggs, 1987).

Witcher et al. (2008) investigated perceptions of students and found that effective teaching was linked with teachers’ attributes such as a student-centred awareness, having a scholarly insight into the subject matter, being professional and passionate about teaching, having effective communication skills, accessibility and competence in teaching, designing assessment and providing helpful feedback. This finding also aligns with what Delaney et al. (2010, p.9) identified as characteristics of effective university teaching including those of educators “being respectful, knowledgeable, approachable, engaging, communicative, organised, responsive, professional and humorous”. Onwuegbuzie et al. (2007), who looked into 912 students’ perceptions of effective university teachers, identified nine words to depict the characteristics of effective teachers: responsive, enthusiastic, student-centred, professional, expert, connector, transmitter, ethical, and director. The student-centred attitude is also supported by Fatima et al. (2007) who suggest that students perceived a student- focused approach to teaching as being the most effective.

Exploring teachers’ perceptions of teaching is also important because teachers' thoughts, beliefs and suppositions about teaching and teaching efficiency, to some certain extent, influence how teachers understand and implement teaching strategies (Trigwell et al., 1999). The approaches that teachers utilise are associated with their conceptions of teaching (Trigwell & Prosser, 1996) and their perceptions of the teaching context (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997). Kember (1997) perceives that the

78 conceptions of teaching are categorised into two broad directions. The first one is a teacher-centred approach to teaching and emphasises the delivery of knowledge. The second one is student-centred and focuses upon students’ creation of knowledge and their learning. The latter direction stresses the students’ learning development through the process of knowledge construction by themselves rather than the via lecturers’ transmission.

In the same vein, Prosser and Trigwell (1999) found in their study that those teachers who perceived learning as obtaining and accumulating knowledge, perceived teaching as imparting information and content to students, and tended to employ a teacher- centred approach to teaching. On the contrary, those teachers who perceived learning as developing and changing students’ conceptions, perceived teaching as facilitating students’ engagement in activities through which their conceptions could change and develop. This cohort of teachers tended to utilise a student-centred approach to teaching (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999).

In summary, this section has presented research which indicates that exploring teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teaching is relevant in research that seeks to investigate the key components of teaching and learning practice. Therefore, exploring teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teaching is a fundamental objective of the study. It is noteworthy that the perceptions of teachers and students in a Confucianism-influenced, centralized context like Vietnam has been little studied. The study is going to fill this gap in the literature to explore the students’ and teachers’ perceptions as a bottom-up approach in a centralized context.

3.5.2 Variations within students’ perceptions

Variations in students’ perceptions have been linked to a number of background variables such as gender, year level, conceptions of learning, cultural backgrounds, academic performance, etc. When it comes to year level, it appears that students perceive teaching and learning approaches quite differently. Karagiannopoulou and Christodoulides (2005) compared the perceptions of 88 first year university students with those of 92 fourth year students and they concluded that first year students’ academic performance was not correlated with any variables, but fourth year students’ achievement was correlated with good teaching. Karagiannopoulou and

Christodoulides (2005) also indicate that fourth year students’ perceptions of their current learning environment were a stronger predictor of their academic achievement.

Also comparing perceptions of students of effective teaching when they are in different year levels, Šteh, Kalin, and Mažgon (2014) compared first- and third-year undergraduate students’ opinions of effective teaching. The research discovered that first-year students thought an effective teacher is one who delivers content well, whereas third-year students thought that effective teachers encourage critical thinking, autonomy, personal growth, and lead students in discovering the subject area. This study found that students in different year levels held different perceptions of effective teaching approaches.

Mukorera and Nyatang (2017) also compared students’ perceptions but between Economics students in their first and second years. The findings reveal that first-year students thought the consultation with their lecturer, when he or she revised lessons for them, was the most helpful for their academic performance. In contrast, second- year students perceived the interaction from group work, weekly tutorials, lectures, small group tutorials, and revision classes as most beneficial for their academic performance. Both groups of students perceived independent learning and learning online sessions as the least helpful for them. The main finding of the study concluded that first-year students are more likely to be solitary learners and prefer individual interaction with their lecturer in teaching and learning activities, whereas second-year students tend to be more social learners, favouring group activities in teaching and learning.

A different issue is whether variations in students’ perceptions and variations in their study behaviours are related to measures of academic attainment. Students who report more positive perceptions also tend to achieve higher marks or grades (Lizzio et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 1997). This relationship occurs even when grades are assigned by independent evaluators and even when students report their perceptions before their final grades are known (Cohen, 1981; Marsh, 1987). Richardson (2000) suggests that even though the correlation between learning attitudes, behaviours and performance is complicated, there is a tendency that positive behaviours lead to more desirable achievements and negative ones to less desirable outcomes. 80

In brief, previous studies show that there are variations in students’ perceptions when students are in different year levels. However, there is a dearth of research comparing students’ perceptions according to their majors and those of students across the range of academic performance. The research program reported in this thesis seeks to address this gap in the research literature and also explores the differences in students’ perceptions of teaching when they major in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and Social Sciences and Humanities. This research study also compares students who are categorised into four main groups of academic performance (Excellent, Good, Fair, Weak). These comparisons seek to determine if the major and academic performance affect students’ perceptions of teaching, and thus, to help improve understandings about students’ perceptions of teaching.

3.5.3 Differences between students and teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices

Many research studies have contended that teachers and students have their own perceptions of teaching and learning and that examining the differences in their conceptions is undoubtedly helpful. Konings et al. (2014) suggest that while good teaching and learning processes and best learning outcomes can result from similarities in perceptions, there is a need to pay specific attention to exploring differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions. According to Vermetten et al. (2002), disparities between perceptions might inhibit teachers from adjusting their behaviours to fit with their students’ behaviours, and might lead to negative consequences for teaching and learning outcomes. Vermetten et al. (2002) also suggest that mismatches between how students learn and how teachers use teaching strategies may produce a challenge in achieving objectives for students such as increasing learning efficiency and thinking skills. Other studies show that differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions might lead to negative impacts on students’ motivational and affective outcomes, which subsequently can influence their academic performance (Eccles et al., 1993; Renzulli & Dai, 2001; Schmitt et al., 2008; Seidel, 2006). Therefore, investigation into differences in perceptions is important.

In addition, understandings about similarities and differences in perceptions of teachers and students trigger the adaptation and improvement of education (Cook- Sather, 2003). Cook-Sather (2003) also suggests that paying attention to students and sharing their perceptions enable teachers to reflect on their teaching processes and the design of learning activities. The disconnect between teachers’ and learners’ perceptions will pose challenges for teaching and learning (Chalmers & Fuller, 1996; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996), and disparities in the understanding and perception of approaches to teaching might hinder students’ successful academic achievement (Moradi & Sabetib, 2014). Nevertheless, most of the research studies on teaching approaches have focused mainly on either teachers’ or students’ perceptions; few studies have compared the views of teachers and students of approaches to teaching (Moradi & Sabetib, 2014). For example, according to Atmaca (2016), if a teacher and their students have different expectations in terms of written corrective feedback, there would likely be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation regarding the value of the provided feedback. Atmaca also suggests that these mismatches could slow down the progress of students. Brown (2000) focuses on comparing students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language learning. He reveals that the students he studied preferred a grammar-based approach to learning English whereas their teachers seemed to favour a more communicative approach to English language teaching. This mismatch in their preferred approaches was evidenced by their different perceptions of English language use, error correction, and group work.

In conclusion, research literature emphasises the significance of examining the differences between students and teachers’ perceptions of teaching. The literature also indicates that there are some disparities between students’ and teachers’ perceptions in several aspects of teaching and learning practices. The comparison between teachers’ and students’ perspectives in previous studies often focused on a particular practice of teaching, rather than a range of practices, such as those identified within the four critical dimensions of teaching in this chapter. Consequently, the research presented in this thesis sought to investigate teacher and student perceptions across the range of teaching and learning practices.

3.6 Summary

This chapter has discussed three prominent sets of principles and/or frameworks of teaching, and has identified thirteen components of teaching and learning practices. The discussion has also provided attributes and indicators for each component. Thirteen components formed the core of the conceptual framework, informing the data collection and data analysis of the study, which are presented in subsequent chapters of the thesis.

This chapter has also presented a review on perceptions of students and teachers of teaching, variation within students’ perceptions and differences between students and teachers’ perceptions. The inclusion of these is essential because students’ perceptions of teaching appear to be linked to their approaches to learning, which in turn appear to influence learning outcomes, motivation and satisfaction. Students’ perceptions also inform teachers’ efforts to adjust their teaching strategies to better fit with their students’ needs and expectations. The mismatch in the expectations between teachers and students might influence teaching and learning approaches.

The related literature review presented in the chapter shows that there have been variations in students’ perceptions when there are different variables (e.g., year level). Students and teachers also hold different perceptions of teaching practices that promote student learning. However, perceptions of teachers and students who are located in a centralized context that has been influenced by external forces have been little researched. Therefore, this research will contribute to our understandings about perceptions of teachers and students from this context. The chapter following this chapter (Chapter 4) presents the research methodological considerations involved in the study.

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH METHODS

4.1 Introduction

The preceding chapters have provided accounts of the research setting and focus. Chapter 2 has presented a review of the context of teaching and learning in Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC), including Vietnam, and has unveiled stereotypes and generalisations about teaching and learning practices. Chapter 3 has proposed a conceptual framework of key components of teaching approaches that can promote student learning. It has also been argued that while the frameworks of teaching have been available in the research literature, special consideration needs to be made for the potential variations and complexity of teaching and learning practices that might occur within the Vietnamese higher education context.

This chapter presents and justifies the research methodology and research methods adopted. It firstly reviews the research purpose and research question, followed by the justification for mixed methods research being the most suitable approach for this study. The chapter also details the phases of the research program, specifying the rationale for each phase, the sample, the data collection methods, and the procedures of data collection and analysis.

4.2 Mixed methods approach

As presented in Chapter 1, the overarching research question of the study was:

What are the key components of teaching practices that promote student learning in VHE, as perceived by teachers and students?

To provide a critical and thorough analysis of the complexities and subtleties surrounding the research question, the study employed a mixed methods approach to research. Mixed methods approaches to research have been widely accepted and

84 adopted for decades. Numerous researchers have sought to define what mixed methods research is.

Brannen (2005) stated that mixed methods study refers to a research strategy that involves more than one research method. The methods may be a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods or a mix of different types of quantitative methods or a mix of different types of qualitative methods. With this definition, mixed method research could result from either quantitative or qualitative data, but these data consist of more than one source of information. For example, if a study employs focus group interviews and class observation, both of which bring about qualitative data, according to Brannen’s definition, this study adopts mixed methods.

In contrast to this definition, many other scholars emphasise the employment of both qualitative and quantitative methods in a single mixed method study. As John Creswell (2007) observed “Mixed methods research is a research design with a mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches in many phases in the research process” (p. 5). Johnson et al. (2007) shared a similar view, commenting that “Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches” (p. 123).

More recently, some other scholars have also referred to mixed method research as the adoption of both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study. For example, Creswell (2016) defined it thus:

Mixed methods is an approach to research in which the investigator collects, analyzes, and interprets both quantitative and qualitative data (closed- and open-ended information), integrates or combines the two approaches in various ways, and frames the study within a specific type of design or procedure. Sometimes the researcher makes specific their philosophical assumptions, and more often than not, they include a theory that guides the quantitative or qualitative strand of their research or both. Also, both strands need to be conducted using rigorous methods of data collection and analysis.

(Creswell, 2016, p.4)

Leavy (2017) agreed with this definition and stated that mixed methods research involves collecting and integrating quantitative and qualitative data in a single study, thus, resulting in a more thorough understanding of the issue under investigation.

Regardless of the definition, many previous researchers have identified the advantages to adopting a mixed methods approach to research. Take Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) as an example. They indicated that a research topic can be more comprehensively studied if the strengths of qualitative method are combined with the strengths of quantitative method while at the same time minimising the weaknesses of each method. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie called this advantage a “fundamental principle of mixed methods research” (p.18). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie also believed that if the findings from the different methods corroborate each other, there can be greater confidence in the researcher's conclusion.

Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) also specified the strengths of each type of method. In their view, quantitative method has the strengths of conceptualising variables, sketching dimensions, indicating trends and relationships, formalising comparisons and utilising large representative samples. In contrast, qualitative method embraces the strengths of sensitivity to meaning, the in-depth investigation of smaller samples, and great methodological flexibility in responding to potential changes during the study process. Therefore, from the perspective of Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), combining the two methods possibly optimises the strengths of the two methods, while compensating for the weaknesses.

Dwelling on the overall benefits, Creswell (2007) has noted that “the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone” (p. 5). Leavy (2017) concurs that a more nuanced and rigorous understanding of the phenomenon under investigation can be gained through collecting and integrating quantitative and qualitative data in a single study. This advantage is also evident in Johnson et al.’s (2007) argument that mixed method research can bring about “breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration (confirmation/verification)” (p.123).

It would seem clear that many of advantages of a mixed methods approach could be realised if this approach were to be used to investigate the overarching research

86 question provided above. Given that the study aimed at seeking key components of teaching practice for VHE, these components should reflect and represent teaching and learning approaches currently happening in Vietnamese universities. Given that the study needed to examine the trend in students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching, a quantitative questionnaire was deemed suitable. The strength of this approach was that it could conceptualise the teaching components and profile the dimensions of teaching (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). However, this method would not reveal the depth of understanding about the students’ and teachers’ perceptions, whereas interviews would better capture the meaning given by participants to the dimensions and components. Consequently, in-depth interview would complement the strengths of the questionnaire and minimise its weaknesses. Thus, the combination of a quantitative and qualitative approach would better respond to the aim the study. In other words, a single methodological approach (either quantitative or qualitative) could not thoroughly and comprehensively provide responses to the research question of the study. That is why neither an experimental nor an entirely interpretivist approach was appropriate. Consequently, the present study took a pragmatic grounding which is considered a typical paradigm for mixed- method study (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Clark, 2011; Tashakkori et al., 2013; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Greene (2008) even identifies pragmatism as a “leading contender for the philosophical champion of the mixed methods arena” (p. 8).

The research design of this study is best situated within pragmatism because “the pragmatic worldview arises out of actions, situations, and consequences rather than antecedent conditions” (Creswell, 2014, p.6). This study primarily explored how students and teachers perceived effective teaching practice and how they desired to have these practices implemented in their context. After conducting a review of the consequences of actions, the researcher gained insights that informed the establishment of key components of teaching approaches that enable student learning, as perceived by teachers and students. In addition, this study is problem-centred, which is one of the main features of the pragmatic paradigm (Creswell, 2014) because it aspired to contribute to VHE’s continuing efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning, which is currently one of the significant concerns in Vietnam. Furthermore, to solve the research problem, this study utilised plural methods including expert consultation, a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The

87 expert consultation helped obtain insightful feedback on the conceptual framework. The questionnaire was used to ascertain the general trend of students and teachers regarding the teaching approaches they believed to be critical to student learning, and the semi-structured interviews detailed the perspectives of the students and teachers on these teaching approaches. Therefore, grounded as it was in pragmatism, which “opens the door to multiple methods, different worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection and analysis” (Creswell, 2014, p.11), the study employed all suitable research approaches to understand the research problem.

A key feature of mixed methods approaches is the use of triangulation. Triangulation is a term meaning the process (and result) of using different methods to “check, validate or corroborate one another” (Brannen, 2005, p.12). Triangulation enabled an understanding of a phenomenon under investigation using different methods, informants and/or investigators. As Denzin (1970) suggests, different data analyses can reach the same conclusion. Hammersley (2005) states that triangulation does not necessarily mean mixing different methods. It may refer to mixing the same observations but in different background.

Corroboration resulted from triangulation is only one of several types of triangulation (Bryman, 2009; Hammersley, 1996; Rossman & Wilson, 1994). There are other types of triangulation including: (1) Elaboration (e.g., qualitative data analysis may detail the patterns that emerge from quantitative data analysis. In this case, the use of qualitative data provides further insights that were gained by quantitative data); (2) Initiation (the use of a first method sparks new hypotheses that can be pursued using a different method); (3) Complementarity (qualitative and quantitative findings complement and enhance each other. The data analyses from the two methods together create a bigger picture of the issue under investigation); (4) Contradictions (qualitative findings contradict quantitative findings) (Brannen, 2005).

Hammersley indicates that “these different forms of triangulation are investigative strategies that offer evidence to inform judgements, not techniques that provide guaranteed truth or completeness” (p.12). This aligns with Leavy’s (2017) view of triangulation as the use of multiple sources of data or multiple theories to examine a claim. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) also suggest that, when appropriate, evaluators or researchers may combine methodologies to strengthen the validity of results, or 88 achieve better triangulation. Nevertheless, according to Denzin (2009), triangulation is not limited to methodological triangulation. Data triangulation, investigator triangulation, and theory triangulation may also be employed.

The present study made use of two types of triangulation as one way to ensure internal validity (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Sandelowski, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). The first type was methodological triangulation. That is, the employment of different methods of data collection, including literature review, document analysis, expert review, questionnaires and in- depth individual semi-structured interviews. The second type was respondent triangulation, in which data collection methods were administered to three principal groups of respondents, including experts, students and teachers. Respondent and methodological triangulation were used in order to better identify, scrutinise, and explore phenomena from different perspectives, leading to a convergence of insights into the components of teaching that promote student learning in higher education in Vietnam.

4.3 Research phases and methods A summary of the research design for the study is presented in Figure 4.1 and each of these phases is outlined in further detail below.

• Construction of conceptual framework of key TLP • Document analysis, context review, expert feedback (N=34) Phase 1

• Investigation of students' and teachers' perceptions of TLP • Questionnaires, two public HEIs (N= 643; 570 students; 73 teachers) Phase 2

• In-depth exploration of the students' and teachers' perceptions of key TLP in VHE Phase 3 • Semi-structured interviews (N= 36; 18 students; 18 teachers)

Figure 4.1: Phases of the study

Figure 4.1 presents the design of the research program that comprised three phases. The first phase was the establishment of a conceptual framework of TLP. An extensive literature review was conducted to understand teaching and learning practice in higher education. Chapter 3 identified essential TLP dimensions and their corresponding components which have been perceived to support student learning in higher education. A conceptual framework was established consisting of these dimensions and components. All dimensions and components were reviewed by the experts (see Chapter 5). Based on the feedback from these experts, the questionnaire was revised prior to the pilot. These revisions enhanced the face and content validity of the instruments. The instruments were then piloted with a small number of participants and some minor modifications were made to the items in light of the pilot findings. Since the piloting phase was supposed not to have substantial contribution to the thesis, the author did not report piloting phase in the thesis. Once the questionnaire had been established, Phase 2 was conducted to collect the teachers’ and the students’ perceptions of TLP in two public Vietnamese HEIs. In Phase 3 in-depth interviews were conducted with teachers and students to gather detailed and rich viewpoints of critical aspects of TLP for VHE. All the three phases of the study complied with all human ethics standards of the University of Melbourne. The following sections explain each phase in more detail.

4.3.1 Phase 1: Construction of conceptual framework of key TLP

Rationale for the method

Cohen et al. (2011) suggested that, in order to establish a conceptual framework, input from either focus group interviews or workshops is useful. However, since the study aspired to gain insight from international experts and local experienced Vietnamese university teachers, it was challenging to either arrange focus group interviews or to organise workshops where overseas experts and experienced teaching practitioners could be able to come together to comment on the framework. Therefore, the present study used an online survey to gather the experts’ feedback. This form of data collection was convenient for the researcher and the participants, ensured wide participation, and minimised costs.

The sample

This phase of the study used purposive sampling. Given that the components of teaching identified in Chapter 3 were primarily derived from western research literature and the focus of this research program was on VHE, whose contextual features are unique and influenced by Chinese Confucianism, both international and local experts were recruited. The international experts were drawn from a pool of academic staff found on university websites from across Australia and the email addresses of academic staff were obtained from these websites. Experts from Australian universities were selected and invited to take part in the study based on their academic profiles, their list of recent publications and their research interests.

Local Vietnamese experts were drawn from the researcher’s network and they were experienced university teachers, with a comprehensive understanding of teaching and learning practices in the VHE setting. They were approached and invited to participate. At the time of the research, these participants had all been teaching in Vietnamese higher education institutions for at least ten years. Their disciplines were diverse and included Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), Psychology, Tourism, Biology, International Relations, Physics, and Mathematics.

Table 4.1 presents the demographic information of the thirty-four experts who participated in this phase of the research. Fifteen were international experts and nineteen were local university teachers.

Table 4.1: Participants in Phase 1

N=34 Percent N=34 Percent Background Highest degree obtained International experts 15 44.1 Master 9 26.5 Experienced teachers in 19 55.9 Doctorate 25 73.5 Vietnamese universities Current position Years of experience in the current position Professors or Associate 12 35.3 1–3 years 4 11.8 Professors Lecturers or Senior Lecturers 15 44.1 4–10 years 19 55.9 Research Fellows or Senior 7 20.6 >10 years 11 32.3 Research Fellows

Years of research experience in HE of Years of teaching experience in VHE international experts >=10 years 5 26.3 >=10 years 2 13.3 >=15 years 10 52.6 >=15 years 5 33.3 >=20 years 4 21.1 >=20 years 8 53.4

Table 4.1 shows that Vietnamese lecturers made up more than half of the expert respondents (55.9%) and many of these participants held senior teaching positions in VHEIs. Fifteen of them were either senior lecturers or lecturers, and four of them were either Professors or Associate Professors. Over a half of them had studied a Ph.D in western countries such as the US, the UK, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands, where they might have been exposed to western teaching approaches. Therefore, their views and feedback on the thirteen components of TLP could be seen to reflect their understanding of both western and traditional teaching approaches. The Vietnamese lecturers all had at least ten years of in-service teaching. Fourteen of them had taught in VHEIs for more than fifteen years, and therefore would have likely experienced significant changes in the Vietnamese higher education context. It is expected that these experts should have a thorough understanding of teaching, learning and assessment in Vietnamese higher education institutions.

Table 4.1 also provides information regarding the international experts (44.1%), all of whom hold a Doctoral degree. They all held a high rank in the academic context; seven were Professors, one was an Associate Professor and seven were Senior Research Fellows. This suggests that the international experts in this phase of the study possess rich experience in research and/or teaching in the higher education sector. From their published profiles on their university websites, their research interests and fields were exposed to the researcher. Their fields were diverse including teaching and learning in higher education, educational technology, student experience and student learning, curriculum design, assessment and feedback, and learning environments in higher education; all of these fields were closely related to the phenomenon under investigation. More particularly, most of these international experts had at least one publication related to either Asian or Vietnamese higher education, which provides a sense of confidence in the perspective they bring. Many of these experts were experienced researchers in the area of Asian higher education with the majority of them having been involved in research for at least fifteen years.

In summary, the thirty-four selected experts selected in this study had backgrounds and experiences in research and teaching that were closely related to the phenomenon under investigation. The number of experts involved was adequate to achieve the convergence of opinions concerning the subject of the study (Dalkey, 1972; Julious, 2005; Linstone & Turoff, 2002; Sim & Lewis, 2012).

The instrument

The instrument developed to collect the experts’ feedback in this phase of the study was an online survey which was framed by the conceptual framework developed in Chapter 3. The experts were asked to rate the importance of the components and items, using a four-point Likert scale (‘Not important at all’, ‘Slightly important’, ‘Important’ and ‘Very important’). A four-point Likert scale was intentionally used in order to avoid the experts providing neutral responses (Chyung et al., 2017; Garland, 1991; Roberts et al., 2018). In addition to completing the survey items, the experts were also asked to comment on the appropriateness of each item in the survey. They were asked to provide suggestions for the modifications, omission or additions of any components and items with regard to their significance, content, wording and expression. The online survey can be seen in Appendix B.

The study employed Qualtrics as a platform to carry out the online survey. As soon as the online survey was administered using this platform, the researcher emailed an invitation to participants to complete the survey, as well as a Plain Language Statement and a Consent Form. The invitation email informed participants that it would take them approximately half an hour to complete the survey. After the Consent Form was signed, the online survey could be completed. The study was sent to a total of 108 invitees, and after two weeks, a follow-up email was sent, informing invitees of the survey’s completion deadline. After a further two weeks, the online survey closed. In total, 48 invitees started the survey and of these, 34 completed the survey.

The data analysis

Data from the completed surveys were extracted from Qualtrics. For this phase of the research, the analysis focused on the experts’ views of the components and items of

93 the questionnaire. The Likert scales were coded numerically from 1 – Not important at all to 4 – Very Important and decisions to keep the components and items were based on the items having achieved at least 75 percent agreement among participants with a rating of three or higher on the four point scale (Green, 1982; Hsu & Sandford, 2007) (see Chapter 5 for more detail). The omission, modification, and introduction of new items were also based on the experts’ responses to the open-ended questions. Responses to open-ended questions were subjected to a content-analysis. Themes were analysed, categorised, and translated into generic statements (Clayton, 1997) which were then used to determine the components and items to be revised, discarded, or introduced for the establishment of the refined conceptual framework. The refined conceptual framework and the questionnaire were then used for data collection in the next phases of the study.

4.3.2 Phase 2: Investigation of students’ and teachers' perceptions of TLP

Rationale for the method

Phase 2 investigated the students’ and teachers’ perceptions of TLP from two public higher education institutions in Vietnam (namely, A and B). This phase aimed to examine how students and teachers responded to the components and items established in Phase 1. This phase also examined the variations among students’ perceptions of TLP and differences between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of TLP. A questionnaire was developed from the validated conceptual framework from the previous phase to collect the students’ and teachers’ responses. Statistical analysis of the questionnaire data gathered from both teachers and students formed the basis of the major findings produced from this phase of the study and informed the response to the primary research question.

The use of a questionnaire to gather the perceptions of teachers and students was decided upon for practical reasons. Questionnaires are an extremely common means of collecting information from higher education stakeholders (Punch, 2009; Teo, 2013). And this method represents a single brief incursion into stakeholders’ time (Creswell, 2003; Creswell & Clark, 2011; Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Questionnaires are a relatively unobtrusive, inexpensive and easy means of gathering

94 representative quantitative data compared to methods such as individual observation or interview (Coates, 2005, p.142). Under certain conditions (Kuh & Hu, 2001a), mixed-method studies have shown that stakeholders’ perceptions gathered using questionnaires are a reliable and accurate source of information (Costin et al., 1971; Marsh, 1987, 1990; Ramsden, 1991). A further value of carefully constructed questionnaires is that they are reusable and can be used to gather data on specified variables over time and in different contexts. Findings from quantitative questionnaires can be generalised when the data is based on random samples of sufficient size (Teo, 2013). Furthermore, data analysis is relatively less time consuming (using statistical software) and the research results are relatively independent of the researcher (e.g., effect size, statistical significance) (Teo, 2013).

The sample

As the study considered teaching and learning practices that enabled student learning in public VHEIs where national educational policies and laws are actively implemented, participants for this research were recruited from this context. Therefore, two public HEIs were selected, one of which (University A) is one of the 16 “focused universities” of Vietnam regarding the level of investment, policy implementation and infrastructure. University A is one of the leading teacher training institutions in the country, with almost all of the teaching staff qualified and formally trained to be teachers. The other university (University B) is one of the two national universities of Vietnam where the government has invested heavily in facilities, teaching and learning and research projects. University A presently accommodates roughly 10,000 formal undergraduate students and employs over 700 teachers, whereas University B currently enrols around 10,000 formal undergraduate students and employs over 500 teachers. Thus, the combined teacher and student population from which participants would be drawn for this study numbered well above 21,000.

To examine trends in students’ and teachers’ perceptions of TLP, this study invited a large number of participants to fill out the questionnaire. Given that the data analysis includes a range of descriptive and inferential statistical techniques including factor analysis, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and T-tests, the study required a relatively large sample size to ensure robust analyses (Chen et al., 2014; Smith, 1992). This study recruited 643 participants. 95

The researcher complied with all human ethics standards set by the University of Melbourne. Participants were recruited on the basis of personal willingness. Each participant was asked to sign an informed consent form for each time they participated in the study. The researcher kept these forms in a safe and secured file during and after the implementation of the research. All their demographic data such as name, age, gender, major, years teaching experience, qualifications that might increase the risk of revealing their identity were kept confidential and omitted in the final report.

More specifically, after the relevant ethics approval was granted, the researcher contacted selected institutional leaders of these two HEIs, and sought permission to access a database of teachers and students. Once approval was granted, the researcher sent an email invitation to all potential teacher participants to participate in the study, which included a Consent Form and the Plain Language Statement. Participants were required to respond to the researcher to confirm their participation in the study.

To recruit the student participants, the researcher came to classes, and invited students to participate in the study. The Plain Language Statement was distributed and the research details were explained to the students by the researcher. If they agreed to participate in the research, students signed a Consent Form and returned it to the researcher. The researcher later contacted students and informed them of the scheduled time and the venue they would attend to complete the questionnaire.

Table 4.2 summarises demographic information about the participants in Phase 2 of the study. This table shows that 643 people completed the questionnaire, over half of whom are from University A (54%), and 46% of whom are from University B. Participants with a TESOL major are from a public university in Vietnam with a leading profile in teacher education and research outcomes. The participating students and teachers whose majors are Social Sciences and Humanities (International Relations, Korean Studies, Vietnamese Studies, Psychology, Mass Media and Journalism are from University B, one of the two biggest and most renowned national universities in Vietnam.

Table 4.2: Participants in Phase 2

Higher Education Institution Institution A Institution B Participants 348 (54%) 295(46%) Teachers 35 (10.1%) 38 (12.9%) Stakeholder Students 313 (89.9%) 257 (87.1%) Social Sciences and Humanities (International Major Relations, Korean Studies, 0 (0%) 295 (100%) Vietnamese Studies, Psychology, Mass Media and Journalism)

TESOL 348 (100%) 0 (0%)

First year 151 (48.3%) 33 (12.8%) Second year 50 (15.9%) 58 (22.6%) Year level of students Third year 50 (15.9%) 88 (34.2%) Fourth year 62 (19.9%) 78 (30.4%) 2.0–2.4 27 (8.6%) 17 (6.6%) Academic performance of 2.5–3.1 125 (39.9%) 87 (33.9%) students 3.2–3.6 143 (45.7%) 136 (52.9%) 3.7–4.0 18 (5.8%) 17 (6.6%) Bachelor 1 (2.9%) 0 (0%) Qualification of teachers Master 28 (80%) 18 (47.3%) Doctor 6 (17.1%) 20 (52.7%) 1–3 years 1 (3%) 4 (10.5%) Years of teaching 4–6 years 6 (17.1%) 4 (10.5%) experience 7–10 years 12 (34.2%) 7 (18.5%) More than 10 years 16 (45.7%) 23 (60.5%)

Among the 570 students, 51.2% were either in their first or second year, whereas 48.8% were either in their third or fourth year. In the Vietnamese higher education curriculum, students often study foundation subjects in their first two years and then focus on specialised subjects in the later years of their course. With foundation subjects, students often study in larger groups, often with over seventy students per group, and with specialised subjects, students tend to study in smaller groups with a maximum of about thirty-five students. Most student participants from University A were junior students (64.2%) and students from University B were mostly senior students (64.6%).

Table 4.2 also presents the students’ academic performance as it shows the overall learning grade of the students in the previous semester. Over half of the student participants (51.5%) from University A obtained either good or excellent results, and this cohort of students was slightly larger for University B (59.5%).

The majority of teachers (63.1%) held a Master degree, and over a third of them had obtained a Doctorate (35.6%). Only a small number of teacher participants had obtained only a Bachelor degree. This minority were likely novice teachers who had just graduated from an undergraduate education with a high distinction, and were currently studying for their Masters qualification. Table 4.2 also shows the statistics regarding teachers’ qualifications for each university. It is noted that the majority of teacher participants from University A are at a Master level (80%) whereas over half of the teaching staff from University B have a Doctorate (52.7%).

Table 4.2 also shows the teachers’ teaching experience (measured in years). Over half of the teacher participants (53.4%) were experienced teachers, having more than a decade of teaching experience whereas novice teachers (who had one to three years of teaching) account for a small proportion of the sample (6.8%). Teachers who are in the middle of their career (from four to ten years of teaching experience) make up over a third (39.8%) of the teacher participants.

The instrument

The questionnaire employed in this study features thirteen components and 66 items of teaching and learning practices. Item development was based on the conceptual framework, which came from a literature review, and the expert feedback as detailed in the previous phase of the research. The items in the questionnaire used two types of four-point Likert scales: a frequency scale (Never/Sometimes/Often/Always), and a satisfaction scale (Very dissatisfied/Somewhat dissatisfied/Satisfied/Very satisfied) (See the questionnaire in Appendix C). As one of the primary objectives of the study was to investigate the differences in the perceptions of TLP among stakeholders, the items and scales of the questionnaire for students and teachers were identical except for the difference in the pronoun used for the items.

The questionnaire also included eight items related to the demographic information of the participants. The data collection took place in Vietnam, where English is not the first language. Hence, to minimise the language barriers, the questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese, the native language of the participants. The questionnaire was not delivered via an online platform due to concerns about low response rates. Therefore, the researcher collected data directly from the participants in face-to-face contexts.

The data analysis

Questionnaire responses were entered into Microsoft Excel files which were then loaded into SPSS. Descriptive statistics and statistical analyses such as, reliability tests, factor analysis, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and T-test were completed. These analyses considered stakeholders’ perceptions about what aspects of teaching foster student learning in the context of VHE, how their perceptions were different from each other, variability in terms of students’ major, year level and academic performance, and how students perceived teaching and learning approaches differently from teachers. The findings from these analyses inform the major findings from the study.

4.3.3 Phase 3: In-depth exploration of the students’ and teachers' perceptions of key TLP in VHE

Rationale for the method

Phase 3 utilised semi-structured interviews with students and teachers who had already completed the questionnaire in the previous phase. Semi-structured interviews have long been used as an instrument to collect qualitative data (Seidman, 2006), and they are recognised as being beneficial for collecting participants’ perceptions and opinions in an organised way (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Minichiello et al., 1995). Semi-structured interviews typically consist of several key questions related to issues under investigation, and at the same time they allow the interviewer or interviewee to discuss emergent issues throughout the interview (Lewis-Beck, Bryman, & Liao, 2004; Horton et al., 2004; Whiting, 2008). The interviews conducted in this phase of the study were framed around key components of TLP that were identified in the

99 conceptual framework, however, the interviews were still open for further clarification should important issues arise.

This qualitative approach helped to provide actual words and detailed views of teachers and students in the study, and offered a number of different perspectives on the topic being investigated (Creswell, 2012).

The sample

Purposive sampling was used for this phase and teachers and students from among those who completed questionnaires were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Teachers with varying teaching experience were chosen to participate in the interview, and similarly students in different year levels were also invited to participate in in-depth interviews. The researcher sent invitation letters to a selected number of individuals who had completed the questionnaire, asking them to participate in semi-structured interviews. The basis of selection was the teachers’ experience in teaching, the students’ seniority, and their majors. The reason for that selection was to obtain the diversity in the students’ and teachers’ perceptions. The eighteen teachers and eighteen students who agreed completed a consent form and attended the interview. Recordings of the interviews were only made once the permission from the interviewees was obtained.

Table 4.3 presents demographic information of interview participants. It shows there was an equal number of teacher participants from two majors, TESOL and Social Sciences and Humanities (Mass Media and Journalism, Vietnamese Studies, International Relations, Korean Studies, Psychology and General Religions). Table 4.3 also shows that the majority of teacher interviewees had rich experience in teaching (seven teachers with more than ten years of teaching; eight teachers with at least seven years of teaching). These teachers were expected to provide a detailed description of teaching and learning practices in Vietnamese universities in addition to their desired teaching practice, based on their experience teaching in VHEIs, and their experience working through many transformations in teaching and learning in the VHE context. Student interviewees were mainly senior students (ten students were in either third or fourth year). They were also expected to reflect on their experience, and to speak about the teaching approaches they perceived as helpful for their

100 learning. The study also recruited less experienced teachers and junior students for the interviews to obtain more diversified perceptions of TLP in the VHE landscape.

Table 4.1: Participants in Phase 3

Participant (N=36) Teachers Students TESOL 9 9 Social Sciences and Humanities (Mass Media Major and Journalism, Vietnamese Studies, 9 9 International Relations, Korean Studies, Psychology and General Religions) 1–3 years 1 Years of teaching 4–6 years 2 experience 7–10 years 8 More than 10 years 7 First year 2 Second year 6 Year levels Third year 5 Fourth year 5

The instrument

As the primary aim of the interviews was to obtain a deep insight into students’ and teachers’ perceptions of TLP, the interview questions focused on the practices of teaching and learning that they thought to be helpful for student learning in general and key components of TLP in the conceptual framework, in particular. The interview protocols are provided in Appendix D. The questions were open, so that participants had freedom to describe and articulate their thoughts. The researcher provided some prompts when necessary to facilitate the participant’s further ideas and thoughts on the investigated topic. Each targeted interview lasted approximately 30 to 40 minutes and the interviews were audio recorded (with the permission of the participants). Interviews were conducted individually.

The use of language is a significant issue when interviewing (Welch & Piekkari, 2006). It is recognised that a shared language between the interviewer and the interviewees is essential, sharpening clarity in interviewing (Patton, 2002; Verhoeven, 2000). The challenge “when participants and researchers do not speak the same language is not only in terms of logistics and procedures to generate data, but also in

101 determining the influence that the procedures have on the validity of the data, and ultimately, on the conclusions drawn from the research” (Williamson et al., 2011, p.382). In this study, all the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese. Before each interview, the interviewee was told that he or she could choose whether the interview was conducted in Vietnamese or English. All interviewees chose Vietnamese. By speaking their own language, the interviewees reported that it was easier and more comfortable to articulate their ideas. This aligns with the literature indicating that language issues can profoundly affect the quality of an interview (Remedious, 2005).

The data analysis

The interviews were transcribed into Vietnamese and all interviews were analysed systematically and comprehensively by using pattern matching, and analytic generalisation techniques (Yin, 2014). Since the interview questions were framed by thirteen components of TLP in the conceptual framework, the researcher examined all the data and determined how they corresponded to the thirteen themes and uncovered other potential sub-themes.

A content analysis approach was utilised (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Meaning units were identified throughout the transcript. A meaning unit expressed a single coherent thought and often was completed at the end of a sentence (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The meaning units were numbered to provide a method of identification and for the organisation of the units (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Specific themes which emerged from the interviews were generated from the meaning units. The theme statements consisted of one word or a short phrase epitomising the shared ideas from the meaning units. The themes were reviewed in the context of the master transcript to ensure that the meaning of participants’ statements was adequately conveyed. Each identified theme was recounted and later integrated with the findings from the quantitative data analysis. During the data analysis, the verbatim transcript of each participant interview was coded with numbers and was used only for the study purpose. These transcriptions would be destroyed five years after the submission of the final report. The researcher used pseudonyms for the participants when quoting their actual words in the thesis. Participants were free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation or prejudice and to withdraw any unprocessed data

102 previously supplied. For student participants, participation or non-participation in the research had no effect on grade or assessment in the course.

4.4 Summary

This chapter has outlined the methodological considerations that shaped the research. It presented the detailed description of the three phases involved in the study and argued that it was important for this research to combine both quantitative and qualitative methods. The first phase involving the expert feedback was important because it provided a robust grounding for the conceptual framework and further development of the questionnaire. The second phase involved an exploration of students’ and teachers’ perceptions via a questionnaire that was developed from the conceptual framework. The final phase of the research comprised in-depth interviews for a more detailed description of teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices. The follow chapters provide more details and the findings of each of the phases of this research.

103

CHAPTER 5: THE EXPERTS’ FEEDBACK

5.1 Introduction

As discussed in the previous chapter, the first stage of the study involved an online survey that sought experts’ feedback regarding the dimensions, components and items of teaching and learning practices (TLP) that were discussed in Chapter 3. This chapter presents further development and refinement of teaching and learning components and items after consultation with the experts. Experts’ feedback was important because it helped validate the teaching components that were primarily derived from research in predominantly western higher education contexts. They were able to provide insights into which teaching and learning practices would be valuable in the VHE context, mindful of its social, educational and cultural characteristics. The rationale for this stage of the study, demographic information of the selected experts, the instrument and how the experts’ feedback was collected and analysed has been provided and discussed in the preceding chapter.

This chapter presents the findings from the experts’ feedback including their general agreement on the Likert-type items in the initial online survey as well as their recommendations in the open-ended questions. The survey to which these experts responded appears in Appendix B. Findings from expert feedback suggested refinement at the item level, since all the four dimensions and thirteen components were retained without any modifications. Overall, nineteen items were suggested for removal, thirty-two items for modification, fifteen items added and nineteen items remained in their original forms. In the final section of this chapter, a refined version of the conceptual framework is presented.

5.2 The four dimensions of teaching and learning practices

This section reports on the experts’ feedback on the four dimensions of TLP. As discussed in the methodology, the components and items were retained if they obtained at least 75 percent of participants rating them at three or higher on a four-

104 point Likert-type scale, or if the mean score was at 3.0 or higher. To maintain anonymity, the international experts are coded as IE1–IE15, and the Vietnamese experts as VE1–VE19.

Table 5.1: Dimensions of teaching and learning practices

Not Slightly Dimension important at Important Very important important all 1 Planning Learning 20.59% 79.41% 2 Teaching Strategies 20.59% 79.41% 3 Assessment and Feedback 14.71% 85.29% 4 Learning Environment 32.35% 67.65%

Table 5.1 presents statistics for the four dimensions. It shows that over 75 percent of the expert participants rated the four dimensions as either important or very important. All the experts found that these four dimensions were essential, and some of the experts stated that these dimensions reflected TLP adequately (IE2, IE6, IE9, IE13, IE14 and IE15). This result could be expected because these dimensions are very broad. As an international expert commented:

“These four dimensions are general, thus, sufficiently covering aspects of teaching. It is hard to deny the importance of each dimension even though there have been many changes in teaching and learning due to the technological advances” (IE 9)

A Vietnamese expert also stated that:

“Obviously, these four dimensions are essential. They include all the teaching activities of teachers. For the Vietnamese context, the dimension of learning environment is very important given that the Vietnamese student cohort is becoming more socially and culturally diverse” (VE 4)

It goes without saying that the original names of the four dimensions were preserved. At the item level, of the 73 items scrutinised, nineteen items were retained without any modifications and thirty-five items were retained with some revisions in wording and expression. Nineteen items were omitted because they were either irrelevant to

105 higher education setting or unviable to implement in the VHE context. Based on the experts’ feedback, fifteen items were introduced. The following sections present more details regarding the experts’ feedback on each item and on each component of the framework.

5.3. Dimension 1: Planning Learning

In the initial online survey for expert feedback, there were four components and twenty items under Dimension 1, which together describe designing and planning learning activities of university teachers including setting learning goals for students (Component 1), designing assessment tasks (Component 2), planning for engaging classes (Component 3) and preparing learning materials for the course (Component 4).

Table 5.2 below shows the experts’ feedback on each item of Dimension 1. The table also shows which items were suggested for omission, modification or addition. Overall, seven items were omitted, ten items were retained with some modifications in wording and expression, five items were introduced, and three items were retained in their original forms.

With respect to items’ omission, there was general agreement among experts on removing seven items – 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 16, 20, five of which (Items 5, 12, 13, 16, 20) were removed because less than 75 percent of experts rated these items important; thus, they did not satisfy the statistical standard for retaining the items. In addition, the experts provided comments why these items should be omitted. More specifically, the experts advised dropping Item 5 out of Component 1, which is about reminding students frequently about learning objectives during the course. Some of the experts stated that to teach well does not mean to repeat the learning outcomes in order that students can remember them. One international expert said that:

“It is good to keep students focused on the intended learning objectives. However, to make them happen, reminding students about them will not help. It is the teacher’s skills and competence that help students fulfil the learning objective” (IE 5).

106

Several experts also commented that some of the students might excel beyond the intended learning objectives, so frequently reminding them about what they should be able to achieve might hinder their learning growth (IE1, IE5, IE10, VE2, VE9, VE10 and VE13). For these reasons, Item 5 was removed.

As for Item 12, many experts stated that it was hard to design lessons that linked to previous lessons because it depended on the connectivity of the two lessons (e.g., IE4, IE7, IE11, IE12, IE14, IE3, VE5, VE6, VE7, VE9 and VE13). The experts also thought that it could be good to leave some freedom for the teaching staff to teach beyond the previously-stated outline of the course so that he/she could tailor the course so as to closely meet his/her students' needs and interests. Some of other experts commented that teachers should have much flexibility in teaching, so trying to link with previous lessons would sometimes not be good (IE5, IE9, IE11, VE12, VE13, VE15, VE16 and V19). A Vietnamese teacher said that:

“Building the lessons on learners’ experience is obviously fundamental, but teaching excellence requires innovation, surprise and spontaneity. Therefore, both students and teachers should have more flexibility in conducting teaching and learning activities that they thought were beneficial to students learning passionately” (VE 16).

