Vol 14 No 1 - November 2015

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:1694-2493
e-ISSN:1694-2116IJLTER.ORG
Vol.14 No.1

PUBLISHER
London Consulting Ltd
District of Flacq
Republic of Mauritius
www.ijlter.org
Chief Editor
Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Editorial Board
Prof. Cecilia Junio Sabio
Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka
Prof. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola
Dr Jonathan Glazzard
Dr Marius Costel Esi
Dr Katarzyna Peoples
Dr Christopher David Thompson
Dr Arif Sikander
Dr Jelena Zascerinska
Dr Gabor Kiss
Dr Trish Julie Rooney
Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano
Dr Barry Chametzky
Dr Giorgio Poletti
Dr Chi Man Tsui
Dr Alexander Franco
Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak
Dr Afsaneh Sharif
Dr Ronel Callaghan
Dr Haim Shaked
Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh
Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry
Dr Gail Dianna Caruth
Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris
Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez
Dr Özcan Özyurt
Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara
Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research
The International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research is an open-access
journal which has been established for the dis-
semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER
welcomes research articles from academics, ed-
ucators, teachers, trainers and other practition-
ers on all aspects of education to publish high
quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publi-
cation in the International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research are selected
through precise peer-review to ensure quality,
originality, appropriateness, significance and
readability. Authors are solicited to contribute
to this journal by submitting articles that illus-
trate research results, projects, original surveys
and case studies that describe significant ad-
vances in the fields of education, training, e-
learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit pa-
pers to this journal through the ONLINE submis-
sion system. Submissions must be original and
should not have been published previously or
be under consideration for publication while
being evaluated by IJLTER.

VOLUME 14 NUMBER 1 November 2015
Table of Contents
Head Start Pedagogy in an Era of Accountability..............................................................................................................1
Reva M. Fish, Ph.D., Laura Klenk, Ph.D., Julie Mazur, B.S. and Adena Sexton, Ph.D.
A Grounded Theory Study of Learning Patterns of Asian Students in Higher Education......................................... 20
Abu Bakar
Caring for Persons with Spinal Cord Injury: A Mixed Study Evaluation of eLearning Modules Designed for
Family Physicians ................................................................................................................................................................ 39
Dr. Colla J. MacDonald, Dr. Jamie Milligan, Dr. Tara Jeji, Kaitlin Mathias, Dr. Hugh Kellam and Jane Gaffney
Saxon Math in the Middle Grades: A Content Analysis .................................................................................................63
Emma P. Bullock and M. Jill Ashby, Britney Spencer, Kaylee Manderino and Katy Myers
The Admiralty Code: A Cognitive Tool for Self-Directed Learning ............................................................................. 97
James M. Hanson
Investigating the way 5-years old children distinguish the concepts „object‟ and „material‟ Is the „material‟
overshadowed by the „object‟?......................................................................................................................................... 116
Evmorfia Malkopoulou, George Papageorgiou and Anastasia Dimitriou

© 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
1
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-19, November 2015
Head Start Pedagogy in an Era of Accountability
Reva M. Fish, Ph.D., Laura Klenk, Ph.D.,
Julie Mazur, B.S. and Adena Sexton, Ph.D.
School of Education
SUNY Buffalo State
Abstract. Head Start teachers were interviewed to determine their
approaches to teaching in the current early childhood education climate
where there is an increased emphasis on academic instruction to meet
learning standards. The grounded theory approach to data collection
and analysis was used for this study. The core category and basic social
psychological process that emerged from the data was ―facilitating
learning‖ and was carried out by teachers in four ways: free choice play,
incidental teaching opportunities, play-like activities, and direct
instruction. The process included three other categories: ―choosing a
setting,‖ ―deciding content,‖ and ―addressing other viewpoints‖ and
explains the pedagogical approaches Head Start preschool teachers use
to meet increasingly rigorous curriculum requirements and higher
expectations for student learning. The findings and their educational
implications are discussed.
Keywords: Head Start; preschool; accountability; pedagogy
Introduction
Preschool teachers face a push to increase academic rigor in their classrooms
(Brown, 2010). This is a result of both the No Child Left Behind Act’s press for
greater achievement across all grades and the ongoing shift of curricular content
to earlier grades. It has been intensified by the more recent Race to the Top and
Common Core Standards initiatives. Frost (2007) warned that we are facing the
―perfect storm‖ in early childhood education with ―1) the standardization of
education; 2) the dissolution of traditional spontaneous play; and 3) the growing
specter of poverty in the United States and around the world.‖ (p. 225). This
study seeks to understand the nature of early childhood pedagogy in Head Start
classrooms subsequent to the implementation of these education reform
initiatives.