Regarding Item 13, the majority of the experts stated that it was not viable to design lessons at an appropriate level of difficulty for students given that most of university courses are of mixed ability. As for Items 16 and 20, the majority of the experts did not think that supplementing students with additional materials when necessary (Item 16) and planning and preparing available technologies (e.g., interactive whiteboards, response systems, computer software) (Item 20) were what effective teachers would do. Statistics were also consistent with their open comments (see Table 5.2). The experts indicated that effective teachers motivated their students to develop and apply their critical thinking skills, analysis and synthesis skills, thus, encouraging them to summarise the lessons and to search for additional resources themselves. By doing so, students would be more active and independent in their learning. That is why the majority of experts recommended removing Item 16. The experts also said that technologies were necessary in teaching but teaching must not heavily rely on this. One of them commented that: 107

“Today, educational technologies have made teaching easier. But it does not mean that technology can decide the quality of teaching and learning. A traditional learning environment with board and chalk could make a fabulous lesson with the enthusiasm and passion of teachers. For me, teachers should take advantages of technology, but should not depend on it. Hence, I suggest excluding item 20” (VE13)

There were two items (3 and 6) that satisfied the statistical standard to be retained, however, in the open comments, the experts recommended deleting them. The majority of the experts suggested that it would not be feasible to set learning objectives for each lesson of the course (Item 3) because teaching and learning at university needs to be flexible. Also, Item 6 was omitted because the experts said that this item and Item 7 shared similar content, thus, Item 6 should combine with Item 7.

108

Table 5.1: Experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 1

Not at all Slightly Very Item Component 1 Important Omission Modification Addition important important important Explaining clearly what students are expected to learn and be 0.00% 8.80% 26.50% 64.70% 1 able to do Setting learning goals that are relevant to students’ previous 2 0.00% 11.80% 29.40% 58.80% knowledge and experience Stating clearly the learning objectives for each lesson of the 3 0.00% 23.50% 23.50% 52.90% course 4 Defining clearly student responsibilities during the course 0.00% 11.80% 26.50% 61.80% Reminding students frequently about learning objectives 5 8.80% 18.60% 37.20% 35.30% during the course Setting the learning goals that are specific and challenging to New students Item Component 2 6 Clearly specifying the course assignments 0.00% 0.00% 14.70% 85.30% 7 Giving explicit directions for assignments 0.00% 8.80% 29.40% 61.80% Clearly explaining the assessment criteria at the beginning of 8 2.90% 5.90% 17.60% 73.50% the course 9 Planning assessments to measure student learning 2.90% 17.60% 29.40% 50.00% Designing assignments that are consistent with the lesson 10 2.90% 2.90% 14.70% 79.40% objectives

Table 5.2 (continued): Experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 1

Not at all Slightly Very Item Component 3 Important Omission Modification Addition important important important

109

Designing and planning lessons that follow the stated course 11 2.90% 5.90% 41.20% 50.00% outline 12 Designing and planning lessons that link with previous lessons 0.00% 27.90% 50.00% 22.10% Designing and planning lessons at an appropriate level of 13 0.00% 35.90% 47.10% 17.00% difficulty of students Designing and planning lessons related to student learning 14 0.00% 2.90% 47.10% 50.00% experiences 15 Designing and planning lessons in a logical sequence 0.00% 14.70% 29.40% 55.90% New Including group work assignments or small projects New Planning self-directed learning activities Item Component 4 Supplementing student with additional materials when 16 0.00% 29.50% 47.10% 23.50% necessary 17 Relating materials to students’ previous learning experiences 0.00% 8.80% 47.10% 44.10% Designing and planning materials that facilitate student 18 0.00% 0.00% 17.60% 82.40% learning Designing web-based materials that are meaningful and 19 2.90% 11.80% 41.20% 44.10% helpful to student learning Planning and preparing available technologies (e.g., 20 interactive whiteboards, response systems, computer soft 8.80% 20.60% 35.30% 35.30% wares) New Providing materials to support the learning goals Opening opportunities for students to contribute to learning New materials

110

Regarding the modification of items, ten items (Items 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19) were suggested for either rewording or clarification. For example, eleven experts thought that setting the learning goals relevant to students’ previous knowledge and experience was not important for the higher education context (IE1, IE2, IE4, IE6, IE7, IE14, VE4, VE7, VE8, VE10 and VE15). They commented that students come from different backgrounds, so it is not viable to connect the learning goals with their prior acquired skills and experience (Item 2). Hence, the word ‘previous’ in Item 2 was omitted. Likewise, the phrase “at the beginning of the course” was removed because many experts said that it would be helpful if the success criteria of each assessment were provided before the assessment was given to students. Therefore, the phrase “at the beginning of the course” was deleted and Item 8 was refined as “Clearly explaining the success criteria for each assessment task”.

Item 9 was also rephrased because the majority of experts thought that not every lesson or class is a discrete unit of learning that requires assessment expectations and measurable activities, hence, assessment tasks should foster student learning rather than measure student learning. They stated that there was no need for assessment tasks in every single lesson and this would not be feasible in the higher education context. As a result, Item 9 was modified into Planning assessment tasks that gradually foster student learning. The experts thought that students tend to engage more in classes if the learning activities are meaningful to them. As a result, the experts suggested modifying Item 11 into “designing activities to achieve the learning goals”.

Item 14 and Item 15 of Component 3 were also revised. Similarly, Items 17, 18 and 19 were rephrased because most of the experts supported developing the items in light of a student-centred approach. From their perspective, student learning and the learning outcomes should be the focus of teaching and learning activities. They stated that the materials are not necessarily related to the students’ previous learning experience. They also commented that teachers should not try to do too much for the students; they should back off, and not program students as heavily as they do. They indicated that students should have to seek additional materials themselves if they find it necessary. One international expert commented that

111

“Students have to learn how to search for additional materials. Out in the big world of work after graduation, there is hardly anybody but themselves to go hunting for relevant material for their work” (IE5)

Another expert agreed and said that this was a key part of learning what is relevant and what is not relevant (IE13). Many experts stated that students are the owners of their learning process, and teachers are just there to facilitate, support and encourage them to engage as much as they can in the process. Therefore, Items 17 and 19 were both rewritten.

In addition to item omission and modification, item addition also occurred in Dimension 1. Firstly, a quarter of the experts commented that learning goals need to be specific to be visible to students and need to be challenging to motivate students to maximise their capability and stretch their efforts beyond their potential (IE5, IE12, IE13, VE6, VE9, VE10, VE13 and VE15). As a result, the item Setting the learning goals that are specific and challenging to students was suggested by the experts as an addition to Component 1. Furthermore, more than half of the invited experts said that working in groups and empowering students in learning are crucial in increasing their engagement. Therefore, they suggested including more group work as well as planning more self-directed learning activities for students (Items 9 and 10). To emphasise student autonomy in learning, these experts also suggested involving students in contributing to the development of learning materials, so students would be immersed in searching, reading critically, and decision-making skills (Item 15). The experts also stated that teachers need to provide learning materials to help students obtain the learning goals (Item 14).

In summary, through their feedback on the items, the experts clearly suggested that student learning be at the heart of all class activities where students take responsibility for their own learning. Therefore, the experts tended to perceive that effective teaching addressed the questions of the how and why of learning rather than the question of what to learn. Through their feedback, it seemed that from their perspective, good teachers can develop their students into independent learners so that they can become critical thinkers, independent learners, active and capable workers, and life-long learners in the future. It also appeared that they advocated for the alignment of learning goals with learning materials, assessment tasks and teaching 112 activities because they suggested either modifying or adding into the framework items associated with such alignment.

5.4. Dimension 2: Teaching Strategies

This dimension is one of the most critical aspects of teaching because it is immediately visible to both students and teachers. Dimension 2 consists of four components describing how teachers motivate student learning (Component 5), how teachers present new ideas and concepts in the lessons (Component 6), how teachers pose questions and involve students in questioning (Component 7), and how teachers engage students in the learning process (Component 8). Table 5.3 presents findings gathered from the experts’ feedback in regard to the omission, modification and addition of items. In total, three items were removed (two items from Component 5, and one item from Component 8), eleven items required revision, and three items were added. The following paragraphs outline modifications of each component recommended by the expert participants.

113

Table 5.2: Experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 2

Not Slightly Very Item Component 5 important Important Omission Modification Addition important important at all Using a wide range of teaching methods that promote students’ 21 engagement (e.g., using examples, contrasting points of view, 0.00% 2.90% 20.60% 76.50% relating to authentic situations, group discussions) Helping students develop high order thinking skills such as critical 22 0.00% 2.90% 14.70% 82.40% thinking, problem-solving skills and metacognitive skills Integrating a wide range of technologies to make the lessons 23 5.90% 32.40% 29.40% 32.40% meaningful

24 Increasing student autonomy 0.00% 11.80% 26.50% 61.80%

Providing students with different opportunities to reflect on their 25 0.00% 5.90% 29.40% 64.70% progress Using life situations in class/group discussions that students feel New meaningful

New Encouraging peer/group interaction and reflection on learning goals

114

Not Slightly Very Item Component 6 important Important Omission Modification Addition important important at all

26 Giving clear explanations including authentic examples 0.00% 2.90% 35.30% 61.80%

27 Stressing important points in lectures/discussions 2.90% 5.90% 35.30% 55.90%

28 Speaking with emotion and enthusiasm in presenting ideas/concepts 2.90% 2.90% 32.40% 61.80%

29 Comparing and contrasting ideas in the lessons 2.90% 11.80% 41.20% 44.10%

Inspiring students and showing them the way to discover the 30 2.90% 8.80% 38.20% 50.00% knowledge Not Slightly Very Item Component 7 important Important Omission Modification Addition important important at all

31 Posing questions that provoke student thinking 0.00% 2.90% 26.50% 70.60%

Posing questions that bring student focus back to the learning 32 2.90% 11.80% 35.30% 50.00% objectives

33 Posing questions to find out what students know or understand 0.00% 5.90% 38.20% 55.90%

Giving students sufficient time to think or talk with a peer before 34 0.00% 14.70% 29.40% 55.90% inviting for responses

35 Helping student answer his/her own question by providing cues 0.00% 23.50% 44.10% 32.40%

115

Not Slightly Very Item Component 8 important Important Omission Modification Addition important important at all Building new content using question-and-answer dialogue with the 36 5.90% 17.60% 44.10% 32.40% class

37 Encouraging students to ask their own questions 0.00% 5.90% 38.20% 55.90%

38 Asking students to set additional learning goals of their own 5.90% 12.40% 43.50% 38.20%

Varying the types of assignments and activities to increase student 39 0.00% 14.70% 35.30% 50.00% engagement

40 Activating students’ prior knowledge and interests in lessons 0.00% 5.90% 29.40% 64.70%

New Varying activities in which students can work with peers or groups

116

For Component 5, two items were deleted and two items were added. Item 23 was omitted because it did not obtain more than 75 percent of participants rating it as important or very important. The majority of experts indicated that technology itself could not make the lessons either motivating or promoting. One of them stated that:

“A pen and paper (low technology) and passion and enthusiasm of teachers might be enough. Technology is a plus point but it is not a decisive factor to make student learning possible” (IE5)

Over two thirds of the experts emphasised that it was teachers’ passion that inspired students to learn and it was the pedagogical competence of teachers that enhanced student learning rather than technologies such as interactive whiteboards, response systems or computer software. Instead of relying on technologies to motivate students in learning, the experts suggested involving individual, pair/group activities. As a result of this feedback, an item featuring peer/group interaction or class/group discussions was introduced in replacement for the removed Item 23.

Item 24 was rated very important, but the experts noticed that it repeated Item 9 and Item 10 which also discussed students’ autonomy and self-directed learning activities. Therefore, Item 24 was deleted. Furthermore, the majority of the experts also commented that reflective activities for students including looking back at the learning goals to evaluate how far they have achieved the intended learning goals, are also helpful to enhance the students’ motivation in learning. Consequently, they suggested adding one item which emphasised peer/group reflection on learning goals. Item 21 was modified because many experts said that it was so general and needed more specification. Many of the experts suggested providing more opportunities for students to make connections between information and arguments. Hence, Item 21 was modified to that end.

Component 6 explored items that pertained to teachers’ presentation techniques. A high percentage of the experts rated all the items either important or very important; thus, no item was removed. The experts highlighted the student-focused approach in this component because many of them indicated that teachers are not instructors, they are facilitators and supporters. These experts also thought that students should be the

117 main agent in their learning. They said that teachers should let students have time to read/explore and reflect. They also confirmed their view of the previous component that it is vital to teach students how to self-learn rather than to present to them every single material available on a topic. One Vietnamese teaching staff commented that:

“Teacher's presenting material is not as important as inspiring students and showing students the way to discover the knowledge. Teachers should provide many opportunities for students to talk, to present, to discuss, so they can learn from these activities rather than listening to the lectures and taking notes” (VE5)

Some of other Vietnamese experts also indicated that teachers’ talking is less important than helping students get involved. As a result, Items 26, 27 and 29 in this component were rephrased to explicitly express this perspective of the experts.

No item in Component 7 was excluded and no item was introduced. Two thirds of the experts emphasised the purpose of questioning was to gear students to their desired learning outcomes. The experts agreed that teachers needed to pose questions that provoke students’ critical and creative thinking. They also recommended increasing more group interaction since they argued that students who are reluctant to talk feel more at ease in small group discussions. One expert stated that:

“For sure, group discussion is preferable to questions and answers. Students tend to feel more comfortable when they discuss with their friends” (IE7)

The experts stressed the importance of students learning through their engagement and communication either in small groups or in the whole class. The majority of the experts advised encouraging students to express their own viewpoints by either questions by the teacher or questions by the students themselves. It seemed to the experts that questions were used to involve students in class engagement and interaction. They indicated that effective questions provoked students’ curiosity and thinking so that they saw the need to learn. The experts appeared to think that good teaching would generate more opportunities for students to pose questions themselves and to contribute ideas to the lessons. Thus, all the five items in this component were refined according to the experts’ comments.

118

Component 8 described how to engage students in the learning process. Most of the experts suggested removing Item 36 because they commented that they did not think the idea of building new content using question-and-answer dialogue with the class could entail effective teaching (IE2, IE3, IE5, IE6, IE7, IE10, IE13, VE3, VE4, VE8, VE10, VE12, VE13 and VE15). The statistics were consistent with this suggestion of the experts (See Table 5.3 above). Many experts argued that Item 36 implies that content is not pre-planned, whereas teachers are required to design and plan learning before each class. The experts also thought that question-and-answer dialogue could scare students, especially the weaker ones in the class, thus, not involving everyone in learning. Many experts advocated encouraging students to ask their own questions to engage them in learning because they thought that such questioning is more important as it shows both students’ interest in the lesson and their ability to think critically. In addition, for those who excelled in the class, the majority of experts advised teachers to encourage these students to set additional learning goals of their own, which would challenge them. A few experts also considered that teachers should increase group/peer work, which possibly engages student learning the most (IE5, IE9 and VE12). They said that using small groups in activities such as team projects would generate novel solutions for class interaction. Consequently, Items 39 and 40 were revised to reflect this perspective, and one item was added describing peer/group varying activities.

To summarise, feedback from the expert participants indicated that they seemed to favour a student-centred approach to lecturing, questioning, motivating and engaging students in learning. The majority of them appeared to support employing higher order thinking skills, more peer/group interaction and activities and providing students many opportunities in which they could exercise an active role in learning. Consequently, eleven items were revised and three items were introduced to illustrate the experts’ perspectives on teaching strategies.

5.5. Dimension 3: Assessment and Feedback

This dimension comprises two components which are Employing assessment to foster student learning (Component 10) and Providing feedback to promote student learning (Component 11), and there are 15 items within this dimension. Table 5.4 below shows

119 that four items (Items 44, 45, 53 and 54) were requested for deletion, five items were suggested for modification, and two items were introduced. The following paragraphs present the changes in items in each component within Dimension 3.

Regarding Component 9, Item 44 was omitted and the percentages of experts’ rating supported this decision. In addition, many experts provided reasons for items’ omission in the open comments. They thought that students could actively engage in the operation of assessment such as self-assessment, peer assessment, goal setting and self-reflection, but students were not capable enough to design assessment tools including rubrics, scales, checklists and tests. In addition, assessment tools were confidential in almost all higher education institutions, hence, students were not allowed to know the assessments before their examinations.

Item 45 was also suggested for removal by the experts’ comments even though the percentage of this item did not indicate the need for omission. The majority of the experts advised that promoting student involvement in the assessment process through goal setting and self-reflection (Item 45) was unlikely to be feasible in Vietnamese universities since the students there appear not to have high independence. As one of Vietnamese expert put it:

“Students in Vietnam tend to be passive and dependent on their teachers. I do not think they can self-reflect and set additional goals if they are not asked to do so by their teachers. This kind of activity is suitable for those who are inclined to flexibility, autonomy and self-direction. We can wish this kind of activity for far future, not now….” (VE 10)

Other items in this component were indicated to be good and comprehensive. An international expert commented that:

“This was a terrific list that engages active learning. The items are all about assessment for learning, which is currently a prevalent practice in developed educations. Vietnam should follow this kind of practice” (IE13)

The main concern among the majority of the experts was whether assessment for learning is feasible in the Vietnamese higher education context, where there might be

120

50 students on average in each class. This issue has been controversially debated in the research literature and the experts asserted that teachers should be flexible to adjust their assessment practice to their specific contextual constraints. However, they recommended implementing the approach of using assessment for student learning and student progress. Consequently, Item 42 and Item 47 were suggested for revision in respect of these concerns.

121

Table 5.3: Experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 3

Not Very Slightly Item Component 9 important Important importa Omission Modification Addition important at all nt Making use of different diagnostic assessments to check students’ 41 0.00% 9.40% 43.80% 46.90% prior knowledge and skill levels Using different formative assessments to help students find their 42 0.00% 6.30% 46.90% 46.90% strengths and weaknesses Encouraging students to self-assess or peer assess the quality of their 43 0.00% 18.80% 34.40% 46.90% work against the assessment criteria Involving students in designing assessment tools (e.g., rubrics, 44 9.40% 40.60% 12.50% 37.50% scales, checklists, and tests) Promoting student involvement in the assessment process through 45 0.00% 18.80% 40.60% 40.60% goal setting and self-reflection Using summative and formative assessment as a source of learning 46 0.00% 0.00% 40.60% 59.40% for students

47 Using authentic and complex assessment tasks 0.00% 6.30% 50.00% 43.80%

Using informal feedback such as self or peer review of drafts, 48 0.00% 15.60% 50.00% 34.40% collaborative project work

49 Offering extensive opportunities of practice and rehearsal 0.00% 18.80% 40.60% 40.60%

122

Helping students evaluate their own progress to become lifelong 50 0.00% 15.60% 37.50% 46.90% learners

Table 5.4 (continued): Experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 3 Not Slightly Very Item Component 10 important Important Omission Modification Addition important important at all Providing descriptive, continuous and timely feedback for individual 51 0.00% 12.50% 28.10% 59.40% students on how to improve their learning Providing opportunities for students to make use of this feedback to 52 0.00% 6.30% 31.30% 62.50% refine and revise their future work Providing instrinsic supply of feedback by using active, collaborative 53 0.00% 31.90% 25.00% 43.10% and dialogic approaches to teaching, learning and assessment

54 Using a fair and clear grading system (repeats Item 7) 0.00% 3.10% 9.40% 87.50%

55 Distributing a handout with a sample of a good answer 6.30% 11.90% 41.30% 40.60%

New Offering teacher feedback in alternative formats

New Giving feedback to groups

123

Component 10 received many valuable comments from the experts. Many of them stated that how students could advance in their learning mainly correlated with how teachers delivered their feedback. They indicated that feedback could enhance student learning if the teachers provided descriptive and timely feedback, making it a source of learning for students. A Vietnamese teacher stated that:

“I highly recommend that teachers frequently provide descriptive and timely feedback. I have used this practice and it is really helpful for my student growth in learning. Students feel motivated when they know what they should do next to advance…” (VE7)

As a result, Items 51, 52 were suggested for modification to present those perspectives of the experts. As for Item 55, there was a general agreement among many experts that providing students with samples of good answers is helpful. Over a half of experts also suggested providing students with samples of poor answers, too. The experts stated that by doing so, students would be exposed to examples of both success and failure, so they would obtain a more thorough understanding of their assessment.

Regarding items’ removal, the experts all agreed to exclude Item 53 from Component 10 because of its low rating of importance. Besides, the experts advised that this item might not be feasible in large classes that occur prevalently in VHE. Item 54 was also deleted because it repeated Item 7 in Component 2. As for the addition of items, the experts advised giving feedback in groups so that students can learn from each other and thus the burden on teachers would be reduced. Furthermore, more than half of the experts suggested providing feedback for students in different alternative media such as online, written or spoken. As a result, two items were introduced to this component.

In brief, the experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 3 illustrated their support for an assessment for learning approach. They also advocated multiple approaches of providing feedback to promote student learning. Item omission, modification, and addition in Dimension 3 were made according to these approaches.

124

5.6. Dimension 4: Learning Environment

This dimension looked at a more conventional learning environment where a positive climate in class is generated (Component 11), where a culture for learning is established (Component 12), and where interaction and rapport between instructor and students and among students are promoted (Component 13). Generally, most of the expert participants indicated that looking at a conventional learning environment is significant for the Vietnamese context because conventional classes rather than virtual or blended learning still hold dominance in Vietnamese universities. Table 5.5 presents modifications of items in Dimension 4. It shows that the number of items being omitted and added was equal (five in each category) and six items were directed for modification.

For the items in Component 11, a quarter of the invited experts claimed that it was the teachers’ passion that created a good atmosphere in the class because students feel positive when their teachers teach with their heart and are present in class with passion and enthusiasm (IE5, IE7, IE8, IE10, VE4, VE9, VE13 and VE17). Hence, Item 56 was revised into Show energy and passion in teaching with positive eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures. The experts also thought that the class becomes positive when everybody is friendly to each other and students feel comfortable. Therefore, Item 60 was revised into Create a class in which students feel welcoming and socially comfortable. To have such a cosy and friendly climate for the classes, many experts advised that teachers increase communication among students in the class by varying approaches. Item 59 was revised in that light. Some experts commented that students have positive feelings if they are encouraged and welcomed to ask questions and have contributions to the lessons (IE3, IE7, IE9, VE15, VE16), thus, Item 57 was reworded.

The only item that the experts refuted was Item 58 which was about Being willing to repeat explanations until most students understand. This item was suggested for deletion by both the experts’ rating and their comments. Most of the experts said that passion and enthusiasm of teachers could bring about a warm and good feeling in the class, but passion and enthusiasm do not mean repetition in explaining, which is, in

125 their opinion, too teacher-centred, and does not provoke students’ reflection to reach comprehension. One international expert stated that:

“Teachers teaching from heart can inspire students and make students feel warm and cared [about]. Nevertheless, I do not think repeating and explaining until students understand is what teachers demonstrate their enthusiasm in teaching. That kind of practice is teacher-centred while effective teaching aims at focusing on students and their learning improvement” (IE8)

Besides, one item was added in the component and it was about Changing the setting of the class when necessary. The majority of the experts commented that changing seats and the layout of the class was helpful in motivating and increasing the interest for students.

For Component 12, the majority of the experts agreed to keep four items and exclude one item in this component. Many experts commented that showing trust in student ability is a good culture for learning where teachers believe in their student capability, and that belief could possibly inspire students to keep making an effort and overcome their difficulties. The experts also commented that creating a climate of acceptance among students of different academic and social backgrounds requires a lot of effort, but it is worth being taken seriously. This is becoming important, given that the number of higher education enrolments has been on the rise in the past decades and disadvantaged students are now more welcomed than ever. Many experts said that effective teachers need to be aware of inclusivity in the class so that every single student feels academically and socially welcomed. From these ideas from the experts, Items 61, 62, 63 were retained, and Item 64 was reworded.

The last item (Item 65) was removed by the experts because they thought that using incentives was no longer suitable for students in higher education, and this only works for young learners who are likely to be motivated by materialistic rewards. Instead, the experts advised building a culture for learning where each student feels part of the shared community, and where every single student feels determined to achieve their intended learning goals. Consequently, Item 65 was excluded and one item was introduced to Component 12.

126

Component 13 plays an important role in creating and maintaining a positive learning environment, and in enhancing a culture for learning. This component is closely linked with the two previous components given – positive class and an established culture for learning in class – and might well be able to boost communication as well as upgrade the relationship among members of the class. Over a half of the experts suggested removing three items (Items 67, 68, 70) which they thought ideologically important but not feasible in higher education given the workload and time issue. As one of the Vietnamese teachers said:

“I enjoy having informal outings with my students such as lunches or parties. I am also willing to spend extra time for tutorials on difficult topics if I am paid to do so. I also wish I could meet individually with my students to discuss their learning. Unfortunately, I am afraid I could not do that because I am already overloaded, and I need to do extra work for my living…That’s why I think these activities are practically impossible to implement unless you work in a very rich supportive university” (VE 11)

Furthermore, many experts suggested adding one item in this component, Arranging excursions, picnics, or fieldtrips that enhance interaction and understanding among people in the class. They also indicated that should teachers create more opportunities for students to work with each other in group-projects and in solving learning problems together, their mutual understanding would be strengthened. It appeared that many experts supported a more practical approach in boosting the bonds between teachers and students and the bonds among students. They seemed to think that more group activities could tighten these bonds and group activities are usually welcomed and highly viable in the higher education context.

In summary, the feedback from the experts indicated that the experts appeared to perceive teachers’ passion and enthusiasm as important factors. They said that teaching from the heart can touch the heart of students. In addition, trust, inclusion, and commitment seemed to be what the experts suggested to establish a culture for learning. The experts also advised providing opportunities for students to interact and work together both inside and outside the classroom. Therefore, the changes in items in this dimension were made according to these perspectives of experts.

127

Table 5.4: Experts’ feedback on items in Dimension 4 Not Slightly Very Item Component 11 important Important Omission Modification Addition important important at all

56 Presenting positive behaviours in class 3.20% 6.50% 29.00% 61.30%

57 Praising student questions and comments in the lessons 6.50% 6.50% 41.90% 45.20%

58 Being willing to repeat explanations until most students understand 0.00% 28.10% 41.60% 30.30%

59 Being willing to help students overcome their problems in learning 0.00% 9.70% 35.50% 54.80%

60 Using students’ names in class 3.20% 6.50% 48.40% 41.90%

New Changing the setting of the class when necessary

Not Slightly Very Item Component 12 important Important Omission Modification Addition important important at all Communicating academic and behavioural expectations to students in a clear, 61 0.00% 12.90% 32.30% 54.80% concise, and reasonable manner

62 Encouraging students to share their ideas and concerns in a climate of acceptance 0.00% 0.00% 41.90% 58.10%

63 Involving students in the classroom decision-making process 3.20% 21.60% 33.30% 41.90%

128

Showing confidence in student ability to understand, to study and to overcome their 64 3.20% 3.20% 38.70% 54.80% difficulties

65 Using incentives wisely to encourage student cooperation 9.70% 24.40% 35.50% 30.50%

New Encouraging students to feel part of a community committed to learning

Not Slightly Very Item Component 13 important Important Omission Modification Addition important important at all

66 Having students get acquainted with each other 0.00% 9.70% 41.90% 48.40%

Arranging time either before or after classes to informally talk with either 67 3.20% 35.50% 41.90% 19.40% individual students or a group of students

68 Dedicating extra time for tutorials on difficult topics 3.20% 35.50% 35.50% 25.80%

69 Encouraging students to come to talk to him/her if they need to 3.20% 9.70% 41.90% 45.20%

70 Arranging informal café/lunches/parties with students 32.30% 32.30% 25.80% 9.70%

Arranging excursions, picnics, or field trips that enhance interaction and New understanding among people in the class

New Increasing group projects among students

New Having students work with each other to answer questions and solve problems

129

5.7 Summary

This chapter reported on the experts’ feedback from which a refined version of conceptual framework has been established for the research program. The four dimensions and 13 components were retained. Nineteen items were removed because less than 75 percent of the experts rated them either important or very important. Some of the items were dropped not because of low ratings, but because there was general agreement among experts to remove them, based on their open comments. The experts suggested that 32 items be revised. They also suggested adding 15 items into the framework, making the final number of items in the refined framework 66. The invited experts helped screen out the items that were not feasible, irrelevant and impractical for the VHE context, which was culturally and contextually established. Therefore, a refined framework of TLP, which is more focused, feasible and relevant to VHE was obtained. It consisted of four dimensions, 13 teaching components and 66 items. This refined framework was later utilised to collect the Vietnamese students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices. The refined version of the conceptual framework is presented below:

DIMENSION 1: PLANNING LEARNING

Component 1: To set transparent learning goals

1. Clearly explained what students are expected to learn and be able to do 2. Set the learning goals that are specific and challenging to students 3. Set learning goals that are relevant to students’ existing knowledge and experience 4. Clearly stated that students are expected to take responsibility for their own learning

Component 2: To design and plan assessment tasks

5. Clearly specified the assessment tasks 6. Gave explicit directions for assessment tasks including instructions, marking rubrics and standards 7. Clearly explained the success criteria for each assessment task 8. Designed assessment tasks that gradually foster students’ capabilities

Component 3: To design and plan engaging classes

9. Included group work assignments or small projects

130

10. Planned self-directed learning activities 11. Designed teaching activities to achieve the learning goals 12. Planned activities that are open to experience for students 13. Designed lessons that built on respectful and caring relationships along with relevant content

Component 4: To design and plan learning materials

14. Provided materials to support the learning goals 15. Suggested students a list of reference materials 16. Opened opportunities for students to contribute to learning materials 17. Designed tasks that require students to develop searching skills 18. Designed lessons that used flexible delivery of content, resource material, reading materials, etc.

DIMENSION 2: TEACHING STRATEGIES

Component 5: To motivate student learning

19. Giving students opportunities to synthesise and make connections between information and arguments 20. Organising opportunities to push student critical thinking, and problem- solving skills 21. Using life situations in class/group discussions that students feel are meaningful 22. Providing students with different opportunities to reflect on their progress and experience 23. Encouraging peer/group interaction and reflection on learning goals

Component 6: Present topics by teachers and students

24. Raised topics by giving a list of guiding questions 25. Spoke with emotion and enthusiasm in presenting ideas/concepts 26. Involved students in group presentations for each topic of the course 27. Let students have time to explore and reflect the topics 28. Inspired students and showed them the way to discover the knowledge

Component 7: Using skilled questioning

29. Posed questions that provoke student critical or creative thinking 30. Posed questions that focused efforts on the learning goals 31. Posed questions that are open for group discussion 32. Allowed time for students to think or consult peers before responding to a question 33. Used follow-up questions to help students work out the answer

131

Component 8: To engage students in the learning process

34. Provided students with different opportunities to work in varied working situations 35. Encouraged students to ask their own questions 36. Asked students to set additional learning goals of their own 37. Varied activities that students can work with peers or groups 38. Asked students to link what they are learning to what they have known

DIMENSION 3: ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK

Component 9: To employ assessment to foster student learning

39. Making use of different assessments to check students’ prior knowledge and skill levels 40. Using different assessments to help students find their strengths and weaknesses 41. Encouraging students to self-assess or peer assess the quality of their work against the success criteria 42. Using assessment as a source of learning for students 43. Using authentic assessment tasks 44. Using feedback such as self or peer review of drafts, collaborative project work 45. Offering extensive opportunities for practice and rehearsal 46. Helping students evaluate their own progress to become lifelong learners

Component 10: To provide feedback to promote student learning

47. Provided descriptive and timely feedback for individual students on how to improve their learning 48. Provided comments on students’ work while they are producing it 49. Offered teacher feedback in alternative formats 50. Gave feedback to groups 51. Distributed a handout with samples of a good and a poor answer

DIMENSION 4: POSITIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Component 11: To generate a positive climate in class

52. Showed energy and passion in teaching with positive eye contact, facial expressions, gestures 53. Welcomed students’ questions and comments 54. Changed the setting of the class when necessary 55. Increased and varied interaction with students 56. Created a class that students feel is welcoming and socially comfortable

132

Component 12: To establish a culture for learning

57. Communicated academic and behavioural expectations to students in a clear, concise, and reasonable manner 58. Encouraged students to share their ideas and concerns in a climate of acceptance 59. Involved students in the classroom decision-making process such as assessment tasks, excursions, field trips, feedback, etc. 60. Showed trust in student ability 61. Encouraged students to feel part of a community committed to learning

Component 13: To promote interaction and rapport between teacher and students and among students

62. Organised activities that allow students to get to know each other 63. Arranged excursions, picnics, or field trips that enhance interaction and understanding among people in the class 64. Increased group projects among students 65. Encouraged students to come to talk to the teacher if they need to 66. Had students work with each other to answer questions and solve problems

133

CHAPTER 6: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

6.1 Introduction

The preceding chapter has presented the feedback of experts who have had either insight into Vietnamese higher education or rich and extensive teaching experience in VHE, from which a refined conceptual framework of teaching and learning practices has been established (see Chapter 5). This framework informed the construction of the questionnaire used to collect the students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning approaches in VHE (see Appendix C for the questionnaire). This chapter presents key results from the analysis of the questionnaire. Although a wide range of analyses were conducted, only the results of those of direct substantive importance to the research question are provided in this chapter. The results of supplementary psychometric and statistical analyses are presented in Appendix E.

The primary research question of the study was “What are the key components of teaching practices that promote student learning in VHE, as perceived by teachers and students?” The study was more focused on students’ perceptions because how the students perceive what constitutes “effective teaching” influences the learning strategies they usually adopt (Crawford et al., 1998; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Ginns et al., 2007; Kember et al., 2004; Lizzio et al., 2002; Prosser, 2013; Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Van Rossum & Taylor, 1987), and students’ perspectives of teaching practices in VHE have been under-researched. The students’ perceptions were identified from the analyses reported in this chapter taking a ground-up approach, which thus provided a nuanced understanding about what teaching approaches would foster student learning in VHE.

The chapter begins with a presentation of factor analyses from which key components of teaching practices emerged. Descriptive and reliability analyses of these emerging components are also provided. In addition, the chapter presents variations in students’ perceptions of teaching practices with regards to their year level, major, and academic

134 performance, to provide the complexities as well as the diversities within the students’ perceptions. Furthermore, differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions are also given in this chapter. Finally, the chapter offers a discussion of the findings of each analysis.

The findings of the statistical analyses indicated that students supported nine components of teaching, all of which had high reliabilities. The findings also showed significant differences between teachers and students and among students with some components of teaching. These findings provided a robust understanding about the students’ perceptions of teaching approaches that could promote their learning, substantially informing the primary research question addressed in this study.

6.2 Key components of teaching and learning practices

Factor analyses were conducted to seek the key components of teaching approaches that help student learning, as perceived by students. Their perception was gained through their response to a 66-item questionnaire in which they rated the frequency and the satisfaction of the items that presented the teaching practices of their teachers. The students rated the frequency with eight out of nine key components of teaching (Learning Goals, Learning Materials, Assessment Tasks, Higher Order Thinking Skills, Peer Learning, Assessment and Feedback, Positive Environment, and Interaction and Rapport). They rated their satisfaction with the content of the items with one out of nine key components of teaching (Presenting and Questioning). Factor analyses helped to find out the underlying components which represented the students’ perceptions of teaching practices that make student learning possible. Descriptive and reliability analyses provided further insight into these emerging components, which are also scales.

6.2.1 Factor analysis

Checking sample size before running factor analysis is crucial as the reliability of factor analysis depends on sample size (Field, 2009). This study collected 570 student responses through a 66-item questionnaire. Therefore, the study had a “good sample size” (Comrey & Lee, 1992; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and gained “a desired ratio” of responses per variable (Hair et al., 2014). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) of this

135 study, which was used to measure the sampling adequacy, was 0.946 (see Table 1, Appendix E), well above the recommended value of 0.7 and suggesting "marvellous” sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974).

Given that the study looked for clusters of items that measure similar things, it was essential to look at the intercorrelation between items (Field, 2009). The correlation matrix (see Table 2, Appendix E) presented a substantial number of correlations greater than 0.30, indicating potential underlying components under these items. Also, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (see Table 1, Appendix E), which was used to test the correlations between variables (Field, 2009), showed that sufficient correlations existed among the variables (sig. <.05) (Hair et al., 2014).

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test, skewness, and kurtosis were also carried out to check the normality of the data. Statistics in Table 3 (Appendix E) showed that the data of this study had a normal distribution so factor analysis could proceed (Field, 2009; George & Mallery, 2010; Trochim & Donnelly, 2006).

Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted with the 66 items from the questionnaire. The principal component analysis was used because it is a psychometrically sound procedure, conceptually less complicated, and it has many similarities to discriminant analysis (Field, 2009). The analysis used Varimax rotation because this method helped to minimise the number of items that have high loadings on a factor so that the factor can be interpreted more easily (Hair et al., 2014; Norusis, 2008).

As robust factors were desired, loadings less than 0.4 were suppressed. The rationale behind suppressing loadings less than 0.4 was based on Stevens’ (2002) suggestion that this cut-off point was appropriate for interpretative purposes (i.e., loadings greater than 0.4 represent substantive values) (Field, 2009). Variables that cross-loaded (load highly on two or more factors) were deleted unless theoretically justified. However, if the cross-loadings of the items were too close (less than 0.4 difference), these items were removed (Hair et al., 2014).

Decisions on how many factors to keep were based on the percentage of the total variance explained by each of the factors, the scree plot and the eigenvalues.

136

According to Hair et al. (2014), with a large sample (above 200), 50 percent of the total variance explained is acceptable (Hair et al., 2014). The scree plot was used because it provided a reliable criterion for factor selection (Stevens, 2002). Eigenvalues greater than one was also a criterion for the number of factors decided because an eigenvalue of one represents a substantial amount of variation (Field, 2009; Kaiser, 1960).

Several factor analyses were run, and the initial analysis revealed a 12-factor solution with an eigenvalue higher than 1.0, which explained 60.2 percent of the total variance. However, two factors comprised only one item, which is not sustainable as each factor needs at least three items to become a sustainable factor (Hair et al., 2014; Norusis, 2008). Therefore, a second analysis was conducted which specified ten factors. This solution showed that nine items had factor loadings less than 0.4; thus, these nine items were dropped. There were also cross-loadings with three items (Items 46, 62, and 65) and the loadings were very similar (less than 0.4 difference), so they were removed. Thus, a third analysis with 54 items was conducted, which represented a 10-factor solution. For this analysis, one factor comprised only two items, which is not a sustainable factor (Hair et al., 2014; Norusis, 2008), and two items, Items 34 and 43, were removed because their factor loadings were less than 0.4. Therefore, a fourth analysis with 52 items was conducted, which specified nine factors, all having at least three items. Nevertheless, in this analysis, another two items (36 and 48) were dropped because of their factor loadings being less than 0.4. Consequently, a fifth analysis with 50 items was conducted with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0, explaining 59.1 percent of the variance. A nine-factor solution emerged with no items having factor loadings below 0.4, and each factor comprised at least three items, which means all these are sustainable factors. Therefore, the fifth analysis represented a satisfactory factor analysis and is presented in Table 6.1 below. The details of the first four factor analyses can be seen in Table 5, Appendix E.

137

Table 6.1: Nine-factor solution

Items/Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Factor 1 I2 Set the learning goals that are specific and challenging to students .785 I3 Set learning goals that are relevant to student existing knowledge and experience .730 I1 Clearly explain what students are expected to learn and be able to do .665 Factor 2 I6 Give explicit directions for assessment tasks including instruction, marking rubrics and standards .765 I5 Specify the assessment tasks .693 I7 Clearly explain the success criteria for each assessment task .645 Factor 3 I15 Suggest students use a list of reference materials .715 I14 Provide materials to support the learning goals .620 I16 Open opportunities for students to contribute to learning materials .567 I18 Design lessons that use flexible delivery of content, resource material, reading materials, etc. .564 I17 Design tasks that require students to develop searching skills .508 Factor 4 I32 Allow time for students to think or consult peers before responding to a question .719 I30 Pose questions that focus efforts on the learning goals .706 I33 Use follow-up questions to help students work out the answer .698 I28 Inspire students and show them the way to discover the knowledge .675 I29 Pose questions that provoke student critical or creative thinking .659 I27 Let students have time to explore and reflect the topics .644

138

I31 Pose questions that are open for group discussion .640 I25 Speak with emotion and enthusiasm in presenting ideas/concepts .609 .416 I26 Involve student group presentations for each topic of the course .535 I24 Raise topics by giving a list of guiding questions .468 Factor 5 I20 Organise opportunities to push student critical thinking and problem-solving skills .673 I22 Use life situations in class/group discussions that students feel are meaningful .671 I21 Give students opportunities to synthesise and make connections between information and arguments .668 I23 Provide students with different opportunities to reflect on their progress and experience .660 I12 Plan activities that are open to experience for students .446 Factor 6 I9 Include group work assignments or small projects .700 I64 Increase group projects among students .643 I19 Encourage peer/group interaction and reflection of learning goals .611 I37 Vary activities that students can work with peers or groups .602 I66 Have students work with each other to answer questions and solve problems .407 .573 Factor 7 I39 Make use of different assessments to check students’ prior knowledge and skill levels .715 I45 Offer extensive opportunities for practice and rehearsal .653 I40 Use different assessments to help students find their strengths and weaknesses .652 I47 Provide descriptive and timely feedback to individual students on how to improve their learning .499 I41 Encourage students to self-assess or peer assess the quality of their work against the success criteria .455 Factor 8

139

I56 Create a class that students feel is welcoming and socially comfortable .735 I52 Show energy and passion for teaching with positive eye contact, facial expressions, gestures .720 I53 Welcome students’ questions and comments .672 I60 Show trust in student ability .618 I58 Encourage students to share their ideas and concerns in a climate of acceptance .559 I57 Communicate academic and behavioural expectations to students in a transparent, concise, and reasonable .546 manner I55 Increase and vary interaction with students .537 I61 Encourage students to feel part of a community committed to learning .533 Factor 9 I63 Arrange excursions, picnics, or field trips that enhance interaction and understanding among people in the class .682 I50 Give feedback to groups .564 I54 Change the setting of the class when necessary .559 I59 Involve students in the classroom decision-making process such as assessment tasks, excursions, field trips, .534 feedback, etc.) I49 Offer teacher feedback in alternative formats .523 I44 Use feedback such as self or peer review of drafts, collaborative project work .480

140

Table 6.1 presents the nine-factor solution comprising 50 items. The number of each factor ranges widely from three items (factors 1 and 2) to ten items (Factor 4). An explanation of this nine-factor solution appears below:

Factor 1: Learning Goals

Factor 1 comprised three items, all of which were taken from one component in the conceptual framework, though the original number of items in this component was reduced by two items. These three items were all relevant to the ways that teachers make learning goals connected and helpful for student learning, thus it was named Learning Goals. This factor had the highest factor loadings out of the nine factors because its highest loading was 0.785 and its lowest loading was 0.665. This indicated that all the items composing it were closely related to Factor 1 and they clustered together to represent one common component of effective teaching practice: Learning Goals. Since the highest loading was of Item 2, Set learning goals that are specific and challenging to students, making the learning goals specific but challenging seemed to be highly correlated with setting learning goals in general.

Factor 2: Assessment Tasks

Factor 2 comprised three items whose loadings were also high (from 0.645 to 0.765). Because these three items all related to designing and preparing assessment tasks in the planning stage of the teachers, this factor was labelled Assessment Tasks. Although these items were derived from the same component in the conceptual framework, the number of items was reduced by one as a result of the factor analyses. This showed that only these three items (Item 5, Specify the assessment tasks, Item 6 Give explicit directions for assessment tasks including instruction, marking rubrics and standards, and Item 7, Clearly explain the success criteria for each assessment task) could hang together to present a standard component of teaching practice: Assessment Tasks. Since Item 6 received the highest factor loading, giving explicit directions for assessment tasks including instruction, marking rubrics and standards (Item 6) appeared to be highly associated with designing assessment tasks.

141

Factor 3: Learning Materials

Factor 3 consisted of five items. These five items were those in the teaching component in the conceptual framework which featured the use of learning materials to support students’ learning. Hence, this factor kept its name Learning Materials. There was a reasonable variation in the factor loadings of the five items although these factor loadings were all significant. Item 15, Suggest students use a list of reference materials, was the most dominant item as its loading was the highest (0.715) and Item 17, Design tasks that require students to develop searching skills, was the least dominant item because of its lowest factor loading (0.508).

Factor 4: Presenting and Questioning

Factor 4 included ten items. The items that loaded highly on Factor 4 all related to presenting and questioning frequently used by teachers to facilitate student learning in the class. Therefore, this factor was labelled Presenting and Questioning. Factor 4 comprised two separate components in the conceptual framework, Presenting and Questioning, each consisting of five items. It is remarkable to see that these ten items represent one common aspect of teaching practice, facilitating student learning through presentation and questions. There was a cross-loading with Item 25. As Item 25 loaded on both factors 4 and 5, but had a higher loading on Factor 4 (0.609), it was retained on Factor 4. There were no other factor cross-loadings on Factor 4. There was a substantial variation in the factor loadings, which ranged from 0.468 (Item 24, Raise topics by giving a list of guiding questions) to 0.719 (Item 32, Allow time for students to think or consult peers before responding to a question); however, these items clustered well together to create Factor 4.