2
Literature Review
Head Start
When looking at the pedagogical approaches used by Head Start teachers, it is
important to understand the goals of Head Start preschools. Head Start is a
United States government-funded preschool program for children from low-
socioeconomic-status families. It was implemented in 1965 to help alleviate
social problems associated with people living in poverty and has since evolved
to be considered a program that provides school readiness skills to children in
the areas of cognitive and social/emotional development (Nemeth, 2011; Office
of Head Start, 2010). The Head Start learning framework provided to grantees is
comprised of eleven domains. The eight original domains were social and
emotional development, approaches to learning, language development, literacy
knowledge and skills, mathematics knowledge and skills, science knowledge
and skills, physical development and health, and creative arts expression. In
2011, three domains were added: logic and reasoning, social studies knowledge
and skills, and English language development. The latter applies only to
students who are dual language learners and who speak a language other than
English at home.
Grantees are expected to use the learning framework in developing curriculum
and assessments. While the emphasis is on school readiness, the Department of
Health and Human Services also requires that Head Start programs use
developmentally appropriate activities and that teachers consider the needs of
individual students in their classrooms when planning instruction (Office of
Head Start, 2010).
Clearly, Head Start preschool teachers face a particularly difficult challenge in
the current standards-driven climate because they are responsible for the
learning of children who are economically disadvantaged. Their students may
come from homes where parents can provide fewer educational resources, and,
as a result, the children start preschool with fewer academic skills than those
from more advantaged backgrounds. Further, Head Start students are likely to
thrive in an educational environment that is initially socially/emotionally-
supportive rather than academically-demanding (Ginsburg, 2007). They benefit
from time to adapt to the education setting and from positive educational
experiences that help them become confident learners who enjoy attending
school (Emfinger, 2009; Fantuzzo, Sekino & Cohen, 2004; Miller & Almon, 2009).
Head Start teachers also must be cognizant of the ongoing debate regarding the
amount of time children spend in play and playful activities versus teacher-led
instruction, and the types of teacher-led instruction that are developmentally
appropriate in early childhood (Gewertz, 2010; Graue, 2009; Nicolopoulou,
2010). When learning standards and the movement to increase rigor in the
classroom reached the early childhood grades, concerns were raised about how
teachers would meet the standards and still maintain methods of instruction that
are appropriate for the children they teach.