Factor 5: Higher Order Thinking Skills

Factor 5 comprised five items. These items all related to complex skills in thinking and learning such as critical thinking, problem-solving, synthesising, connecting, and reflecting. Therefore, this factor was labelled Higher Order Thinking Skills. There was no such component in the original conceptual framework as its five items were dispensed across several components of the conceptual framework. While Factor 5 had the lowest factor loadings among nine factors, its factor loadings were still

142 significant, ranging from 0.446 to 0.673. Item 20, Organise opportunities to push student critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, had the highest factor loading (0.673) which might indicate that critical thinking and problem-solving skills are two highly cognitive skills strongly related to higher order thinking skills.

Factor 6: Peer Learning

Factor 6 had five items, with one cross loading occurring with Item 66. As Item 66 loaded on both Factors 2 and6 but had a higher loading on Factor 6 (0.573), it was retained on Factor 6. These five items were relevant to different situations when students work with their peers or in groups, which is why it was named Peer Learning. The factor analysis showed that these five items hung together well to create an independent component of effective teaching practice, although its five items were already dispersed across several components throughout the conceptual framework. Factor loadings varied substantially from 0.573 (Item 66, Have students work with each other to answer questions and solve problems) to 0.700 (Item 9, Include group work assignments or small projects). Since the most dominant item in this factor was Item 9, organising students to work in group assignments or small projects appeared to have a strong association with peer learning.

Factor 7: Assessment and Feedback

Factor 7 included five items whose loadings ranged from 0.455 to 0.715. There was no cross loading on this factor and all the items related to how teachers assess and give feedback on students’ learning so that improvement in learning can be achieved. Therefore, this factor was named Assessment and Feedback. Conceptually, these five items were allocated in two separate components: to use assessment for learning and to provide feedback to promote student learning. However, factor analyses revealed that these two components could be merged. While the two conceptual components comprised ten items altogether, this newly emerged (and merged) factor was reduced by five items. This might indicate that only the five items in Factor 7 could hang together to represent one common aspect of effective teaching practice: Assessment and Feedback, and the remaining items were either clustered with other items or dropped because their factor loadings were not robust (smaller than 0.4). Since Item 39, Make use of different assessments to check student prior knowledge and skill

143 levels had the highest loading (0.700), using assessments to check what students have known and how well they performed the required skills was closely connected with assessment and feedback for learning.

Factor 8: Positive Environment

Factor 8 consisted of eight items. All items related to how to create a positive class climate including a positive learning environment and a culture for learning. Therefore, this factor was labelled Positive Environment. Like Factor 4, Factor 8 was a combination of two separate components in the conceptual framework which were used by teachers to create and maintain an effective learning and teaching atmosphere for both learners and teachers. These two components each had five items in the conceptual framework, indicating that the total number of items had been reduced by two after the factor analyses. It is noted that all the items in Factor 8 had factor loadings greater than 0.50 which represented statistical significance. The dominant items in this factor represented by high loadings are Items 52 and 56. Item 52, Show energy and passion in teaching with positive eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, and Item 56, Create a class where students feel welcomed and socially comfortable had very significant loadings which were 0.720, 0.735 respectively. This indicated that being energetic and passionate in teaching, with positive eye contact, facial expressions, gestures (Item 52), and making the class welcoming and socially comfortable for students (Item 56) were highly correlated with a positive learning environment.

Factor 9: Interaction and Rapport

Factor 9 comprised six items which were all associated with varying approaches employed by teachers to establish good relations with their students and among students in their class. Hence, this factor was labelled Interaction and Rapport. This label already existed in the original conceptual framework, however, six items of Factor 9 were allocated in four original conceptual components. More specifically, three items were drawn from the Providing Feedback component to encourage student learning, one item came from the Positive Climate component, one item came from the Culture for learning component, and the last item had been in the Interaction and Rapport component. This result revealed that despite originating from several

144 conceptual components, six items in Factor 9 clustered together well to represent a similar component of effective teaching practice which was characterized by interaction and rapport in the class. These items had statistical significance as their factor loadings varied from 0.480 to 0.682. Since Item 63, Arrange excursions, picnics, or field trips that enhance interaction and understanding among people in the class, had the highest loading (0.682), organising excursions, picnics, or field trips seemed to have the closest connection with promoting interaction and rapport in the class.

To summarise, the process of factor analysis revealed nine factors of effective teaching practice (Learning Goals, Assessment Tasks, Learning Materials, Presenting and Questioning, Higher Order Thinking Skills, Peer Learning, Assessment and Feedback, Positive Environment and Interaction and Rapport) that were perceived as important by students. In this study, from here on, the nine factors above will be referred to in this thesis as the nine components of effective teaching practice. Discussion of these nine emerging components appears in Section 6.2.3 further below.

6.2.2 Descriptive and reliability analyses of the nine components of teaching practices This section presents the descriptive and reliability analyses of the nine components of teaching practices to explore if these nine components are reliable scales, how frequently the students witnessed their teachers implementing teaching practices in respect to Learning Goals, Assessment Tasks, Learning Materials, Higher Order Thinking Skills, Peer Learning, Assessment and Feedback, Positive Environment and Interaction and Rapport, and how satisfied they were with their teachers’ Presenting and Questioning in the class.

The nine components were computed on an SPSS platform based on the items of which they were composed. Therefore, the nine components were presented in the data file with new value, and this value became interval data as it was calculated by its composing items. As a result, the data for these nine computed components can be seen basically as continuous data or interval data (Field, 2009; Hair et al., 2014). Therefore, the study can use descriptive and reliability tests other than non-parametric

145 tests to provide further insight into the nine components of teaching practices, as perceived by the students.

The descriptive and reliability statistics for the nine components are presented in Table 6.2 below. There was no substantial variation in mean scores across components. It is worth noting that the highest was the component on Presenting and Questioning (M=3.14/4.0), and the lowest was on Assessment Tasks (M=2.35/4.0). Given that the student respondents rated satisfaction on one component (Presenting and Questioning) and frequency on the other eight components, this might reveal that students were satisfied with their teachers’ ways of presenting ideas and asking questions. This also indicates that students were least exposed to information related to defining assessment tasks such as directions, marking rubrics, and success criteria.

The second highest mean score was on the component Positive Environment (M=3.05/4.0). This shows that some teachers' efforts and activities to generate a positive atmosphere in the class and culture in learning were noticed quite frequently by students; such efforts included showing positive eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, welcoming students’ ideas and comments, and accepting their ideas and concerns in a courteous manner. Other actions were correlated with their teachers’ manner of communicating academic expectations, which was clear and concise, and the ways teachers created positive feelings for students in the class; students also often felt trusted by their teachers and saw classes as welcoming and socially comfortable.

Table 6.2: Descriptive and reliability analyses of the nine components of teaching practices

Teaching component M SD Cronbach’s Alpha Learning Goals 2.63 0.60 0.77 Assessment Tasks 2.35 0.58 0.70 Learning Materials 2.64 0.57 0.81 Presenting and Questioning 3.14 0.48 0.88 Higher Order Thinking Skills 2.87 0.58 0.82 Peer Learning 2.78 0.70 0.80 Assessment and Feedback 2.65 0.64 0.76 Positive Environment 3.05 0.57 0.89 Interaction and Rapport 2.83 0.58 0.77

146

Higher Order Thinking Skills were assumed not to be frequently embedded in teaching by university teachers in Vietnam because Vietnamese students are claimed to lack higher order thinking skills such as critical thinking, problem solving and creating (Pham, 2010; Tran, 2012). Yet, this teaching component in this study was perceived by students to occur the third most frequently in the class (M=2.87/4.0), indicating that there have been positive changes in teaching and learning in VHE in regard to this aspect.

Activities that promoted Interaction and Rapport were the fourth most frequently seen by students in the present study (M=2.83/40). Previous studies showed that the learning environment positively correlated to the interaction and rapport in the class (Entwistle & Peterson, 2004; Doll et al., 2010; Keiler, 2018). This was consistent with the current study as Positive Environment ranked second regarding its frequency occurrence. Peer Learning was observed at a medium frequency (M=2.78/4.0) since it came fifth out of nine components in terms of the rate of frequency of its occurrence in the class. This perhaps indicated that (in students’ eyes) their teacher did not either frequently repeat or utilise pair/group work and small projects in teaching.

Assessment and Feedback was rated low by students (2.65/4.0). This indicated that students did not frequently witness teaching practices that were associated with Assessment and Feedback. In particular, practices such as offering extensive opportunities for practice and rehearsal (Item 45), providing descriptive and timely feedback for individual students on how to improve their learning (Item 47), or encouraging students to self-assess or peer assess the quality of their work against the success criteria (Item 41) were not frequently observed by students during the course.

Learning Goals are supposed to be crucial in students’ learning but in the present study, learning goals were observed by students at the second lowest frequency (M=2.63/4.0). Students did not seem to perceive that their teachers often reminded them of their learning goals throughout the course. Similarly, Learning Materials and Assessment Tasks were rated considerably low as their mean scores were 2.64/4.0 and 2.35/4.0, respectively. This revealed that students did not see frequent occurrences in the class of the teaching practices related to these components. More specifically, the students did not feel their teachers frequently provided materials to support their learning goals (Item 14), suggesting a list of reference materials (Item 15), providing 147 them opportunities to contribute to learning materials and to develop their searching skills (Items 16 and 17) and using flexible delivery of content, resource material, reading materials (Item 18). Likewise, the students also failed to witness their teachers regularly give either explicit directions for assessment tasks or success criteria for each assessment task. It is important to note that these three components, Learning Goals, Learning Materials and Assessment Tasks, were all under the dimension of Planning Learning, which was normally enacted by the teachers in the planning process rather than directly conducted in the class. Therefore, these components were not seen frequently by the students.

Table 6.2 also presents reliability analyses of nine components, which were conducted to measure the strength of each component since alpha can reveal how well the items in the component hang together (Field, 2009; George & Mallery, 2003).1 High reliability suggests a strong relationship between items, and low-reliability value indicates that there is little commonality between the items in the scale or there are too few items (Churchill, 1979).

As can be seen from Table 6.2, most components had high reliabilities as their Cronbach's alphas were above 0.80, except for four components: Assessment Tasks (α = 0.70), Assessment and Feedback (α = 0.76), Interaction and Rapport (α = 0.77) and Learning Goals (α = 0.77). However, the alpha values of these four components were at an acceptable level. This fact revealed that the items in each component could cluster either very well or reasonably well with each other, making the components robust and reliable. These statistics also indicated that items in the nine effective teaching components all measured the same thing, and the scales were reliable ones (DeVellis, 2012).

1 The value of alpha ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 is the highest reliability value. Therefore, the following rules of thumb were suggested: > 0.9 – Excellent; > 0.8 – Good; > 0.7 – Acceptable; > 0.6 – Questionable; > 0.5 – Poor; < 0.5 – Unacceptable (Mallery, 2003, p. 231).

148

6.2.3 Discussion on key components of teaching practices perceived by students in VHE

This section firstly discusses how components of teaching practices that emerged from factor analyses were similar to, and different from, those in the refined conceptual framework that was presented in Chapter 5. The relation of the findings derived from these analyses to previous studies and to the VHE context is also discussed in this section.

The conceptual framework consisted of 13 teaching components covering four main dimensions of teaching practices (Planning Learning, Teaching Strategies, Assessment and Feedback, and Learning Environment). These components were established by the global scholars’ and the experts’ perspectives of teaching approaches that promote student learning, presented in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 of the thesis, respectively. The emerging components were drawn from the students' perspectives.

Table 6.3 shows that four teaching components, namely Learning Goals, Assessment Tasks, Learning Materials, and Interaction and Rapport, were retained from the conceptual framework even though their items were relatively reduced through the process of factor analyses. Three components (Presenting and Questioning, Assessment and Feedback, and Positive Environment) have been created from the combination of two conceptual components. For example, items in Presentation clustered well together with those in Questioning to make Presenting and Questioning. Likewise, items in To use assessment for learning hang well together with those in To provide feedback to promote student learning to generate Assessment and Feedback. The same happened with Positive Environment which was created out of items from To generate a positive climate in class and To establish a culture in learning. Table 6.3 also shows two teaching components emerged from students' responses (Higher Order Thinking Skills and Peer Learning). Items in these two components were actually located across the framework, but through students’ responses, they were explicitly shown and became independent components of effective teaching. This indicated that the students in Vietnamese higher education

149 institutions likely placed an emphasis on Higher Order Thinking Skills and Peer Learning.

Table 6.3: Teaching components in the refined conceptual framework and from the students’ perspectives

Refined Conceptual Framework Students’ perspectives 1 To set transparent learning goals 1 Learning goals 2 To design and plan assessment tasks 2 Assessment tasks 3 To design and plan engaging classes 3 Learning materials 4 To design and plan learning materials 4 Presenting and questioning 5 To motivate student learning 5 Higher order thinking skills 6 Present topics by teachers and students 6 Peer learning 7 Using skilled questioning 7 Assessment and feedback 8 To engage students in the learning process 8 Positive environment 9 To employ assessment to foster student learning 9 Interaction and rapport 10 To provide feedback to promote student learning 11 To generate a positive climate in class 12 To establish a culture in learning 13 To promote interaction and rapport between teacher and students and among students

It is interesting to note that the items belonging to Higher Order Thinking Skills were originally included in To design and plan engaging classes and To motivate student learning. This perhaps revealed that if the experts thought engaging and motivating students was a general approach of effective teaching practice, students responded more specifically to this approach. The students emphasised employing higher order thinking skills, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, reflecting, connecting and synthesising arguments that would possibly help them be more engaged and interested in learning. Similarly, the students highlighted Peer Learning as a separate teaching component while the experts integrated it into three teaching components (To motivate student learning, To engage students in the learning process, and To promote interaction) which were all thought to afford student learning. Higher Order Thinking Skills and Peer Learning seemed to be two noticeable findings of the factor analyses representing the students’ perceptions of effective teaching approaches. These findings paved the way to a more comprehensive understanding of teaching practices for VHE, where students’ perspectives were usually not sought and where

150 students were reported by employers to lack higher order thinking skills and team work skills. These quantitative findings will be further elaborated in the next chapter (Chapter 7: Qualitative analysis) where the teachers’ and students’ perceptions of effective teaching practices will be explored of the data from the in-depth interviews.

Students’ perceptions of what teaching approaches are helpful for student learning were absent in Vietnamese research literature but have been well researched in western literature. For example, Ginns et al. (2007) discovered five factors contributing to the effectiveness of instruction from the students’ perspectives, including Clear Goals and Standards, Right Teaching Strategies, Appropriate Assessment, Appropriate Workload, and Generic Skills Development. In comparison with the findings by Ginns et al. (2007), the present study offers more detailed conceptions of teaching by students. This is because the present study specifies Presenting and Questioning, Higher Order Thinking Skills and Peer Learning as three separate teaching strategies, whereas Ginns et al. (2007) included only a single (teaching strategies) factor (Right Teaching Strategies). Furthermore, the present study complements the study by Ginns et al. (2007) as it provides Assessment and Feedback rather than Appropriate Assessment as one component of effective teaching, which was also highly supported by Hattie and Timpley (2007) who found feedback to be one of the most important aspects of effective teaching (Hattie & Timpley, 2007). In addition, while the present study provides Positive Environment and Interaction and Rapport as two other components of effective teaching practice, these components were not mentioned in the study by Ginns et al. (2007). Therefore, it appears that most of the findings of the present study were supported by Ginns et al. (2007), but the present study seems to have identified more specific details concerning students’ views on components of effective teaching approaches.

A more recent study by Hande et al. (2014) offered five factors of teaching practice that teachers should take into consideration to improve student learning, namely clarity and easy understanding of the subject, interactivity in the classroom, motivation factor, making topics of learning fun, and dedication and patience exhibited by the teacher. Generally, these factors can be found here and there in the nine teaching components of the present study. In other words, the present study

151 aligns with what Hande et al. (2014) found. The following paragraphs will illustrate this point.

Regarding the factor Clarity and easy understanding of the subject, although the current study did not explicitly provide such a factor, many items under the nine components of teaching in the current study underlined the aspects of transparency and the facilitation by teachers of students’ understanding of a subject. For instance, Item 1 (Clearly explain what students are expected to learn and to be able to do), Item 6 (Give explicit directions for assessment tasks including instruction, marking rubrics and standards), Item 7 (Clearly explain the success criteria for each assessment task), Item 23 (Provide students with different opportunities to reflect on their progress and experience), Item 24 (Raise topics by giving a list of guiding questions), Item 32 (Allow time for students to think or consult peers before responding to a question), and Item 45 (Offer extensive opportunities for practice and rehearsal) all expressed the notion of clarity – helping to make things clear – and the teachers’ strategies to make the subject easier to understand. Therefore, it can be said that the present study generally aligned with the study by Hande et al. (2014) concerning Clarity and easy understanding of the subject. This is also true regarding the second factor, Interactivity in the classroom, as proposed by Hande et al. (2014), because the present study literally has the same component of teaching, though it was labelled Interaction and Rapport.

Concerning Motivation factor, the present study did not have such a component as an explicit, separate category, but many items under the nine teaching components of the present study were implicitly used to promote the students’ motivation and engagement in learning. Motivation and engagement items were mostly included in Presenting and Questioning, High Order Thinking Skills, Peer Learning, Assessment and Feedback, Positive Environment, Interaction and Rapport. Hence, if Hande et al. (2014) generally labelled one factor of effective teaching as Motivation factor, the present study demonstrated the motivation factor more specifically across the teaching components perceived to be important by the students. In this sense, the present study is consistent with and more detailed than the study by Hande et al. (2014). Similarly, when it comes to the last two factors found by Hande et al. (2014) Making topics of learning fun, Dedication and patience exhibited by the teacher, the present study is

152 also congruent with these factors. Although the present study did not directly address these factors, the image of a teacher of humour, passion and devotion was portrayed through multiple items in some teaching components such as Presenting and Questioning, Assessment and Feedback and Interaction and Rapport.

In short, findings of the present study aligned with those in previous studies. The present study provides an overall picture of teaching approaches that promote student learning, from students’ perspectives because it offers teaching components in all aspects of teaching including planning learning, teaching strategies, assessment and feedback and the learning environment. With nine teaching components under these four dimensions of teaching, the present study would be a stepping stone to a more comprehensive understanding about effective teaching in higher education from the students’ views. Therefore, it can be argued that the present study has strengthened previous studies.

The nine components of teaching of the present study depicted an image of students as active and independent learners who are proactively involved in presenting and questioning processes, and who are energetic and autonomous in doing pair/group work, and group assessment tasks. This image does not align with the Vietnamese (and other) literature describing Vietnamese students as passive in learning and reliant on their teachers (Harman, Hayden et al., 2010; Tran & Marginson, 2014). This perhaps signals positive changes in the conception of students’ roles in learning. The unfolding of the students’ perspectives made this more apparent.

The nine components drawn from the factor analyses of the present study also indicated a student-centred approach in teaching because they portrayed the teacher’s role as a facilitator, a mentor and a consultant in leading their students in learning, in stimulating students’ thought and engagement, in implementing assessment and providing feedback to students, and in generating a positive learning environment. In the literature on Vietnamese higher education, the teacher was regarded as an authority in knowledge transmission, and a teacher-centred approach was seen as a dominant approach in teaching (Harman & Nguyen, 2010; Oliver, 2004; Pham, 2010). The learning environment shown in two of the teaching components of the present study Positive Environment and Interaction and Rapport, however, was friendly and open, where the students were encouraged to share and contribute their opinions in 153 lessons, and where a hierarchical relationship was rarely seen. It appeared that the teacher’s and students’ roles in teaching and learning across the nine components of teaching in the present study were more consistent with what was usually found in developed Anglophone research literature rather than in the Vietnamese literature. Given the educational and cultural features of the VHE context, this finding seems to be either revelatory or contentious. This point is further elaborated in the next chapter, which analyses the teachers’ perspectives and deepens understandings from the students’ perspectives.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, reflecting, and synthesising skills, which Vietnamese students are often claimed to lack (Bodewig et al., 2014; Nguyen, 2009; Nguyen, 2011; Tran, 2015; Tran, 2017), were a highlight emerging from the factor analyses of the present study because Higher Order Thinking Skills emerged as a separate component of teaching. This could be a positive sign for the graduate outcomes of VHE. However, to ensure a more nuanced finding, this should be looked at from the teachers’ perspectives as well, which are presented in Chapter 7 of the thesis.

In summary, the present study revealed nine teaching components perceived by Vietnamese students. This finding not only aligned with previous studies but also provided more informed components of teaching approaches that facilitate student learning. Although there has not been any research revealing such components of teaching in Vietnamese context, the teachers’ and the students’ profiles of teaching and learning in higher education as depicted through the nine components of teaching in this study contest much of what has heretofore been maintained in the Vietnamese literature. To yield more in-depth and thorough investigation into these nine components, it is essential to unpack the students’ perceptions and to reveal the teachers’ perspectives regarding teaching practices that foster student learning through their in-depth interviews.

6.3 Variations in students’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices

In this study, the responses of the students in VHE indicated that there were nine components of teaching that would promote student learning, namely Learning Goals, 154

Assessment Tasks, Learning Materials, Presenting and Questioning, High Order Thinking Skills, Peer Learning, Assessment and Feedback, Positive Environment and Interaction and Rapport. Research literature shows that there is often discrepancy in the students’ perceptions of effective teaching when it comes to gender, year level, major and academic performance (Karagiannopoulou & Christodoulides, 2005; Mukorera & Nyatang, 2017; Steh et al., 2014). Research literature also indicates that teachers should take this discrepancy into account when they make decisions on teaching approaches for their class (Li et al., 2008; Moradi & Sabetib, 2014; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). In other words, variations in students’ perceptions significantly inform the teachers’ strategies for effective teaching.

While some previous studies showed that students’ years of study did not impact their perceptions of teaching effectiveness, other relevant studies revealed that students’ beliefs regarding effective teaching were highly correlated with how far they had progressed through their course (Fatima et al., 2007; Latif & Miles, 2013; Li et al., 2008; Peslak et al., 2016; Steh et al., 2014). The degree’s major and the student’s academic performance also appear to have given rise to contrasting perspectives (Fatima et al., 2007; Ferreira & Santoso, 2008; Kelly, 2007; Lizzio et al., 2002). In addition, literature also reveals that having previous teaching practicum experience affects students' perspectives of effective teaching (Kelly, 2007). Therefore, student teachers who experience a teaching practicum in their course might perceive teaching differently from those who are not trained to be teachers (Kelly, 2007).

This section reports on the differences in students’ perceptions across year level, major and academic performance in VHE. The student respondents in this study varied from the first-year to the fourth-year level in their four-year undergraduate course. They studied two majors: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) (International Relations, Journalism and Mass Media, Korean Studies, Vietnamese Studies, Psychology and General Religions). Their academic performance was categorised as "Poor", "Fair", "Good" and "Excellent", based on their annual weighted average mark.

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to analyse differences between students on these variables. The study used MANOVA because MANOVA is designed to look at several dependent variables simultaneously (Field, 2009) and 155 the interactions between independent variables as well (Field, 2009). MANOVA analyses indicated that there was a multivariate effect for students' year level and students' major on their perceptions on effective teaching practice, F (27, 1620) = 2.33, p< 0.05 and F (9, 538) = 5.09, p< 0.05 respectively. However, how well students performed in their course did not affect significantly their perceptions of teaching practice: F (27, 1620) = 1.35, p> 0.05 (See Table 6.4). Table 6.4 also shows that there was an interaction effect between the students' year level and major, and year level and major and academic achievement. More thorough analysis of MANOVA outcomes with regard to these significant variations is provided in the sections that follow.

Table 6.4: Multivariate effect

Effect F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Year Pillai's Trace 2.334 27 1620 <0.05 Wilks' Lambda 2.344 27 1571.88 <0.05 Academic achievement Pillai's Trace 1.356 27 1620 0.11 Wilks' Lambda 1.358 27 1571.88 0.10 Major Pillai's Trace 5.096b 9 538 <0.05 Wilks' Lambda 5.096b 9 538 <0.05 Year*Achievement Pillai's Trace 0.962 72 4360 0.57 Wilks' Lambda 0.959 72 3280.106 0.58 Year*Major Pillai's Trace 1.758 27 1620 <0.05 Wilks' Lambda 1.777 27 1571.88 <0.05 Achievement*Major Pillai's Trace 0.918 27 1620 0.58 Wilks' Lambda 0.918 27 1571.88 0.58 Year*Achievement*Major Pillai's Trace 1.617 18 1078 <0.05 Wilks' Lambda 1.614b 18 1076 <0.05

6.3.1 Students’ year level

Table 6.5 shows that although there was a multivariate effect of students' year level on students' perceptions, significant differences in perceptions occurred for six out of the nine components of teaching (Learning Goals, Learning Materials, Higher Order Thinking Skills, Peer Learning, Assessment and Feedback, and Interaction and Rapport, p<0.05). No significant differences were found in three components of

156 teaching (Assessment Tasks, Presenting and Questioning, and Positive Environment, p>0.05).

Nevertheless, Table 6.5 also indicates that there was little systematic variation across the years. However, a few patterns emerged. Firstly, junior students (in their first and second year) had a similar mean score in all teaching components except for three (Assessment Tasks, Peer Learning, and Assessment and Feedback). This indicates that first-year students saw their teachers implementing activities related to six components of teaching (Learning Goals, Learning Materials, Presenting and Questioning, Higher Order Thinking Skills, Positive Environment and Interaction and Rapport) as frequently as second-year students did. Secondly, middle year students (in their second and third year) scored their teachers' teaching practice similarly except for three aspects of teaching (Learning Goals, Learning Materials, and Higher Order Thinking Skills). This revealed that their teachers conducted activities relevant to the other six aspects of teaching (Assessment Tasks, Presenting and Questioning, Peer Learning, Assessment and Feedback, Positive Environment, and Interaction and Rapport) at a similar frequency rate. Thirdly, senior students (in their third and fourth year) experienced the frequency of teaching activities differently among them except for three components of teaching (Learning Goals, Learning Materials and Peer Learning). This indicated that the teachers of third-year students did not repeat these related activities as regularly as the teachers of fourth-year students did. Fourthly, first-year students experienced teaching practices less frequently than final year students except for four components of teaching (Learning Goals, Higher Order Thinking Skills, Positive Environment and Interaction and Rapport) since freshmen's mean score was lower than that of final year students in five components of teaching. Fifthly, first-year students experienced teaching practices more regularly than the sophomores did in all teaching practices. Last, sophomores experienced teaching methods less frequently than the third-year students did except for Assessment Task- related activities. In brief, there was a wide range of differences among students when they were at different stages in their course; however, the variation was not systematic.

157

Table 6.5: Univariate analysis of students’ year level

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Teaching components F Sig. M SD M SD M SD M SD Learning goals 2.63a 0.7 2.46ac 0.5 2.71b 0.7 2.74b 0.51 3.03 <0.05 Assessment tasks 2.93b 0.74 2.71a 0.69 2.69ac 0.67 2.86a 0.66 0.44 0.73 Learning materials 2.86a 0.51 2.78ac 0.61 2.98b 0.67 2.95a 0.66 4.02 <0.05 Presenting and 3.12a 0.44 3.08a 0.48 3.19a 0.51 3.10a 0.35 2.45 0.06 Questioning Higher order thinking 2.53ab 0.62 2.45a 0.63 2.71bc 0.57 2.82c 0.53 skills 4.36 <0.05 Peer learning 3.05bd 0.55 2.61a 0.51 2.78ac 0.60 2.88bcd 0.52 8.42 <0.05 Assessment and 2.84b 0.48 2.46a 0.54 2.55a 0.60 2.80b 0.56 3.96 <0.05 feedback Positive Environment 3.01a 0.59 2.96ac 0.53 3.08a 0.56 3.16b 0.54 0.89 0.45 Interaction and 2.32a 0.56 2.21ac 0.65 2.39a 0.58 2.48b 0.46 5.51 <0.05 Rapport

6.3.2 Students’ majors

Table 6.6 shows that there were only marginal effects of students’ majors on two teaching components (Peer Learning, p = 0.052 and Assessment and Feedback, p = 0.061). Students’ mean score for these two components was higher among TESOL students (M=3.00 and M=2.81, respectively) than that among SSH students (M=2.70 and M=2.51, respectively). This indicated that TESOL students perceived Peer Learning, and Assessment and Feedback as occurring slightly more frequently in their classes. However, SSH students rated the frequency of teaching practices higher than those who are trained to be English teachers in all teaching components except for four components (Learning Goals, Assessment Tasks, Peer Learning, and Assessment and Feedback).

158

Table 6.6: Univariate analysis of students’ majors

Teaching components TESOL SSH F Sig. M SD M SD Learning goals 2.72 0.71 2.58 0.57 2.483 0.116 Assessment tasks 2.93 0.73 2.66 0.65 1.684 0.195 Learning materials 2.86 0.57 2.93 0.51 2.593 0.108 Presenting and Questioning 3.05 0.47 3.19 0.46 1.881 0.171 Higher order thinking skills 2.51 0.66 2.72 0.63 1.843 0.175 Peer learning 3.00 0.57 2.70 0.55 3.802 0.052 Assessment and feedback 2.81 0.52 2.51 0.56 3.522 0.061 Positive Environment 3.00 0.56 3.07 0.56 1.090 0.297 Interaction and Rapport 2.29 0.61 2.39 0.55 2.699 0.101

In brief, there were not many differences between TESOL students and SSH students even though there was a multivariate effect of this factor on students' perceptions.

6.3.3 Interaction effect of students’ year levels and students’ majors

Table 6.7 below illustrates significant impacts of two independent variables, which were year levels and majors when they interacted with each other. As can be seen, this interaction occurred for three out of nine teaching components (Learning Goals, Learning Materials and Interaction and Rapport, p<0.05).

Table 6.7: Interaction effect of students’ year levels by students’ majors

Teaching components Mean Square F Sig.

Learning goals 2.035 5.549 <0.05

Assessment tasks 0.004 0.008 0.999

Learning materials 1.277 4.683 <0.05

Presenting and Questioning 0.220 1.013 0.386

Higher order thinking skills 0.569 1.679 0.171

Peer learning 0.263 0.893 0.445

Assessment and feedback 0.286 1.051 0.370

Positive Environment 0.384 1.210 0.305

Interaction and Rapport 1.016 3.310 <0.05

159

Figures 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 present the interaction effects for Learning Goals, Learning Materials and Interaction and Rapport respectively. It can be seen clearly from Figure 6.1 that TESOL students across year levels saw activities associated with Learning Goals more regularly in their classes than SSH students did, except for the second-year students. Figure 6.2 shows different patterns among students across year levels and majors. While the frequency rate scored by TESOL students fluctuated quite wildly, the frequency rate scored by SSH students was constant. Third-year TESOL students rated Learning Goals as being observed the most frequently whereas last-year students of this major perceived them to occur the least frequently. For the SSH major, there was little difference in the mean score since the mean score was all around 3.0.

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year

TESOL SSH

Figure 6.1: Interaction effects for Learning Goals

160

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year

TESOL SSH

Figure 6.2: Interaction effects for Learning Materials

With Interaction and Rapport related activities, Figure 6.3 presents two different trends among students across year levels and majors. There was a downward trend among SSH students. As they progressed in their course, they experienced activities to promote Interaction and Rapport less regularly. In the meantime, there was a wild fluctuation among those students trained to be English teachers, with the peak frequency seen in third-year students and the lowest rate perceived by second-year students. Generally, SSH students experienced a higher frequency of Interaction and Rapport relevant activities than TESOL students except for third-year students.

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year

TESOL SSH

Figure 6.3: Interaction effects for Interaction and Rapport

161

In brief, when putting students’ year levels and students’ majors together, there were significant effects on students' perceptions of Learning Goals, Learning Materials, and Interaction and Rapport. However, there were not similar patterns among students with these three teaching components.

6.3.4 Interaction effect of students’ year levels and students’ majors and academic performance

Table 6.8 reveals that there were not any significant univariate effects on students’ perceptions of effective teaching when three variables (year level, major and academic performance) interacted with each other, except for a marginal effect occurring for Assessment and Feedback (p= 0.074), although there was an overall multivariate interaction effect.

Table 6.8: Interaction effect of students’ year levels by students’ majors and academic performance

Teaching components Mean Square F Sig. Learning goals 0.674 1.837 0.160 Assessment tasks 0.073 0.152 0.859 Learning materials 0.125 0.458 0.633 Presenting and Questioning 0.309 1.419 0.243 Higher order thinking skills 0.176 0.521 0.594 Peer learning 0.214 0.728 0.484 Assessment and feedback 0.713 2.620 0.074 Positive Environment 0.068 0.215 0.806 Interaction and Rapport 0.132 0.430 0.651

6.3.5 Discussion on students’ variations in perceptions of teaching

Previous sections presented the main findings from the MANOVA analyses in respect to students’ variation in their perceptions of teaching approaches that foster student learning. Generally, there was a multivariate significant difference between students in their perceptions of teaching practice when they were in different year levels and when they studied different majors. Specifically, there was a wide range of differences among students when they were at different stages in their course,

162 however, the variation was not systematic as the patterns were diverse. When it came to the students’ major, there were not many differences between TESOL students and SSH students, but marginal effects occurred for Peer Learning and Assessment and Feedback. Interaction effects were found when year levels and majors interacted. There were significant interaction effects on students' perception of Learning Goals, Learning Materials and Interaction and Rapport, but there were not similar patterns among students with these three teaching components. Putting year level, major, and academic performance together, no significant interaction effect was found on students' perception of each professional teaching component despite a multivariate interaction effect.

Previous studies also pointed out discrepancies among students’ perceptions of effective teaching and the disparities were not systematic (Latif & Miles, 2013; Ramsden, 1991; Steh et al., 2014; Whitworth et al., 2002). For example, Ramsden (1991) noted that students' variables, such as prior knowledge and experiences, had the potential to influence students' perceptions of teaching effectiveness. The present study did not show that the more senior the students became, the more different their view concerning effective teaching. It just revealed the students’ differences when they were in different year levels and did not show a structured pattern. In this sense, the present study did not wholly align, but showed some overlapping with the study by Ramsden (1991). Also, in this respect, the present study shared some common findings with the research by Whitworth et al. (2002), who found that graduate students have significantly clearer perceptions of teaching quality than undergraduate students because of differences in age, experience and maturity.

In relation to another study (also on variations in students’ perceptions of teaching) the present study was consistent with what Latif and Miles (2013) found. Their research pointed out that second- and fourth-year students placed a higher value on an instructor's organisational abilities than first-year students did (Latif & Miles, 2013), but also revealed that the students’ year levels had no impact on the ranking of the instructor’s helpfulness as an important quality. Compared to the first-year students, the second-year, third-year and fourth-year students had a higher preference for providing practice questions. As such, when it came to teachers’ characteristics and effective teaching practice, Latif and Miles (2013) concluded that there were

163 significant differences in students’ perceptions, but these differences were not structured. In these characteristics of the differences the present study aligned with the research by Latif and Miles (2013).

In Vietnamese higher education institutions, there are more students enrolling in undergraduate courses either after they have finished army service or after a few years in employment. Consequently, there are more diversifications in terms of age in the students’ cohort now. Besides, since the implementation of credit-based learning, students can be more flexible in completing their course. As a result, year levels do not necessarily mean the students are less experienced in learning nor that they have had less exposure to teaching practices. As such, findings of the present study that variations in students' perceptions existed in VHE but were not systematic were not surprising. This finding reflected the diversities as well as the complexities in the students’ cohort of VHE.

Apart from year levels, the present study also pointed out only marginal differences in students’ perceptions of effective teaching, taking account of TESOL versus SSH majors. This finding was consistent with that of some previous studies which indicated that students’ majors, such as accounting and nursing, did not influence what they thought about effective teaching (Fatima et al., 2007; Valiee et al., 2016).

Kelly (2007) asserted that having teaching knowledge and experience did impact students' perspective of what constitutes effective teaching. However, this did not hold true with the present study which indicated that there were minimal differences in perceptions between those who were training to become English teachers and those who were not trained for this profession (TESOL versus SSH major). As such, Kelly’s (2007) findings did not align with the present study. This might be because in the Vietnamese English education curriculum, only when students reach their third and fourth year are they involved in specialised subjects such as teaching pedagogy, testing and assessment, microteaching and teaching practicum, whereas first- and second-year students usually focus on foundation subjects such as Mathematics, Philosophy and Psychology along with their major, English. That means that education students in Vietnam do not acquire pedagogical knowledge and teaching experience until their third or fourth year. The present study had 249 TESOL students out of 570 student participants, and only 53 of these were either in their third or fourth 164 year, while 196 out of 249 TESOL student participants were in the foundation years and had not been exposed to teaching methodology subjects nor had they experienced micro teaching or the teaching practicum. That is perhaps why the present study did not find significant differences in the perceptions of effective teaching between TESOL and SSH students.

Concerning academic performance, research literature indicates some variations in students' perceptions across the levels of academic performance. High achieving students tend to be independent and self-regulating, and thus engage actively in their learning regardless of how well their teachers conduct the teaching practice. Average and low achievers seem to be more influenced by their teachers' intervention in teaching. For instance, Fatima et al. (2007) showed that the mean score rated by students with below average academic performance tends to be higher than that by other groups of students. The 2007 study also found that students with above average academic performance tended to perceive student-centred teaching methods to be more effective, while students with lower academic performance perceived more traditional teaching methods to be more effective (Fatima et al., 2007). In this respect, the present study was not consistent with the previous studies. Nevertheless, the present study aligned with the findings from earlier research indicating the academic performance of students generally did not impact how students perceived effective teaching (Lizzio et al., 2002). Therefore, conclusions over students’ differences in their perceptions of effective teaching in relation to their academic performance appear to be controversial. Findings on this issue should not be generalised across the whole population of students in higher education. Instead, the socio-economic, educational and cultural features of each context need to be taken into account when it comes to comparing the students’ perceptions of teaching with varying academic performance.

To conclude, the findings of the present study were mostly aligned with previous studies in the research literature. This perhaps shows that issues on variations of students’ perceptions of effective teaching with regard to their year levels, majors and academic performance are diversified and complicated. It is suggested that the teachers should study carefully their students’ cohort before either adopting or adapting any teaching approaches.

165

6.4 Differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions

6.4.1 T-test analyses

In addition to seeking the students’ perceptions, this study also explored the teachers’ self-reflection of their teaching through the same questionnaire as that completed by the students. Factor analyses revealed nine teaching components from the students’ perspectives. This section reports on significant differences between the teachers’ and students’ perceptions of these nine teaching components. Research literature shows that mismatches between the teachers’ and students’ perceptions of effective teaching could hinder the promotion of students’ learning outcomes (Brown, 2009; Chalmers & Fuller, 1996; Moradi & Sabeti, 2014). This section identifies whether there are such mismatches in the VHE context and in what aspects of teaching and to what extent these two groups differ in their perceptions of effective teaching.

An independent sample T-test was used to test for significant differences between teachers’ sense of implementation and students’ observation regarding the frequency of the nine teaching components (TC). Table 6.9 shows that teachers rated the nine TC higher than students did, and the p-values were all below 0.05, revealing that the difference was significant. This finding indicated that the teachers thought they generally conducted nine TC frequently, but their students, unfortunately, did not concur with the level of TC frequency. Despite the significant difference in perception of the frequency, similar trends between teachers and students in rating the frequency of teaching practices occurred with all TC components except for Learning Goals and Peer Learning.

Firstly, the teachers believed that they conducted activities to create and maintain a favourable class climate as well as a culture for learning very regularly (M=3.45). The teachers also made presentations and used questions frequently in their classes (M=3.27). The interesting thing was that students felt and saw activities in association with Presenting and Questioning and Positive Environment occur in their classes the most and the second most frequently (M=3.14 and M=3.05 respectively). Though the frequency rate scored by teachers and students was slightly different, this finding revealed that the teachers endeavoured to promote the atmosphere in learning and to present and ask questions to facilitate students' learning and this was observed and

166 sensed by their students. The acknowledgement of students regarding the frequency of the relevant activities might indicate that students could be aware of and understand the purposes of their teachers in carrying out such teaching activities. If both learners and teachers reach mutual understandings and make attempts mutually, intended learning goals are more likely to be achieved.

Secondly, Table 6.9 also shows that the teachers and students scored 3.16 and 2.78 respectively for Assessment Tasks. However, both of them ranked Assessment Tasks the fifth out of nine TC regarding the frequency. This indicated that both the teachers and students believed time was frequently spent discussing or reflecting on aspects of assessment such as the specifications including time and format, the instructions including rubrics and requirements, and the success criteria for assessment tasks.

Table 6.9 also shows that both the teachers and students perceived that Interaction and Rapport happened the least frequently in the classes (M=2.62 by teachers and M=2.35 by students). Given that promoting the positive relationships and increasing interaction in the class are assumed to contribute to the creation of a positive learning environment, this finding seemed to conflict with the previous result, which was that Positive Environment was scored the highest by teachers and second highest by students concerning its occurrence in the classes. However, this might reveal that teachers used other teaching strategies to maintain a positive learning environment, focusing on upgrading the interaction and rapport in the class. Lastly, Assessment and Feedback and Higher Order Thinking Skills both stood nearly at the end of the frequency rank as perceived by teachers and students (seventh and eighth out of nine TC). It is interesting to note that even though Higher Order Thinking Skills and Peer Learning emerged from factor analyses as separate teaching components, it did not follow that the students saw these teaching components occur frequently in their classes (Peer Learning and Higher Order Thinking Skills ranked fourth and eighth respectively in terms of the frequency rate).

Apart from similar emerging patterns, some contrasting patterns between the teachers and students were also found. While the teachers seemed to mention and remind students quite frequently about Learning Goals (M=3.19, ranked third), students did not see Learning Goals as having been repeated that frequently (M=2.65, ranked sixth). In addition, the students seemed to experience quite a lot of Peer Learning 167 activities (M=2.83, ranked fourth), while teachers appeared to use Peer Learning only the sixth most frequently in comparison to other teaching components.

Table 6.9: Differences in frequency rate by teachers and students

Teaching components Stakeholders N M SD t df P Teacher 73 3.19 0.41 Learning goals 7.03 641 <0.05 Student 570 2.65 0.64 Teacher 73 3.16 0.53 Assessment tasks 4.44 641 <0.05 Student 570 2.78 0.70

Teacher 73 3.17 0.51 Learning materials 3.96 641 <0.05 Student 570 2.9 0.54 Teacher 73 2.96 0.48 Higher order thinking skills 4.45 641 <0.05 Student 570 2.63 0.60 Teacher 73 3.27 0.36 Presenting and Questioning 2.3 641 <0.05 Student 570 3.14 0.47 Teacher 73 3.09 0.48 Peer learning 3.58 641 <0.05 Student 570 2.83 0.58 Teacher 73 2.93 0.47 Assessment and feedback 4.19 641 <0.05 Student 570 2.64 0.57 Teacher 73 3.45 0.40 Positive Environment 5.92 641 <0.05 Student 570 3.05 0.57 Teacher 73 2.62 0.40 Interaction and Rapport 3.78 641 <0.05 Student 570 2.35 0.58

To summarise the differences and similarities between teachers’ and students’ perceptions regarding frequency of use of TC, the frequency score rated by the teachers was higher than that of the students in all TC. Thus, the teachers self- reflected implementing nine TC more frequently than the students reported having observed or experienced them. Nevertheless, there was a similar pattern in the way they ranked the frequency of these nine TC except for Learning Goals and Peer Learning.

6.4.2 Discussion on the student’s and teachers’ differences in perceptions of teaching

Several previous studies on significant discrepancies between teachers’ and students’ beliefs in effective teaching have been found in the literature. Brown (2009) noted

168 some differences in perceptions of foreign language teaching effectiveness. Brown (2009) pointed out that the students seemed to favour a grammar-based approach, whereas their teachers preferred a more communicative classroom. In a 2014 study, Moradi and Sabeti indicated that teachers and students both emphasised pedagogical knowledge as the most important factor in generating effective teaching while teaching experience appeared to be accorded a much lower priority. While these two studies indicated discrepancies in the teachers’ and students’ perceptions of effective teaching, they were not directly related to the frequency of these teaching practices perceived by the teachers and the students. Therefore, the present study aligned with these two previous studies in the sense that there were significant differences in their perceptions of effective teaching. However, in respect to the frequency of teaching components, little evidence was found to compare the present study with these two previous studies.