3
Developmentally Appropriate Instruction
Developmentally appropriate instruction is an approach to teaching based on
professional standards that guide pedagogical practices in early childhood
classrooms (Coppel & Bredekamp, 2009). These standards address the
importance of research-based pedagogy that meets the individual needs of
young children and encourages intellectual growth. There is concern that
current early childhood curriculum and materials do not allow for the students
to have the open engagement with their environment that is needed for them to
develop an interest in learning (Armstrong, 2007). Time for these child-led
activities is often reduced when teachers are focused on meeting academic
standards and it is the activities chosen by the child that help them develop self-
regulation skills as they create and follow their own rules of play (Elias & Berk,
2002). Parents and school administrators, in particular, may not understand the
importance of play in developing skills that can lead to later success in school
(Graue, 2009). They generally worry about children passing tests rather than
having opportunities to learn skills. However, Head Start teachers report
understanding that social-emotional development is essential for academic
learning (Powell, Diamond, Bojczyk, & Gerde, 2008).
Some research conducted prior to the 1990s provided support for direct
instruction in preschool classrooms (Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010).
However, there are few recent studies of direct instruction because the
movement for developmentally appropriate instruction in early childhood in the
1990s changed pedagogical practices. Camilli et al. (2010) report that researchers
have found that inquiry-based activities where children construct knowledge
with the guidance of a teacher result in greater learning than the use of direct
instruction where the teacher drills basic concepts until the students remember
them. Their meta-analysis also found that children who received instruction
individually or in small groups showed greater learning.
This study fills a gap in the existing literature by exploring the pedagogical
approaches Head Start preschool teachers use to meet increasingly rigorous
curriculum requirements and higher expectations for student learning. This was
accomplished through interviews with teachers to determine how they reconcile
adherence to developmentally appropriate classroom practices and the need to
meet established standards.
Method
The grounded theory approach to data collection and analysis was used for this
study. Grounded theory is one of several qualitative research methods that seek
to understand the nature of human actions and interactions through nonnumeric
organization and interpretation of data (Glaser, 1978; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
The purpose of the grounded theory method is construction or extension of
theory through exploration and description of data using principles of symbolic

4
interactionism. This theoretical perspective assumes that people respond to
events based on their individual and socially-constructed shared meanings.
Investigators and Participants
The authors are members of a school of education at a large urban campus in the
Northeast United States. Our college, and in particular the School of Education,
is vitally interested in outreach to the urban community, especially to schools
and teachers who provide services to minority and disadvantaged children.
Further, recruitment of minority students into our programs has long been a
priority.
Recently, an initiative was undertaken by the college to accommodate Head
Start teachers who, for the first time, are facing stricter degree requirements to
stay in their jobs. These teachers are generally unable to attend college courses
scheduled during the day because of their full-time teaching positions, so the
college added evening, weekend, and summer sections of courses to enable
these teachers to continue working while they pursue a bachelor’s degree in
early childhood education.
The eight teachers interviewed for this study had from four to eighteen years of
experience in early childhood education, with an average of about ten years of
experience across the group. Five of the teachers reported having a Child
Development Associate (CDA) credential and four of them had an associate’s
degree. All of the teachers interviewed were female, were enrolled in the early
childhood education program at the college, and worked in local Head Start
programs.
Theoretical sensitivity of the investigators has been developed through review of
current and historical literature, classroom observations, conversations with
early childhood stakeholders, previous research experiences, and our teaching
experiences.
Data Collection
For this study, semi-structured interviews lasting about one hour each were
conducted to explore how Head Start teachers teach their preschool students.
Specifically, we were interested in how they choose pedagogical methods that
are developmentally appropriate and would facilitate the type of learning
expected by established standards. We started the interview by asking
questions such as: Tell us about your classroom. Tell us about the classroom
schedule on a typical day. What activities take place in your classroom? Which
of those activities do you find the children enjoy most? We then asked follow-up
probing questions based on their responses. In addition to the interview, each
teacher was asked to complete a questionnaire asking for contact information,
the number of years of experience at Head Start, and credentials the teacher has
earned.