A closer relation was found between the present study and research through a questionnaire by Govender (2015) exploring the students’ perceptions of the frequency of various teaching methods used by their lecturers. Govender (2015) revealed that the lecture method was the most frequently used as perceived by the students. The present study also indicated that students perceived Presenting and Questioning as the strategies most frequently occurring in their classes. In this respect, the present study was consistent with the study by Govender (2015) even though the Presenting and Questioning component of the present study referred to both lecture and student-centred methods of teaching.

Though quantitative analyses of the present study did not inform which teaching components students and teachers preferred, showing significant differences in their perceptions of the frequency of teaching components is meaningful for the Vietnamese higher education context. The mismatch between their perceptions of frequency and satisfaction of teaching components suggests that what the teachers felt they used in class did not match what the students witnessed. In Vietnam, education was influenced by Confucianism which emphasised the central position of teachers and the authoritative power that teachers might hold in the class ( Nguyen, Terlouw et al., 2006; Thanh, 2010; Sloper & Le, 1995). That is why teachers seemed to teach from their own perspectives with little attention to their students' views. The finding

169 of the present study raises awareness for teachers to obtain feedback from their students on what their students perceive about teaching and learning activities. When teachers’ and students' perspectives meet, positive learning experiences will be more likely to take place, which in turn might bring about more satisfaction in learning for students (Brown, 2009; Moradi & Sabetib, 2014).

6.5 Summary

This chapter revealed nine key components of teaching practices that promote student learning, as perceived by Vietnamese students. These nine components all had high reliabilities. The chapter also pointed out significant differences in the students’ perceptions of nine teaching components when their year levels and their majors were different, even though the variations were not systematic. The chapter also noted significant differences between the students and the teachers’ perceptions with regard to the frequency and satisfaction rate of teaching components occurring in the class. These findings all informed the research question of the study as to what the key components of effective teaching practice were for VHE. This chapter answered the research question from the students’ perspectives and pointed out the diversity and complexities that were evident within the students’ perceptions and between students’ and teachers’ perceptions. However, the components emerging from this chapter are still broad. Therefore, to further inform the research question, it is crucial to explore what particular teaching practices within these nine components facilitated student learning in VHE from students’ and teachers’ perspectives. These are presented in the qualitative analyses in Chapter 7.

170

CHAPTER 7: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

7.1 Introduction

This chapter reports on the analysis of the 18 students’ and 18 teachers’ interviews in which they revealed their thoughts about more detailed and in-depth aspects of teaching that the students and teachers found helpful for the students’ learning. The analysis revealed that while there was general agreement between students and teachers that learning goals, learning materials and assessment tasks need to be aligned, there were some mismatches between them when it came to Planning Learning as this dimension seemed to be more pertinent and apparent to teachers. Concerning teaching pedagogy, students perceived an effective lecturer as a knowledge transmitter, however, they also believed that the integration of Questioning, High Order Thinking Skills and Peer Learning would benefit their learning. As for teachers, they favoured a learner-centred approach in teaching, but they flexibly employed a lectured-focused approach when the class was big.

The analysis also revealed that the students were mainly driven by assessments. They appeared to prefer assessments that involved higher order thinking skills, and group work, which were perceived to promote deep learning. Teachers flexibly deployed several ways of providing feedback for students including individual, peer, whole class, and self-feedback given the time limitations and big class sizes, whereas students appreciated personalised feedback. In addition, centralisation in the VHE curriculum appeared not to be a hindrance in developing a student-centred approach to teaching, since the teachers attempted to use this teaching approach within this constraint.

7.2 Planning Learning

This section presents the key findings in regard to Planning Learning, in which teachers were the primary agent involved in the process. Quantitative analysis shows that learning goals, learning materials and assessment tasks are three teaching

171 components under this dimension, therefore this section focuses on the aspects of these components that students and teachers highlighted. Although Planning Learning was more immediately apparent to teachers than to students, both groups generally thought that learning goals, learning materials and assessment tasks needed to align with each other. However, there were also some mismatches in their perceptions regarding some aspects of these three teaching components.

7.2.1 Alignment of learning goals, learning materials and assessment tasks

Fifteen out of eighteen interviewed teachers highlighted the importance of aligning learning activities and learning materials with the intended learning outcomes. The majority of the students also emphasised the alignment of these three components. The following quotes are indicative of teacher and student participants’ comments on this point:

“The ultimate goal of learning activities is to accomplish the desired learning goals, so everything is supposed to centre around the learning goals including the learning materials.” (T16, a teacher of General Religion, seven years of teaching experience)

“Learning materials should be consistent with what the students are expected to achieve by the end of the course. I mean, if learning materials facilitate the intended learning goals, I feel very committed in learning because our learning will keep focused.” (S8, a first-year student of Vietnamese Studies)

The responses above also indicate that students are motivated in learning when different elements of their courses align. This point was supported by Biggs and Tang (2007), who suggested that one aim of constructive alignment in education is to ensure less motivated students reach the same level as motivated students (Biggs & Tang, 2007, p.108). In addition, these teachers and students also thought that assessment tasks need to be suited to the students’ ability. In their opinion, the assessment tasks should be neither too easy nor too challenging. Many of the students reported that when the tasks are appropriate for their capability it makes the

172 assessment tasks more relevant and achievable and therefore they feel more motivated to complete the tasks. To illustrate, the response below was from a TESOL student:

“I felt overwhelmed and upset with the recent tests because they were too challenging even though I worked very hard throughout the course and I reviewed and consolidated the course very carefully to make sure I had understood all the concepts involved.” (S7, a third-year TESOL student)

Student 7 continued to report that he got disheartened because some of the test questions were either too hard or irrelevant to the course outcomes. Furthermore, most of the students claimed that the assessment tasks needed to align strictly with the learning goals that were set at the beginning of the course. If not, the students did not see the purpose of doing the assessment tasks when they were not adequately prepared. However, two students expected around five to ten percent of the assessments to extend beyond the intended learning goals because in their opinion, this was a fair approach to encourage the students to expand the lessons themselves and to read widely. The majority of the teacher interviewees strongly supported this opinion. These teachers argued that a small proportion of test items or assessment tasks needed to be associated either with the wider-reading reference materials or even with knowledge beyond the curriculum. The following excerpt was commonly stated by these teachers:

“Assessment tasks should have one or two challenging questions for those who worked hard and read extensively. The fact was in my class, some of the students exceeded the expectation of the course, and harder questions can keep the passion and interest in learning of these students.” (T11, Vietnamese Studies, 14 years of teaching experience)

The interview excerpt above suggests that there needs to be transparent communication of learning goals as well as the teacher’s expectations, so that the more challenging questions do not surprise students. Both average students and more advanced ones could be inspired when assessments align with the intended learning goals and a small proportion of assessment exceeds the expectation level (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Sambell et al., 2013). In addition to the motivation generated in students by the aligned learning materials, interviews with students also revealed that they

173 wanted their teachers to facilitate their learning by directing them to better navigate their reading materials. Ten of them claimed that how to use the materials effectively was of greater importance to them than the quantity of materials. As noted by one student:

“It would be of great help if the teacher could guide our extended reading, for example, some guiding questions for discussion for each reading would be inspiring and beneficial to our learning. Without these, I think extended readings are just on the shelf.” (S8, a first-year student of Vietnamese Studies)

The response above indicates that students seem to be more motivated to do expanded readings if their teacher provides them with some guidance. Several interviewed students further emphasised that learning materials provided without the teacher’s facilitation are not helpful. They also stated that without the teachers’ follow-up assessment tasks, students were not driven to do the extra readings because they were already overloaded by assignments for several subjects at the same time. This indicated two things. Firstly, the students would be more likely to explore and to use learning materials more effectively if the teachers were able to engage them and to facilitate their understanding of the extended materials. Secondly, the students appeared to be driven by assessment, and to be more committed if assessment tasks were aligned with the extended readings.

7.2.2 Mismatches between teachers and students in terms of learning goals, learning materials and assessment tasks

The analysis revealed that there were times teachers’ perspectives seemed not to be consistent with the students’ perspectives concerning this dimension. Firstly, while the majority of teachers emphasised the significance of clearly explaining the learning goals to students, most of the students did not appear to have a clear idea about what was expected of them in terms of learning goals. The teachers stated that in the first class of the course, they usually explicitly introduced what the course learning goals were and what their students were expected to do to accomplish these goals. The comment below made by one these teachers reflects a common practice reported by the teacher interviewees:

174

“Communicating learning goals with students is essential for effective learning of the students because they are like a driver throughout the learning process. And I explain them clearly to students when we first meet in the course, and that is the only time I talk about learning goals.” (T4, a TESOL trainer, eight years of teaching experience)

However, more than half of the students admitted that they did not have a full understanding of the learning goals. To illustrate, a student of TESOL commented:

“I think I only understand what the learning goals are and what I should do to make the learning goals happen once I am actually involved and engaged in the course. The teacher usually makes orientation of the course in the first class, but honestly at that stage, I have no idea about the subject and what I am supposed to do to complete and obtain the learning goals.” (S6, a second- year TESOL student)

The above response was typical of more than half of the students interviewed. That means that the communication and explanation of the learning goals at the beginning of the course appeared not as helpful to the students as the teachers thought. This might be because the teachers did not have time to repeat the explanation of the learning goals to students throughout the course, or the students were introduced to and explained the learning goals too soon.

Secondly, while the teachers implicitly reflected on the learning goals through formative assessments, the students expected their teachers to reinforce the learning goals throughout the subject because they thought that if they were reminded of the learning goals regularly, there would be more motivation to meet them. The teacher interviews revealed that the teachers did not frequently repeat the learning goals directly, however, they provided regular feedback to their students, advising them if they had achieved the goals and or their progression towards accomplishing the goals. The teachers did this through assessment tasks and personal observations. This is typical of the teachers’ responses:

“I did not repeat the learning goals frequently because I do not want to put pressure on students, however, I think feedback after each assessment task will

175

inform students of their progress and let them know how far they have got towards reaching the goals. This practice might be beneficial for their learning growth.” (T1, a TESOL trainer, 15 years of teaching experience)

This response revealed that the teachers linked learning goals to formative assessment and the teachers used feedback to reinforce the learning goals for students after formative assessment tasks. This teaching practice was supported by Hattie and Timperley (2007) who claimed that feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement and feedback is used to reduce the discrepancies between current understandings of performance and a desired goal (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

7.2.3 Centralisation in the VHE curriculum

In VHEIs, learning materials such as textbooks and handouts are usually either selected or developed by the departments that administer the course. The materials then need to be approved by the university’s scientific committee before being circulated within the university. The selection and the development of the learning materials are often decided by either the department leader or the course convener. Therefore, the teachers are not necessarily those who are directly involved in the development of the learning materials. In other words, the teachers in VHE are supposed to follow the pre-designed materials. For example, a teacher of International Relations noted that:

“All the learning materials and class handouts have been prepared for the teachers, the teachers just need to follow and teach. This does not matter to me. It’s good to have such materials in your hand because you just need to focus on teaching strategies.” (T8, a teacher of International Relations, four years of teaching experience)

Similarly, a teacher of TESOL asserted that:

“We are provided with teaching materials including textbooks and handouts. We do not have to prepare learning materials for students, which is good. The

176

designed materials are basically good. Our job is just to present and teach students.” (T3, a TESOL trainer, two years of teaching experience)

The two quotes above reveal that even though these teachers did not have much autonomy to develop their own materials for teaching, this appeared not to be a concern for them. It is interesting to note that these quotes emerged from novice teachers who were in their first five years of teaching while more experienced teachers had different ideas on this issue, stating that they were flexible in using the pre-designed materials. This comment was commonly found among two thirds of the experienced teachers who had at least seven years of teaching:

“The department does not force us to teach their designed materials, the department gives us flexibility as long as we can help students achieve the intended learning goals. This does not affect our teaching at all.” (T11, a teacher of Vietnamese Studies, fourteen years of teaching experience)

From the interviews, it seemed that these experienced teachers were more aware of the freedom they could enjoy in curriculum in comparison to the less experienced teachers. This might be because they have more experience in teaching, so they perhaps know the degree to which they are “allowed to bend the rules” concerning materials. This might also be attributed to unclear communication of the departments concerning how much autonomy the teachers can have in curriculum design. The interview excerpts of both less experienced and experienced teachers confirm that the top-down approach in curriculum development in VHEIs seems not to be a constraint for the teachers in terms of their teaching.

To summarise, interview analyses in regard to Planning Learning report that both the students and teachers support the alignment of learning goals, learning materials and assessment tasks because of the motivation this brings to students in their learning. However, the analyses also indicate that, while the students want their teachers to remind them directly about the learning goals, their teachers actually did so through the feedback after each formative assessment task. The analyses also confirm that the centralisation in VHE curriculum did not hinder the teachers in teaching, although the teachers of varying lengths of teaching experience appeared to be aware to different extents of the freedom they had in learning materials design.

177

7.3 Teaching Strategies

Teaching Strategies was a dimension that both students and teachers highlighted more frequently in their interviews since both were directly engaged in this process. This section presents an analysis of how the students and teachers perceived Presenting and Questioning, High Order Thinking Skills and Peer Learning as the three components of Teaching Strategies that were identified in the quantitative analysis. There were three major themes from the qualitative analysis for which the students’ and teachers’ perspectives of effective teaching strategies were provided with rich detail, and some clashes of their perspectives were also apparent.

7.3.1 Students’ perspectives of effective teaching

More than half of the students interviewed indicated that effective lecturing occurred when the teachers enabled the students to understand and apply the knowledge well. The following excerpts specified their thoughts about how their teacher was expected to lecture:

“Teachers will do their job best if they can impart, explain and make students understand the knowledge, but they need to connect [it] to practice with simple examples which make students remember the lesson very well.” (S4, a second-year student of Mass Media and Journalism)

“Theories are always dry, but teachers should make them interesting and relevant to real life. Teachers should not ask their students to make presentations about theories, but about the application of theories in their life, so that they can create in their own way. Teachers are always those who confirm the understanding of knowledge for students.” (S11, a second-year student of International Relations)

“Teachers are those who answer the questions, confirm the understanding about the knowledge because there might be some different perspectives on the investigated issue. When students get confused, teachers are there to clarify things for them.” (S16, a fourth-year student of Korean Studies)

178

The above quotes revealed that for more than half of the students, effective lecturing involved transferring the knowledge, explaining the knowledge by giving students examples and practice, answering the questions from students, clearing up the confusion for students, and giving them opportunities to apply and to connect the knowledge with popular cases. These students also claimed that these methods of lecturing afforded effective learning. This point was consistent with extensive literature. For example, some previous research has indicated that linking the presented knowledge with relevant authentic cases piqued students’ attention and interest (Race, 2010; Sambell et al., 2013). In addition to connection, the students also wanted more comparison, contrast, and reflection in their teachers’ lectures. The statement below represents this point:

“We want more comparison, contrast, reflection, and connection in her presentation because we can understand and remember the knowledge for a long time. Later, we can apply the discussed knowledge more easily.” (S15, a second-year student of Korean Studies)

This response indicates that the integration of high order thinking skills in lectures was helpful for students’ learning. In another thread of the interviews, twelve out of the eighteen students thought that the students’ cognitive skills were mostly promoted through the teacher’s questioning. For example, one of the students responded that:

“Teachers asked questions so that students can give their own opinion, and by doing so, students can enhance their thinking and reasoning skills as well as know how to justify their arguments.” (S9, a second-year TESOL student)

Another student also commented that:

“I felt engaged with the lesson when the teacher asked us to compare and contrast with other cases. I gained much understanding and deep insight. This is because I need to understand very well to make comparisons and contrasts. The process also helped me remember very well the knowledge I gained.” (S17, a fourth-year student of Psychology)

179

The two responses revealed that the students’ involvement in highly cognitive activities enabled them to gain more insight into the discussed and solved problem, thus, facilitating them in their learning. In addition, making connections between the relevant experience and the issues being discussed, which was another high order thinking skill, was echoed by many students interviewed. To illustrate, the following statement supported the employment of this cognitive skill:

“I like listening to the teachers talking about her experiences in relation to the problems we are solving and discussing, we can learn from her experiences. I mean the relevant experience connection is very helpful for my learning.” (S12, a third-year student of International Relations)

Student 12’s response indicated that the exposure to experience/s related with the problems they were attempting to solve was useful. Furthermore, creativity, which is regarded as one of the highest levels of cognitive skills was perceived as fostering deep or complex learning by over a half of the interviewed students. For example, a student of Vietnamese Studies responded that:

“I don’t like templates in learning; the teacher should give us freedom of creating. I mean creativity helps our learning because we have to understand, then fluently apply, and then create in our own ways. Obviously, creativity involves multiple tasks and skills.” (S18, a third-year Vietnamese Studies student)

As such, interview excerpts above revealed that for many of the students interviewed, the integration of higher order thinking skills in learning activities helped students’ learning. According to the students, this is done by asking the students to reflect on and make comparisons, contrasts and connections with relevant experiences and cases, to solve problems. Being creative in this process also helps strengthen learning. This integration tends to make the activities more learner-centred, because if students are proactively involved in the activities, implementing and creating these activities, they learn through experience, reflection, and meaningful creation. This might suggest that more activities that require students’ higher order thinking skills should be conducted.

180

Apart from Questioning and Higher Order Thinking Skills, the students thought Peer Learning was important to their learning. The majority of students mentioned student presentation as an effective way of gaining knowledge. This is an active approach in learning because the students (rather than the teacher) are the presenters. As previously shown, students appeared to prefer their teachers presenting the knowledge, but they aspired to be involved in the analysis of practical cases to illustrate their understanding about the learned information. They felt they could demonstrate their analysis and understanding in their group presentations. The following interview extract explains why students favour group presentation as an effective learning approach. One of the students stated that:

“If we are the presenters and talk to others to listen, we ourselves will be clearer; we’ll understand and apply the presented knowledge very well. I like to be proactive throughout the process. I feel motivated myself by my activeness in learning.” (S8, a first-year student of Vietnamese studies)

In her opinion, if she were given the opportunity to present the topic to her peers, she would gain more clarity and understanding of the topic herself. This idea was supported by previous studies which claimed that allowing students to make presentations in learning involved them in preparation and rehearsal through which more thoughts were triggered, hence, leading them to greater insight into the presented issue (Blumberg, 2009; Hartley, 2005; Hoskins & Newstead, 2009). Another student commented on her preference for presentation as follows:

“I prefer presentations because we have much freedom choosing and narrowing down the topics, and we can explore much knowledge unknown to us, and we can choose the topics we like. When I can do what I like, I feel motivated. That’s simple.” (S10, a fourth-year TESOL student)

This student preferred student presentation because the flexibility of choosing to present a topic of her interest was stimulating for her learning. This response revealed that students might enjoy making presentations in learning because of the flexibility and autonomy gained. This point was upheld by the literature emphasising the empowerment of students in their learning when they engage in tasks demanding exploration and presentation. Students would be more likely to self-direct and self-

181 regulate in their own learning if they were autonomous and independent learners, which might result in their learning growth (Blumberg, 2009; Hattie, 2009). The following excerpt was reiterated among many student participants:

“Students are very active and enthusiastic in asking questions of each other when a group is making a presentation. Group presentation helps improve a lot of skills for us such as questioning, communication, critical thinking, problem solving, etc.” (S2, a fourth-year TESOL student)

The response above showed the students’ active involvement when fellow students were presenting and this student also felt that she acquired many skills when working in groups. Other students felt much progress was made thanks to peer learning (S1, a first-year TESOL student; S4, a second-year student of Mass Media and Journalism); and the ownership in learning made them more committed because they played their own part in the group project (S5, a third-year student of Mass Media and Journalism).

In brief, students appeared to appreciate their teacher imparting the knowledge to assure the knowledge they obtained was correct, however, they also felt that questioning, higher order thinking skills, and peer learning could keep them motivated, actively engaged and more committed in their learning. This showed that in the student’s perspectives, effective teaching involves combining multiple teaching approaches from lecture-focused to student-centred approaches.

7.3.2 Teachers’ perspectives of effective teaching

As for teacher participants, when asked about their opinions regarding effective teaching, fifteen out of the eighteen teachers interviewed argued that effective teaching was where students played central roles in learning. For example, they commented on their roles in teaching as follows:

“Teachers should be facilitators and mentors for students. They are supposed to propose activities that push students’ engagement in learning.” (T2, a TESOL trainer, 13 years of teaching experience)

182

“Teachers are always activity organisers, and guides for students in their learning. However, teachers should closely monitor and make sure that their students are on track.” (T3, a TESOL trainer, two years of teaching experience)

These responses were commonly heard from teacher interviews and indicated that teachers appear to have a high awareness of their roles in students’ learning. They explicitly stated that they proposed the activities but the students implemented them. They observed and provided timely feedback to ascertain and identify the learning gains for the students throughout the implementation of activities. It seemed that the majority of teacher participants perceived effective lecturing as occurring when they did not transfer the knowledge, but facilitated and supported the process for their students to construct the knowledge themselves. The teacher participants also mentioned the strategies they found effective in teaching. As one interviewed teacher commented:

“I don’t have a fixed strategy in lecturing. Sometimes, I start with some provoking questions, sometimes with a fun game to kindle a relaxing environment for the class, sometimes with a quick test. It also depends on the characteristics of each group, and I need to adapt my teaching strategies to respond properly to their interests and characteristics.” (T5, a teacher of International Relations, ten years of teaching experience)

This teacher seemed to be flexible in employing a variety of teaching strategies. She adjusted her pedagogy mindful of her students’ backgrounds, passion and personal features. She perceived effective teaching as flexibility and accommodation of students’ learning interests. She continued:

“In lecturing, for me deciding how to maintain the students’ concentration and interest is the most important. Therefore, I usually organise learning activities in which students are the main agents along with me as a facilitator and a consultant. I reckon that when students are empowered, students are very excited, and they want to show themselves. And when they are asked more challenging questions, they become more intrigued and determined to

183

conquer the challenges.” (T5, a teacher of International Relations, ten years of teaching experience)

This response confirmed this teacher’s thoughts on effective teaching, which emphasised responding to and maintaining the students’ interest in learning. To achieve this, she thought of highlighting the active roles that the students play in learning and she facilitated and advised her students’ on their learning. This teacher also explicitly stated the importance of empowering students as well as maximising their potential by setting challenges for students. These two interview excerpts suggested that a good understanding of students is required so that necessary and timely adjustments in teachers’ pedagogical practices can be made.

Another teacher participant made further comments about the activities in lectures:

“I assign the readings to students as homework. In the lectures, I just organise activities such as role-playing, group discussions and students’ presentations, in which thought-provoking questions are raised by both the teacher and students.” (T2, a TESOL trainer, thirteen years of teaching experience)

This teacher also asked students to read the materials to prepare for the class, and she flexibly used a variety of activities instead of lecturing. She used role-plays, group discussions and group presentations, which engaged more students. This indicated that this teacher also stressed the active and independent roles of students while she acted as their mentor, facilitator and consultant in the process of teaching and learning. This approach was echoed in all interview excerpts above representing the teachers’ perspective of teachers’ and students’ roles in teaching and learning. This perception has been widely supported by the literature, where students are expected to be involved proactively in their learning and in knowledge creation (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Race, 2010; Ramsden, 2003).

When asked about how questions in lectures could facilitate students’ study, two thirds of the teachers interviewed explicitly noted that they usually employed questions to hook the students’ interest and to lead them to the lessons. Like students, these teachers also thought that questions helped students understand the lectures

184 more thoroughly. These teachers also noted the advantages of group discussion resulting from questioning. For instance, a teacher commented that:

“Relevant questions facilitate students’ understanding of the lectures and spark off open discussions. Students feel more confident and more engaged when they discuss in groups with their peers. It seemed that after each discussion, they were more confident to raise their voice and comments in the whole class. The class atmosphere becomes more vibrant and exciting. Students grow up academically in that way.” (T4, a TESOL trainer, eight years of teaching experience)

This interview excerpt indicated that group discussions are ignited by questions which appear to be an initial step to promote the students’ confidence and engagement. This thought was echoed in twelve teachers’ interviews. Like students, the interviewed teachers also aspired to encourage their students to employ higher order thinking skills in teaching and learning activities. As one of them reflected:

“I introduced some relics and temples to students so that they can come and explore the places themselves. I also asked them to take some photographs, print and present what the photos meant. The students enjoyed this activity because they had practical experiences and engaged in self-exploration and reflection. They will remember the symbols of religion for a long time thanks to this activity.” (T12, a teacher of General Religion, nine years of teaching experience)

This teacher was teaching General Religion, a foundation subject, at the time he was interviewed. This teacher employed authentic sites for students to learn through a series of actions including self-exploration, experience, presentation, and reflection. These actions provoked students’ thinking and inspired their interest in learning because they could develop their own ways of presenting. The interview extract suggests that students seemed to favour the activities in which they could have real experiences and have much space for reflection and creativity.

Apart from questioning and higher order thinking skills, the teacher participants also mentioned peer learning as an effective approach for teaching. More than half of the

185 teachers interviewed thought that group work might be a good option to increase the students’ engagement in class activities given the large size of the classes. They also stated that students would be more confident discussing with their peers in learning rather than with the whole class. The response below was echoed in ten teacher interviews:

“I favoured organising group work for students because every single student had the chance to participate in the activity, and they appeared to be more confident and relaxed with their friends. That could be the first step to build up their confidence and their intellectual growth.” (T13, a teacher of General Psychology, thirteen years of teaching experience)

These teachers also indicated some other advantages of organising group work in learning for students such as the promotion of student interaction, and the enhancement of communication and collaboration skills for students. Peer learning from their perspective seemed to be helpful for student learning, regardless of what they studied, and in whatever class size.

In short, teachers interviewed seemed to be more inclined to use a student-centred teaching approach. They placed the students in a central position in teaching and learning activities through the employment of questioning, higher order thinking skills, and peer learning, in which they acted as a facilitator and mentor.

7.3.3 Mismatches in teachers’ and students’ perspectives of effective teaching

The interviews also revealed some discrepancies in the students’ and teachers’ views of effective teaching. When asked about the real engagement the students had in learning, the student and teacher participants held inconsistent opinions. While the teachers criticised their students for their passiveness in learning, the students said that some traditions in teaching and learning made them reluctant to engage actively in interactive learning. Many teachers complained about students’ being unprepared for class. For example, T6, a teacher of TESOL, asserted that:

186

“Students are still hesitant to raise questions in the lectures. Many students admitted that they did not know what and how to ask. I think this is mainly because they had not prepared the lessons, and they had not done the readings, either.” (T6, a TESOL trainer, seven years of teaching experience)

This teacher indicated that students’ passiveness in class interactions was mainly due to their lack of preparation for the class. It is interesting that eleven out of eighteen teachers interviewed ascribed the students’ passiveness to the influence of Confucianism in teaching and learning in Vietnam where teachers were assumed to be the main source of knowledge transmission, and students were used to being told what to do in the class rather than being involved actively and energetically in class activities. The teachers also thought that the passiveness of students in learning was attributed to school teachers who guided students in rote learning and did not encourage them to think critically and creatively. The following quote supports this point:

“The students’ passiveness in learning is mainly to be blamed on general education when teachers usually imposed their ideas on students in learning, and didn’t encourage them to think critically to ask questions and to be independent in learning.” (T5, a teacher of International relations, ten years of teaching experience)

The above interview extract revealed that students’ passiveness in learning might well result from school education where they had not experienced active and independent learning. The teachers interviewed also added that teaching in higher education is suffering the consequences of school education, such as their students’ routines of rote learning and their reliance on teachers.

On the other hand, the students interviewed appeared to attribute their reluctance in class engagement to the culture in their teaching and learning. This idea was reiterated in two thirds of student interviews. For example, a student majoring in TESOL put it:

“I don’t dare to ask questions because I am afraid of my teacher. I mean, I am afraid of being criticised. I am also scared of losing face. My classmates

187

sometimes made fun of me just because I got the wrong answer, or because I asked silly questions.” (S3, a third-year TESOL student)

Another student reflected:

“Occasionally, I recognised that my teacher was providing wrong information, but I did not dare to raise my voice, because I wanted to respect her in all circumstances. I could tell her when the class finishes. There were times I did not want to make comments and contribute in the class because I was afraid that my friends would make fun of me and because I was not prepared psychologically in myself.” (S8, a student of Vietnamese Studies, 1st year)

The interview extracts revealed that teachers seemed to have authoritative power in class, thus leading to the students’ fear of their teachers. In Vietnamese culture, students are expected to have high regard for their teacher at all times. This point has been indicated by the research literature featuring the hierarchical relationship between teachers and students in teaching and learning in Vietnam (Pham & Fry, 2004; Welch, 2010; Whitmore, 1984). The extracts also indicate another feature of Vietnamese culture, which is ‘saving face’ (Ellis, 1995; Pham, 2010). Vietnamese people are generally afraid of ‘losing face’ in public. They prefer to ‘keep face’ rather than finding the truth (Ellis, 1995).

In conclusion, the students interviewed appeared to favour a flexible combination of lecture-focused and student–centred approaches to teaching, whereas their teachers preferred using a student-centred approach. Both groups highlighted integrating questioning, higher order thinking skills, and peer learning as effective approaches to enhance the students’ engagement, motivation and independence in learning. Furthermore, while teachers indicated that part of the problem was that their Vietnamese students are generally passive learners, the majority of students claimed that some Vietnamese traditions seemed to hinder proactive engagement in learning.

188

7.4 Assessment and feedback

Assessment and feedback was one of the two teaching dimensions frequently discussed by both teachers and students in their interviews. This section presents some major findings as to what aspects of assessment and feedback teachers and students thought would be useful for the students’ learning. The main finding was that the teachers endeavoured to use assessment as a learning approach, and did so within the constraints of centralised curriculum and assessment in VHE. Another finding confirmed that the students were mainly driven by assessment, but they appeared to prefer assessment approaches that involved them in deep learning. The findings also showed that while students found individual and timely feedback highly important, their teachers did this mostly with poor performing students, given the time limitations and large class size. However, they flexibly employed other ways of providing feedback for students, such as peer and group feedback.

7.4.1 Assessment for learning approaches within the constraints of VHE

Vietnamese research literature shows that centralisation in assessment exists in VHE. This section presents how the teachers tried to use assessment as a learning approach within the constraints of this centralisation. Interviews with teacher participants revealed that the teachers in VHE had more flexibility in conducting assessment than has been claimed in Vietnamese literature. More than half of the teachers interviewed mentioned the extent of freedom they had in choosing assessments in their course. The following extracts delineated cases when teachers can select their own assessments for the course. For example, T11, a teacher of Vietnamese Studies, reflected:

“Assessment in our department is quite flexible, because teachers can decide and give various assessment tasks. With foundation subjects, however, we followed the two summative assessments of the institution, one for mid-term and the other is for end-of term. With specialised subjects, we have formative assessments on a weekly basis, which replace the mid-term test, and which also engage and push students more in their learning. We also have group

189

presentations and projects to replace the end-of term test.” (T11, a teacher of Vietnamese Studies, 14 years of teaching experience)

Specialised subjects in Vietnamese universities, refer to the subjects when students focus on their major, while foundation subjects are known as more general subjects that students of many disciplines need to cover, such as Marx and Lenin, History of the Vietnamese Communist Party, English as a Second Language, Computer Science. Classes of foundation subjects are usually large, often with around 100 students. Teacher 11’s excerpt indicated that there seemed to be more freedom in assessments with specialised subjects. This teacher further explained that foundation subjects are usually administered by the Department of Studies rather than by a single department, so teachers tended to keep to the established assessments. In addition, this teacher also addressed the challenges of implementing formative assessments in such big classes, given the burden of coverage and time limitations.

Another teacher also put it:

“Basically, mid-term and end-of-term assessments are implemented by the Department of Studies. They are unchanged. So is the weight of these assessments. However, in some subjects, teaching staff can agree with each other on the assessment formats as well as the execution of assessment. We cannot change the end-of-term assessment with foundation subjects, but with specialised subjects we could be more flexible, providing that we could reach agreement among teachers of the same subject.” (T9, a teacher of Korean Studies, seven years of teaching experience)

Teacher 9’s response revealed that teachers could communicate and change what and how they assess their students’ performance. It is interesting to note that both T11 and T9 revealed that they felt more motivated to make changes in assessment because of the relatedness they felt with their students and their department. When teaching students foundation subjects (coming from different departments) they did not have this feeling, so they just followed the general regulations of the departments in terms of assessment. Furthermore, although centralisation in assessment was assumed to be an inhibitor for teaching and learning in Vietnamese higher education, both T11’s and T9’s responses indicated that this centralisation seemed not to be a real challenge for

190 the teachers interviewed. It appeared that teachers were aware of what changes they could make, and they seemed to try to use the student-centred approach within the constraints of centralisation in assessment in VHE.

7.4.2 Assessment as a main driver of student learning in VHE

The majority of the interviewed students seemed to be very keen on assessment tasks from which their learning performance was marked. They stated that they were not interested in doing the assessment tasks aiming for learning only, they preferred the assessment tasks in which teachers would grade their task. This commonly found response supports their perspective:

“If the teachers do not mark the assessment tasks, we do not feel motivated to do them because we do not usually see the purpose of getting the assessment tasks done without the assessment being assessed.” (S17, a fourth-year Psychology student)

The student respondents appeared to be assessment-driven, which might bring about both advantages and challenges for the teachers in implementing their effective teaching practice (Race, 2010; Brown, 2015). It seemed that their teachers had awareness of their students’ drive in assessment. The following extract was repeated in eleven teacher interviews:

“I have found that my students are very concerned about their grade, so I will design more formative assessment tasks that both foster their learning and assess the process of their learning. I give them bonus marks if they actively engage in the activities. All learning activities I designed are aligned with assessment tasks so that my students will be more interested.” (T18, a teacher of Vietnamese literature, ten years of teaching experience)

The response indicated that teachers were attempting to achieve a balanced combination in their teaching and assessment approach to take advantage of assessment-driven learning. The response also showed the teacher’s awareness of the need for the alignment of assessment tasks with learning activities, which was

191 identified in Biggs and Tang (2011). The following excerpt further emphasises that credit or recognition through reward was a great incentive for students in learning:

“Teachers give bonus marks for those who regularly give their opinions or comments on the lessons. That encourages us a lot to think, to ask more questions and to more actively engage in the class activities.” (S12, a third- year International Relations student)

The extract revealed that the student appeared to be motivated by the extra credit she gained from her contribution to the lessons. The interview excerpt also suggests that students’ engagement and interaction in learning was partially driven by credit that could be accumulated for the students’ formal marks. Another student (S1) even stated that he was not motivated to learn if he found the knowledge from the lesson irrelevant to the assessment. The theme of assessment-driven learning was mentioned in other interview responses. For example, the following responses illustrated the students’ strategies to respond to the assessments, in order to gain high marks:

“I prefer the tests for which I have higher possibilities to get better marsk, for example MCQ [multiple choice questions]. We discuss with our close classmates, and reflect to see how we can get higher results. We usually explore what types of answer our teacher favours, so that we can meet her expectation. If she prefers a lengthy answer, I will try to write long ones.” (S11, a second-year International Relations student)

“We need to ask more senior students about their experience of the teacher’s preferred writing styles. We need to ask them everything to get good marks.” (S10, a fourth-year TESOL student)

The responses also revealed that assessment drives students to become strategic learners. From S11’s and S10’s extracts, it appears that students used diverse strategies to obtain higher results for their assessment including self-reflection, peer discussion, and understanding their teacher’s expectations. The responses imply that the students may not be provided with marking rubrics or with clear success standards for the assessment, thus they seek this information. The following responses further illustrated the students’ grade-driven approach to assessments:

192

“I prefer group assessments over formal examinations. If we cannot make the change, I want us to receive the questions for practice and rehearsal as soon as we can, to ensure we have plenty of time to ask questions, to get prepared for the exams which are always stressful, and to get satisfactory results.” (S15, a second-year Korean Studies student)

“I also want to be provided with questions for practice and rehearse before the exams, if the teachers can help us explain and answer the questions, that would be perfect. We feel motivated in that way, because we feel we can manage the situation of assessment. We feel at a loss and highly tense if we are not sure what we are going to be assessed on.” (S12, a third-year International Relations student)

“I wish all teachers provided the marking rubrics at the beginning of the course, so that we are aware of what we are supposed to do to meet the expectations. I believe we can obtain better outcomes through that kind of information.” (S18, a third-year Vietnamese Studies student)

The responses above reveal that a major part of these students’ learning was to practise and rehearse for the formal examinations, and that provision of practice questions motivated students in learning as well. The excerpts also indicate that getting prepared for the examinations helps reduce students’ stress levels, and prior provision of marking rubrics may enable students to achieve better assessment outcomes.

In brief, students appear to deploy a wide range of strategies to successfully deal with assessments, which drives their learning. The analysis also shows that the teachers are aware of this driver and are taking advantage of this driver to foster their students’ learning.

7.4.3 Assessments that promote a deep learning approach

More than half of the teachers interviewed thought that assessment tasks should facilitate the students’ review and consolidate the lessons, rather than grade their learning performance. They favoured the assessment for learning approach.

193

Therefore, they thought that the assessment tasks need to be formative and to require the students to thoroughly understand the lessons. These eleven teachers also claimed that if the assessment tasks were conducted continuously, the teachers could maintain the students’ interest and motivation in learning. For example, one teacher participant commented:

“The assessment tasks need to evaluate the process of learning, I mean on a regular basis, and to check students’ deep understanding, not reproducing the lessons. I believe that designing assessment tasks in that direction will definitely inspire the students continuously.” (T7, a teacher of Mass Media and Journalism, ten years of teaching experience)

Students’ responses also revealed the students’ perceptions of efficient approaches of assessment that might be conducive to their learning development. Firstly, the following interview responses illustrated the students’ thoughts about how they would like to be assessed:

“I don’t like tests that only check memory; tests should require that the students understand the topic, analyse and know how to apply the acquired knowledge and skills.” (S16, a fourth-year Korean Studies student)

“I prefer a test which might push you to think critically to answer…. Or the question requires your extensive reading and deep understanding to answer it.” (S17, a fourth-year Psychology student)

“The question should be open, so that students have much freedom in structuring and brainstorming the response …. no template for answers.” (S5, a third-year Mass Media and Journalism student)

“I want assessment in which we can apply the knowledge into [real] contexts, no learning by heart … Because the final purpose of learning is to apply the knowledge into real situations.” (S7, a third-year TESOL student)

Achieve understanding, analyse, apply, think critically, no template for answers- these were common messages in the interview extracts, which might indicate that students prefer assessments that require them to have a deeper understanding of the

194 lessons. The interview responses also revealed that students preferred a higher level of metacognition in assessments such as is required for deep understanding, critical thinking and applying. This suggests that students want assessments that engage them in deep learning rather than on-the-surface learning (where rote learning is usually involved). One student made the following comment regarding rote learning:

“Assessment, regardless of any subjects, should prevent rote learning which does not bring about any positive influence on learning. Many tend to learn by heart very well and had good marks for the examinations, but others who do not have good memory but a very good understanding and evaluation of the lessons, they are not given chances to perform those strengths. And it seems that they are a bit disadvantaged with rote learning tasks even though they can be intellectually better.” (S7, a third-year TESOL student)

Student 7’s response indicated that she did not like assessment that merely involved memorising the knowledge, as this was not beneficial to her learning. Her extract also revealed that some assessments in her course failed to accurately assess the students’ intellectual capabilities. The following responses report on the students’ preferred assessments. The majority of the students interviewed stated that they preferred group presentations for their assessment. As one of them noted:

“We can choose the topic we are interested in to make presentations. We feel more active in presenting, because we can prepare very well before talking in front of the class. It is much better than being questioned in the interviews. We also learn from group members about their knowledge, skills and experience.” (S17, a fourth-year Psychology student)

Another student asserted:

“I like the presentation format the most because we have gained a lot from that assessment such as collaboration, investigating a matter in depth, searching and studying skills. The second preferred format is to do assignments, which could be a good start for someone who wants to do research later in their life. We feel assured with these types of assessment; we feel active as well.” (S16, a fourth-year Korean Studies student)

195

The interview extracts indicate that students appear to prefer either group presentations or group assignments for their assessment because, as they stated, peer learning not only helps them learn from their peers but also gain important skills such as collaboration and researching skills. The interview responses also reveal that students want to be put in an active – rather than a passive – position in assessment, and group presentations and assignments also bring them assurance and confidence. The following excerpt further explains why students prefer such assessments:

“The current assessments show that teachers more and more trust and empower students, because they are giving us project assignments – rather than MCQ tests – in which we show our understanding about one matter of concern and make a presentation about it. This way of assessment encourages us to explore the topic involving many generic skills such as searching, reading, understanding, analysing, evaluating, and later presenting skills. We do not need to learn by heart a lot, we need to think more and solve problems arising more. We feel more engaged in learning through this type of assessment, and we have learned many other things outside the topic. We don’t have much pressure, because we can investigate what we feel passionate about.” (S12, a third-year International Relations student)

The interview extract reveals some more reasons for students’ preferences in group assessment. Apart from collaboration and researching skills, the response indicates that students could also advance other generic and highly cognitive skills, such as presenting, analysing, evaluating, and problem-solving skills. These skills in return trigger students’ engagement in learning. The response also illustrates that students seem to experience less tension in doing group assessment because they can explore their interests. In addition, students also appear more confident and relaxed when working with their fellow learners rather than being alone or being confronted face-to- face by the examiners in interviews.

In summary, there is a shared understanding among the teachers and students interviewed about how assessment can help student learning. They appeared to favour assessments that promoted deep learning such as understanding, critical thinking, making connections, and applying knowledge. The students consistently confirmed

196 that they saw group presentations and projects as beneficial methods of assessment for their learning.

7.4.4 Feedback for learning

Interview analysis also shows the students’ and teachers’ perceptions towards feedback. The most visible theme under students’ perspective when it came to feedback was the value of timely and individual feedback. The following response shows that the students find timely feedback to be beneficial for their learning and this response was typical among thirteen of the students interviewed:

“With group presentations, we receive feedback right after we present, so we can have fresh comments and the desire to improve them [presentations]. If the feedback comes too late, we are not interested anymore, because we might not remember the assessments very well then, and we are busy being involved in other subjects’ assessments.” (S12, a third-year International Relations)

Student 12 explicitly states that he appreciates his teacher providing feedback as soon as the assessments are done; receiving prompt feedback generates more motivation to reflect on the feedback and helps to improve performance in the next assessment. Student 12’s response also reveals that students are more inclined to lose interest if the feedback comes late, given that the students are learning several subjects at the same time. Interestingly, this issue was not noted by the majority of teachers interviewed. Furthermore, individual feedback appeared to be students’ preferred approach because individual feedback is echoed in most of the student interviews. For example, S13, who majored in TESOL, reflects that:

“Individual feedback should be given, so that teachers can give advice that suits their student’s level. Personalised feedback given in that way further promotes students’ motivation because we will have a feeling of being specially cared about by our teacher.” (S13, a fourth-year TESOL student)

Student 13 thought that individual feedback was helpful because it matches up with each student’s performance and because it enhances their motivation in learning, making feedback effective and inspiring. While individual feedback was desired by

197 most of the students interviewed, the majority of interviewed teachers said that they do not provide feedback for individual students due to time restrictions and the burden of work overload. The response below was common among many of the teachers interviewed:

“I don’t have time for individual feedback because of the time constraints and the too heavy workload. Instead, I usually give general feedback to the whole class, analyse the common mistakes of the students, and discuss with the students how to improve. I only give individual feedback to those who either underperformed or took the wrong track in learning.” (T11, a teacher of Vietnamese Studies, 14 years of teaching experience)

The response above reveals that teachers still provide feedback individually for those who perform poorly in the course. When students were asked about the type of feedback that would be helpful for their learning peer feedback also emerged as a useful tool. The following excerpt was repeated by over half of the students interviewed and explains why students favour peer feedback:

“I prefer peer feedback, so that I can learn from my peers, which is good for my learning. Peer feedback is good when you have to argue with your peer over the mistakes she/he showed him, but you also need to justify and defend the answer you gave in the assessment. That process provokes high cognitive skills such as reasoning, critical thinking.” (S12, a third-year student of International relations)

This response clearly states that learning from peers would make peer feedback beneficial to this student’s learning. He also gave a more detailed explanation about the advantages of peer feedback. For him, peer feedback triggers a series of complex learning skills such as reasoning, defending, justifying, and critical thinking. Similarly, the teachers also perceive that peer feedback is valuable for students’ learning, and this perception is echoed in many teacher interviews. For instance, one experienced teacher asserted that:

“I use peer feedback with on-going assessments. Students are excited to see their friends’ paper, and motivated if they can learn from their peers or if their peers outperform them. They look at their peers as a model to follow. Peer

198

feedback absolutely enhances students’ activeness, interaction and confidence as well.” (T14, a TESOL trainer, 15 years of teaching experience)

In addition to individual and peer feedback, students’ responses also mentioned whole class feedback. To illustrate, S10, a senior student of TESOL, mentioned the combination of teacher and peer feedback. Student 10 remarked that the feedback by both her teacher and her classmates right after her group presentation was useful for their improvement in learning, however, this student did not explain why the combination of teacher and peer feedback was beneficial for their learning. In another interview, S6, a second-year TESOL student perceived that if feedback is provided in front of the class, the mistakes were common among all students. She also revealed that whole class feedback seemed to be the only type of feedback provided due to her teacher’s lack of time. Student 10’s and S6’s responses indicate that despite the known advantages of individual and peer feedback, students appear to accept whole class feedback as a frequent practice in obtaining feedback. From the teachers’ perspective, whole class feedback seems to be the most widely used approach (used by the teachers interviewed). This was a common response in the interviews and one of these teacher responses noted:

“I don’t spend much time for feedback, the class is too big, and the timeline is too tight, too much work for me already. I just return or simply release the mark of students after mid-course assessment. With a big class, I always give feedback to the whole class, but I give feedback in groups if students do assignments in groups. With specialised subjects, usually a small class, I provide feedback for each student.” (T10, a TESOL trainer, 13 years of teaching experience)

This teacher also had time limitations and a demanding workload but she seemed to be quite flexible in providing feedback, depending on the size of the class and the type of activity. There was also another type of feedback emerging from students’ responses. The quotes below illustrate students’ perception of self-feedback:

“Self-reflection after each formative assessment tasks boosts my progress because I can reflect on what I have not been good at against the marking rubrics, so I can adjust my learning.” (S6, a second-year TESOL student)

199

“I always check the tests again after each time, and see that if I have the chance to do the test again, will I do differently? I think I can practise self-feedback if I am provided rubrics and marking guidelines.” (S5, a third-year Mass Media and Journalism student)

From these students’ perspectives, self-feedback or self-reflection is viable, provided students are given marking instructions as well as rubrics prior to the assessment. The interview responses all suggest that students appear to be quite active in seeking feedback, and they are also quite flexible in using different types of feedback. In short, while most of the students indicate that they prefer to be provided with individual feedback, their teachers only did this for poorly performing students. This is mainly due to the time constraints and heavy workload. However, they both agreed they would employ other alternatives such as self-feedback, peer feedback and whole class feedback, which are also thought to be useful for student learning.