5
Approval to conduct this study was obtained from the Institutional Review
Board. A consent form was signed by each teacher interviewed. It stated that
participation in the study was voluntary, the teacher could refuse to answer any
interview question, and that participation in the study could be discontinued at
any point.
Data Analysis
In the grounded theory approach, data analysis is performed by breaking down
and reassembling verbatim data through constant comparison in order to
describe a human process. This is accomplished by linking the key concepts
present in the data according to the properties and dimensions that exist in
discrete categories. This results in a collection of categories which are described
through statements of their relationships. The relationships explain who, what,
when, where, and how the process would be manifested. The final product is a
theoretical whole that explains and predicts how people solve the problem
addressed in the study—a grounded theory. The theory is not considered to be a
definitive explanation of human behavior, but is instead a modifiable tool
available for use in future research.
All the interviews in this study were recorded and then fully transcribed,
verbatim. The transcriptions were reviewed for accuracy. During substantive
coding a systematic line-by-line review of the full transcriptions was conducted
using constant comparison to assign codes, develop conceptual categories, and
identify a core variable. Substantive coding was followed by theoretical coding
using coding families to relate substantive codes to each other in terms of their
properties and dimensions – including strategies used by teachers, types of
instructional activities, classroom organization, instructional goals, and conflicts
teachers faced about their instructional practices. Memos were written
throughout the analysis process for later theoretical sorting.
Findings from the analysis of the interview data were confirmed in two ways.
First, the authors reviewed the identified codes and categories independently to
confirm that they had similar findings. Second, the authors invited the
participants to meet to discuss the findings. Three of the teachers attended the
meeting and agreed that the findings accurately explained their approaches to
instruction in their classrooms.
Findings
The initial conceptual categories identified during substantive coding included
Planning, Curriculum, Teaching, Learning, Play, Teacher’s role, Students, Parent
input, Administrator input, and Teacher Training. These preliminary categories
had clear connections to the topics addressed in the interview questions.
During theoretical coding, the core category and basic social psychological
process ―facilitating learning‖ emerged. The process included three other
categories: ―choosing a setting,‖ ―deciding content,‖ and ―addressing other

6
viewpoints‖ and explains the pedagogical approaches Head Start preschool
teachers use to meet increasingly rigorous curriculum requirements and higher
expectations for student learning. Coding families were utilized to develop the
properties and dimensions of the categories and the connections between them.
Through a careful theoretical sorting of the memos, a rich non-linear integration
of the categories was achieved for this report of the research. The following
sections describe the findings, by category, and discuss the relationships among
them.
Facilitating Learning
The Head Start teachers facilitated learning in four ways: free-choice play,
incidental teaching opportunities, play-like activities, and direct instruction.
These can be viewed along a continuum based on the degree of control the
students have in the activity and the amount of effort on the part of the teacher
to facilitate learning. The students had the greatest amount of control in free-
choice play and the effort by the teacher was limited to providing appropriate
and engaging materials. At the other end of the continuum, the students had
little control, if any, during direct instruction and it required the greatest effort
by the teacher who had to plan the activity, create any materials needed, and
lead the instruction.
Between those extremes were incidental teaching opportunities and play-like
activities. Incidental teaching opportunities were spontaneous occasions for
instruction that were generally unplanned by the teacher and during which
students typically had little control over the activity, but were willing to
participate. The students also had little control over, but were willing to
participate in, the play-like activities. The play-like activities required effort by
the teacher in creating materials and planning the action that would take place
during the activity.
Free-choice play. In free-choice play the children were generally able to move
around the classroom, choosing the area of the room in which they played, the
classmates with whom they would play, and the classroom materials they used.
Teachers reported three ways that they used free-choice play to facilitate
learning: to observe students’ skills, develop attachments with students, and
allow students to learn independently.
First, teachers observed the children during free-choice play to determine their
knowledge and skills in all areas of development to help design future
instructional activities. In this way, the teachers identified curriculum content
that the child was ready to learn or areas where she felt the child seemed to be
behind and could benefit from activities to move that development forward:
I stand off to the side and write down what I see and what I hear to find
out where their skill is and where their level of skill is. [Later] I teach
only through the small group. Now I sit back and let them play in
different areas and I’ll just jot down what I see.