In conclusion, when asked about effective approaches in assessment and feedback helpful for student learning, the teacher participants seem to employ the student- centred approach regardless of the centralisation in VHE assessment. The student participants appear to be driven by assessments, thus, employ a wide range of strategies to successfully deal with assessments. The teachers interviewed seem to be aware of this driver and are trying to take advantage of it to enhance their students’ learning. Both the students and teachers feel that assessment promotes deep learning, making assessment helpful to students’ learning. When it comes to feedback, both groups appear to use different methods of feedback flexibly to facilitate the students’ learning even though the students desire to receive individual feedback.

7.5 Learning environment

Positive Environment and Interaction and Rapport were identified in quantitative analysis as two components that make a learning environment positive. This section presents enablers as well as inhibitors of a positive learning environment, from the students’ and teachers’ interviews. A major finding was that while informal meetings, humour, and jokes from teachers socially enhanced the class interaction and rapport, questioning and the teaching quality could intellectually engage students in class activities and generate a positive ecosystem for their learning. The interviews also

200 consistently emphasised that teachers’ constructive and positive manner of teaching made the learning atmosphere positive. Poor facilities, large class size, and assessment-driven learning were perceived as inhibitors for the creation and preservation of a positive learning environment.

7.5.1 Enablers for promotion of class interaction and rapport

The first facilitator appeared to be informal chats between teachers and students. All students mentioned small talks, where teachers and students can share daily life stories. Students find that the break is a good time for the two groups to be more open and to exchange informal conversation. The extract below is a response from a student, regarding how a positive class could be created:

“During the break, teachers and students can actively talk and share about their private life, especially a female teacher with girls in the class. They feel closer to each other if they frequently have informal chats over daily stuff. When students feel trusted and liked by their teachers, they feel safe and comfortable. They even consider her as their sister or aunty and they are not hesitant any more in asking questions and more energetically participating in lessons.” (S14, a second-year TESOL student)

The extract reveals that informal chats enable students to feel socially comfortable in the class, which is more likely to encourage them to take risks with and be more enthusiastic about their learning activities. The extract also indicates that this positive sentiment enhances students’ motivation and enthusiasm in class interactions such as asking and responding to questions. However, eleven students interviewed also thought that there should be a boundary between the teacher and students despite the closeness in their relationship. The response below was an example of their opinions:

“We need to set the boundaries for the relationship between teachers and students; teachers are teachers, students are students, teachers are always at a higher position, not our friends. We can be active, relaxed, and comfortable within the set boundaries.” (S18, a third-year Vietnamese Studies student)

201

This response indicates that students appear to maintain appropriate distance with their teacher because of their inferior position in the class. This perception might be influenced by Confucianism in teaching and learning in Vietnam where teachers were always positioned in the superior place of the class and students were expected to respect their teachers in all circumstances (Ellis, 1995). In spite of this, students still seem to be relaxed and enthused within the permitted boundaries. All the interview extracts in this section suggest that informal chats appear to be an enabler for a positive learning environment because they motivate students and bridge the gap between students and the teacher. However, due to the influence of Confucianism, students appear to still be cautious of the boundaries in behaviours with their teachers. However, it was noted that this enabler was not mentioned by the teachers.

If informal talks are perceived by the students to create a positive learning environment socially, questioning seems to affect the learning atmosphere academically. The majority of the students interviewed stated that questions could enhance the class communication and interaction, which is the root of maintaining a positive learning climate in the long term. The excerpt below was typical in many of the interviewed students’ responses:

“A positive and active ecosystem comes when teachers and students challenge each other in a series of questions. In some of the lessons, students stand up asking questions and discuss actively with their teachers; the learning climate is very vibrant and lively. We want more that type of learning climate.” (S5, a third- year Mass Media and Journalism)

The response envisioned an active and engaging atmosphere of learning where both students and teachers are intellectually involved in the lessons by taking turns asking and responding to each other’s questions. It appeared that students desired more engagement out of questioning in lessons. Humour and jokes were also perceived by the students interviewed as a facilitator of a positive environment. Over two thirds of the students mentioned jokes and fun activities contributing to the comfort and relaxation in the class. The following quotes were extracted from their responses:

“Teachers should be humorous so that a relaxed learning environment can be created and maintained. For example, organise some fun games and have some

202

jokes with students. My teacher often starts the lesson with a joke, or something humorous, so that the class feels relaxed before beginning the lesson.” (S6, a second-year TESOL student)

“A sense of humour is helpful in intensive lessons, more jokes and more chats with students help to bridge the distance with students, and make everybody less tense.” (S2, a fourth-year TESOL student)

The excerpts indicate that fun and humour make students relaxed, enabling the creation and maintenance of a positive learning environment. The excerpts also show that humour helps reduce the tension in learning as well as bring teachers and students closer to each other. The benefits of humour and jokes, nevertheless, were not mentioned in the teacher interviews.

The interview analysis also revealed that the majority of students thought their teacher’s passion and enthusiasm would lift their mood in their learning. The following quote illustrates that teachers’ constructive attitudes are perceived to lead to a positive influence on the students:

“Teachers’ passion and devotion always inspire students in learning; we feel positive if our teachers are positive, enthusiastic, and energetic. We also feel positive if teachers use positive posture, facial expressions and gentle voice, and are graceful and devoted in teaching.” (S11, a second-year International Relations student)

The quote indicates that students’ positive feelings are thought to result from their teacher’s positiveness, enthusiasm and passion. In this quote, the student also thought that she could be influenced by her teacher’s positive non-verbal communication such as body posture, expressions, and voice. The majority of teachers interviewed also thought that their constructive manner in teaching and dealing with students’ questions could make the learning environment more positive. As one teacher participant put it:

“The learning environment is mostly created out of the teachers’ personal characteristics such as being sociable, approachable, and friendly. Teachers’

203

passion and energy also count. How teachers deal with students’ queries also contributes to the creation and maintenance of the positive learning atmosphere. Teaching from the heart can generate students’ interest and prompt them to learn from the heart.” (T13, a teacher of General Psychology, 13 years of teaching experience)

This interview excerpt confirms a deeply-held perception of both teacher and student participants. They reported that their passion, enthusiasm, and friendliness in teaching and learning is conducive to the most positive learning environment possible. Similar to the students’ valuing of non-verbal communication, teacher participants supported the positive impact of non-verbal communication on students. The following comment was common for the majority of teachers interviewed:

“Teachers’ friendliness, their cheerful smiles, engaging eye contact all lead to a positive class for students who are usually very sensitive to their teachers’ posture and facial expressions. Teachers could not possibly remember all of their students but their students remember their teachers very well thanks to these characteristics and impressions.” (T11, a teacher of Vietnamese Studies, 14 years of teaching experience)

It appears there is a shared understanding between teacher and student participants about how positive manners and non-verbal communication can help build a more positive learning environment. Furthermore, most of the students interviewed also mentioned the quality of teaching as an important factor contributing to their trust in their teacher. The following extract is a quote from a student:

“The quality of teaching speaks, and decides, a good learning environment because when students are happy with the teachers, everything will be fine, so teachers must have good preparation for teaching. We are motivated if we can bring some knowledge back home after each class. We want to learn and understand the lessons, and do not need to revise a lot before the exams, but when the exam comes, we can still remember and answer the questions very well.” (S3, a third-year TESOL student)

204

The extract also highlights the importance of teachers’ careful preparation for their students’ learning and for helping them grasp the lessons in the class, which might help them reduce the burden of examination revision. Most of the students interviewed also mentioned the role of their peers in keeping the class climate positive. They explicitly stated that in addition to the positive attitudes and non-verbal communication of their teacher, their quality of teaching, and their peers play an important role in keeping the class climate favourable. The following excerpt was echoed in half of the student interviews and supported this point of view:

“A positive learning environment is simply created and kept where teachers teach from the heart, students help each other in learning and people care about and respect each other. We feel bored if other students in the class feel bored, lazy and passive in learning. We feel committed in learning if other students in the class are interested in learning.” (S12, a third-year International Relations student)

This quote confidently asserts that a learning environment can be established and sustained when both teachers and students express positive attitudes in the class. The quote also indicates that students exercise a positive peer effect on each other. Similarly, a senior student majoring in Korean Studies commented on this point:

“A positive climate comes from both teachers and students. Careful preparation and enthusiasm in teaching and a caring manner in solving problems inspire students and have a positive influence on them. Active and positive attitudes of some students spread across other students, and this is like a domino effect.” (S16, a fourth-year Korean Studies student)

This response confirms the collaboration of teachers and students in generating a positive learning atmosphere. In addition, the quote confirms the peer effect because it emphasises the influence of students on each other as a ripple effect. The teacher interviews also emphasise the point that creating a positive learning environment involves a mutual endeavour from both teachers and students. The comments made by teacher participants illustrate these points:

“Students’ positive attitudes in learning in return will inspire their teachers to make the lessons more interesting and engaging. Their active and positive

205

participation in learning will also push other students’ activeness as a domino effect.” (T18, a teacher of Vietnamese Literature, 10 years of teaching experience)

“Teachers’ efforts need to go along with students’ efforts in learning as well. They are two decisive agents in creating and keeping the atmosphere of the class. It is hard if either of them did not make attempts. The class is like a home where every member has to be responsible for its atmosphere. Positive classes only exist when positive feelings occur such as mutual respect, trust and acceptance. Democracy is motivating but there should be boundaries for both teachers and students. However, teachers should be the first agent to be active in creating a positive learning environment, and students will support this by becoming actively involved in the class activities.” (T4, a TESOL trainer, eight years of teaching experience)

The excerpts also reveal that students’ positive manners seemed to be a source of inspiration for their teachers’ teaching and their peers’ active engagement in learning. The excerpts emphasise the responsibility of each agent to take action in making the class warm and welcoming although the excerpts mention the boundaries within which each class needs to operationalise friendly interchange. It is interesting to note that, in these excerpts, teachers act as a pioneer for students to follow in actively creating an environment of mutual respect and acceptance. The excerpts suggest that in teacher participants’ perceptions, teachers lead an active and central role in creating such learning environments.

7.5.2 Inhibitors of learning environments and interaction and rapport

Interviews with students and teachers also revealed some of the external inhibitors for creating and maintaining a positive learning environment other than those from teachers and students. The majority of interviewed teachers and students also attributed the absence of a positive learning ecosystem to the poor facilities, big class size, and assessment-driven learning. One of the student participants commented on the lack of space in the classroom for learning activities:

206

“The room should be big enough for students to move around during the class activities, cramped spaces can demotivate student’ movement as they find it hard to leave their seats. Movable desks should be out there to facilitate the student formation of group work.” (S3, a third-year TESOL student)

The response raises a need for bigger rooms for the convenience of movement of students in activities. This is more important for language courses when students need to move their seats and to work with others in pairs/groups to implement the activities more frequently than do students in other courses. The response also revealed a need for movable desks so that students can either form groups or change the class setting more flexibly. The response suggests that these facilities are essential for students’ learning. Also commenting on poor facilities, a teacher of Vietnamese Studies reflected that:

“Big class plus poor facilities such as lack of movable chairs and projectors might curb the creation of a vibrant learning atmosphere. Above all, financial incentives could be the main inhibitor for a teacher’s enthusiasm in teaching. They cannot sustain their life from what they are paid from their teaching job now. That’s why many of them are working in other businesses to earn more income.” (T11, a teacher of Vietnamese Studies, 14 years of teaching experience)

In addition to cramped rooms and a lack of removable chairs, this interview extract indicates that class size, as has been mentioned in other dimensions of teaching practice, is definitely an inhibitor of student improvement in learning. The extract also revealed another significant inhibitor of the devotion and commitment of teachers interviewed: financial disincentives. This issue was repeated in all of the teacher interviews, which might suggest that teachers are substantially discouraged from being passionate and committed to teaching due to the low salary, which might not be sufficient for them to cover their basic living expenses. In addition, many teachers interviewed addressed the issue of assessment-driven learning as an inhibitor of the implementation of teaching activities. As one of them noted:

“It is so tough for teachers to implement a myriad teaching activities to enrich the learning environment, when their students are mainly driven by assessments. They

207

seemed not to be excited if the activities were not associated with assessments.” (T17, a TESOL trainer, 18 years of teaching experience)

Assessment, as a main driver for student’ learning, could be an advantage or a drawback for teaching and learning. In this response, it was seen as an inhibitor; this potential driver seems to curb students’ engagement in learning if they do not see the connection between the class activities and the assessments.

In summary, analysis from the student and teacher interviews reveals that informal conversations, humour and jokes from the teachers, positive attitudes of the teachers and peers in the questioning process, and the teaching quality can all generate a positive ecosystem for learning. Poor facilities, large class size, assessment-driven learning and financial disincentives are perceived as inhibitors for the creation and preservation of a positive learning environment.

7.6. Summary

Interview analysis indicated that the student and teacher participants highlighted the importance of aligning learning goals, learning materials and learning assessment because of the motivation it brings to students in their learning. The students appreciated their teachers using both teacher-centred and student-centred approaches in teaching, whereas teachers appeared to favour a student-centred approach. They both thought the employment of questioning, higher order thinking skills and peer learning would help students in learning. In addition, while students seemed to use a variety of strategies to handle assessments, their teachers appeared to be aware of this driver and try to take advantages of this driver to enhance their students’ learning. When it came to feedback, both groups agreed to flexibly accept different ways of providing and receiving feedback in accordance with the context of the class. The analysis also emphasised the mutual endeavour of both students and teachers in creating and keeping the learning environment positive. Centralisation in curriculum and assessment was mentioned by the teacher participants, but it did not seem to be an inhibitor for their teaching. Instead, the analysis mentioned some of main inhibitors for teaching and learning in VHE, including poor facilities, limited resources, large class size, and assessment-driven learning.

208

The interview analysis indicated that even though the VHE is structurally different from western higher education, there were similarities with western pedagogy. Teachers tried to implement advanced teaching approaches mainly from English speaking countries, and students desired more interaction, more learner-centred activities with the inclusion of tasks demanding highly cognitive skills, and peer learning. What is surprising about the findings is how, in a centralised, top-down system where curriculum and assessment is enforced centrally, there are still pockets within which teachers can implement more student-centred teaching. However, this was only found in specialised subjects, not in the foundation subjects.

The students interviewed generally articulated clearly what was good for their learning. The teachers tried to do what they could for their students that they perceived to be helpful for their learning. Many of their perceived approaches may have come from the western literature on effective teaching practices. The reality, however, is that in some situations, teachers are restricted, depending on their teaching context. More particularly, the teachers are limited when their classes are large, when they face the pressure of overloaded teaching and when they do not have entire autonomy in deciding what to teach and how to assess the learning outcomes of their students. Importantly, however, the teachers still try to adopt a student-centred approach in teaching within these constraints, and the students also perceive that a student-centred approach engages and stimulates them more in their learning. More differences between students’ and teachers’ perspectives can be seen in appendix F.

209

CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

8.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the main findings from both questionnaire and interview analyses, and the conclusions that have been drawn together from the analysis. The research reported in this thesis was conducted in the final years before MOET was to reach the milestone date of 2020 for achieving its innovation in modernising teaching and learning in VHE. The study investigated students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning in VHE. As has been argued in earlier chapters, the perspectives of teachers and students are important in the context of VHE, where top-down approaches and centralisation in curriculum and assessment predominate. The primary research question to be explored in this study was: “What are the key components of teaching practices that promote student learning in VHE, as perceived by teachers and students?” The study attempted to achieve three specific objectives, which included identifying key components of teaching that facilitate student learning, as perceived by both teachers and students; examining variations within students’ perceptions and differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions; and investigating the similarities and differences between VHE and what has been represented in the research literature regarding teaching, learning and assessment practices in Vietnam.

This chapter comprises nine sections, the first two of which introduce the chapter and review the study. The next three sections present the key findings for the research question. These sections are followed by the contributions and implications of the study. The study’s limitations and some directions for further research are also presented. The chapter concludes with a summary of the study’s findings and achievements.

210

8.2 A brief review of the study

As was stated in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, since shifting from a centrally planned economy to a market economy in 1986, the Vietnamese Government has been attempting to implement multiple policies with the intention to modernise its higher education by 2020. In other words, Vietnam has been adopting western-styled education, borrowing advanced curriculum from its western partners, and innovating its teaching and learning approaches (Harman, Hayden et al., 2010; Hayden & Lam, 2010; Nguyen & Tran, 2018; Yang, 2011). Despite these reforms, research studies in Vietnamese literature have indicated that the traditional expository method of teaching was still dominant during this last decade (Do, 2014; Harman & Bich, 2010; Nguyen, 2012; Pham & Fry, 2004; Tran, Le et al., 2014; Tran & Marginson, 2014; Welch, 2010). Vietnamese teaching and learning are often described as involving knowledge transmission, rote-based learning, passive learning, and as influenced by the hierarchical learning environment (Director et al., 2006; Do, 2014; Harman & Bich, 2010; Nguyen, 2012; Nguyen, 2015; Pham 2010; Pham & Fry, 2004; Welch, 2010). However, a few studies in Vietnamese literature indicated some cases in which more student-centred approach to teaching and learning was emphasised. Therefore, chapter 2 argued that teaching and learning in Vietnam is more complex and diverse than initially thought.

As argued in Chapter 3, exploring teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teaching is of paramount significance since students’ perceptions of teaching are related to their approaches to learning and their learning outcomes (Crawford et al., 1998; Entwistle, Skinner et al., 2000; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Ginns et al. 2007; Jackson et al., 1999; Kember et al, 2004; Lizzio et al., 2002; Prosser, 2013; Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Rossum & Taylor 1987). Nevertheless, students’ perceptions of teaching and learning practice (TLP) have been under-researched in the Vietnamese context because students are assumed to have a less powerful role in the teaching and learning process (Nguyen, 1989; Nguyen, 2011; Tran, 1999; Tran, 2013). Hence, this study explored the teachers’ and students’ perceptions of TLP, and the main agents and factors in such practice. It provides insights into the contemporary situation of teaching and learning in VHE from a ground-up perspective.

211

In the research literature, varying approaches have been perceived to promote student learning, including constructive alignment, deep learning, active learning, assessment for learning, inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Entwistle, 1988; Sambell et al., 2013; Ramsden, 2003; Brown & Race, 2012). While these approaches have been mainly derived from developed western education systems, it can be argued that Vietnamese education might encounter difficulties when adopting and adapting these approaches in its context. This is because, unlike teachers in western countries, teachers in Vietnam have limited autonomy in curriculum design and assessment and English is not a medium of instruction. Therefore, this study investigated whether – and if so how – teachers and students perceived these western approaches were either similar to or different from the result of their adoption and adaption in the VHE context.

The study utilised a mixed-method design to explore its primary research question. To generate findings, the study has gone through different phases. The first phase, the expert review, aimed to obtain feedback from the experts to refine the conceptual framework which was derived predominantly from western research literature. The second phase was the questionnaire whose main purpose was to ascertain whether the refined conceptual framework was applicable to the context of VHE. 570 students and 73 teachers from two higher education institutions in Vietnam were selected to participate in this phase. Through factor analyses, the thirteen components that were developed in the first phase were filtered and reduced to nine key components of teaching. The MANOVA analyses and T-tests revealed some variations within students’ perceptions and some differences in the perceptions of teachers and students. Nevertheless, these nine critical components still seemed to be rather too general and broad for the context of VHE which has unique political, educational and cultural characteristics. Therefore, to enable a more detailed and robust exploration of what specific practices of teaching, learning and assessment were thought to facilitate student learning, the study employed the last phase, the in-depth interviews with the two essential players of teachers and students (n=36). This last phase identified the key components of teaching and learning for VHE, revealing the similarities and differences between VHE and what has been reflected in the research literature, and further unveiling the complexity and variances in students’ and teachers’ perceptions.

212

All the phases of the study contributed in responding to the primary research question. The following sections discuss the main findings of the study.

8.3 Similarities between VHE and what is represented in the research literature regarding teaching practice

One of the main findings from the study is that there are indeed more similarities than differences between teaching and learning practices in VHE and what is represented in the research literature. This contrasts significantly with the main representation of VHE which tends to characterise teaching and learning in this context as rote- learning, passive learning, teacher-directed learning, examination-oriented learning, with a rigid and hierarchical learning environment. The study found nine key components of teaching for VHE, including Learning Goals, Learning Materials, Assessment Tasks, Presenting and Questioning, Higher Order Thinking Skills, Peer Learning, Assessment and Feedback, Positive Environment and Interaction and Rapport. These components are similar to what has been reflected in the research literature, which represents such components as playing an equally important role in any teaching and learning context. This section presents some of particular similarities that the study shared with previous research with respect to teaching approaches that were perceived to promote student learning.

8.3.1 Curriculum planning

One major finding suggested that the alignment of learning goals with assessment tasks and learning activities may facilitate Vietnamese students’ learning. In association with three teaching components (Learning Goals, Learning Materials and Assessment Tasks), the analysis revealed that students would be more engaged in these activities as they saw how these activities and assessment assisted them to achieve the intended learning outcomes. In addition, students stated that if challenging learning activities were not being assessed, they were not driven to make extra efforts to learn – especially in respect of doing extra reading, given the already overloaded work they had with other subjects. This finding was supported by previous research such as that of Biggs (2003), Biggs and Tang (2011), Fransson and Friberg (2015), Higgins et al. (2016), and McCann (2017). These studies all featured constructive

213 alignment, a notion of teaching, learning and assessment of developed western education systems.

This finding indicated that constructive alignment, an advanced approach from western countries in curriculum planning, teaching, learning and assessment was desired to a certain extent in the VHE context. Constructive alignment has been prevalently used in many higher education systems. What was particularly interesting and unexpected was that from the student and teacher perspectives, there was a strong focus on curriculum planning. This was interesting because many students and teachers indicated in the interviews that they were aware of the challenges in applying some advanced notions of teaching and learning from the predominantly western literature. However, they also indicated that the application of more westernised approaches would help student learning. This finding suggested that the students’ and teachers’ perceptions in this study were mirrored what is presented in the research literature regarding curriculum planning. This finding also indicated that even in the centralised top down system of education that prevails in Vietnam, teachers still thought that they could flexibly apply constructive alignment within the constraints of their context.

8.3.2 The employment of higher order thinking skills in teaching, learning and assessment practices

Many of the teachers and students involved in the study supported the integration of higher order thinking skills in teaching, learning and assessment. Over a half of the teachers thought that the students’ interest in learning would be maintained by creating opportunities for students to critically argue and justify their opinions, to connect the theories with relevant experiences and authentic cases, and to reflect and make their own choices in learning. The majority of the students also indicated that if their teachers focused on these skills in teaching and learning processes, they would gain deeper understandings of the issues under discussion, and in turn this would engage and stimulate them further in learning. This finding has been consistently supported by a number of studies, suggesting that with an emphasis on higher order thinking skills in teaching, learning and assessment, students’ understanding could be maximised, and their attention, cognition and motivation could be increased (Biggs,

214

1987; Biggs & Tang, 2011; Casea & Marshall, 2004; Evans et al., 2003; Hall et al., 2004; Hartley, 2005; Laird et al., 2014; Hoskins & Newstead, 2009; Race, 2010; Ramsden, 2003).

While the employment of higher order thinking skills in teaching, learning and assessment has been identified as beneficial in many higher educations, this finding was fascinating for VHE, given that Vietnamese graduates are usually claimed to lack essential skills by employers including critical thinking, problem-solving and creativity (Bodewig et al., 2014; World Bank, 2008). This finding indicated that Vietnamese teachers in the study were indeed trying to integrate higher order cognitive skill development in their teaching and assessment to promote learning for their students, regardless of some cultural conventions in their home context. Nguyen (2011) emphasised that Vietnamese students can learn productively if their learning is well-facilitated, despite the contextual and cultural inhibitors. The study suggests that modernising teaching and learning, and catching up with some initiatives of the western countries depends very much on the teachers. In the interviews, many teachers showed their awareness of difficulties they have to face, yet they are still confident in applying some innovation in teaching, learning and assessment. The study found that not all the teachers were able to organise and implement the initiatives, but the majority believed that they should do this. Many of the teacher participants also indicated that it would be challenging for them given the constraints of time, facility, policy and tradition. As such, this finding revealed that even though the integration of higher order thinking skills was perceived helpful for student learning, the employment of these skills in real teaching and learning activities is very much dependent on whether the teachers engage with the innovation or not.

Another significant finding was that, teacher and student participants favoured assessment tasks that demonstrated a real understanding of the topic through analytical and critical thought rather than checking students’ memorising ability. This kind of practice in assessment has been consistently supported by global research literature (Biggs, 2003; Boud & Feletti 1997; Brown & Race, 2012; Falchikov & Goldfinch 2000; Lynch et al., 2012). However, this finding is different from most of the previous Vietnamese studies (for example Can, 2011; Harman & Bich, 2010; Nguyen, 2012) which claimed that assessment tasks usually assess students’

215 capability of memorising rather than their capability of applying knowledge or solving problems. Therefore, this finding indicated that the students’ and teachers’ perception of productive assessment practice is in line with what is reflected in the research literature and questions what has been often indicated in Vietnamese literature to date regarding assessment.

Consequently, while the practice of embedding higher order thinking skills into teaching, learning, and assessment has been widely reflected in the literature, the present study found some positive changes in teacher and student perceptions of teaching, learning and assessment. This might be because many teacher participants in the study had been educated in developed western education systems where constructivist teaching is developed and favoured, hence, they could have been positively influenced. The student participants in the study are from two leading universities in Vietnam, so they were likely already academically-motivated students, given the competitive entry in student selection and admission of these two universities. Their perceptions have been more closely in line with what research literature in the world indicated as teaching and learning practices that enable student learning.

8.3.3 The promotion of group presentation and group assignments

The study revealed two forms of peer learning that the majority of the students thought helpful for their learning. Firstly, they perceived group presentation as an effective way of gaining knowledge in groups. They stated that this was an active approach to learning, instead of passively listening and taking notes during teachers’ talks. The students aspired to be involved in the analysis of practical cases to illustrate their understanding through group presentation after the theoretical knowledge was explained by their teachers. They perceived that making presentations in groups involved preparation, discussion, and rehearsal through which more thoughts are provoked and through which the students had to justify their arguments with their peers. Consequently, they perceived that they obtained deeper understanding of the acquired knowledge and knew to better apply the knowledge to practical cases. This finding was consistent with many previous studies in the literature (e.g., Colvin, 2007; Felder & Brent, 2001; Havnes et al., 2016; Schunk, 1987; Sharan, 2010; Topping,

216

1996) who found that group learning enhanced depth of understanding, necessitated the reviewing of existing knowledge and skills, and made learning become a more active and interesting experience. The study also indicated that students preferred group presentations because they had the flexibility of choosing to present a specific case of their interest, which they saw as motivating for their learning. This also aligned with the existing literature stating that group learning increased attention, enhanced motivation to learn, and appreciation of the subject being taught (Felder & Brent, 2001; Jacques & Salmon, 2007; Race & Brown, 2000; Schunk, 1987; Kalaian et al., 2018; Topping, 1996).

Secondly, the majority of the students consistently stated that group assignments were also beneficial for their learning. As they did for group presentations, the students also mentioned some advantages of completing assignments in groups, such as enhanced motivation and performance, and increasing students' engagement in collaborative knowledge construction. This finding aligned with previous studies such as those by Angelo and McCarthy (2018), Caruso & Wooley (2008) and Sormunen et al. (2013).

In brief, what has been found in this study concerning peer learning has been identified in the literature as being beneficial. However, it was noted that these findings not only strengthened previous studies, but also aligned with the culture of Vietnam. Much research has demonstrated that students from Confucianism- influenced countries favoured working in groups and they obtained better learning outcomes when they did assignments in groups (Biggs, 1990; Chan & Watkins, 1994; Earley, 1989; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Park, 2009; Tang, 1993). This might be because Confucianism-influenced countries tend to have collectivist cultures, and these countries appear to emphasise social connections and cohesion between two or more people (Biggs, 1990; Chan & Watkins, 1994; Earley, 1989; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Park, 2009; Tang, 1993). Consequently, peer learning has been suggested for students from collectivist cultures (Salili, 1996) and peer learning has been deemed a culturally appropriate teaching and learning practice for Confucianism-influenced countries and many collectivist nations (Nguyen, Terlouw, et al., 2006). As such, while the study indicated a shared finding with what has been found in the literature, it emphasised that group presentation and group assignments are appropriate for learners in the Vietnamese cultural context.

217

8.3.4 Mutual responsibility for positive learning environment

The teachers and the students both thought that teachers’ dedication and enthusiasm in teaching, their positive attitudes and behaviours, their teaching strategies including questioning, and their teaching efficiency, all facilitated the creation and maintenance of a positive learning environment in the classroom. This finding is similar to what has been represented in the global literature. What was interesting was that the students perceived that the learning climate in higher education in Vietnam can be fostered in class by informal dialogues with teachers, as well as teachers’ humour and jokes of teachers. This finding showed that there was still space for more open and informal exchanges within their home tradition. This finding questioned the presence of a strictly hierarchical relationship between teachers and students which is often indicated as a typical feature of a Confucianism-influenced learning environment (Nguyen, 2011; Nguyen & McInnis, 2002; Tran, 2012; Tran, 2013). Consequently, the claim that the learning environment in VHE is rigid and hierarchical did not really hold true with what students and teachers in the present study reported. Again, this finding of the study indicated that there are some overlaps and some disparities between home traditions and more open approaches to creating and maintaining a positive learning environment.

Equally interestingly, the teachers and the students in the study also thought that creating a positive learning environment involved mutual responsibility from both teachers and students. They commented that both groups needed to play active roles in establishing the learning environment. This finding was quite surprising in a context such as Vietnam where students were assumed to be passive and dependent on their teachers (Director et al., 2006; Nguyen, 2011; Pham, 2010; Tran, 2012; Tran, 2013). A two-directional learning environment is supported by Tran and Nguyen (2015) indicating that the responsibility for teaching and learning, including the learning atmosphere, “does not reside in the teachers alone, nor in the students, but in all involved” (p. 319). In addition, Dobinson (2015) also highlighted the need for “two-way conversations” (p. 420) in making learning environments positive and Nguyen and McInnis (2002) pointed out that “teaching is a combined activity in which there is a direction from the teacher and a compliance by the students in order to enhance students’ learning” (p.56). As such, the present study provided evidence to

218 support the benefits of the mutual endeavour of students and teachers in building up a positive climate. This finding is significant because it suggests that Vietnamese students can be more active in creating a positive environment for their learning than previously thought.

In conclusion, while the practices of constructive alignment, the employment of higher order thinking skills in teaching, learning and assessment, the promotion of group presentation and group assignments and the mutual responsibility for building a positive learning environment have all been reflected in the research literature, this study indicated that these practices were also present in VHE, where a centralised approach to curriculum design and assessment still exist, where teaching and learning has been influenced by classic Confucianism, and where English is not a medium of instruction.

It seems that good teaching, learning and assessment in the global literature is good teaching, learning and assessment in VHE. What has been developing in western traditions seemed to be evident in VHE, even though there are some slight differences between what was established in the developed country contexts (the conceptual framework) and what was playing out in VHE (the students and the teachers’ perceptions). Some of the findings signal positive changes in the conception of teaching and learning of Vietnamese teachers and students, such as the promotion of questioning and high order thinking skills in learning and assessment, and the mutual responsibility of both teachers and students in creating a positive learning environment. Nevertheless, there are some teaching practices that are still in transition due to cultural and contextual differences. The following section presents some aspects of hybridity in teaching, learning and assessment in VHE.

8.4 Some aspects of hybridity in teaching, learning and assessment in VHE

Even though there was a lot of uniformity between findings of the study and what has been discussed in the research literature, there was evidence of hybrid pedagogy emerging in VHE. This was particularly evident with regard to the perceptions of the role of lecturing in teaching and learning, which was considered to be included within student-centred approaches, the varied views of students of the role of questioning in 219 learning and the strategic approach to learning and assessment, where the students not only employed rote-based learning – formerly indicated from the literature as their only approach to learning – but also thought that other strategies could enhance their understanding and help them obtain good grades in assessment.

8.4.1 Incorporating lecturing and a student-centred approach to teaching and learning

The study showed that the students appreciated their teachers presenting ideas and concepts because they thought that confusion was more likely to occur when difficult theories and concepts were studied. They favoured this approach because they trusted their teachers and thought that the knowledge imparted by the teachers was authoritative. However, the students in the interviews also reported that they would appreciate more interaction in learning. They favoured teaching activities that involved them in critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. As such, the students in this study appeared to want a student-centred approach to learning, in which teachers organise the activities, create the opportunities for students to become involved and thus create knowledge themselves. Likewise, the teachers in this study advocated a student-centred approach to teaching. They emphasised that students played a central role in learning along with the facilitation and guidance of the teachers. However, given the limitations in policies and facilities, and large class size, they emphasised flexibly utilising multiple teaching strategies to involve the students in the learning process such as lectures, role plays, questions and discussions, and group presentations.

Thus, these findings revealed that students and teachers in this study both favoured an incorporation of lecturing and student-centred approaches in teaching. They thought that this incorporation would promote the student learning. This finding resonates with previous studies including those by Adkins (2018), Prince (2004), and Revell and Wainwright (2009), which supported this combination as an effective approach to increase student engagement in learning processes. Other studies also supported other benefits out of this combination, such as more enjoyable teaching and learning, deeper engagement, enhanced interaction, effective group activity and the generation of creative ideas (Gordy et al. 2018; Lumpkin et al., 2015).

220

The combination of teacher-directed and student-centred approaches to teaching occurs in many universities in the world. What was interesting from the study was that the teacher-directed approach took on a particular Vietnamese type of interpretation which seemed to be close to a Confucian heritage culture notion. The teacher-directed activities were predominantly concerned with lecturing. Lecturing was seen as appreciating the authoritative role of the teacher in knowledge transmission, which could be linked to Confucianism-influenced education systems where students’ voices are usually silent, and which focus on the authoritative role of teacher. The participants in this study, from the perspective of their cultural contextual background, used different words to describe their teachers’ instruction, so the word lecturing is mainly used as a replacement for teacher-directed teaching. Teacher- directed activities appear to consist mainly of the process of lecturing. The students indicated this was important to have that happen because the majority of the students said that they felt reassured if new concepts were explained by their teachers. This might be because within the Confucian perspective, the teacher is considered as the main source of knowledge and usually analyses and elaborates points for students.

Consequently, the study indicated the possible interpretation of western concepts in the local tradition in teaching, learning and assessment for VHE. What was valued by the developed countries could be added to and interpreted in slightly different ways in developing countries. This approach was consistent with what has been found in previous studies highlighting a hybrid approach in teaching in Asian contexts. For example, Luke et al. (2005) noted many successful student-centred reforms in Singapore because teachers were capable of incorporating different approaches, weaving together teacher-centredness with inquiry and problem-solving pedagogies in their classroom practices. Nguyen, Oliver et al. (2009) supported a hybrid approach to teaching and learning because hybridity was associated with more opportunities for teachers and students to express their active roles in teaching and learning in VHE, which is often seen as a highly centralised system with very low levels of autonomy and academic freedom. Lin (2014) showed that a hybrid model could be established from eastern and western values and that a model harmonizing creative pedagogy and traditional teaching approach was possible for Chinese higher education. Tran, Ngo et al. (2017) also stated that hybridity was accompanied with some positive changes and reforms in teaching and learning in VHE.

221

8.4.2 Students’ different perspectives of the role of questioning in learning

The study showed that teachers employed questions in lectures to: engage the students’ interest; check the students’ understanding of what was explained; enhance the class interaction throughout the process of questions and answers; and encourage students’ critical thoughts. From the teachers’ perspective, questioning afforded students opportunities for learning because it kept them focused on the lessons, clarified misunderstandings of the notes, and engaged them more by prompting them to think and respond to the questions. Likewise, the students of the study also stated that they felt challenged and motivated by the questions posed by their teachers, which led them to more proactive involvement in learning. Consequently, a culture of question and answer was perceived to provoke students’ interest in learning, making them more energetic and confident in class interaction. The interview analysis also showed that there were times the students claimed that they enjoyed the lessons when teachers and students challenged each other with difficult questions. They stated that engaging in questioning helped them explore and understand the issue more deeply. These benefits of questioning are supported by an extensive research literature (for example, in: Barker, 2012; Cishe, 2014; Danielson, 2007; Evans et al., 2003; Guilford, 1967; Hartley, 2005; Sambell et al., 2013; Trigwell, 2001).

Nevertheless, the interviews also showed that there were times when the students were hesitant to ask questions or contribute comments in the class discussion because they were are afraid that the question would challenge the authoritative role of the teacher. Many of them said that they would rather keep their questions in their head than risk their teacher’s face. In the interviews, they also talked about their own possible loss of face with fellow students. From their cultural perspective, students in CHC countries are not used to questioning and debating in the public. Ryan and Louie (2007) put it that “the questioning approach underpinning critical thinking is presumed to be unique to western pedagogy” (p.412). However, both the Buddha and Confucius were said to employ both questions and answers in enlightening their followers (Ryan & Louie, 2007). Hence, students’ quiet participation in questioning in this study did not necessarily mean that they were passive in mind, and that they did

222 not think critically; more likely, it was because they treated their teachers with high respect (Kennedy, 2002; Nguyen, Terlouw et al. 2006; Scollon & Scollon, 2001).

In brief, students in VHE hold different views of the role of questioning in learning. While the students and the teachers indicated that they understood the benefits of questioning in learning, they thought at the same time that from their cultural perspective, there should be a balance, many questions would challenge the authoritative role of teachers. They tried not to risk the teacher’s face in the public. As such, this study indicated that there were some forms of hybridity in questioning in VHE, an important aspect in teaching and learning. This hybridity was evident in the students’ perceptions of questioning.

8.4.3 Strategic approach to learning and assessment

Unsurprisingly, VHE students appeared to be highly motivated by grades, and grades drove their learning. This issue also occurs in other developed higher education contexts where students also thought that assessment determines their qualification (Race, 2010), therefore; they learn according to how they will be assessed (Biggs, 2003; Wormald et al., 2009). What was interesting here was that while the students were highly motivated by assessment marks, they also wanted to obtain comprehension of the issue under investigation. The students in the study appeared to adopt the strategic approach to learning and assessment. Therefore, their assessment- driven learning does not necessarily mean that their preference in learning strategies is rote learning, as often indicated in Vietnamese literature. They used different approaches in strategic ways. For example, they studied the assessment rubrics well in advance so that could address all the points in their assignments. The students also said that in case they were not provided marking criteria, they would ask more senior students in their network about what they were expected to respond to and how to present their assessment. In addition to these approaches, many students also stated that they sought some peers to learn with so that everybody in the group could share and learn from each other. As such, the students in the study were not simply studying to pass the examination. In contrast, they sought different strategies, and made substantial efforts, to deal with each assessment.

223

Therefore, the students in the study, apart from rote-based learning, also valued other approaches to learning that brought about comprehension and knowledge construction. What was interesting was that students did not over rely on rote learning as the only way to deal with assessment, as is the stereotype presented in some previous studies. They had other preferences in ways of learning that led them to comprehension and construction of meaning, and also helped them respond to their assessment tasks. These strategies were perceived to improve their understanding of knowledge, and to promote their involvement in learning. These findings aligned with research from Biggs (2003) and Ramsden (2003) who argued that good teaching is to adapt assessment and teaching strategies so as to better utilise students’ assessment- driven focus. This is also consistent with Bezuidenhout and Alt (2011) who claimed that assessment drove learning, but it would be good for student learning if assessments were geared to promote cognitive processing that required complex, conceptualized thinking to construct meaning and create knowledge. This finding aligned with previous studies indicating that CHC students are able to adjust their learning strategies very quickly to those they think are most appropriate to attain high scores (Biggs, 1998; Tang & Biggs, 1996; Volet & Renshaw, 1996).

In sum, the findings of the study have provided evidence for the presence of assessment-driven learning in VHE; however, it is not focused simply on examination-oriented learning, which has been claimed to lead to rote learning, as the only approach to learning. It is a kind of learning that turned students into strategic learners who combined both rote learning and other strategies to deal productively with both learning and assessments. They employed these strategies beyond their marks and obtained understanding of the matter concerned. Therefore, this finding of the study indicated some shifts in the students’ perceptions of how they respond to assessment so that they can gain comprehension of the knowledge, while still maintaining the possibility of getting desired grades.

8.5 Variations within student perceptions, and differences between student and teacher perceptions

Unsurprisingly, the study revealed variations among students’ perceptions, and there were also differences between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teaching.

224

Previous studies often indicated that Vietnamese students were assumed not to hold clear perceptions of what was good for their learning (Director et al., 2006; Nguyen, 2011; Tran, 2013). Nevertheless, interestingly, the present study showed that the students can articulate very well how teachers can help them with learning and what is important to promote their learning. In addition, contrary to research that normally presents that Vietnamese students as passive, the comments from the students and their perceptions indicated that they have quite firm ideas about what they want to see in the learning environment. These ideas are very close to the western literature about productive teaching and learning practice.

Furthermore, the study also indicated that throughout their interviews the students appeared to try to conform to their cultural tradition. As revealed from the interviews, conforming means they want to retain aspects of a more traditional approach to teaching and learning. They appreciated it happening within their learning context and they also perceived how it should be developed. They respected their teachers’ knowledge and tried to save the teacher’s face. They seemed to be hesitant to reject their tradition in learning. In contrast, the teachers seemed to be consistently confident in applying what they had been trained to do from western education systems into teaching in VHE. They did not mention at all their cultural traditions of teaching, learning and assessment. They only cared about how they could best support students’ learning. Therefore, even though they were aware of the challenges they would confront in trying western approaches in their context, the participating teachers still thought that they could be flexible in employing the advanced notions within their constraints.

8.6 Summary of findings

The study has added some new insights into the evolving nature of VHE in terms of teaching and learning practices. While the seven key components of teaching that the study found were very similar to what have been found in the research literature, there are some slight variations of hybridity. This shows that although the top-down approach still exists in VHE, the teachers in the study still thought that they could find opportunities to flexibly apply western initiatives of teaching and learning in their context. The study, therefore, paved the way to a further understanding that

225 centralisation in curriculum development in HEIs tended not to be an inhibitor for teachers in teaching, as has often been indicated in the research literature.

The study has provided evidence that there are some significant overlaps between VHE and western approaches to teaching and learning. The overlaps lay in the student-centred approach, in constructive alignment of teaching activities, learning goals, and assessment, in the open and friendly relationship between the teachers and the students, and in the promotion of group presentation and group assignments. However, there were also some disparities. The students seemed to conform with their local cultures when they said that they loved to listen to their teachers lecturing because they respected their teachers’ authority. The students also appeared to set boundaries for the informal conversations with their teachers and keep a respectful degree of distance from them. The students were driven by the outcomes of the examinations; however, they resorted to different strategies to deal with their other assessments. Therefore, the study challenged some of the prevalent stereotypes indicated in the research literature, which have long held that teaching and learning in CHC countries including Vietnam is predominantly teacher-centred, rote-learning with little critical thinking involved and dominated by assessment-oriented learning.