7
Another way the teachers used observation of free-choice play was to determine
whether students had gained understandings from prior instruction:
Their play to me is just as important as their play to them because, again,
it allows me to see where they are, if any growth has taken place from
what I’ve said to them as far as introducing things to them.
The second way that teachers reported using free-choice play to facilitate
learning was to play with the children to develop an emotional attachment and
sense of trust. Teachers believed that because of this bond, students would be
more willing to do the classroom activities that they enjoyed less, such as direct
instruction:
So I think that bonding through play with your children is… once you
bond with them you can get them to learn whatever you want them to
learn because they trust you even when they don’t want to sit there and
don’t want to do numbers. But if they trust you and you bring them over
to your small group and you make it like a game they are going to learn
from whatever you’re putting in front of them.
The third way teachers used free-choice play to facilitate learning was based on
their belief that children can learn during independent activities without any
planning or control by the teacher:
When they’re playing, they’re learning so many other things. They’re
learning to sort, they’re learning to put things in order, they’re learning
one-to-one correspondence. They learn to put pegs in, make patterns.
They learn a lot through playing.
Incidental teaching opportunities. During incidental teaching opportunities, the
Head Start teachers facilitated learning by integrating instruction into other
activities in the classroom. This was generally not planned ahead by the teacher,
but through her knowledge of the curriculum she could engage the child in
learning if the opportunity did arise. Teachers sometimes chose to use a play
activity they observed to teach a concept. In this way, they changed free-choice
play into an incidental teaching opportunity – as control moved from the child
to the teacher.
If I was in the kitchen cooking I would be sitting at the table with them
and as they were cooking I would be talking about the color of the food,
the type of food we are eating. Or if I was in the math center with them I
would be counting with them or talking about what it is that they have. If
they had a snake I’d be asking questions. What is a snake? How does a
snake crawl or walk? Does a snake have legs?
Incidental learning may also take place during day-to-day classroom
procedures. One teacher described an opportunity she had to practice counting
while putting materials away with one of the students:
We were putting the stuff from dramatic play away and he was putting
the bottles away. I go, ―Wait a second, how many do we have?‖

8
Incidental instruction required that teachers have both an awareness of the
concepts in the curriculum and knowledge of topics which individual students
may be interested in learning more about:
They made a garage with the cars and everything, so we talked about
how an engine works, which way tires spin, how many tires are on a car,
how many tires are on an 18-wheeler.
Play-like activities. Play-like activities were used by the teachers to engage
children in learning in ways the teacher assumed the children would enjoy.
Play-like activities were different from free-choice play because they were
planned by the teacher to teach specific concepts and the student was not free to
choose how the action unfolded during the activity.
No, we don’t do dittos, don’t do worksheets. No, it’s all fun through
games. I might make a game out of the animals. Say I had the animals; I
would put it on a file folder game and the children will match those
animals. We would sit at a table with all the friends and say, ―Well what
kind of animal is this?‖
Teachers also used the planned play-like activities to assess student skills so they
could plan future instruction for the child in concepts or skills they lacked:
Some children have problems even in skipping and we want to allow the
children to be able to do all the physical things that they are supposed to
be doing at a certain age. So we will play a game just to see if the children
are able to skip, not with pulling them out and just saying, ―Can you skip
for me?‖ because a lot of the children don’t even know what skipping is.
But you know we will put on a song, a CD, if we want to see if the kids
are capable of doing this. Skip to my Lou, we will play that game. And
the children, they just think it’s a game, but we’re analyzing and
observing those children and we are looking at them to see what they can
do at this age.
The teachers found that the children enjoyed learning through the play-like
activities more than through direct instruction.
I put five or six sight words across the table and I’ll say a sentence and
we have fly swatters that I put little characters on and I’ll say when you
hear that word you need to swat that word and they love that one. So we
do that most often because I know that’s what they love. But if I just say
come over, like we learned farm words this week so it was farm, cow,
there was chicken, and I wrote a list of it and we talked about the letters
and they just kind of sat there and I said we are going to see these
tomorrow. And they were like, ―Whatever.‖
Teachers viewed these play-like activities as a way to lead children to focus on
having fun while they were also learning.
We have this awesome game this year and its shapes and colors and we
have them sorting and they don’t understand that they are learning their
shapes and their colors; they’re just playing a game.