CHC students have also been stereotyped as passive learners since they were observed to remain quiet in class questioning and discussion. These stereotypes did not hold true for this study because its findings revealed that both teachers and students favoured a flexible incorporation of lecturing and student-centred approach to teaching. In contrast, students in this study were not passive and rote learners, since they desired more interaction in teaching and learning and they appreciated activities where they could justify their arguments with their peers, apply the theories in practice and/or demonstrate their understandings by connecting the provided information with authentic cases. The students in the study also preferred being assessed in such a way that they could illustrate their comprehension, their deep thinking and creativity. Their learning was driven by assessment, but they were strategic learners in dealing with assessment tasks. As such, the study showed complexities and variances in teaching, learning, and assessment practices in VHE. The study also showed some shifts in teaching, learning and assessment in Vietnam towards what have been indicated as effective teaching and learning practices in the

226 global research literature. These are positive signals of progress in the government’s attempts to improve the quality of higher education, as it reaches the end of the current initiatives that began in 2005. After almost 15 years of policy implementation, it is evident that the perceptions of teachers and students are becoming closer to what those reflected in the research literature.

It was noted that most of the previous research indicated that positive changes in the practices of teaching and learning occurred mainly within the advanced curriculum, where course syllabi were imported from foreign partners, and where international lecturers were invited to lead the courses and mentor the Vietnamese lecturers. The study provided evidence that positive changes were also happening within the general standard curriculum. While earlier studies indicated changes within advanced curriculum, the present study is closer to the date by which the government policies are expected to have achieved some of their aims. It indicated that there have been some shifts within more general education.

To conclude, as the government policies are reaching their conclusion in 2020, what the data show is that there were quite positive shifts in the teacher and student perceptions towards a closer alignment with the western approaches found in the literature. However, some forms of hybridity were also developing. This was evident more broadly in general programs rather than only in particular programs.

8.7 Contributions and implications of the study

8.7.1 Conceptual and practical contributions

Conceptually, the study has contributed to the literature by identifying seven critical components of teaching perceived to foster student learning in VHE. These teaching components were mainly derived from western higher education contexts, and they were validated through the data from the participating teachers and students in Vietnam. These components are significant for a country which has featured a top- down approach in curriculum design, and whose teaching and learning approaches were in part influenced by diverse foreign influences, mainly from Chinese Confucianism.

227

While most of the key teaching components found in the study are similar to what has been occuring in other higher education contexts, the study indicated closer alignment than had previously been reported between the perceptions of teaching and learning practices of the participants and those presented in the international literature. The study also found some aspects of hybridity in teaching, learning and assessment practices. These practices take advantage of teaching and learning initiatives from developed English speaking countries while aligning with home traditions of students and teachers. Moreover, these practices have been identified using a ground-up approach that included both the teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices. Therefore, these practices were derived from the perspectives of insiders, who, through their experiences of teaching and learning in VHE, are highly conscious of what specific aspects of teaching would best enable the learning of students in that context. As a result, the study provides insights into the contemporary situation of teaching and learning, which further challenge the typical stereotype of VHE teaching and learning practices.

In addition, the study provides an emerging picture of teaching and learning practices and clearer insights into a prolonged debate about whether western teaching approaches can be effectively translated into the Vietnamese context (Barnard & Viet, 2010; Phan, 2004). The study offered more evidence to show that teaching and learning in Vietnam is experiencing positive changes, even though some the literature represents uncertainties and stereotypes of teaching, learning and assessment. As indicated in the research literature, positive changes had occurred only in advanced curriculum. The findings from this study provide evidence of such changes in programs with the standard curriculum, with no international lecturers involved, and no borrowed syllabus and assessment. Therefore, the study suggests that the practices of teaching, learning and assessment in VHE may be undergoing positive and sustainable change.

Furthermore, the study has added some insights into teaching and learning in CHC countries, which has frequently been stereotyped as limited to a traditional expository teaching approach, rote learning, passive learning, examination-oriented learning, all within a hierarchical learning environment. The study provided empirical evidence to show that some of these stereotypes did not hold true for the teaching and learning

228 practices of the seventy-three teachers and five hundred and seventy students from two Vietnamese universities. It has revealed positive changes in teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices. Both teachers and students preferred varieties of teaching approaches in which students were provided opportunities to demonstrate their comprehension, critical thoughts and creativity. The students preferred to seek and construct knowledge themselves rather than having it passively imparted to them by the teachers. The stereotypes that teaching and learning in Vietnamese universities consisted merely of expository knowledge transmission, rote-based learning and examination-oriented learning, as prevalently indicated in the literature, did not hold true with the teachers and students of the present study. Some of the more recent literature seemed to indicate that teaching and learning in VHE is moving, and my study has also shown these transformations. As such, teaching and learning in VHE has been more diverse and complex than was initially generalised. Therefore, the study has contributed to debunking stereotypes and generalisations over teaching and learning practices in VHE, and improved understanding about the complexities and diversities of teaching and learning practice in a CHC setting.

Findings of this study may inform teaching staff about what practices in teaching, learning, and assessment could facilitate their students’ learning within the context of VHE. The findings are especially meaningful for novice teachers and for those who have not experienced teaching training before they take up a teaching position in the university. This would be a significant, practical contribution of the study for VHE, because most teaching staff in Vietnamese universities go directly to teach without adequate training in advance (Pham, 2010) and most of their job responsibility is associated with teaching (Nguyen, 2014).

Furthermore, the seven key components of teaching and learning practices could serve as a reference for teaching staff to reflect on their teaching practice, to make necessary adaptations tor their teaching and to discuss these matters with their colleagues. Through reflection and discussion, they can self-evaluate their teaching, and then self-regulate their practice. This is a process of self-learning to strengthen their understanding of their practices and to move towards more sustainable professional learning. This set of critical components of teaching and learning

229 practices would also offer some guidance in their personal plans for professional development.

For policy makers at government level, the study showed positive signals for the contemporary implementation of educational policies, thus encouraging the promotion of this implementation. Switching to a western-styled education might be an appropriate decision of the Vietnamese government. For policy makers at institutional level, particularly those who are responsible for professional development programs, findings of the study offer them food for thought regarding how to keep the professional development agenda focused and close to the needs of the teaching staff in terms of teaching, learning and assessment approaches.

8.7.2 Implications of the study

The seven key components of teaching, learning and assessment as well as the positive changes in students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching found in the study are important for the context of VHE where teaching and learning quality is being questioned and urgently requested to improve to better meet the demands of a knowledge-based economy and the country’s engagement with globalisation. The study has provided evidence from students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching, learning, and assessment practices that these match practices reported in global research literature, though at the same time the practices take into account the local context of VHE. Such nuanced findings indicate that the major findings of the study may serve as a stepping stone for the further understanding about and improvement of teaching, learning and assessment in VHE.

Most of the teaching staff in VHE have not officially trained to become teachers, so they usually learn about teaching through trial and error (Pham, 2010; Tran, 2012). Therefore, the findings of this study will further advance Vietnamese teachers as they shift towards more effective teaching approaches that foster student learning in their class. Given the slow changes in policies in response to contextual constraints (Duggan, 2001; London, 2011; Vu, 2017), teaching staff in VHE should become more agentive, flexible and adaptive in their practice of teaching, learning and assessment

230 to make the most of their context and catch up with advanced approaches to teaching from the global research literature.

As for students, the study suggests that they should be aware of the active and central roles they should play in their process of knowledge construction with the guidance and facilitation of their teachers. Along with the students, the teachers still need to be passionate and devoted in empowering students to take ownership of their learning, and to provide timely and helpful feedback for their students. As the study indicated, the manner of feedback provision is thought to be equally important as the feedback itself, so the teachers in VHE should be constructive and supportive in informing their students of their learning performance. Moreover, the beneficial role of peer feedback should also be recognized and used in activities.

The study also suggests that transparent communication is needed between teachers and students about what is expected of students to achieve in the course and what roles students are supposed to take in group assessments. The study also pointed out that novice teachers and more experienced teachers perceived having different degrees of flexibility in using the curriculum and conducting assessment, possibly due to a lack of clear communication between the administrators and the teachers. Thus, efforts towards transparent communication in this respect should also be made. The study identified practices that inhibit the advancement of student learning, one of which involves negative attitudes of teachers and peers in responding to questions, unsettling atmosphere in class, and problems in providing feedback. This suggests that teachers and students should be more open and friendly in the class so that all can obtain more rewarding outcomes from a positive learning environment.

Although the findings of the study suggested that centralisation in curriculum and assessment did not hinder many teachers’ approaches to teaching, some teachers with fewer years of teaching experience felt they had little flexibility in utilising the centralised curriculum and assessment. Therefore, the study suggests that MOET in Vietnam strengthen the policies that provide more academic freedom for teachers in teaching. Educational leaders at all levels should also be aware of this constraint so that they can create more favourable conditions for their teaching staff to make decisions that are most effective for their students and context.

231

Regarding facilities, shortages of learning resources are thought to inhibit teachers and students in switching to a more student-centred approach in teaching and learning in VHE. Therefore, more funds should be invested in libraries, as well as databases so that both teachers and students can access more resources for the independent learning of students and for the teaching and research activities of teachers. Class size presents yet another challenge for teachers and learners in VHE in implementing student- centred activities, formative assessment and providing timely and individual feedback. Hence, the study suggests educational authorities in VHE reduce class size so that teachers can adopt and adapt these advanced practices in teaching and learning flexibly.

A further implication of the study is the use of the key practices of teaching and learning in teacher education courses. The robust components of teaching and learning practices can guide student teachers in informing their teaching practices they should aim at within the contextual and cultural features identified in the study. These critical practices have been supported by the relevant literature review and have been validated with empirical evidence, so it would be a strong foundation for student teachers to rely on to build on their understanding as well as to determine their future teaching paradigm.

8.8 Limitations and suggestions for further studies

Since the study was limited to gathering the students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning approaches, findings of the study reflected their thoughts and perspectives rather than the reality of what has been implemented in teaching, learning and assessment practices. The study did not measure the effectiveness of these teaching practices, either. Therefore, future studies should investigate these aspects because they may provide a more rigorous understanding of the extent to which the teaching practices can facilitate and hinder student learning.

While a mixed-method approach may help explore and find out what teaching practices are perceived to facilitate student learning in VHE, the findings of this study should not be generalised to the entire higher education system in Vietnam. The study used questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to collect data, but there were no class observations. A study with class observations would provide a more nuanced

232 understanding about teaching practices that facilitate and hinder student learning. Therefore, future research should investigate effective teaching and learning practices using a different research approach, and a larger and more diverse population so that the overall picture of effective teaching practices in all Vietnamese higher education institutions could be thoroughly understood.

Teacher and student participants of the study come from two public higher education institutions in the capital of Vietnam where students are supposed to be more economically advantaged and more exposed to advancement and developed initiatives than those in the rural areas. Therefore, the study did not capture the perceptions of those who come from underdeveloped and rural areas of Vietnam. In addition, the students in these two either national or focused universities are assumed to be more academically motivated in learning, therefore, it is suggested that research be conducted with students of lower motivation as well. It is also recommended to conduct further studies with those who are teaching and learning in international universities where teaching and learning conditions are assured to be similar to those of Western universities. It would also be useful if further studies could compare the perceptions of effective teaching practice among those groups of participants.

The participants of the study were teachers and students of either TESOL or Social Sciences and Humanities disciplines. The perceptions of teaching and learning approaches of those teaching and learning in other disciplines such as natural sciences and medicine were not explored. Future studies could investigate how these cohorts of teachers and students perceive teaching and learning practices given the distinct nature and environment of learning in these disciplines which involve laboratory work and more clinical practice. In addition, given that the sample population was over 21,000 people and the study recruited only 643 participants, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the sample choosen may not represent the true population described. Furthermore, while the study collected sufficient responses from students, the number of teacher participants in this study was more limited. The study suggests future studies recruit equal numbers of participants so that a more robust comparison can be made of students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective teaching, and understanding about their perceptions will be more rigorous.

233

8.9 Summary

This study sought to find key components of teaching practices that were perceived to promote student learning in VHE. In responding to the primary research question What are the key components of teaching practices that promote student learning in VHE, as perceived by teachers and students?, the components identified indicated that components favoured by developed education systems were also thought to be helpful for Vietnamese student learning. These teaching components include the constructive alignment of teaching, learning and assessment; the combination of lecturing and a student-centred approach to teaching and learning; varied views of the role of questioning; the employment of higher order thinking skills in teaching, learning and assessment; group presentation and group assignments; strategic learning in response to assessment; and mutual responsibility for a positive learning environment.

The key components of teaching practices that were perceived to facilitate student learning in Vietnam were mainly derived from research literature from developed western countries through multiple filters. The filters from highly relevant selected experts, students and teachers’ perceptions drawn from questionnaires, and in-depth perspectives of these stakeholders regarding what specific aspects of teaching would promote student learning, enabled the key components of TLP to be valid, reliable and meaningful to VHE. These critical components align with home traditions of students and teachers and reflect what aspects of teaching would foster student learning from insiders’ perspectives since the study used a ground-up approach to explore the perceptions of two main agents in teaching and learning, teachers and students.

What the study revealed were some similarities and some hybrid forms between VHE and what has been represented in the global research literature. The study argued that approaches to teaching and learning from developed English-speaking countries could be added and translated into a CHC context and a developing country like Vietnam but could be practised in slightly different ways. The Vietnamese Government and MOET policies to modernise teaching and learning practices in VHE, and to bring them more in line with predominantly western approaches have been shown by the

234 study to have been associated with a shift in teaching and learning practices in VHE; these are becoming more closely aligned with what is presented in the literature, with some variations to accommodate the cultural and contextual features of Vietnamese context.

The study also argued that teaching and learning practices in Vietnam have been more complex and diverse than suggested by previous accounts that were often stereotyped. Empirical findings of this study have contributed to the continuing efforts of scholars in questioning these stereotypes, not only in Vietnam but also in other countries with similar contexts. The study offered further insights into the evolution of teaching and learning practices in higher education in Vietnam. It particularly responded to the initiatives put in place by the government, while it highlighted some of the challenges that the teachers face given the VHE context. The study has responded to its primary research question and provided significant contributions to knowledge in both theoretical and practical aspects, contributions that may inform the continuing efforts to improve the education of the young adults of Vietnam.

235

References

Abrami, P. C., & d'Apollonia, S. (1991). Multidimensional students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness: Generalizability of "N=1" research: Comment on Marsh (1991). Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 411-415.

Adkins, J. K. (2018). Active learning and formative assessment in a user-centered design course. Information Systems Education Journal, 16(4), 34-40.

Akareem, H. S., & Hossain, S. S. (2012). Perception of education quality in private universities of Bangladesh: A study from students’ perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22, 11-33.

Aleamoni, L. M. (1981). Student ratings of instruction. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 110-145): Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Alia, A., Tariqb, R. H., & Toppingc, J. (2009). Students’ perception of university teaching behaviours. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(6), 631-647.

Alkharusi, H., Aldhafri, S., Alnabhani, H., & Alkalbani, M. (2014). Classroom assessment: Teacher practices, student perceptions, and academic self-efficacy beliefs. Social Behavior Personality, 42(5), 835-856. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.5.835

Allan, J., Clarke, K., & Jopling, M. (2009). Effective teaching in higher education: Perceptions of first year undergraduate students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 362-372.

Angelo, R., & McCarthy, R. (2018). Group assignments as a class element to promote performance in virtual groups. Information Systems Education Journal, 16(4), 4-12.

Aregbeyen, O. (2010). Students perceptions of effective teaching and effective lecturer characteristics at the University of Ibadan, Nigeri. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 62-69. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/pjssci.2010.62.69.

236

Ashwin, P., Boud, D., Coate, K., Hallet, F., Keane, E., Krause, K.-L., . . . Tooher, M. (2015). Reflective Teaching in Higher Education: Bloomsbury.

Asian Development Bank. (2012). Improving transitions from school to university to workplace. Higher Education in Dynamic Asia, Philippines.

Astin, A. (1984). A look at pluralism in the contemporary student population. NASPA Journal, 21(3), 2-11.

Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: Written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166- 182.

Attar, H. L. (2010). A handbook for collegiate studio teaching: Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education to music-centered instruction. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

Bacchus, M. K. (2008). The education challenges facing small nation states in the increasingly competitive global economy of the twenty-first century. Comparative Education, 44(2), 127-145. doi:10.1080/03050060802040953

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.

Bakker, A. B., Vergel, A. I. S., & Kuntze, J. (2015). Student engagement and performance: A weekly diary study on the role of openness. Motivation and Emotion, 39(1), 49-62.

Ballard, B. (1982). Language is not enough. In H. Bock & J. Gassin (Eds.), Communication at university. Melbourne: La Trobe University Press.

Ballard, B. (1987). Academic adjustment: The other side of the export dollar. Higher Education Research and Development, 6(2), 109-119.

Ballard, B. (1989). Overseas students and Australian academics: Learning and teaching styles. In B. Williams (Ed.), Overseas students in Australia: Policy

237

and practice (pp 87-98). Canberra: IDP.

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1984). Study abroad: A manual for Asian students: Longmans, Kuala Lumpur.

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1997). Essay writing for students: A practical guide (3rd ed.): Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.

Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for evaluating on-line teaching. In The Internet and Higher Education 2004, 7(3), 217-232. doi:https://doi- org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.06.003.

Barker, M. (2012). Teaching international students. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning centred approach. Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.

Barker, M., Child, C., Gallois, C., Jones, E., & Callan, V. (1991). Difficulties of overseas students in social and academic situations. Australian Journal of Psychology, 43(2), 79-84.

Barnard, R., & Viet, N. G. (2010). Task-based language teaching (TBLT): A Vietnamese case study using narrative frames to elicit teachers’ beliefs. Language Education in Asia, 1, 77-86.

Barr, N., & Crawford, I. (2005). Financing higher education: Answers from the UK: Routledge.

Batten, M., Marland, P., & Khamis, M. (1993). Knowing how to teach well- Teachers reflect on their classoom practice: Australian Council for Educational Research.

BBC. (May, 2012). Project 322 and the dream for overseas study.

Beeby, C. (1966). The quality of education in developing countries. Harvard University Press.

238

Belanger, J. R. (2016). Learning in the laboratory: How group assignments affect motivation and performance. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(1), 210- 217.

Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2011). The process of designing for learning: Understanding university teachers’ design work. Education Technology Research Development, 65(1), 125-145.

Bennett, S., Thomas, L., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J., & Harper, B. (2011). Understanding the design context for Australian university teachers: Implications for the future of learning design. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 151-167.

Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(6), 641-664.

Berliner, D. C. (1984). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In P. L. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching: Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bezuidenhout, M. J., & Alt, H. (2011). ‘Assessment drives learning’: Do assessments promote high-level cognitive processing? SAJHE, 25(6), 1062-1076.

Biemans, H., Nieuwenhuis, L., Poell, R., Mulder, M., & Wesselink, R. (2004). Competence-based VET in the Netherlands: Background and pitfalls. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 56(4), 523-538.

Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorn, Victoria.

Biggs, J. (1989). Approaches to learning in two cultures. In V. Bickley (Ed.), Teaching and learning styles within and across cultures: Implications for language pedagogy: Hong Kong, Institute for Language in Education.

Biggs, J. (1990). Asian students' approaches to learning: Implications for teaching

239

overseas students. Paper presented at the Eighth Australasian Learning and Language Conference, Queensland University of Technology Counselling Services.

Biggs, J. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6, 27-39.

Biggs, J. (1992). Returning to school: Review and discussion. In A. Demetriou, M. Shayer, & A. Efklides (Eds.), The Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development go to school (pp. 277-294): Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Biggs, J. (1993b). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12, 73-86.

Biggs, J. (1994). What are effective schools? Lessons from East and West. Australian Educational Researcher, 21(1), 19-39.

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364.

Biggs, J. (1996b). Western misconceptions of the Confucian heritage learning culture In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences (pp. 45-67). Comparative Education Research Centre, and the Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.

Biggs, J. (1998). Learning from the Confucian heritage: So size doesn't matter? International Journal of Educational Research, 29(1998), 723-738.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.): Buckingham: The Society for research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.): Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.

240

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.): Maidenhead: Open University press.

Biggs, J., & Moore, P. J. (1993). The process of learning: Prentice Hall of Australia, Sydney.

Binh, N. T. (2013). Innovating management strategies to improve quality of teaching and learning at colleges and universities in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Review of Higher Education and Self-Learning, 6(18), 25-55.

Bird, K., & Savage, K. (2015). P.L.A.N. for better learning: Pembroke Publishers Limited.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-75.

Blumberg, P. (2009). Developing learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Jossey-Bass.

Bodewig, C., Badiani-Magnusson, R., & Macdonald, K. (2014). Skilling up Vietnam: Preparing the workforce for a modern market economy. Retrieved from https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-1-4648-0231-7.

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The Challenge of problem-based learning: Psychology Press.

Bourke, S. (1986). How smaller is better: some relationships between class size, teaching practices, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 558-571.

Boyle, A. P. (2007). Using alignment and reflection to improve student learning. Elements, 3, 113-117.

Bradley, D., & Bradley, M. (1984). Problems of Asian students in Australia: Language, culture and education: AGPS, Canberra.

Brannen, J. (2005). Mixed methods research: A discussion paper. ESRC National

241

Centre for Research Methods.

Brault, R., & Reidy, J. (2004). Travel education: Demonstrating effective learning through the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. Schole: A Journal of Leisure Studies & Recreation Education, 19(1), 11-26.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Brennan, J., Brighton, R., Moon, N., Richardson, J., Rindl, J., Williams, R. (2003). Collecting and using student feedback on quality and standards of learning and teaching in higher education. Retrieved from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4988/1/rd08_03.pdf.

Briggeman, B. C., & Norwood, F. B. (2011). Employer assessment of the college graduate: What advisors need to know. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 40, 19-28. doi:10.4195/jnrlse.2009.0040.

Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is efffective? The Journal of Higher Education, 64, 574-593. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2959994.

Brok, D. P. (2001). Teaching and student outcomes. Utrecht, the Netherlands: WCC.

Brown, A. V. (2009). Students' and teachers' perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46- 60.

Brown, D. H. (2000). Principles of language learning & teaching. (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Brown, G., & Atkins, M. (1988). Effective teaching in higher education: London: Methuen.

Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Ashton, D. (2008). Education, globalisation and the future of the knowledge economy. European Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 131-156.

242

Brown, S. (2015). Learning, teaching and assessment in higher education: Palgrave.

Brown, S., & Race, P. (1995). Assess your own teaching quality: A handbook for self- assessment of teaching: London: Kogan Page.

Brown, S., & Race, P. (2012). Using effective assessment to promote learning. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 74-91). Asia: ACER Press and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Bryman, A. (2009). Social research methods (2nd ed.): Oxford University Press.

Burdsal, C. A., & Bardo, J. W. (1986). Measuring student's perceptions of teaching: Dimensions of evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46(1), 63-79.

Burns, R. B. (1991). Study and stress among first rear overseas students in an Australian university. Higher Education Research and Development, 10(1), 61-77. doi:10.1080/0729436910100106.

Campbell, J., Smith, D., Boulton-Lewis, G., Brownlee, J., C., P., & Burnett, S. C. N. P. (2001). Students' perceptions of teaching and learning: The influence of students' approaches to learning and teachers' approaches to teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 7(2), 173-187. doi:10.1080/13540600120054964.

Can, T. T. H. (2011). Nghiên cứu quản lý kiểm tra, đánh giá kết quả học tập trong giáo dục đại học ở Việt Nam [Research on management of assessing students' learning outcomes in higher education in Vietnam]. Hanoi National University, Hanoi.

Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian heritage settings. The UK: Taylor & Francis.

Caruso, H. M., & Wooley, A.W. (2008). Harnessing the power of emergent interdependence to promote diverse team collaboration. Diversity and Groups,

243

11, 245-266.

Casea, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: procedural approaches to learning in engineering education contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 605-615.

Cashin, W. E., & Slawson, H. M. (1977). Description of data base, 1976-77. IDEA technical report No. 2. Manhattan: Centre for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

Cashin, W. E. (1988). Student ratings of teaching: A summary of the research. IDEA Paper No. 20. Manhattan: Centre for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

Chalmers, D., & Partridge, L. (2012). Teaching graduate attributes and academic skills. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 56-73): Melbourne / Oxford / New York: ACER Press.

Chalmers, D., & Fuller, R. (1996). Teaching for learning at university: Theory and practice: Psychology Press.

Chalmers, D., & Volet, S. (1997). Common misconceptions about students from South-East Asia studying in Australia. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(1), 87-99. doi:10.1080/0729436970160107.

Chamoso, J. M., & Cáceres, M. J. (2009). Analysis of the reflections of student teachers of mathematics when working with learning portfolios in Spanish university classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 198-206. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.007.

Chan, G. Y. Y., & Watkins, D. (1994). Classroom environment and approaches to learning: An investigation of the actual and preferred perceptions of HongKong secondary school students. Instructional Science, 22(3), 233-246.

Chen, W. H., Lenderking, W., Jin, Y., Wyrwich, K. W., Gelhorn, H., & Revicki, D. A. (2014). Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot

244

studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 485-493.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in under-graduate education AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Applying the seven princliples for good practice in undergraduate education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Chirot, L., & Wilkinson, B. (2009). The intangibles of excellence: Governance and the quest to build a Vietnamese apex research university. Retrieved from https://ash.harvard.edu/files/apex.pdf.

Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73. doi:10.2307/3150876.

Churchill, R. (2016). Teaching: Making a difference: Milton, Qld: Wiley.

Chyung, S. Y., Yonnie, Roberts, K., Swanson, I., & Hankinson, A. (2017). Evidence- based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Performance Improvement. Nov-Dec, 56(10), 15-24.

Cishe, E. N. (2014). Fostering quality teaching and learning in higher education through academic staff development: Challenges for a multi-campus university. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(25, 272-277.

Claxton, C. S. & Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning styles: Implications for improving educational practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1987. Association for the Study of Higher Education; ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC.

Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373-386. doi:10.1080/0144341970170401.

245

Coates, H. (2005), Measuring and modelling student engagement in online and campus-based higher education, Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Melbourne, Parkville.

Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta- analysis of multi section validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543051003281.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Colvin, J. W. (2007). Peer tutoring and social dynamics in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(2), 165-181. doi:10.1080/13611260601086345

Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) (1991). 7th Congress of Communist Party of Vietnam. Retrieved from http://tulieuvankien.dangcongsan.vn/ban-chap-hanh- trung-uong-dang/dai-hoi-dang/lan-thu-vii/dai-hoi-dai-bieu-toan-quoc-lan-thu- vii-cua-dang-17

Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) (2010). Nghị quyết Đại hội đại biểu toàn quốc lần thứ XI Đảng Cộng sản Việt Nam (The Decision of the 10th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam). Hanoi: The Vietnamese Government Online Portal.

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cook-Sather, A. (2003). Listening to students about learning differences. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 22-26.

Cooper, J., & Robinson, P., (2000). The argument for making large classes seem small. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 81, 5-16.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.): London: Sage.

Costin, F., Greenough, W. T., & Menges, R. J. (1971). Student ratings of college

246

teaching: Reliability, validity, and usefulness. Review of Educational Research, 41(5), 511-535. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1169890.

Cotterall, L. S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe about them? System, 227, 493-513.

Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8, 455-468.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.): Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.): Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.): Pearson Education, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2016). Revisiting mixed methods and advancing scientific practices. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry: Oxford University Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, P. V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.): Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crisol, E. (2011). Student and teacher: New roles in the university. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 2, 84-89.

Crooks, T. J. (1998). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481.

Cross, K. P. (1987). Teaching for learning. AAHE Bulletin, 39(8), 3-7.

247

Delaney, J. G., Johnson, A., Johnson, T. D., & Treslan, D. (2010). Students’ perceptions of effective teaching in higher education. 26th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Dalkey, N. C. (1972). The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion. In N. C. Dalkey, D. L. Rourke, R. Lewis, & D. Snyder (Eds.), Studies in the quality of life: Delphi and decision-making (pp. 13-54): Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Dang, L. B. (1997). Higher education development in Vietnam: Status, trend and policy. Paper presented at the The Fifth SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education Development Governing Board Meeting Ho Chi Minh City.

Dang, Q. A. (2011). Internationalisation of higher education: China and Vietnam. (M.Sc. Thesis), Copenhagen Business School. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Danielson. (2007). Danielson's framework for teaching. Retrieved from https://danielsongroup.org/framework/framework-teaching.

Dao, K. V. (2015). Key challenges in the reform of governance, quality assurance, and finance in Vietnamese higher education- A case study. Studies in Higher Education, 40(5), 745-760. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842223.

Dao, K. V., & Hayden, M. (2010). Reforming the governance of higher education in Vietnam. In E. A. Harman (Ed.), Reforming higher education in Vietnam (pp. 129-142). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 26(6), 5-17. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025006005.

Davidson, A. L., & Phelan, P. (1999). Students' multiple worlds: An anthropological approach to understanding students' engagement with school. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 11, 233-273.

248

De, N. V. (2009). Solutions to organizing training and retraining activities to enhance the teaching staff’s competences in the Mekong Delta universities at the ime of integration. Journal of Science, 12, 182-192.

Denzin, N. (1970). Sociological methods: A sourcebook: New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers.

Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9(2), 139–160.

DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications: Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.

Director, S. W., Doughty, P., Gray, P. J., Hopcroft, J. E., & Silvera, I. F. (2006). Observations on undergraduate education in computer science, electrical engineering, and physics at select universities in Vietnam. Washington, D.C. Vietnam Education Foundation.

Do, H. M. (2014). Towards more flexible organization. In L.T. Tran et al. (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global knowledge economy (pp. 54-85): Palgrave MacMillan.

Dobinson, T. (2015). Teaching and learning through the eyes of culturally and linguistically diverse postgraduates and their lecturers in Australia and Vietnam: Implications for the internationalisation of education in Australian universities. Education Research and Perspectives, 42, 329-396.

Doll, B., Spies, R. A., LeClair, C. M., Kurien, S. A., & Foley, B. P. (2010). Student perceptions of classroom learning environments: Development of the class maps survey. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 203-218.

Dowden, T., Pittaway, S., Yost, H., & McCarthy, R. (2013). Students’ perceptions of written feedback in teacher education: Ideally feedback is a continuing two- way communication that encourages progress. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 349-362. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.632676.

249

Duerrenberger, N., & Warning, S. (2018). Corruption and education in developing countries: The role of public vs. private funding of higher education. International Journal of Educational Development, 62(C), 217-225.

Duggan, S. (2001). Educational reform in Viet Nam: A process of change or continuity? Comparative Education, 37(2), 193-212.

Dunkin, M. J. (1986). Research on teaching in higher education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.): New York: Macmillan.

Durkin, K. (2008). The middle way: East Asian master’s students’ perceptions of critical argumentation in U.K. universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(1), 38-55. doi:10.1177/1028315307302839.

Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4), 565-581. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393567.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students’ motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 553–574.

Edwards, S. (2014). Telling the truth? Nursing Ethics, 2(4), 383-384.

Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (1999). Metacognitive instructional knowledge: Cognitive mediation and instructional design. Journal of Structural Learning & Intelligent Systems, 13, 145–169.

Ellis, G. (1995). Teaching and learning styles in Vietnam: Lessons for Australian educators. Journal of Vietnamese Studies (8), 9-16.

Emmelman, D. S., & DeCesare, M. (2007). College students' perceptions of their "best" and "worst" courses and instructors. International Review of Modem Sociology, 33(2), 227-244.

Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students' approaches to learning In R.R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles: New York: Plenum.

250

Entwistle, N. (1990). How students should learn, and why they fail. Paper presented at the Conference on Talent and Teaching, Bergen, Norway.

Entwistle, N. (2005). Enhancing teaching-learning environments in undergraduate courses in electronic engineering: An introduction to the ETL Project. The International Journal of Electrical Engineering & Education, 42(1), 1-7. doi:https://doi.org/10.7227/IJEEE.42.1.2.

Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university: Deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking (Universities Into the 21st Century). Palgrave Macmillan.

Entwistle, N., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2004), 407-428. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.009

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning: London: Croom Helm.

Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169-194.

Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about “Good Teaching”: An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research & Development, 19, 5-26.

Evans, C. J., Kirby, J. R., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2003). Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and strategic flexibility among university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2003(73), 507-528.

Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322.

251

Fatima, A. H., Ahmad, N. N. N., Nor, P. N. S. M. M., & Nor, A. M. (2007). Accounting students' perceptions of effective teaching methods and instructor characteristics: Some Malaysian evidence. Malaysian Accounting Review, 6(1), 101-128.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2001). Effective strategies for cooperative learning. Journal of Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75.

Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Feldman, K. A. (1976). The superior college teacher from the students' view. Research in Higher Education, 5(3), 243-288.

Ferreira, A., & Santoso, A. (2008). Do students’ perceptions matter? A study of the effect of students’ perceptions on academic performance. Accounting and Finance, 48(2008), 209-231. doi:10.1111/j.1467-629x.2007.00239.x

Ferrell, B., & Barbera J. (2015). Analysis of students' self-efficacy, interest, and effort beliefs in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2): 318-337.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Sage Publications Ltd., London.

Flynn, B. B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R. G., Bates, K. A., & Flynn, E. J. (1990). Empirical research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 9(2), 250-284. doi:10.1016/0272-6963(90)90098-X.

Franklin, J. (1991). Technical report no. 2. Boston: Office of instructional research

and evaluation. North Eastern University.

Fransson, O., & Friberg, T. (2015). Constructive alignment: from professional teaching technique to governance of profession. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(2), 141-156. doi:10.1080/21568235.2014.997264

Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Perceived learning environment and students’ emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics

252

classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 17(2007), 478-493.

Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (1999). A hanbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Kogan Page Limited.

Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 1991(2), 66-70.

Gassin, J. (1982). Learning difficulties of a foreign student. HERDSA News, 4(3), 13- 16.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th ed.): Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A Simple guide and reference 17.0 Update (10th ed.): Pearson, Boston.

George, E. (2011). Higher education in Vietnam: Boundaries of autonomy. In J. London (Ed.), Education in Vietnam (pp. 2112-2236): Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Ginns, P., Prosser, M., & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher education: The perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 603-615.

Ginsberg, E. (1992). Not just a matter of English. HERDSA News, 14(1), 6-8.

Go, F. & Mok, C. (1995). Hotel and tourism management education: Building a centre of excellence in Hong Kong. Tourism Recreation Research, 20(2), 46- 57.

Goldschmid, B., & Goldschmid, M. L. (1976). Peer teaching in higher education: A review. Higher Education, 1976(5), 9-33.

Goodman, S., Jaffer, T., Keresztesi, M., & Mamdani, F. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between students' motivation and academic performance as mediated by effort. South African Journal of Psychology, 41(3), 373-385

253

doi:10.1177/008124631104100311.

Gordy, X. Z., Jones, E. M., & Bailey, J. H. (2018). Technological innovation or educational evolution? A multidisciplinary qualitative inquiry into active learning classrooms. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(2), 1-23. doi:doi:10.14434/josotl.v18i2.23597.

Govender, S. (2015). Students' perceptions of teaching methods used at South African higher education institutions. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(3), 23-41.

Gravells, A. (2008). Preparing to teach in the lifelong learning sector: Learning Matters.

Green, P. (1982). The content of a college-level outdoor leadership course. Paper presented at the Conference of the Northwest District Association for the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, Spokane, WA.

Green, C. B. (1973). Some current observations, general information and data on higher education in Vietnam. Washington, DC: USAID Education.

Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22. doi:10.1177/1558689807309969.

Griffiths, M., Kutar, M., & Wood, J. (2010). Introducing digital literacy skills through IBL: A comparative study of UG and PG business information systems students. Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 9(2), 1-12.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence: New York, NY: McGraw- Hill Book Co.

Ha, P. L. (2004). University classrooms in Vietnam: Contesting the stereotypes. ELT Journal, 58(1), 50-57.

254

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.): Pearson.

Hall, M., Ramsay, A., & Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4), 489-505.

Hammersley, M. (1996). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. Handbook of research methods for psychology and the social sciences: Leicester, UK: BPS Books.

Hammersley, M. (2005). Should social science be critical? Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 35(2), 175-195.

Hande, H. S., Kamath, S. R., & D’Souza, J. (2014). Students’ perception of effective teaching practices in a medical school. Education in Medicine Journal, 6(3), 63-66.

Harman, G., & Bich, L. T. N. (2010). The research role of Vietnam's universities. In G. Harman, M. Hayden, & N. T. Pham (Eds.), Reforming higher education in Vietnam: Challenges and priorities. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Harman, G., Hayden, M., & N. T. Pham (2010). Reforming higher education in Vietnam: Challenges and priorities: Springer.

Harman, G., Hayden, M., & N. T. Pham (2010). Higher education in Vietnam: Reform, challenges and priorities. In G. Harman, M. Hayden, & N. T. Pham (Eds.), Reforming higher education in Vietnam: Challenges and priorities: Springer.

Harman, K., & Nguyen, B. T. N. (2010). Reforming teaching and learning in Vietnam's higher education system. In G. Harman, M. Hayden, & N. T. Pham (Eds.), Reforming higher education in Vietnam: Challenges and priorities (pp. 65-97): Springer.

255

Hartley, P. (2005). Developing students' skills in groups and teamworking: Moving experience into critical reflection. In P. Hartley, A. Woods, & M. Pill (Eds.), Enhancing teaching in higher education (pp. 61-71): Routledge.

Hartley, P., Woods, A., & Pill, M. (2005). Enhancing teaching in higher education: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

Hativa, N. (2000). Teaching for effective learning in higher education: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement: Park Square, OX: Rutledge.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning: London: Routledge.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Havnes, A., Christiansen, B., Bjørk, I. T., & Hessevaagbakke, E. (2016). Peer learning in higher education: Patterns of talk and interaction in skills centre simulation. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 8(2016), 75-87.

Hayden, M., & Lam, T. Q. (2007). Institutional autonomy for higher education in Vietnam. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(1), 73-85. doi:10.1080/07294360601166828.

Hayden, M., & Lam, T. Q. (2010). Vietnam’s higher education system. In G. Harman, M. Hayden, & T. N. Pham (Eds.), Reforming higher education in Vietnam: Challenges and priorities (pp. 15-30): Springer.

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99, 185- 195. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221340008978967.

Hellmundt, S., & Ryan, J. (2003). Culturally rich classrooms: Stories from the United Kingdom and Australia. Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand

256

Comparative and International Education Society 31st International Conference, Wollongong. December 5–8.

Henard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education. Policies and Practices. OECD Publishing.

Hess, R. D., & Azuma, H. (1991). Cultural support for schooling: Contrasts between Japan and the United States. Educational Researcher, 20(9), 2-8.

Higgins, R., Hogg, P., & Robinson, L. (2016). Constructive alignment of a research- informed teaching activity within an undergraduate diagnostic radiography curriculum: A reflection. Radiography, 23(2017), 30-36.

Hildebrand, M., Wilson, R. C., & Dienst, E. R. (1971). Evaluating university teaching: Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California.

Hill, L. H. (2014). Graduate students' perspectives on effective teaching. Adult Learning, 25(2), 57-65.

Ho, D. Y. F. (1991). Cognitive socialization in Confucian heritage cultures. Paper presented at the Continuities and Discontinuities in the Cognitive Socialization of Minority Children. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, June 29-July 2.

Ho, N. T. (2015). An exploratory investigation of the practice of assessment for learning in Vietnamese higher education: Three case studies of lecturers' practice, Faculty of Education. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

Hoddinott, J. (2000). Biggs’ constructive alignment: Evaluation of a pedagogical model applied to a web course. In J. Bourdeau & R. Helle (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2000--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1666-1667): Montreal, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

257

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.): New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hollaway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and the US. Review of Educational, 58, 327-345.

Hornstra, L., Mansfield, C., Van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2015). Motivational teacher strategies: The role of beliefs and contextual factors. Learning Environments Research, 18(3), 363-392. doi:10.1007/s10984-015- 9189-y.

Horton, J., Macve, R., & Struyven, G. (2004). Qualitative research: Experience in using semi-structured interviews. In C. Humphrey & B. Lee (Eds.), The real life guide to accounting research: A behind-the-scenes view of using qualitative research methods (pp. 339-357): Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Hoskins, S. L., & Newstead, S. E. (2009). Encouraging student motivation. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education (3rd ed., pp. 27-39): Routledge.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.

Hsu, C. E., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(10).

Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105. doi:10.1080/07908310208666636.

Hu, G. W. (2003). English language teaching in China: Regional differences and contributing factors. Journal of Multicultural and Multilingual Development, 24(4), 290-318.

258

Hu, G. W. (2005). CLT is best for China: An untenable absolutist claim. ELT Journal, 59(1), 65-68.

Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of “face". American Anthropologist, 46(1), 45-64.

Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook: Sage.

Hunt, L. (2013). Quality teaching in the social sciences. In D. J. Salter (Ed.), Cases on quality teaching practices in higher education. The United States: Information Science Reference.

Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (2012). University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach. Asia: ACER Press and Routledge, Taylor & Francis group.

Hunt, L., & Sankey, M. (2013). Getting the context right for quality teaching and learning. In D. J. Salter (Ed.), Cases on quality teaching practice in the social sciences (pp. 261-279): Hershey PA 17033: IGI Global.

Huy, N. V. (2011). To combine theory with practice in teaching and learning in Vietnam universities and colleges at present. Viet Nam Social Sciences (3). ISSN: 1013-4328.

Hyun, J., Ediger, R., & Lee, D. (2017). Students’ satisfaction on their learning process in active learning and traditional classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 108-118.

Isman, A., Altinay, Z., & Altinay, F. (2004). Roles of the students and teachers in distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5(4), 10pp.

Jackling, B. (2005). Analysis of the learning context, perceptions of the learning environment and approaches to learning accounting: A longitudinal study. Accounting and Finance, 45(4), 597-612.

Jackson, D. L., Teal, C. R., Raines, S. J., Nansel, T. R., Force, R. C., & Burdsal, C. A. (1999). The dimensions of students' perceptions of teaching effectiveness Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(4), 580-596.

259

Jacques, D., & Salmon, G. (2007). Learning in groups: A handbook for face-to-face and online environments (4th ed.): Abingdon, N.Y. Routledge.

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International Journal of Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 29(1998), 739-761.

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2006). Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 5-20.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.): Thousand Oaks, Calif. Sage Publications.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224.

Jones, R. F. (2003). Students’ perceptions of teaching: The research is alive and well. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(1), 59-69.

Julious, S. A. (2005). Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharmaceutical statistics, 4(2005), 287-291. doi:10.1002/pst.185.

Kalaian, S. A., Kasim, R. M., & Nims, J. K. (2018). Effectiveness of small-group learning pedagogies in engineering and technology education: A meta- analysis. Journal of Technology Education, 29(2), 20-35.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.

260

Kandlbinder, P. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education. 1(July), 5-22.

Karagiannopoulou, E., & Christodoulides, P. (2005). The impact of Greek university students’ perceptions of their learning environment on approaches to studying and academic outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(2005), 329-350. doi:doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.05.002.

Karweit, N., & Slavin, R. E. (1981). Measurement and modeling choices in studies of time and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 18(2), 157-171.

Keiler, L. S. (2018). Teachers’ roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(34). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0131-6

Kelly, S. N. (2007). High school band students' perceptions of effective teaching. Journal of Band Research, 42(2), 57-70.

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1990). Cultural specificity of approaches to study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 356-363.

Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to learning? Higher Education, 31(3), 341-354.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualization of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.

Kember, D. (2007). Enhancing university teaching: Lessons from research into award-winning teachers: London, Routledge.

Kember, D., & Ginns, P. (2012). Evaluating teaching and learning: A practical handbook for colleges, universities and the scholarship of teaching. London & New York, Routledge.

261

Kember, D., Jenkins, W., & Ng, K. C. (2004). Adult students’ perceptions of good teaching as a function of their conceptions of learning—Part 2. Implications for the evaluation of teaching. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(1), 81-97.

Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5), 430-445.

Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39(8), 591-598. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10390804.

Killen, R. (2007). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice: South Melbourne, Victoria, Thomson Social Science Press.

Kim, H. S. & Crowley, M. (1990). A study of ELICOS students' perceptions on aspects of studying in Australia. Paper presented at The Internationalisation of Industry, Government and Education Curtin University, Western Australia.

Kivinen, O., Hedman, J., Kaipainen, P. (2007). From elite university to mass higher education: Educational expansion, equality of opportunity and returns to university education. Acta Sociologica: SAGE Journals, 50(3), 231-247.

Knight, P., & Yorke, M. (2004). Learning, curriculum and employability in higher education. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Konings, K. D., Seidel, T., Gruwel, S. B., & Merrie¨nboer, J. J. G. V. (2014). Differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of education: Profiles to describe congruence and friction. Instructional Science, 2014(42), 11-30. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9294-1.

Koeckeritz, J., Malkiewicz, J., & Henderson, A. (2002). The seven principles of good practice applications for online education in nursing. Nurse Educator, 27(6), 283-287.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing

262

experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212.

Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students' engagement in first-year university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.

Kromydas, T. (2017). Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: Past knowledge, present state and future potential. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1. doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0001-8.

Kuh, G. D., and Hu, S. (2001a). Learning productivity at research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 72, 1-28.

Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 309-332.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550.

Laird, T. F. N., Seifert, T. A., Pascarella, E. T., Mayhew, M. J., & Blaich, C. F. (2014). Deeply affecting first-year students’ thinking: Deep approaches to learning and three dimensions of cognitive development. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(3), 402-432.

Lam, C. D. (2009). Academic staff recruitment and development in private universities in Vietnam: In comparison with public universities (Ph.D), University of Nottingham, Nottingham.

Lam, T. Q., & Vu, A. P. T. (2012). The development of higher education, and its

quality assurance in Vietnam. In C. Acedo, D. Adams & S. Popa (Eds.), Quality and qualities: Tensions in education reforms (pp. 125-142). Rotterdam: The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Larkina, H., & Richardson, B. (2013). Creating high challenge/high support academic environments through constructive alignment: Student outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(2), 192-204.

263

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.696541.

Latif, E., & Miles, S. (2013). Students' perception of effective teaching. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 14(1), 121-129.

Lavy, I., & Yadin, A. (2010). Team-based peer review as a form of formative assessment: The case of a systems analysis and design workshop. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(1), 85-98.

Le, C. T., & Sloper, D. (1995). Higher education in Vietnam: The door opens-from Inside. In D. Sloper & C. T. Le (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Change and response (pp. 1-25): Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Le, C. V. (2007). Teachers' beliefs about curricular innovation in Vietnam: A preliminary study. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), ELT Curriculum Innovation and Implementation in Asia (pp. 191-216). Seoul: Asia Tefl.

Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: Teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 103-122. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2016.1259389

Le, T. C., Rowley, C., Quang, T., & Warner, M. (2007). To what extent can management practices be transferred between countries? The case of human resource management in Vietnam. Journal of World Business, 42(1), 113-127.

Le, T. T. T. (2010b). Enhancing students’ performance in ELT programs in the credit- based training system. Language Education in Asia, 1, 133-146.

Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts- based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York, The US: Guilford Publications.

Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 143-157.

Lee, K. S., & Carrasquillo, A. (2006). Korean college students in United States: Perceptions of professors and students. College Student Journal, 40(2), 442-

264

456.

Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A., & Liao, T. F. (2004). The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods (3rd ed.): Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Li, J. (2001). Chinese conceptualization of learning. Ethos, 29(2), 111-137.

Li, R. Y., & Kaye, M. (1998). Understanding overseas students’ concerns and problems. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 20(1), 41-50. doi:10.1080/1360080980200105.

Li, S., Prichard, J., & MacDonald, L. (2008). Student perceptions of an effective professor: A comparison of American and Chinese students. The International Journal of Learning, 15(5), 95-107.

Light, G., Cox, R., & Calkins, S. (2009). Learning and teaching in higher education- The reflective professional (2nd ed.): SAGE Publications Inc.

Lin, Y. S. (2014). A third space for dialogues on creative pedagogy: Where hybridity becomes possible. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13(2004), 43-56.

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Murray Turoff and Harold A. Linstone.

Littlewood, W. (2009). Chinese learners and interactive learning. In T. Coverdale- Jones & P. Rastall (Eds.), Internationalising the university: The Chinese context (pp. 206-216): Palgrave Macmillan.

Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2009). Student participation in university governance: The role conceptions and sense of efficacy of student representatives on departmental comités. Studies in Higher Education, 34, 69-84.

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.

265

London, J. D. (2011). Education in Vietnam: Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Loughran, J. J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Teachers' professional knowledge of classroom practice. Sydney, London: Allen & Unwin, Routledge.

Luke, A., Freebody, P., Shun, L., & Gopinathan, S. (2005). Towards research-based innovation and reform: Singapore schooling in transition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 25(1), 5– 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188790500032467.

Lumpkin, A., Achen, R. M., & Dodd, R. K. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal, 49(1), 121-133.

Lun, V. M.-C., Fischer, R., & Ward, C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: Is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learning and Individual Differences, 20(2010), 604-616.

Luong, T. H. G. (2015). Achieving change in student assessment in Vietnamese teacher training institutions. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Southern Cross University, Australia.

Luttenberg, J., & Bergen, T. (2008). Teacher reflection: The development of a typology. Teachers and Teaching, 14(5-6), 543-566.

Lynch, R., McNamara, P. M., & Seery, N. (2012). Promoting deep learning in a teacher education programme through self- and peer-assessment and feedback. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 179-197.

Mai, H. N. T., & Hall, C. (2017). Changing views of teachers and teaching in Vietnam. Teaching Education, 28(3), 244-256.

Mai, N. P., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2005). Cooperative learning vs Confucian heritage culture’s collectivism: Confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and mismatch. AEJ, 3(2015), 403-419. doi:10.1007/s10308-005-0008-4.

Marais, K. (2013). Constructive alignment in translator education: Reconsidering assessment for both industry and academy. The International Journal for

266

Translation & Interpreting Research, 5(1), 13-31. doi:ti.105201.2013.a01.

Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian model. Higher Education, 2011(61), 587-611. doi:10.1007/s10734- 010-9384-9.

Marginson, S. (2016). High participation systems of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(2), 243-271.

Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1984). The factorial invariance of student ratings of college teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 341-366.

Marsh, H. W. (1984). Students' evaluation of teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1984(76), 707-754.

Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 280-295. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.3.280

Marsh, H. W. (1990). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 646-656. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.82.4.646

Marsh, H. W. (1991). Multidimensional students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness: A test of alternative higher-order structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 285-296.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Tse, L. K. (1993). The paradox of the Chinese learner. Paper presented at the Occasional Paper Melbourne: RMIT Education Research and Development Unit.

Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976) Symposium: Learning processes and strategies, on

267

qualitative differences in learning. II: Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115– 127.

Marton, F., Watkins, D., & Tang, C. (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: An interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instruction, 7(1), 21-48.

McCann, M. (2017). Constructive alignment in economics teaching: A reflection on effective implementation. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(3), 336-348. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1248387.

McCornac, D. C., & Phan, T. C. (2005). Viewpoint: Pedagogical suggestions for teaching business and economics in Vietnam. Journal of Education for Business, 81-84.

McGee, C.F. (1980). Changing teacher behaviour and pupil attainment in inquiry- based social studies lessons through in-service programmes. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 15(1), 24-38.

McGee, C., & Fraser, D. (2012). The professional practice of teaching: Cengage Learning Australia Pty Limited.

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. (1986). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor: National Centre for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

McMahon, T., & Thakore, H. (2006). Achieving constructive alignment: Putting outcomes first. The Quality of Higher Education (Aukštojo mokslo kokyb), 3, 10-19.

Menges, R. J., & Mathis, B. C. (1988). Key resources on teaching, learning, curriculum, and faculty development: A guide to the higher education literature: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

268

Miller, L. E. (2006). Determining what could/should be: The Delphi technique and its application. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the meeting of the 2006 annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus, Ohio.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Longman.

Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2005b). Vietnam Higher Education Renovation Agenda- Period 2006-2020. No. 14/2005/NQ-CP on the Fundamental and Comprehensive Reform of Higher Education in Vietnam 2006-2020. Hanoi: MOET.

Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2008). Project for training by advanced curricula in some Vietnamese universities: Period 2008-2015. Hanoi: MOET.

Mok, K. H. (2007). Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: Critical reflections. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 433–454.

Moradi, K., & Sabeti, G. (2014). A comparison of EFL teachers and EFL students’ understandings of ‘Highly Effective Teaching’. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(2014), 1204-1213.

Morris, M. M. (2008). Evaluating university teaching and learning in an outcome- based model: Replanting Bloom. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Wollongong.

Morris, P. (1985). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to the implementation of a pedagogic innivation: A South East Asian case study. International Review of Education, 3-18.

Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (2nd ed.):

269

London: Sage Publications.

Mukorera, S., & Nyatang, P. (2017). Students’ perceptions of teaching and learning practices: A principal component approach. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 63(2), 120-138.

Murphy, D. (1987). Offshore education: A Hong Kong perspective. Australian Universities Review, 30(2), 43-44.

Murray, H. G. (1985). Classroom teaching behaviors related to college teaching effectiveness. In J. G. Donald & A. M. Sullivan (Eds.), Using research to improve teaching: New directions for teaching and learning: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Assembly. (2005). Vietnam Education Law (No. 38/2005/QH11 of June 14, 2005) Pursuant to the 1992 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, which was amended and supplemented under Resolution No. 51/2001/QH10 of December 25, 2001, of the Xth National Assembly, the 10th session.

National Assembly. (2012). Law No. 08/2012/QH13 of June 18, 2012, on Higher Education

National Assembly. (2004). Resolution No. 37/2004/QH11 of December 3, 2004 on Education (Nghị quyết số 37/2004/QH11 tại kỳ họp thứ 6 Quốc hội khoá XI về giáo dục).

Ngo, V. L. (1973). Before the revolution: The Vietnamese peasants under the French. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Ngo, T. M., Lingard, B., & Mitchell, J. (2006). The policy cycle and vernacular globalization: A case study of the creation of Vietnam National University – Hochiminh City. Comparative Education, 42(2), 225–242.

Nguyen, A. T. (2009). The internationalization of higher education in Vietnam: National policies and institutional implementation at Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Waseda University Global COE Program, Global Institute

270

for Asian Regional Integration (GIARI): Tokyo, p. 37.

Nguyen, C. H. (2013). Vietnamese international student mobility: Past and current trends. Asian Education and Development Studies, 2(2), 127-148.

Nguyen, C. T. (2011). Impacts of socio-culture on the development of autonomous learning: A lens of Vietnamese context. Journal of Studies in Education, 1(1), 1-10.

Nguyen, D. K. (2003). International practices in quality assurance for higher education teaching and learning: Prospects and possibilities for Vietnam. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

Nguyen, H. (2012). Tertiary education reform in Vietnam: Realities and solutions. Time and Education, Retrieved from http://www.gdtd.vn/channel/3005/201202/Doi-moi-giao-duc-DH-o-Viet-Nam- thuc-trang-va-giaiphap-1958475/ on 25 May 2013.

Nguyen, H. T., Fehring, H., & Warren, W. (2015). EFL teaching and learning at a Vietnamese Uuiversity: What do teachers say? English Language Teaching, 8(1), 31-43.

Nguyen, H. T. L. (2014). Research in universities. In L. T. Tran (Ed.), Higher Education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global knowledge economy (pp. 187-207): Palgrave Macmillan.

Nguyen, K. (1989). On the historical role of Confucianism. Vietnamese Studies, 94(4), 67-72.

Nguyen, K. D., & Mcinnis, C. (2002). The possibility of using student evaluations in Vietnamese higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 151-158. doi:10.1080/1353832022000004340.

Nguyen, K. D., Oliver, D. E., & Priddy, L. E. (2009). Criteria for accreditation in Vietnam’s higher education: Focus on input or outcome? Quality in Higher Education, 15(2), 123-134.

271

Nguyen, L. (2006). Vietnam’s education in the transition period. Paper presented at the The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. 22–26 May 2006 Ho Chi Minh City.

Nguyen, N. T., & Tran, L. T. (2018). Looking inward or outward? Vietnam higher education at the superhighway of globalization: Culture, values and changes. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 11(1), 28-45. doi: 10.1080/17516234.2017.1332457.

Nguyen, N. T., & Tran, L. T. (2014). The student self. In L. T. Tran et al. (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global knowledge economy (pp. 108-124): Palgrave MacMillan.

Nguyen, P. M., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2005). Cooperative learning vs Confucian heritage culture’s collectivism: Confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and mismatch. Asia Europe Journal, 3(3), 403-419.

Nguyen, P. M., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2006). Culturally appropriate pedagogy: The case of group learning in a Confucian Heritage Culture context. Intercultural Education, 17(1), 1-19. doi:10.1080/14675980500502172.

Nguyen, P. M., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2012). Cooperative learning in Vietnam and the West–East educational transfer. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 32(2):137-152. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2012.685233

Nguyen, Q. D., & Sloper, D. (1995). Socio-economic background of Vietnam since 1986: Impact on education and higher education. In D. Sloper & C. T. Le (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Change and response (pp. 26-40): Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Nguyen, T. N. (2013). Selling western dreams: Australian transnational education in Vietnam and the formation of students’ identities. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria.

Nguyen, T. N., & Lehy, P. (2015). Generalizing the self? Towards an Asian self in Australian transnational education. In H. Z. P. W. Chan, & J. Kenway (Eds.),

272

Asia as a method in educational studies: Singapore: Sage.

Nguyen, T. Q. T. (2015). The influence of traditional beliefs on Vietnamese college lecturers’ perceptions of face. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(2), 203- 214.

Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, Q. S., & Sloper, D. (1995). Physical facilities and learning resources In D. Sloper & T. C. Le (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Change and response (pp. 182-199): Singapore: Institutes of Southeast Asian Studies.

Ninnes, P., Aitchison, C., & Kalos., S. (1999). Challenges to stereotypes of international students’ prior educational experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(3), 323-342.

Norusis, M. J. (2008). SPSS 16.0 guide to data analysis: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Oliver, D. E. (2004). Higher education challenges in developing countries: The case of Vietnam. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 5(2), 3-18.

On, L. W. (1996). The Cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences (pp. 25-41): Comparative Education Research Centre and the Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., Collins, K. M. T., Filer, J. D., Wiedmaier, C. D., & Moore, C. W. (2007). Students’ perceptions of characteristics of effective college eeachers: A validity study of a teaching evaluation from using a mixed-methods analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 113- 160.

Paine, L. (1992) Teaching and modernization in contemporary China. In R. Hayhoe (ed.) Education and modernization: The Chinese experience (pp. 183–209).

273

Oxford: Pergamon.

Park, J. Y. (2009). Internationalisation and international students: Creating an internationalised learning context for international students' study preparation via CMC. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities & Nations, 9(1), 75-86.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research: San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.): Sage Publications, Inc.

Peslak, A., Kovacs, P., Davis, G. A., Wang, W., Kovalchick, L., Ceccucci, W., & Scarpino, J. J. (2016). Does age and gender matter in students' perceptions of instruction effectiveness in on-ground, online and hybrid courses? Issues in Information Systems, 17(II), 233-241.

Pham, H. (2011). Vetnam: Struggling to attract international students. Universities World News, p.202.

Pham, H. L., & Fry, G. W. (2004). Education and economic, political, and social change in Vietnam. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2004(3), 199-222. doi:10.1007/s10671-005-0678-0.

Pham, H. M. (1995). The educational system of Vietnam. In D. Sloper & C. T. Le (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Change and response. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Pham, L. A. (2013). A case study into English classroom assessment practices in three primary schools in Hanoi: Implications for developing a contextualized formative assessment practice framework. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 29(1), 1-16.

Pham, T. N. (2010). The higher education reform agenda: A vision for 2020. In M. H. G. Harman, T. N. Pham (Eds.), Reforming higher education in Vietnam:

274

Challenges and priorities (pp. 51-64): Springer.

Phan, L. H. (2004). University classrooms in Vietnam: Contesting the stereotypes. ELT Journal, 58(1), 50-57.

Phan, N. (2014). Faculty perceptions of the performance appraisal process. Unpublished Doctor of Education Thesis, California State University.

Phan, T. N., Lupton, M., & Watter, J. J. (2016). Understandings of the higher education curriculum in Vietnam. Higher Education Research & Development, 35:6, 1256-1268. doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1149693.

Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Yla¨nne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers’ descriptions of teaching: Broadening the understanding of teaching in higher education. Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 109–120.

Prime Minister of Vietnamese Government. (2000). Decision No. 322/QD-TTG of April 19, 2000. Approving the Project on "Training Scientific and Technical Cadres at Foreign Establishments with State Budget”. Hanoi: Vietnamese Government Online Portal.

Prime Minister of Vietnamese Government. (2001). Quyết định số 201/2001/QĐ-TTg ngày 28/12/2001 về Chiến lược phát triển giáo dục giai đoạn 2001-2010 (Decision no. 201/2001/QD-TTG of December 28, 2001 approving the “2001- 2010 educational development strategy”). Hanoi: Vietnamese Government Online Portal.

Prime Minister of Vietnamese Government. (2004). Vietnamese Government, 2004. Decision 1269/CP-KG, dated September 6, 2004. Hanoi: Vietnamese Government Online Portal.

Prime Minister of Vietnamese Government. (2005). Decree 14/2005/NQ – CP on the Government resolution on substantial and comprehensive renewal of Vietnam’s tertiary education in the 2006-2020 period. Hanoi: Vietnamese Government Online Portal.

275

Prime Minister of Vietnamese Government. (2006). Quyết định số 145/2006/QĐ-TTg ngày 20/6/2006 về Chủ trương và những định hướng lớn xây dựng trường đại học đẳng cấp quốc tế của Việt Nam (Decision No. 145/2006/QĐ-TTg, dated June 20, 2006 on the guideline and major orientations for building an international-level university in Vietnam. Hanoi: Vietnamese Government Online Portal.

Prime Minister of Vietnamese Government. (2010). Decision No. 911/QD-TTG of June 17, 2010, Approving "The Scheme on Doctoral Training for University and College Lecturers during 2010-2020". Hanoi: Vietnamese Government Online Portal.

Prime Minister of Vietnamese Government. (2012). Decision No. 711/QD-TTg of June 13, 2012, approving the 2011-2020 education development strategy. Hanoi: Vietnamese Government Online Portal.

Prime Minister of Vietnamese Government. (2012c). Quyết định số 711/QĐ-TTg, 13/6/2012, Chiến lược phát triển giáo dục 2011–2020 (Decision number 711/QĐ-TTg, 13/6/2012, Strategies for Education Development 2011–2020. Hanoi: Vietnamese Government Online Portal.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 223-231.

Prosser, M. (2013). Quality teaching quality learning. In D. J. Salter (Ed.), Cases on quality teaching practices in higher education. The United States of America: Information Science Reference.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 25–35.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education: SRHE and Open Universiry Press.

Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to social research, quantitative and qualitative

276

approaches: SAGE.

Quintrell, N., & Westwood, M. (1994). The influence of a peer pairing program on international students' first year experience and use of student services. Higher Education Research and Development, 13(1), 49-58.

Quy, D. N, & Sloper, D. (1995). Socio-economic background of Vietnam since 1986: Impact on education and higher education. In D. Sloper & C. T. Le (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Change and response (pp. 26-40): Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Race, P. (2010). Making learning happen: A guide for post-compulsory education (2nd ed.): Sage.

Race, P., & Brown, S. (2000). 500 Tips on group learning: London, Kogan Page.

Raeburn, P., Muldoon, N. and Bookallil, C. (2009). Blended spaces, work-based learning and constructive alignment: Impacts on student engagement: Auckland: Ascilite.

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129- 150.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.): Routledge Falmer.

Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368- 383.

Rao, T. V., Saxena, S., Chand, V. S., Narendran, R., Bharathan, K., & Jajoo, B. H. (2014). Responding to industry needs: Reorienting management education. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 39(4), 1-10.

Remedious, L. (2005). Experiences and responses of overseas-educated students to problem-based learning and its classroom culture in an Australian

277

physiotherapy context. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Melbourne, Parkville Victoria.

Renzulli, J. S., & Dai, D. Y. (2001). Abilities, interests, and styles as aptitudes for learning: A person situation interaction perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 23– 45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Revell, A., & Wainwright, E. (2009). What makes lectures "unmissable"? Insights into teaching excellence and active teaching. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 209-223. doi:10.1080/03098260802276771.

Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700-712.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2000). Researching student learning: Approaches to studying in campus-based and distance education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Riley, J., & Ward, K. (2017). Active learning, cooperative active learning, and passive learning methods in an accounting information systems course. Issues in Accounting Education, 32(2), 1-16. doi:10.2308/iace-51366.

Roberts, K., Hankinson, A., Swanson, I., & Chyung, S. Y. (2018). Determine usage of a midpoint in the Likert scale. May/June 2018 Training, 55(3), 14-14.

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 89-102. doi:10.1080/07294360050020499.

Rohlen, T. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (1996). Teaching and learning in Japan. New York, US: Cambridge University Press. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174480

Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1994). Numbers and words revisited: Being

278

“shamelessly eclectic”. Quality and Quantity, 28(3), 315-327.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ousten, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Ryan, J. (2000). A guide to teaching international students: Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Ryan, J. (2002). University education for all: Teaching and learning practices for diverse groups of students. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Ballarat: University of Ballarat.

Ryan, J. (2010). “The Chinese Learner”: Misconceptions and realities. In G. S. Janette Ryan (Ed.), International education and the Chinese learner. Hong Kong University Press.

Ryan, J., & Louie, K. (2005). Dichotomy or complexity: Problematising concepts of scholarship and learning. Paper presented at the Critical Thinking and Learning: Values, Concepts and Issues, 34th Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australia, Hong Kong: Philosophy of Education Society of Australia.

Ryan, J., & Louie, K. (2007). False dichotomy? ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ concepts of scholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(4), 404-417.

Saihua, X. (2009). Are they ready to participate? East Asian students’ acquisition of verbal participation in American classrooms. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 137-157.

Salili, F. (1996). Learning and motivation: An Asian perspective. Psychology and Developing Societies, 8(1), 55-81. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097133369600800104.

Salter, D. J. (2013). Cases on quality teaching practices in higher education: Information Science Reference.

Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Montgomery, C. (2013). Assessment for learning in

279

higher education: Routledge.

Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story. Higher Education Research and Development, 6(2), 121-133. doi:10.1080/0729436870060204.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Retrieved from https://www.beteronderwijsnederland.nl/files/cumulative%20and%20residual %20effects%20of%20teachers.pdf.

Sandelowski M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? Writing and reading mixed methods studies. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 321-350): Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (2004). Rethinking teaching in higher education: Stylus Sterling Virginia.

Sawyer, W. W. (1943). Mathematician's delight: Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Friede, A., Imus, A., & Merritt, S. (2008). Perceived fit with an academic environment: Attitudinal and behavioural outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 317–335. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.007.

Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-174.

Schutz, P. A., & Lanehart, S. L. (2002). Introduction: Emotions in education. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 67-68. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_1.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Seidel, T. (2006). The role of student characteristics in studying micro teaching- learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 253–271. doi:10.1007/s10984-006-9012-x.

280

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.): New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: Valued pedagogy, problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 300- 313.

Shi, L. J. (2006). The successors to Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnaire study on Chinese students’ culture of learning English. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 122-147.

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 411-436.

Sibona, C., & Pourreza, S. (2018). The impact of teaching approaches and ordering on IT project management: Active learning vs. lecturing. Information Systems Education Journal, 16(5), 66-77.

Sieberer-Nagler. (2016). Effective classroom management and positive teaching. English Language Teaching, 9(1), 163-172.

Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R., & Murphy, R. (2009). Developing alternative frameworks for exploring intercultural learning: A critique of Hofstede’s cultural difference model. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3, June 2009), 253-264. doi:10.1080/13562510902898825.

Sikhwari, T. D. (2007). The relationship between affective factors and the academic achievement of students at the University of Venda. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(3), 520-536.

Silvera, I. F., J. S. Angle, et al. (2014). Higher Education Update. Vietnam Education Foundation.

Sim, J., & Lewis, M. (2012). The size of a pilot study for a clinical trial should be calculated in relation to considerations of precision and efficiency. Journal of

281

Clinical Epidemiology, 65(2012), 301-308. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.07.011.

Sipes, S. (2017). Emphasize Time on Task. Retrieved from https://blogs.iu.edu/citl/2017/02/01/emphasize-time-on-task/#.XTsY0fL7S00.

Sloper, D., & Le, C. T. (1995). Higher education in Vietnam: Change and response: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Smimou, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2012). On the relationship between students’ perceptions of teaching quality, methods of assessment, and satisfaction. Journal of Education for Business, 87(1), 22-35. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.550339.

Smith, P. (1992). Organizational behavior and national cultures. British Journal of Management, 3(1), 39-52.

Sorcinelli, M. D. (1991). Research findings on the seven principles. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (No. 47 Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education), Fall (1991), 13-25.

Sormunen, E., Tanni, M., & Heinström, J. (2013). Students' engagement in collaborative knowledge construction in group assignments for information literacy. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 18(3), 16pp.

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Dauber, D. (2019). Internationalisation and student diversity: How far are the opportunity benefits being perceived and exploited? Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-019-00386-4.

Stark, J. S. (2000). Planning introductory college courses: Content, context and form. Instructional Science, 28(5), 413–438.

Steh, B., Kalin, J., & Mazgon, J. (2014). The role and responsibility of teachers and students in university studies: A comparative analysis of the views expressed by pedagogy students. Journal of the Institute of Educational Research, 46(1),

282

50-68. doi:10.2298/ZIPI1401050S.

Stephanou, G., & Kyridis, A. (2008). Interrelations of cognition, emotions and perceived teacher effectiveness in student academic performance in teacher education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Educational Effectiveness (EARLI SIG18). Theoretical and Methodological Challenges for Research, Frankfurt, Germany.

Stephanou, G., & Kyridis, A. (2009). Students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness, and academic performance in Greek tertiary education Paper presented at the Studies in Psychological Assessment. Scientific Annals of the Psychological Society of Northern Greece Athens: Ellinika Grammata.

Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.): Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Stevenson, H. W. & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.

Strulik, H., & Werner, K. (2014). Elite education, mass education, and the transition to modern growth. Retrieved from Center for European, Governance, and Economic Development Research. Discussion Paper Number 205–April 2014. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2428846.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.): New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Tang, C. (1991). Effects of different assessment procedures on tertiary students' approaches to learning. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Hong Kong.

Tang, C. (1993). Spontaneous collaborative learning: A new dimension in student learning experience? Higher Education Research and Development, 12(2), 115-130.

Tang, D.G. and Absalom, D. (1998). Teaching across cultures: Considerations for

283

Western EFL teachers in China. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 117–132.

Tang, C., & Biggs, J. (1996). How Hong Kong students cope with assessment. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Ed.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences: Comparative Education Research Centre, and the Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., & Sines, M. C. (2013). Utilizing mixed methods in psychological research. In J. A. Schinka, W. F. Velicer, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (pp. 428-450): John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Retrieved from https://methods.sagepub.com/book/sage-handbook-of-mixed-methods-social- behavioral-research-2e doi:10.4135/9781506335193.

Teo, T. (2013). Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research: Sense Publishers.

Thanh, P. T. H. (2010). Implementing a student-centered learning approach at Vietnamese higher education institutions: Barriers under layers of casual layered analysis (CLA). Journal of Futures Studies, 15(1), 21-38.

Thanh, P. T. H. (2011). An investigation of perceptions of Vietnamese teachers and students toward cooperative learning (CL). International Education Studies,

284

4(1), 3-12.

Thistleton-Martin, J. (2010). Professional knowledge, practice and commitment: Pearson Australia Group Pty Ltd.

Thomas, P. R., & Bain. J. D. (1984). The contextual dependence of learning approaches: The effects of assessment. Human Learning, 3, 227-240.

Thomas, G. P. (2006). An investigation of the metacognitive orientation of Confucian-Heritage Culture and Non-Confucian-Heritage Culture science classroom learning environments in Hong Kong. Research in Science Education, 2006(36), 85-109. doi:10.1007/s11165-005-3915-x.

Thompson, J. (2009). Changing chalk and talk: The reform of teaching methods in Vietnamese higher education. The George Washington University.

Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32(3), 321-345.

Tran, L. H. N. (2017). Developing employability skills via extra-curricular activities in Vietnamese universities: Student engagement and inhibitors of their engagement. Journal of Education and Work, 30(8), 854-867. doi: 10.1080/13639080.2017.1349880.

Tran, L. T., Le, T. T. T., & Nguyen, N. T. (2014). Curriculum and pedagogy. In L. T. Tran et al. (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility, and practicality in the global knowledge economy (pp. 86-107): Palgrave MacMillan.

Tran, L. T., & Marginson, S. (2014). Education for flexibility, practicality and mobility. In L. T. Tran et al. (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global knowledge economy (pp. 3-25): Palgrave MacMillan.

Tran, L. T., Marginson, S., Do, H. M., Do, Q. T. N., Le, T. T. T., Nguyen, N. T., . . .

285

Ho, T. T. H. (2014). Higher Education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global knowledge economy: Palgrave MacMillan.

Tran, L. T., Marginson, S., & Nguyen, N. T. (2014). Internationalisation. In L. T. Tran et al. (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global knowledge economy (pp. 127-151): Palgrave Macmillan.

Tran, L. T., Ngo, M., Nguyen, N., & Dang, X. T. (2017). Hybridity in Vietnamese universities: an analysis of the interactions between Vietnamese traditions and foreign influences. Studies in Higher Education, 42(10), 1899-1916. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1376872.

Tran, L. T., Phan, H. L. T., & Marginson, S. (2018). The ‘Advanced programmes’ in Vietnam: Internationalising the curriculum or importing the ‘Best crriculum’ of the West? In L. T. Tran & S. Marginson (Eds.), Internationalisation in Vietnamese Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 51, Springer International Publishing AG.

Tran, N. D. (2012). Perceptions and evaluation of teaching in higher education in Vietnam: A case study. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Tasmania.

Tran, N. D. & Nguyen, T. T. (2015). Shifting the focus to student learning in teaching evaluation: A new direction for Vietnamese higher education institutions? Interchange, Springer 46, 113-119.

Tran, N. T. (1999). The fundamentals of Vietnamese culture. Hanoi: Education Publisher.

Tran, T. (2010). The former Vietnamese graduates and the present Vietnamese higher education Journal of Dong Nai and Cuu Long, 5, 37-44.

Tran, T. T. (2013). The causes of passiveness in learning of Vietnamese students. VNU Journal of Education Research, 29(2), 72-84.

286

Tran, T. T. (2015). Is graduate employability the ‘whole-of-higher education-issue’? Journal of Education and Work, 28(3), 207-227. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.900167.

Trigwell, K. (2001). Judging university teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 6:1, 65-73. doi:10.1080/13601440110033698.

Trigwell, K. (2012). Scholarship of teaching and learning. In L. Hunt, & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning centred approach. Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275-284. Doi: 10.1080/03075079612331381211.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2014). Qualitative variation in constructive alignment in curriculum design. Higher Education, 67, 141-154. doi:10.1007/s10734-013- 9701-1.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1999), 57-70.

Trigwell, K., & Sleet, R. (1990). Improving the relationship between assessment results and student understanding. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15(3), 190-197.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Trochim, W.M., & Donnelly, J.P. (2006). The Research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.): Atomic Dog, Cincinnati, OH.

Trow, M. (1999). From mass higher education to universal access: The American advantage. Minerva, 37(4), 303-328.

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. Retrieved from

287

Department of Educational Research Lancaster University, https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/studentengagementliteraturereview _1.pdf.

Tucker, D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). "How does your teacher help you to make your work better?’ Children's understanding of formative assessment. The Curriculum Journal, 7(2), 185-203.

Ugras, M., & Asiltürk, E. (2018). Perceptions of science teachers on implementation of seven principles for good practice in education by Chickering and Gamson in courses. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(3), 170-183.

Valiee, S., Moridi, G., Khaledi, S., & Garibi, F. (2016). Nursing students' perspectives on clinical instructors' effective teaching strategies: A descriptive study. Nurse Education in Practice, 16(2016), 258-262.

Van Rossum, E., & Taylor, I. P. (1987). The relationship between conceptions of learning and good teaching: A scheme of cognitive development. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington.

Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(4), 313-330.

Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D., & Lodewijks, H. G. (2002). Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures. Learning and Instruction, 12, 263–284.

VietnamNet. (2012). Lacking money, MOET stops plan on funding overseas study. Retrieved from https://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/education/22472/lacking- money--moet-stops-plan-on-funding-overseas-study.html.

Volet, S. E., & Renshaw, P. D. (1996). Chinese students at an Australian university:

288

Adaptability and continuity. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Cultural perspectives on effective teaming: The Chinese learner: ACER/The University of Hong Kong.

Volet, S. E., & Kee, J. P. P. (1993). Studying in Singapore- studying in Australia: A student perspective. Paper presented at the Occasional Paper no. 1, Murdoch University Teaching Excellence Committee.

Vu, N. (2017). The Vietnamese agenda of adopting English as a medium of instruction. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 33(3), 53-65.

Vu, T. T. P., & Marginson, S. (2014). Policy borrowing. In L. T. Tran et al. (Eds.), Higher Education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global knowledge economy (pp. 152-168): Palgrave Macmillan.

Walan, S., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2015). Student responses to a contex- and inquiry- based three-step teaching model. Teaching Science, 61(2), 33-39.

Waller, D. S. (1991). New technologies—old cultures: Asian student attitudes to the teaching of marketing. Paper presented at the Marketing Educators of Australia and New Zealand, Annual Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Watkins, C. (1994). Classroom environment and approaches to learning: An investigation of the actual and preferred perceptions of HongKong secondary school students. Instructional Science, 22, 233-246.

Watkins, D. A., & Biggs. J. (1996). Cultural perspectives on effective learning: The Chinese learner. The University of Hong Kong: ACER.

Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (2001). The paradox of the Chinese learner and Beyond. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 3-26). Hong Kong: CERC and Melbourne, ACER.

Watkins, D. A., Reghi, M., & Astilla, E. (1991). The Asian learner as a rote learner: Stereotype, myth or reality? Educational Psychology, 11(1), 21-34.

289

doi:10.1080/0144341910110102.

Welch, A. R. (2010). Internationalisation of Vietnamese higher education: Retrospect and prospect. In G. Harman, M. Hayden, & T. N. Pham (Eds.), Reforming higher education in Vietnam: Challenges and priorities (pp. 197-213): Springer.

Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2006). Crossing language boundaries: Qualitative interviewing in international business. Management International Review, 46(4), 417-437.

Wen, W. P., & Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualisation of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 1(1), 18-38.

Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301.

West, J. (2000). Higher education and employment: Opportunities and limitations in the formation of skills in a mass higher education system. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 52(4), 573-588.

Whiting, L. S. (2008). Semi-structured interviews: Guidance for novice researchers. Nursing Standard, 22(23), 35-40.

Whitman, N. A., & Fife, J. D. (1988). Peer teaching: To teach is to learn twice. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED305016.pdf.

Whitmore, K. J. (1984). Social organization and Confucian thought in Vietnam. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 15(2), 196-306.

Whitton, D., Sinclair, C., Barker, K., Nanlohy, P., & Nosworthy, M. (2004). Learning for teaching: Teaching for learning. Southbank, Victoria: Thomson Learning.

Whitworth, J. E., Price, B., & Randall, C. H. (2002). Factors that affect college of business: Student opinion of teaching and learning. The Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), 282-289. doi:10.1080/08832320209599677.

290

Williams, M. and Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williamson, D. L., Choi, J., Charchuk, M., Rempel, G. R., Pitre, N., Breitkreuz, R., Kusher, K. E. (2011). Interpreter-facilitated cross-language interviews: A research note. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 381-394.

Wilson, R. C., Gaff, J. G, Dienst, E., Wood, L., & Barry, L. J. (1975). College professors and their impact upon students: New York: Wiley.

Wilson, K.L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the Course Experience Questionnaire, Studies in Higher Education, 22, pp. 33–53.

Witcher, A. E., Jiao, Q. G., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Colins, K. M. T., James, T. L., & Minor, L. C. (2008). Preservice teachers' perceptions of characteristics of an effective teacher as a function of discipline orientation: A mixed methods investigation. The Teacher Educator, 43(2008), 279-301. doi:10.1080/08878730802247852.

Wong, G., Cooper, B. J., & Dellaportas, S. (2015). Chinese students’ perceptions of the teaching in an Australian accounting programme – An exploratory study. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 24(4), 318-340. doi:10.1080/09639284.2015.1050678.

World Bank. (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and promise. Washington, DC: The task force on higher education and society. Washington DC: World Bank.

World Bank. (2008). Vietnam: Higher education and skills for growth. Washington DC: World Bank.

Wormald, B. W., Schoeman, S., Somasunderam, A., & Penn, M. (2009). Assessment drives learning: An unavoidable truth? Anatomical Sciences Education, 2(2009), 199-204.

291

Yang, R. (2011). Self and the other in the Confucian cultural context: Implications of China’s higher education development for comparative studies. International Review of Education, 57(3-4), 337-355. doi:10.1007/s11159-011-9208-x.

Yang, K. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond (Ed), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 106–170): Oxford University Press.

Yengin, I., Karahoca, A., & Yücel, A. (2010). Roles of teachers in e-learning: How to engage students & how to get free e-learning and the future. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5775-5787.

Yin, H., Wang, W., & Han, J. (2016). Chinese undergraduates’ perceptions of teaching quality and the effects on approaches to studying and course satisfaction. Higher Education, 2016(71), 39-57. doi:10.1007/s10734-015- 9887-5.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Zietz, J., Cochran, H., & Hodgin, G. (2001). Instructor versus student perceptions of teaching effectiveness in economics. International Advances in Economic Research, 7(2), 267-267.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.): Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

292

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF DIMENSIONS, COMPONENTS AND THEIR INDICATORS DERIVING FROM LITERATURE REVIEW

Dimension Component Items/indicators Component 1: 1. Explaining clearly what students are expected to learn and be able to do Establishing learning 2. Setting learning goals that are relevant to student

Planning goals previous knowledge and experience 3. Stating clearly the learning objectives for each lesson of

the course 4. Defining clearly student responsibilities during the course

5. Reminding students frequently about learning learning Dimension 1: objectives during the course

293

Component 2: Planning 6. Clearly specifying the course assignments for Assessment tasks 7. Giving explicit directions for assignments 8. Clearly explaining the assessment criteria at the beginning of the course 9. Planning assessments to measure student learning 10. Designing assignments that are consistent with the lesson objectives Component 3: Selecting 11. Supplementing student with additional materials when appropriate learning necessary materials that engage 12. Relating materials to student previous learning students’ interest experiences 13. Designing and planning materials that facilitate student learning 14. Designing web-based materials that are meaningful and helpful to student learning 15. Planning and preparing available technologies (e.g. interactive whiteboards, response systems, computer soft wares) Component 4: Planning 16. Designing and planning lessons that follow the stated for engaging classes course outline 17. Designing and planning lessons that link with previous lessons 18. Designing and planning lessons at an appropriate level of difficulty of students 19. Designing and planning lessons related to student learning experiences 20. Designing and planning lessons in a logical sequence Component 5: 21. Using a wide range of teaching methods that promote Motivating student students’ engagement (e.g. using examples, contrasting learning points of view, relating to authentic situations, group discussions)

22. Helping students develop high order thinking skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving skills and metacognitive skills 23. Integrating a wide range of technologies to make the lessons meaningful 24. Increasing student autonomy 25. Providing students with different opportunities to reflect on their progress

Component 6: Present 26. Giving clear explanations including authentic examples Dimension2: Teaching Strategies

294 topics by teachers and 27. Stressing important points in lectures/discussions students 28. Speaking with emotion and enthusiasm in presenting ideas/concepts 29. Comparing and contrasting ideas in the lessons 30. Inspiring students an showing them the way to discover the knowledge Component 7: Using 31. Posing questions that provoke student thinking skilled questioning 32. Posing questions that bring student focus back to the learning objectives 33. Posing questions to find out what students know or understand 34. Giving students sufficient time to think or talk with a peer before inviting for responses 35. Helping student answer his/her own question by providing cues Component 8: 36. Building new content using question-and-answer Engaging students in dialogue with the class the learning process 37. Encouraging students to ask their own questions 38. Asking students to set additional learning goals of their own 39. Varying the types of assignments and activities to increase student engagement 40. Activating students’ prior knowledge and interests in lessons

295

Component 9: 41. Making use of different diagnostic assessments to check Employing assessment student prior knowledge and skill levels to promote student 42. Using different formative assessments to help students learning find their strengths and weaknesses 43. Encouraging students to self-assess or peer assess the quality of their work against the assessment criteria 44. Involving students in designing assessment tools (e.g. rubrics, scales, checklists, and tests) 45. Promoting student involvement in the assessment process through goal setting and self-reflection 46. Using summative and formative assessment as a source of learning for students 47. Using authentic and complex assessment tasks 48. Using informal feedback such as self or peer review of drafts, collaborative project work 49. Offering extensive opportunities of practice and rehearsal

50. Helping students evaluate their own progress to become

lifelong learners Component 10: 51. Providing descriptive, continuous and timely feedback Providing feedback to for individual students on how to improve their learning promote student 52. Providing opportunities for students to make use of this learning feedback to refine and revise their future work 53. Providing intrinsic supply of feedback by using active, collaborative and dialogic approaches to teaching, learning and assessment 54. Using a fair and clear grading system

55. Distributing a handout with a sample of a good answer

Dimension3: Assessment andFeedback Component 11: 56. Presenting positive behaviours in class Generating a positive 57. Praising student questions and comments in the lessons

climate in class 58. Being willing to repeat explanations until most students understand

59. Being willing to help students overcome their problems ironment in learning 60. Using students names in class Component 12: 61. Communicating academic and behavioural expectations Establishing a culture to students in a clear, concise, and reasonable manner for learning 62. Encouraging students to share their ideas and concerns in a climate of acceptance

63. Involving students in the classroom decision-making Dimension4: Learning Env

296

process 64. Showing confidence in student ability to understand, to study and to overcome their difficulties 65. Using incentives wisely to encourage student cooperation Component 13: 66. Having students to get acquainted with each other Promoting interaction 67. Arranging time either before or after classes to and rapport informally talk with either individual students or a group of students 68. Dedicating extra time for tutorials on difficult topics 69. Encouraging students to come to talk to him/her if they need to 70. Arranging informal café/lunches/parties with students

297

APPENDIX B: ONLINE SURVEY FOR EXPERTS’ FEEDBACK

Thank you very much for participating into this study which aims at exploring teachers and students’ perceptions of teaching practices that facilitate student learning in Vietnamese public higher education institutions. We are seeking your feedback on the contents of the conceptual framework.

The survey has two types of question. For Likert-type questions, please tick one that you think best apply to the item. For open-ended questions, please write your comments and suggestions in the open space.

Question 1 How important is each of the following dimensions of teaching and learning practice? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

1. Designing and planning learning activities o o o o

2. Teaching Strategies o o o o

3. Assessment and Feedback o o o o

4. Learning Environment o o o o

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each dimension?

298

Question 2 How important is each of the following items regarding setting transparent and motivating learning goals? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

1 Explaining clearly what students are expected to learn and be able to o o o o do

2 Setting learning goals that are relevant to student previous o o o o knowledge and experience

3 Stating clearly the learning objectives for each lesson of the o o o o course

4 Defining clearly student responsibilities during the course o o o o

5 Reminding students frequently about learning objectives during the o o o o course

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

299

Question 3 How important is each of the following items regarding using relevant assessments? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

6 Clearly specifying the course assignments o o o o

7 Giving explicit directions for assignments o o o o

8 Clearly explaining the assessment criteria at the beginning of the course o o o o

9 Planning assessments to measure student learning o o o o

10 Designing assignments that are consistent with the lesson objectives o o o o

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

300

Question 4 How important is each of the following items regarding designing and planning engaging lessons? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

11 Designing and planning lessons that follow the stated course outline o o o o

12 Designing and planning lessons that link with previous lessons o o o o

13 Designing and planning lessons at an appropriate level of difficulty o o o o

14 Designing and planning lessons related to student learning o o o o experiences

15 Designing and planning lessons in a logical sequence o o o o

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

301

Question 5 How important is each of the following items regarding designing and planning lessons that use an appropriate mix of materials, resources and technology? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

16 Supplementing student summaries with additional materials o o o o when necessary

17 Relating materials to student previous learning experiences o o o o

18 Designing and planning materials that facilitate student learning o o o o

19 Designing web-based materials that are meaningful and helpful to o o o o student learning

20 Planning and preparing available technologies (e.g. interactive whiteboards, response systems, o o o o computer soft wares)

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

302

Question 6 How important is each of the following items regarding motivating student learning? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

21 Using a wide range of teaching methods that promote students’ engagement (e.g. using examples, contrasting points of view, relating o o o o to authentic situations, group discussions)

22 Helping students develop high order thinking skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving skills and o o o o metacognitive skills

23 Integrating a wide range of technologies to make the lessons o o o o meaningful

24 Increasing student autonomy o o o o

25 Providing students with different opportunities to reflect on their o o o o progress

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

303

Question 7 How important is each of the following items regarding the presentation strategies? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

26 Giving clear explanations including authentic examples o o o o

27 Stressing important points in lectures/discussions o o o o

28 Speaking audibly and easily to understand o o o o

29 Comparing and contrasting ideas in the lessons o o o o

30 Presenting ideas in a logical sequence o o o o

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

304

Question 8 How important is each of the following items regarding questioning strategies? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

31 Posing questions that provoke student thinking o o o o

32 Posing questions that bring student focus back to the learning o o o o objectives

33 Posing questions to find out what students know or understand o o o o

34 Giving students sufficient time to think or talk with a peer before o o o o inviting for responses

35 Helping student answer his/her own question by providing cues o o o o

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

305

Question 9 How important is each of the following items regarding engaging students in the learning process? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

36 Building new content using question-and-answer dialogue with o o o o the class

37 Encouraging students to ask their own questions o o o o

38 Asking students to set additional learning goals of their own o o o o

39 Varying the types of assignments and activities to increase student o o o o engagement

40 Activating students’ prior knowledge and interests in lessons o o o o

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

306

Question 10 How important is each of the following items regarding using assessment to foster student learning? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

41 Making use of different diagnostic assessments to check student prior knowledge and skill o o o o levels

42 Using different formative assessments to help students find o o o o their strengths and weaknesses

43 Encouraging students to self- assess or peer assess the quality of their work against the assessment o o o o criteria

44 Involving students in designing assessment tools (e.g. rubrics, scales, o o o o checklists, and tests)

45 Promoting student involvement in the assessment process through goal o o o o setting and self-reflection

46 Using summative and formative assessment as a source of learning o o o o for students

47 Using authentic and complex assessment tasks o o o o

48 Using informal feedback such as self or peer review of drafts, o o o o collaborative project work

307

49 Offering extensive opportunities of practice and rehearsal o o o o

50 Helping students evaluate their own progress to become lifelong o o o o learners

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

308

Question 11 How important is each of the following items regarding the provision of feedback to promote learning? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

51 Providing descriptive, continuous and timely feedback for individual students on how to improve their o o o o learning

52 Providing opportunities for students to make use of this feedback o o o o to refine and revise their future work

53 Providing intrinsic supply of feedback by using active, collaborative and dialogic o o o o approaches to teaching, learning and assessment

54 Using a fair and clear grading system o o o o

55 Distributing a handout with a sample of a good answer o o o o

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

309

Question 12 How important is each of the following items regarding generating a positive climate in class? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

56 Presenting positive behaviours in class o o o o

57 Praising student questions and comments in the lessons o o o o

58 Being willing to repeat explanations until most students o o o o understand

59 Being willing to help students overcome their problems in learning o o o o

60 Using students names in class o o o o

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

310

Question 13 How important are each of the following items in establishing a culture for learning? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

61 Communicating academic and behavioural expectations to students in a clear, concise, and reasonable o o o o manner

62 Encouraging students to share their ideas and concerns in a climate o o o o of acceptance

63 Involving students in the classroom decision-making process o o o o

64 Showing confidence in student ability to understand, to study and to o o o o overcome their difficulties

65 Using incentives wisely to encourage student cooperation o o o o

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

311

Question 14 How important is each of the following items regarding promoting interaction and rapport between instructor and students and among students? Not A little Very Important important important important (3) at all (1) (2) (4)

66 Having students to get acquainted with each other o o o o

67 Arranging time either before or after classes to informally talk with either individual students or a group o o o o of students

68 Dedicating extra time for tutorials on difficult topics o o o o

69 Encouraging students to come to talk to him/her if they need to o o o o

70 Arranging informal café/lunches/parties with students o o o o

What comments (removal, addition or revision) would you make to each item?

Thank you very much for your participation and your contribution

312

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE

TEACHING AND LEARNING PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE

Thank you very much for participating into this project. This project aims at seeking teaching and learning practices that facilitate student learning in Vietnamese higher education institutions, as perceived by teachers and students. The questionnaire covers four main dimensions, 13 components followed by 66 specific items that describe teaching approaches. Please put a tick where appropriate with either a blue or a black pen.

DIMENSION 1: DESIGNING AND PLANNING LEARNING ACTIVITIES 1. To set transparent and motivating learning goals, how often has your teacher done the following? Never Sometimes Often Always 1. Clearly explained what ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ students are expected to learn and be able to do 2. Set the learning goals that are ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ specific and challenging to students 3. Set learning goals that are ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ relevant to student existing knowledge and experience 4. Clearly stated that students are ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ expected to take responsibility for their own learning

2. To design and plan assessment tasks, how often has your teacher done the following? Never Sometimes Often Always 5. Clearly specified the assessment ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ tasks 6. Given explicit directions for ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

313

assessment tasks including instruction, marking rubrics and standards 7. Clearly explained the success criteria ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ for each assessment task 8. Designed assessment tasks that ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ gradually foster students capabilities

3. To design and plan engaging classes, how often has your teacher done the following? Never Sometimes Often Always 9. Included group work assignments or small ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ projects 10. Planned self-directed learning activities ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 11. Designed teaching activities to achieve the ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ learning goals 12. Planned activities that are open to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ experience for students 13. Designed lessons that built on respectful and ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ caring relationships along with relevant content

4. To design and plan lessons that use an appropriate mix of materials and resources, how often has your teacher done the following?

Never Sometimes Often Always 14. Provided materials to support the learning ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ goals 15. Suggested students a list of reference ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ materials 16. Opened opportunities for students to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ contribute to learning materials 17. Designed tasks that require students to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ develop searching skills

314

18. Designed lessons that used flexible delivery ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ of content, resource material, reading materials, etc.

DIMENSION 2: TEACHING STRATEGIES 5. To motivate student learning, how often has your teacher done the following? Never Sometimes Often Always 19. Encouraged peer/group interaction and ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ reflection of learning goals 20. Organized opportunities to push student critical ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ thinking, and problem-solving skills 21. Given students opportunities to synthesize and ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ make connections between information and arguments 22. Used life situations in class/group discussions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ that students feel meaningful

23. Provided students with different opportunities to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ reflect on their progress and experience

6. How satisfied were you with your teacher’s presentation strategies? Very Somewhat Satisfied Very dissatisfied dissatisfied Satisfied 24. The teacher raised topics by giving a ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ list of guiding questions

25. The teacher spoke with emotion and ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ enthusiasm in presenting ideas/concepts 26. The teacher involved student group ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ presentations for each topic of the course 27. The teacher let students have time to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

315

explore and reflect the topics 28. The colleague inspired students and ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ showed them the way to discover the knowledge

7. How satisfied were you with your teacher’s questioning strategies? Very Somewhat Satisfied Very dissatisfied dissatisfied Satisfied 29. The teacher posed questions that ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ provoke student critical or creative thinking 30. The teacher posed questions that ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ focused efforts on the learning goals 31. The teacher posed questions that are ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ open for group discussion 32. The teacher allowed time for ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ students to think or consult peers before responding to a question 33. The teacher used follow-up ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ questions to help students work out the answer

8. To engage students in the learning process, how often has your teacher done the following? Never Sometimes Often Always 34. Provided students with different opportunities ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ to work in varied working situations 35. Encouraged students to ask their own ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ questions 36. Asked students to set additional learning goals ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ of their own 37. Varied activities that students can work with ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ peers or groups

316

38. Asked students to link what they are learning ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ to what they have known

DIMENSION 3: ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK 9. To employ assessment to foster student learning, how often has your teacher done the following? Never Sometimes Often Always 39. Made use of different ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ assessments to check student prior knowledge and skill levels 40. Used different assessments to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ help students find their strengths and weaknesses 41. Encouraged students to self- ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ assess or peer assess the quality of their work against the success criteria 42. Used assessment as a source of ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ learning for students 43. Used authentic assessment tasks ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 44. Used feedback such as self or ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ peer review of drafts, collaborative project work 45. Offered extensive opportunities ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ for practice and rehearsal 46. Helped students evaluate their ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ own progress to become lifelong learners

10. To provide feedback to promote student learning, how often has your teacher done the following? Never Sometimes Often Always 47. Provided descriptive and timely ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

317

feedback for individual students on how to improve their learning 48. Provided comments on students work ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ while they are producing it 49. Offered teacher feedback in ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ alternative formats 50. Given feedback to groups ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 51. Distributed a handout with samples of ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ a good and a poor answer

DIMENSION 4: LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 11. To generate a positive climate in class, how often has your teacher done the following? Never Sometimes Often Always 52. Showed energy and passion in ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ teaching with positive eye contact, facial expressions, gestures 53. Welcomed students questions and ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ comments 54. Changed the setting of the class when ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ necessary 55. Increased and varied interaction with ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ students 56. Created a class that students feel ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ welcoming and socially comfortable

12. To establish a culture for learning, how often has your teacher done the following? Never Sometimes Often Always 57. Communicated academic and ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ behavioural expectations to students in a clear, concise, and

318

reasonable manner 58. Encouraged students to share ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ their ideas and concerns in a climate of acceptance 59. Involved students in the ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ classroom decision-making process such as assessment tasks, excursions, field trips, feedback, etc) 60. Showed trust in student ability ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 61. Encouraged students to feel part ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ of a community committed to learning

13. To promote interaction and rapport between instructor and students and among students, how often has your teacher done the following? Never Sometimes Often Always 62. Organised activities that allow ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ students to get to know each other 63. Arranged excursions, picnics, or field ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ trips that enhance interaction and understanding among people in the class 64. Increased group projects among ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ students 65. Encouraged students to come to talk ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ to the teacher if they need to 66. Had students work with each other to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ answer questions and solve problems

GENERAL INFORMATION

319

1. Are you male or female? Male Female ☐ ☐ 2. What year are you in? First year Second year Third year Forth year ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 3. Which category best represents your average overall grade in the most recent semester? 2.0 - 2.4 2.5 - 3.1 3.2 - 3.6 3.7- 4.0 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 4. What are your field(s) of your study? Tick all that apply

 Social sciences and humanities ☐

 TESOL ☐

5. What are the best aspects of your teacher's teaching?

6. In your opinion, what could be done to improve your teacher's teaching?

Thank you so much for your participation!

320

APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS A. For university teachers Greeting and exchanging personal information and work experience Giving a short introduction about the study Having the participants sign the consent form

1. What are your perceptions of effective teaching? 2. How do you plan your teaching activities, assessment tasks, and learning materials to improve your students’ learning? 3. How do you set learning goals for your students? How do you make them helpful for your students’ learning? 4. What types of assessment tasks do you prefer? Why? How are they beneficial to your students’ learning? 5. Can you decide the teaching and learning materials you use for your course? How are teaching and learning materials important to your students’ learning? 6. How do you lecture? What kinds of teaching strategies do you think effective for your students’ learning? 7. What do you ask questions in teaching for? How do questions help your students’ learning? How do you facilitate the answers to the questions? 8. What do you think of the best ways to engage/ motivate students in learning? 9. Do you think that using pair and group work in teaching is beneficial to your students’ learning? Any challenges? 10. What do you think of effective assessment? Can you decide assessment tasks, tests? 11. How do you provide feedback for students? What do you think you can make feedback helpful for your students’ improvement in learning? 12. Do you involve students in assessment and feedback? In what ways? Any challenges? 13. What do you think of the importance of positive learning environment? How do you create and maintain it in your class? 14. What do you think of the importance of culture in learning? What are teachers and students supposed to do to create culture in the class? 15. What do you think you can do to promote the interaction and rapport in the class?

Closing up the interview

321

B. For university students Greeting and exchanging personal information Giving a short introduction about the study Having the participants sign the consent form

1. What are your perceptions of effective teaching? 2. What do you think the teachers’ planning learning activities can benefit to your learning? (Learning goals, assessment tasks, learning materials, learning activities) 3. What do you think of effective lectures? How you do you prefer your teachers’ lecturing? What kinds of teaching strategies do you think effective for your learning? 4. Do you usually ask your teachers questions? What are the advantages of asking questions? 5. What do you think of the best ways that teachers can use to engage/ motivate students in learning? 6. Do you think that using pair and group work in learning is beneficial? Any challenges? 7. What do you think of effective assessment? What are your preferred assessment tasks? Why? 8. How do you get feedback? What do you think teacher can do to make feedback helpful for your improvement in learning? 9. Do you involve in assessment and feedback? In what ways? Any challenges? 10. What do you think of the importance of positive learning environment? How do you contribute in creating and maintaining it in your class? 11. What do you think of the importance of culture in learning? What are teachers and students supposed to do to create culture in the class? 12. What do you think you can do to promote the interaction and rapport in the class?

Closing up the interview

322

APPENDIX E: SUPPLEMENTARY STATISTICAL RESULTS

Table 1: KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .946 Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 13683.220 Sphericity Df 1225 Sig. .000

323

Table 2: Colleration Matrixa

Correlation Matrixa I1 I2 I3 I5 I6 I7 I9 I12 I14 I15 I16 I17 I18 I19 I20 I21 I22 I23 I24 I25 I26 I27 I28 I29 I30 I31 I32 I33 I37 I39 I40 I41 I44 I45 I47 I49 I50 I52 I53 I54 I55 I56 I57 I58 I59 I60 I61 I63 I64 I66

Correlation I1 1.000 .516 .503 .259 .240 .338 .234 .326 .377 .284 .304 .360 .401 .216 .249 .310 .243 .310 .242 .197 .241 .188 .174 .199 .243 .200 .212 .181 .283 .321 .314 .292 .248 .291 .309 .257 .212 .285 .307 .273 .306 .311 .408 .320 .174 .325 .314 .076 .238 .292

I2 .516 1.000 .562 .137 .195 .296 .208 .293 .216 .166 .184 .322 .329 .214 .278 .280 .276 .315 .248 .148 .077 .174 .186 .199 .205 .202 .153 .191 .201 .241 .254 .286 .305 .264 .255 .197 .200 .217 .294 .292 .249 .277 .313 .318 .206 .295 .283 .050 .171 .278

I3 .503 .562 1.000 .142 .190 .322 .220 .254 .275 .166 .216 .308 .318 .228 .248 .312 .253 .323 .305 .178 .144 .200 .237 .188 .246 .175 .147 .192 .275 .333 .295 .302 .290 .274 .327 .259 .191 .310 .299 .258 .316 .330 .333 .356 .267 .291 .288 .019 .186 .329

I5 .259 .137 .142 1.000 .412 .324 .103 .070 .230 .078 .091 .135 .119 .138 .091 .080 .065 .093 .149 .089 .083 .066 .072 .079 .068 .065 .117 .095 .103 .205 .143 .044 .066 .209 .144 .121 .081 .226 .216 .090 .179 .195 .201 .130 .039 .126 .150 -.076 .080 .155

I6 .240 .195 .190 .412 1.000 .581 .278 .163 .301 .239 .200 .238 .236 .264 .168 .198 .122 .153 .194 .213 .277 .140 .138 .139 .147 .174 .216 .195 .278 .188 .209 .181 .162 .237 .196 .306 .199 .313 .313 .184 .284 .290 .246 .230 .183 .245 .280 .015 .229 .287

I7 .338 .296 .322 .324 .581 1.000 .271 .231 .381 .251 .262 .357 .350 .280 .215 .294 .180 .280 .228 .190 .270 .210 .171 .153 .219 .187 .230 .262 .287 .267 .350 .237 .238 .342 .292 .313 .182 .347 .358 .267 .314 .353 .288 .290 .200 .305 .342 .058 .220 .290

I9 .234 .208 .220 .103 .278 .271 1.000 .354 .304 .284 .157 .287 .313 .446 .236 .253 .232 .275 .127 .119 .277 .146 .132 .081 .142 .286 .199 .147 .468 .265 .304 .308 .298 .330 .174 .202 .347 .204 .255 .223 .291 .224 .170 .251 .196 .185 .206 .061 .459 .450

I12 .326 .293 .254 .070 .163 .231 .354 1.000 .237 .307 .440 .401 .408 .285 .336 .393 .378 .440 .174 .119 .202 .210 .196 .165 .194 .245 .170 .153 .319 .172 .310 .400 .364 .230 .292 .212 .291 .132 .165 .373 .338 .221 .282 .274 .324 .242 .260 .258 .249 .301

I14 .377 .216 .275 .230 .301 .381 .304 .237 1.000 .544 .322 .400 .487 .288 .229 .301 .203 .241 .260 .276 .291 .232 .295 .262 .268 .230 .270 .282 .270 .221 .250 .212 .173 .289 .239 .248 .165 .347 .334 .158 .339 .289 .366 .306 .173 .348 .314 .022 .266 .324

I15 .284 .166 .166 .078 .239 .251 .284 .307 .544 1.000 .416 .399 .471 .260 .276 .303 .243 .247 .183 .191 .296 .228 .240 .252 .276 .222 .251 .235 .290 .070 .219 .276 .211 .174 .192 .246 .180 .247 .250 .216 .255 .245 .256 .274 .194 .249 .255 .122 .314 .286

I16 .304 .184 .216 .091 .200 .262 .157 .440 .322 .416 1.000 .470 .492 .179 .353 .408 .327 .414 .243 .182 .267 .254 .239 .237 .281 .233 .245 .212 .220 .091 .299 .388 .298 .168 .278 .285 .231 .177 .243 .303 .340 .265 .334 .380 .313 .329 .317 .241 .228 .239

I17 .360 .322 .308 .135 .238 .357 .287 .401 .400 .399 .470 1.000 .621 .293 .366 .471 .408 .464 .280 .273 .302 .341 .346 .229 .315 .329 .329 .333 .325 .141 .348 .373 .318 .294 .311 .255 .253 .313 .338 .266 .375 .351 .419 .404 .303 .404 .408 .129 .319 .326

I18 .401 .329 .318 .119 .236 .350 .313 .408 .487 .471 .492 .621 1.000 .352 .448 .486 .398 .452 .266 .278 .357 .347 .370 .328 .365 .384 .293 .316 .370 .178 .350 .381 .322 .301 .258 .323 .299 .345 .387 .301 .387 .368 .373 .389 .300 .386 .396 .165 .391 .387

I19 .216 .214 .228 .138 .264 .280 .446 .285 .288 .260 .179 .293 .352 1.000 .398 .358 .236 .353 .174 .092 .302 .145 .145 .165 .150 .275 .204 .216 .448 .237 .255 .273 .288 .314 .155 .153 .255 .254 .330 .253 .328 .308 .239 .298 .271 .258 .210 .045 .345 .425

I20 .249 .278 .248 .091 .168 .215 .236 .336 .229 .276 .353 .366 .448 .398 1.000 .598 .469 .525 .281 .248 .286 .316 .309 .380 .293 .372 .250 .258 .289 .067 .256 .336 .360 .169 .273 .305 .329 .251 .344 .308 .358 .367 .332 .404 .331 .342 .339 .112 .292 .340

I21 .310 .280 .312 .080 .198 .294 .253 .393 .301 .303 .408 .471 .486 .358 .598 1.000 .497 .598 .318 .298 .292 .377 .358 .354 .337 .336 .257 .299 .365 .143 .298 .415 .359 .263 .370 .316 .324 .293 .344 .291 .423 .431 .419 .431 .336 .411 .393 .177 .254 .360

I22 .243 .276 .253 .065 .122 .180 .232 .378 .203 .243 .327 .408 .398 .236 .469 .497 1.000 .554 .315 .216 .234 .271 .312 .261 .274 .360 .195 .266 .294 .062 .232 .344 .315 .167 .248 .209 .265 .229 .262 .283 .368 .316 .318 .353 .275 .286 .289 .184 .241 .258

I23 .310 .315 .323 .093 .153 .280 .275 .440 .241 .247 .414 .464 .452 .353 .525 .598 .554 1.000 .335 .256 .281 .353 .351 .313 .337 .363 .270 .304 .346 .213 .333 .417 .390 .289 .416 .351 .346 .289 .318 .342 .395 .375 .429 .477 .392 .419 .413 .236 .300 .340

I24 .242 .248 .305 .149 .194 .228 .127 .174 .260 .183 .243 .280 .266 .174 .281 .318 .315 .335 1.000 .380 .315 .375 .391 .375 .361 .330 .341 .368 .176 .035 .144 .246 .236 .192 .246 .271 .163 .328 .299 .239 .352 .405 .390 .398 .197 .341 .361 .073 .101 .195

I25 .197 .148 .178 .089 .213 .190 .119 .119 .276 .191 .182 .273 .278 .092 .248 .298 .216 .256 .380 1.000 .360 .425 .547 .424 .438 .391 .436 .423 .199 .034 .142 .142 .133 .157 .198 .199 .133 .511 .378 .177 .355 .437 .337 .364 .210 .369 .350 .059 .198 .275

I26 .241 .077 .144 .083 .277 .270 .277 .202 .291 .296 .267 .302 .357 .302 .286 .292 .234 .281 .315 .360 1.000 .474 .387 .307 .368 .435 .385 .353 .348 .081 .183 .291 .268 .153 .208 .304 .297 .195 .248 .258 .350 .311 .261 .287 .320 .307 .306 .148 .288 .303

I27 .188 .174 .200 .066 .140 .210 .146 .210 .232 .228 .254 .341 .347 .145 .316 .377 .271 .353 .375 .425 .474 1.000 .553 .423 .464 .410 .400 .387 .207 .037 .203 .283 .224 .171 .286 .248 .212 .242 .238 .241 .342 .367 .316 .376 .311 .358 .351 .145 .178 .222

I28 .174 .186 .237 .072 .138 .171 .132 .196 .295 .240 .239 .346 .370 .145 .309 .358 .312 .351 .391 .547 .387 .553 1.000 .463 .474 .426 .433 .452 .240 .051 .215 .248 .211 .182 .302 .230 .152 .352 .258 .202 .331 .377 .378 .399 .303 .390 .368 .086 .180 .265

I29 .199 .199 .188 .079 .139 .153 .081 .165 .262 .252 .237 .229 .328 .165 .380 .354 .261 .313 .375 .424 .307 .423 .463 1.000 .611 .439 .448 .430 .157 -.050 .087 .177 .177 .034 .194 .203 .215 .226 .250 .184 .331 .347 .335 .362 .233 .346 .298 .048 .141 .234

I30 .243 .205 .246 .068 .147 .219 .142 .194 .268 .276 .281 .315 .365 .150 .293 .337 .274 .337 .361 .438 .368 .464 .474 .611 1.000 .505 .488 .498 .205 .009 .189 .239 .217 .094 .254 .224 .173 .268 .321 .215 .361 .362 .373 .391 .262 .365 .358 .092 .197 .209

I31 .200 .202 .175 .065 .174 .187 .286 .245 .230 .222 .233 .329 .384 .275 .372 .336 .360 .363 .330 .391 .435 .410 .426 .439 .505 1.000 .506 .450 .328 .007 .180 .316 .322 .153 .159 .238 .282 .248 .326 .215 .337 .332 .312 .335 .313 .304 .323 .099 .272 .263

I32 .212 .153 .147 .117 .216 .230 .199 .170 .270 .251 .245 .329 .293 .204 .250 .257 .195 .270 .341 .436 .385 .400 .433 .448 .488 .506 1.000 .609 .275 .124 .171 .227 .190 .231 .240 .217 .181 .325 .317 .164 .312 .348 .348 .318 .194 .295 .320 .040 .233 .280

I33 .181 .191 .192 .095 .195 .262 .147 .153 .282 .235 .212 .333 .316 .216 .258 .299 .266 .304 .368 .423 .353 .387 .452 .430 .498 .450 .609 1.000 .294 .104 .178 .270 .187 .211 .180 .276 .186 .308 .330 .136 .309 .358 .375 .368 .250 .299 .349 .004 .166 .221

I37 .283 .201 .275 .103 .278 .287 .468 .319 .270 .290 .220 .325 .370 .448 .289 .365 .294 .346 .176 .199 .348 .207 .240 .157 .205 .328 .275 .294 1.000 .273 .342 .332 .414 .358 .337 .332 .376 .309 .352 .323 .405 .367 .294 .356 .311 .276 .281 .115 .450 .464

I39 .321 .241 .333 .205 .188 .267 .265 .172 .221 .070 .091 .141 .178 .237 .067 .143 .062 .213 .035 .034 .081 .037 .051 -.050 .009 .007 .124 .104 .273 1.000 .445 .276 .189 .430 .321 .191 .125 .238 .166 .241 .103 .159 .229 .161 .160 .092 .131 .001 .208 .275

I40 .314 .254 .295 .143 .209 .350 .304 .310 .250 .219 .299 .348 .350 .255 .256 .298 .232 .333 .144 .142 .183 .203 .215 .087 .189 .180 .171 .178 .342 .445 1.000 .532 .389 .457 .385 .289 .255 .293 .320 .389 .297 .349 .342 .321 .357 .310 .360 .202 .311 .377

I41 .292 .286 .302 .044 .181 .237 .308 .400 .212 .276 .388 .373 .381 .273 .336 .415 .344 .417 .246 .142 .291 .283 .248 .177 .239 .316 .227 .270 .332 .276 .532 1.000 .419 .343 .334 .322 .308 .183 .265 .347 .340 .354 .375 .358 .390 .336 .389 .254 .266 .299

324

Table 2: Colleration Matrixa (continued)

I44 .248 .305 .290 .066 .162 .238 .298 .364 .173 .211 .298 .318 .322 .288 .360 .359 .315 .390 .236 .133 .268 .224 .211 .177 .217 .322 .190 .187 .414 .189 .389 .419 1.000 .365 .353 .440 .472 .157 .287 .401 .391 .306 .322 .395 .388 .361 .369 .206 .324 .382

I45 .291 .264 .274 .209 .237 .342 .330 .230 .289 .174 .168 .294 .301 .314 .169 .263 .167 .289 .192 .157 .153 .171 .182 .034 .094 .153 .231 .211 .358 .430 .457 .343 .365 1.000 .398 .301 .235 .296 .274 .295 .253 .280 .261 .291 .259 .302 .281 .056 .297 .373

I47 .309 .255 .327 .144 .196 .292 .174 .292 .239 .192 .278 .311 .258 .155 .273 .370 .248 .416 .246 .198 .208 .286 .302 .194 .254 .159 .240 .180 .337 .321 .385 .334 .353 .398 1.000 .433 .251 .290 .286 .353 .313 .351 .369 .398 .307 .389 .360 .161 .208 .333

I49 .257 .197 .259 .121 .306 .313 .202 .212 .248 .246 .285 .255 .323 .153 .305 .316 .209 .351 .271 .199 .304 .248 .230 .203 .224 .238 .217 .276 .332 .191 .289 .322 .440 .301 .433 1.000 .458 .237 .303 .379 .415 .376 .335 .376 .340 .404 .389 .192 .260 .311

I50 .212 .200 .191 .081 .199 .182 .347 .291 .165 .180 .231 .253 .299 .255 .329 .324 .265 .346 .163 .133 .297 .212 .152 .215 .173 .282 .181 .186 .376 .125 .255 .308 .472 .235 .251 .458 1.000 .096 .237 .380 .368 .278 .239 .290 .373 .268 .293 .253 .358 .339

I52 .285 .217 .310 .226 .313 .347 .204 .132 .347 .247 .177 .313 .345 .254 .251 .293 .229 .289 .328 .511 .195 .242 .352 .226 .268 .248 .325 .308 .309 .238 .293 .183 .157 .296 .290 .237 .096 1.000 .666 .277 .447 .604 .423 .427 .215 .423 .353 -.122 .197 .393

I53 .307 .294 .299 .216 .313 .358 .255 .165 .334 .250 .243 .338 .387 .330 .344 .344 .262 .318 .299 .378 .248 .238 .258 .250 .321 .326 .317 .330 .352 .166 .320 .265 .287 .274 .286 .303 .237 .666 1.000 .316 .473 .603 .449 .493 .238 .430 .407 -.040 .247 .444

I54 .273 .292 .258 .090 .184 .267 .223 .373 .158 .216 .303 .266 .301 .253 .308 .291 .283 .342 .239 .177 .258 .241 .202 .184 .215 .215 .164 .136 .323 .241 .389 .347 .401 .295 .353 .379 .380 .277 .316 1.000 .517 .422 .352 .338 .400 .352 .369 .349 .305 .347

I55 .306 .249 .316 .179 .284 .314 .291 .338 .339 .255 .340 .375 .387 .328 .358 .423 .368 .395 .352 .355 .350 .342 .331 .331 .361 .337 .312 .309 .405 .103 .297 .340 .391 .253 .313 .415 .368 .447 .473 .517 1.000 .638 .466 .464 .409 .494 .461 .151 .317 .432

I56 .311 .277 .330 .195 .290 .353 .224 .221 .289 .245 .265 .351 .368 .308 .367 .431 .316 .375 .405 .437 .311 .367 .377 .347 .362 .332 .348 .358 .367 .159 .349 .354 .306 .280 .351 .376 .278 .604 .603 .422 .638 1.000 .564 .573 .374 .576 .563 .103 .271 .446

I57 .408 .313 .333 .201 .246 .288 .170 .282 .366 .256 .334 .419 .373 .239 .332 .419 .318 .429 .390 .337 .261 .316 .378 .335 .373 .312 .348 .375 .294 .229 .342 .375 .322 .261 .369 .335 .239 .423 .449 .352 .466 .564 1.000 .581 .397 .541 .523 .093 .214 .398

I58 .320 .318 .356 .130 .230 .290 .251 .274 .306 .274 .380 .404 .389 .298 .404 .431 .353 .477 .398 .364 .287 .376 .399 .362 .391 .335 .318 .368 .356 .161 .321 .358 .395 .291 .398 .376 .290 .427 .493 .338 .464 .573 .581 1.000 .465 .550 .527 .111 .278 .431

I59 .174 .206 .267 .039 .183 .200 .196 .324 .173 .194 .313 .303 .300 .271 .331 .336 .275 .392 .197 .210 .320 .311 .303 .233 .262 .313 .194 .250 .311 .160 .357 .390 .388 .259 .307 .340 .373 .215 .238 .400 .409 .374 .397 .465 1.000 .479 .460 .319 .307 .341

I60 .325 .295 .291 .126 .245 .305 .185 .242 .348 .249 .329 .404 .386 .258 .342 .411 .286 .419 .341 .369 .307 .358 .390 .346 .365 .304 .295 .299 .276 .092 .310 .336 .361 .302 .389 .404 .268 .423 .430 .352 .494 .576 .541 .550 .479 1.000 .665 .124 .235 .408

I61 .314 .283 .288 .150 .280 .342 .206 .260 .314 .255 .317 .408 .396 .210 .339 .393 .289 .413 .361 .350 .306 .351 .368 .298 .358 .323 .320 .349 .281 .131 .360 .389 .369 .281 .360 .389 .293 .353 .407 .369 .461 .563 .523 .527 .460 .665 1.000 .148 .216 .384

I63 .076 .050 .019 -.076 .015 .058 .061 .258 .022 .122 .241 .129 .165 .045 .112 .177 .184 .236 .073 .059 .148 .145 .086 .048 .092 .099 .040 .004 .115 .001 .202 .254 .206 .056 .161 .192 .253 -.122 -.040 .349 .151 .103 .093 .111 .319 .124 .148 1.000 .338 .155

I64 .238 .171 .186 .080 .229 .220 .459 .249 .266 .314 .228 .319 .391 .345 .292 .254 .241 .300 .101 .198 .288 .178 .180 .141 .197 .272 .233 .166 .450 .208 .311 .266 .324 .297 .208 .260 .358 .197 .247 .305 .317 .271 .214 .278 .307 .235 .216 .338 1.000 .568

I66 .292 .278 .329 .155 .287 .290 .450 .301 .324 .286 .239 .326 .387 .425 .340 .360 .258 .340 .195 .275 .303 .222 .265 .234 .209 .263 .280 .221 .464 .275 .377 .299 .382 .373 .333 .311 .339 .393 .444 .347 .432 .446 .398 .431 .341 .408 .384 .155 .568 1.000

Sig. (1- I1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .035 .000 .000

tailed) I2 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .032 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .118 .000 .000

I3 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .326 .000 .000

I5 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .007 .047 .000 .031 .015 .001 .002 .000 .015 .028 .059 .013 .000 .017 .023 .057 .044 .030 .052 .062 .003 .011 .007 .000 .000 .146 .056 .000 .000 .002 .027 .000 .000 .016 .000 .000 .000 .001 .175 .001 .000 .035 .028 .000

I6 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .357 .000 .000

I7 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .083 .000 .000

I9 .000 .000 .000 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .002 .000 .000 .001 .027 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .071 .000 .000

I12 .000 .000 .000 .047 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I14 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .297 .000 .000

I15 .000 .000 .000 .031 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .047 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000

I16 .000 .000 .000 .015 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .015 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I17 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000

I18 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I19 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .014 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .143 .000 .000

I20 .000 .000 .000 .015 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .054 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .004 .000 .000

I21 .000 .000 .000 .028 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

325

Table 2: Colleration Matrixa (continued)

I22 .000 .000 .000 .059 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .070 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I23 .000 .000 .000 .013 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I24 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .204 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .041 .008 .000

I25 .000 .000 .000 .017 .000 .000 .002 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .014 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .209 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .079 .000 .000

I26 .000 .032 .000 .023 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .026 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I27 .000 .000 .000 .057 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .191 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I28 .000 .000 .000 .044 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .111 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .020 .000 .000

I29 .000 .000 .000 .030 .000 .000 .027 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .117 .019 .000 .000 .209 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .128 .000 .000

I30 .000 .000 .000 .052 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .420 .000 .000 .000 .012 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .014 .000 .000

I31 .000 .000 .000 .062 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .434 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .009 .000 .000

I32 .000 .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .172 .000 .000

I33 .000 .000 .000 .011 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .460 .000 .000

I37 .000 .000 .000 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .003 .000 .000

I39 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .047 .015 .000 .000 .000 .054 .000 .070 .000 .204 .209 .026 .191 .111 .117 .420 .434 .002 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .014 .001 .487 .000 .000

I40 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .019 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I41 .000 .000 .000 .146 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I44 .000 .000 .000 .056 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I45 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .209 .012 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .090 .000 .000

I47 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I49 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I50 .000 .000 .000 .027 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .011 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I52 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .011 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000

I53 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .170 .000 .000

I54 .000 .000 .000 .016 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I55 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I56 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .007 .000 .000

I57 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .014 .000 .000

I58 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .004 .000 .000

I59 .000 .000 .000 .175 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I60 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .014 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000

I61 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I63 .035 .118 .326 .035 .357 .083 .071 .000 .297 .002 .000 .001 .000 .143 .004 .000 .000 .000 .041 .079 .000 .000 .020 .128 .014 .009 .172 .460 .003 .487 .000 .000 .000 .090 .000 .000 .000 .002 .170 .000 .000 .007 .014 .004 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000

I64 .000 .000 .000 .028 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .008 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

I66 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 a. Determinant = 1.68E-011

326

Table 3: Tests of Normality and Data distribution Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Skewness Kurtosis Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. I1 .238 570 .000 .843 570 .000 .056 -.675 I2 .274 570 .000 .848 570 .000 .209 -.376 I3 .246 570 .000 .858 570 .000 -.040 -.478 I4 .233 570 .000 .844 570 .000 -.427 -.539 I5 .198 570 .000 .871 570 .000 -.153 -.995 I6 .211 570 .000 .860 570 .000 -.193 -.830 I7 .232 570 .000 .866 570 .000 -.141 -.659 I8 .238 570 .000 .865 570 .000 .063 -.629 I9 .316 570 .000 .816 570 .000 -.503 .367 I10 .260 570 .000 .853 570 .000 -.107 -.433 I11 .311 570 .000 .811 570 .000 -.317 .156 I12 .251 570 .000 .855 570 .000 .309 -.493 I13 .304 570 .000 .821 570 .000 -.499 .264 I14 .304 570 .000 .781 570 .000 -.451 .407 I15 .277 570 .000 .816 570 .000 -.514 .132 I16 .221 570 .000 .874 570 .000 .004 -.645 I17 .279 570 .000 .853 570 .000 -.303 -.285 I18 .282 570 .000 .848 570 .000 -.412 -.195 I19 .261 570 .000 .832 570 .000 -.383 -.302 I20 .286 570 .000 .843 570 .000 -.398 -.118 I21 .296 570 .000 .840 570 .000 -.333 -.090 I22 .259 570 .000 .863 570 .000 -.235 -.469 I23 .270 570 .000 .857 570 .000 -.185 -.360 I24 .328 570 .000 .792 570 .000 -.433 .599 I25 .346 570 .000 .715 570 .000 -.999 .769 I26 .290 570 .000 .812 570 .000 -.636 .407 I27 .300 570 .000 .819 570 .000 -.430 .186

327

I28 .271 570 .000 .808 570 .000 -.712 .392 I29 .326 570 .000 .769 570 .000 -.458 .936 I30 .299 570 .000 .791 570 .000 -.440 .424 I31 .294 570 .000 .796 570 .000 -.521 .494 I32 .296 570 .000 .764 570 .000 -.624 .739 I33 .291 570 .000 .778 570 .000 -.589 .594 I34 .255 570 .000 .842 570 .000 -.027 -.584 I35 .247 570 .000 .857 570 .000 -.238 -.553 I36 .239 570 .000 .865 570 .000 -.067 -.535 I37 .234 570 .000 .855 570 .000 -.056 -.672 I38 .257 570 .000 .854 570 .000 -.263 -.467 I39 .308 570 .000 .839 570 .000 -.542 -.148 I40 .255 570 .000 .847 570 .000 .005 -.408 I41 .257 570 .000 .860 570 .000 -.111 -.414 I42 .300 570 .000 .827 570 .000 -.452 .131 I43 .265 570 .000 .853 570 .000 -.111 -.361 I44 .258 570 .000 .863 570 .000 -.139 -.438 I45 .252 570 .000 .861 570 .000 -.152 -.502 I46 .269 570 .000 .860 570 .000 -.200 -.391 I47 .289 570 .000 .843 570 .000 .280 -.279 I48 .251 570 .000 .868 570 .000 -.192 -.533 I49 .226 570 .000 .875 570 .000 -.058 -.640 I50 .240 570 .000 .863 570 .000 -.055 -.510 I51 .227 570 .000 .876 570 .000 .143 -.734 I52 .290 570 .000 .770 570 .000 -.739 .034 I53 .258 570 .000 .805 570 .000 -.580 -.501 I54 .231 570 .000 .868 570 .000 .308 -.946 I55 .231 570 .000 .854 570 .000 -.275 -.676 I56 .233 570 .000 .830 570 .000 -.477 -.455 I57 .331 570 .000 .796 570 .000 -.471 .607 I58 .291 570 .000 .831 570 .000 -.496 .072 I59 .268 570 .000 .864 570 .000 -.243 -.448

328

I60 .299 570 .000 .826 570 .000 -.396 .085 I61 .285 570 .000 .834 570 .000 -.415 -.063 I62 .235 570 .000 .873 570 .000 .118 -.630 I63 .366 570 .000 .703 570 .000 1.323 .944 I64 .236 570 .000 .872 570 .000 -.070 -.597

I65 .219 570 .000 .876 570 .000 .026 -.676

I66 .273 570 .000 .843 570 .000 -.258 -.332

329

Table 4: Total Variance Explained and Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings % of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative Component Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance % 1 15.306 30.612 30.612 15.306 30.612 30.612 5.270 10.540 10.540 2 3.116 6.232 36.844 3.116 6.232 36.844 4.582 9.164 19.704 3 2.395 4.790 41.634 2.395 4.790 41.634 3.596 7.192 26.896 4 1.887 3.775 45.409 1.887 3.775 45.409 3.265 6.529 33.426 5 1.732 3.463 48.872 1.732 3.463 48.872 3.158 6.315 39.741 6 1.415 2.830 51.702 1.415 2.830 51.702 2.690 5.379 45.120 7 1.389 2.778 54.481 1.389 2.778 54.481 2.629 5.258 50.378 8 1.212 2.425 56.905 1.212 2.425 56.905 2.220 4.439 54.818 9 1.103 2.205 59.111 1.103 2.205 59.111 2.146 4.293 59.111 10 .965 1.931 61.042 11 .909 1.819 62.860

330

331

Table 5: Summary of each factor analysis run

Number Number of Base on eigenvalue Suppress of Sample items Method of greater than 1/fixed Rotation small running size extraction number of factor method coefficients Results Solution 66 There emerged 12 factors, but factor 11 and 12 had only one item loaded on, which was not sustainable because each factor Principal Base on eigenvalue needs at least 3 items to become sustainable Rerun factor analysis 1 570 components greater than 1 Varimax 0.4 factor (Norusis, 2008; Hair, 2010) with 10 factors 66 9 items were not displayed because their loadings are below .4 There are cross loadings with three items 46, 62 and 65, with factor loadings .420 versus .416 (item 46); .446 versus .480 Remove 12 items (item 62); .467 versus .457 (item 65). These and rerun factor Principal Fixed number of differences are little and not significant analysis with 10 2 570 components factor Varimax 0.4 (Hair, 2010) factors 54 Factor 10 had only two items loaded on, which was not sustainable because each factor needs at least 3 items to become Rerun factor analysis sustainable factor (Norusis, 2008; Hair, with 9 factors Principal Fixed number of 2010) Remove items 34, 3 570 components factor Varimax 0.4 Two items 34 and 43 were not displayed and item 43

332

because their loadings were below .4 52 Two more items 36 and 48 were not Principal Fixed number of displayed because their loadings were Remove items 36 4 570 components factor Varimax 0.4 below .4 and item 48 50 Finalized the factor 9 factor emerged analysis with 9 Principal Base on eigenvalue No close cross loadings factors emerged, and 5 570 components greater than 1 Varimax 0.4 No more items that had loadings below .4 reduced to 50 items

333

APPENDIX F: VARIATIONS IN STUDENTS’ AND TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS FROM INTERVIEWS

Teaching Shared perceptions Variations in teachers’ and students’ perceptions components Teachers Students Learning goals Learning goals should be transparent and Emphasised the significance of explaining clearly the Students did not have a clear idea about what specific learning goals to students was expected of them in terms of learning goals Teachers indirectly reflected learning goals through Students expected their teachers to directly formative assessment remind them of the learning goals throughout the course Learning goals should also be challenging Not mentioned Students were the main agent to make learning goals Not mentioned happen along with the teachers’ support and guidance Learning Learning materials should align with Centralisation in curriculum development in VHEIs Not mentioned materials learning goals seemed not to be an inhibitor for the teachers in teaching Learning materials were necessary for How to design engaging activities out of provided Students advocated freedom in contributing to students’ reviewing and consolidating of learning materials was more important learning materials; however, they were not lessons intrinsically motivated in further exploring and expanding the lessons, but they were driven by associated assessments

334

Not mentioned Supplementary learning materials were helpful if they are accompanied with teachers’ facilitation Assessment tasks Assessment tasks should align with the Not addressed Assessment tasks should be varied learning goals Small proportion of assessment tasks should go Addressed by a few of students beyond the learning goals Assessment for learning approach Only motivated if assessment tasks were marked Presenting and Questioning was utilised to improve Teachers were facilitator, consultant and organiser of Effective lecturer was knowledge and passion questioning students’ understanding, provoke students’ learning activities. Students should play an active transmitter critical thinking, and maintain students’ role in knowledge acquisition and expansion interest in learning Students’ unpreparedness for the lessons, and the Negative attitudes of teachers and classmates influence of Confucianism could hinder the students’ could possibly hinder the students’ questioning questioning

High order High order thinking skills helped students thinking skills become more active, more motivated, more engaged and more involved in their learning. Peer Learning Group learning enhanced communication Group learning might be a good option to involve all Group presentation was a favourite group and collaboration skills as well as students in learning given the big number of students learning strategy confidence for students in class

335

How to ascertain the equal contribution of Maintaining students’ interest in groupwork was Not mentioned students in group work was a concern another challenge Assessment and Centralisation in assessment was not an Not mentioned Group presentation was perceived to be feedback inhibitor for teaching and learning students’ preferred type of assessment Assessment was the main driver for student learning Advocated formative assessments if they triggered metacognition skills such as deep understanding, critical thinking, making connection, and applying Feedback was essential for student learning Not mentioned Positive manners of teachers in providing feedback were crucial Timely feedback was crucial to maintain Teachers were more likely to give regular feedback Students expected to obtain individual feedback the students’ interest for poorly performing students due to time limitation

Positive Positive learning environment brought Not mentioned Informal chats were perceived to be an enabler environment and about positive influence on students’ for positive learning environment and interaction and learning interaction and rapport rapport Teacher’s constructive and heartfelt Not explicitly stated by teachers Questioning was thought as a facilitator in manners in teaching made learning intellectually engaging students in class atmosphere positive communication and interaction Creating a positive learning environment Not mentioned Humour and jokes of teachers were also involved a mutual endeavour of both perceived as a facilitator of a positive

336 teachers and students environment in learning Poor facilities, big class size, assessment- Not mentioned Quality of teaching was an important enabler for driven learning could inhibit the creation generating a positive ecosystem for learning and preservation of positive learning Not mentioned Informal meetings such as parties, picnics, environment excursions were perceived as an effective approach to promote the relationship between class members by which learning environment could possibly be enhanced Social networks such as Facebook, Twitter could be a Not addressed means to better enhance rapport and interaction

337

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s: Tran, Thi Thanh Thuy

Title: Students' and teachers' perceptions of teaching and learning practice in Vietnamese higher education

Date: 2019

Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/233174

File Description: Final thesis file

Terms and Conditions: Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner. Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their own personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.