9
Direct instruction. In direct instruction, fully planned teacher-led activities were
used to facilitate learning. In these activities, the teachers controlled the
students’ actions and students had little choice in how they engaged in the
activity:
Sometimes you just need them to sit down and learn something that they
can’t learn through play. If they just played all day long they’d be
running wild and, yes, they are learning through play, but they also need
to sit and listen to the teacher.
Teachers often used direct instruction to teach specific skills to students who
they had identified as lacking those skills:
I do call certain kids over. For the most part, I say, ―Okay this is what I’m
doing in this small group today.‖ Then I’ll say, ―My first group – I’d like
to have this one, this one, and this one. So when you’re done with what
you’re doing over there will you please come over to my table?‖ At the
beginning of the year if I want to work on a certain group with certain
skills it was more, ―Okay you have five minutes then you need to come
over.‖ At this point they know they have their time to play and then they
are going to come over.
Direct instruction was more often used to teach the older students in the class.
The teachers reported that four year old students should know more than the
three year old students, particularly because they would soon be entering
kindergarten:
I concentrate more on the cognitive development for my four year olds
than for my three year olds. Like I said, I always expose it to them but I
expect more out of my four year olds than I did my three year olds this
year. I do believe there should be some structure to get them ready for
kindergarten. They have to know to start sitting; that they can’t just get
up and go all the time.
Teachers reported that the students did not enjoy direct instruction as much as
the other methods used to facilitate instruction during which the students had
more control, so they avoided forcing them to participate in direct instruction
activities:
If they turn it off, I usually just let them go. I’m not going to force them
because if you force them, the next time you try again to do it they’re
going to turn it off.
Choosing Setting
The Head Start teachers facilitated learning by choosing the setting in which
instruction would take place in their classrooms. They had to decide whether
learning would be optimized by doing an activity with individual students, a
small group of students, or the whole class. Choosing the setting for instruction
primarily applied to play-like activities and direct instruction.
Individual instruction. In individual one-to-one instruction, the teacher, or the
classroom aide under the teacher’s direction, worked with one student. This
approach to teaching was most commonly used when a student had an

10
Individualized Education Program (IEP), which required that specific goals be
reached with that student, or when a student had a unique gap in knowledge or
skills. The teachers reported minimizing individual instruction, when possible,
because other students might judge that individual as being less capable than
the rest of the class:
I don’t like to do one-on-one unless I absolutely have to because
everybody knows why so and so is sitting over with the teacher. What
don’t they know? The older kids know that if you’re one on one, that the
child isn’t understanding something.
One teacher said she chose a small group setting for instruction instead,
whenever possible, so that the individual child who has been identified as
needing the instruction did not feel singled out.
I do know that some of our children do need the one-on-one but if they
are comfortable with another child playing or interacting with them I
would prefer to do it like that because I don’t really like putting children
on the spot, making them feel like this is something they have to do. But
again I do feel that children learn on different levels and I just think we
just have to pick and choose to do what is best for that child.
Small group instruction. The most common setting for facilitating learning in the
Head Start classrooms was small group instruction. Teachers often used play-
like activities with a small group of selected students, often chosen because there
was a concept that the teacher believed they all needed to learn.
Some things are better in small groups, some things aren’t. It just
depends on what it is. If the child is struggling, I find sometimes small
groups are a little bit better. If I have three kids that are struggling with
recognizing the color blue I find that if during play time I bring a small
group over and do an activity that concentrates around blue; then
sometimes that’s a little bit better.
Teachers often reported conducting direct instruction in a small group setting
because it allowed them to confirm the students were learning something new
each day.
Each teacher will take a group and on a daily basis each teacher is
working with a small group of kids but one may be working with math
skills, another may be working with reading skills and so forth. We are
all working with different skills so in the run of the day we know that
those children have gotten more out of their day than just sitting on a rug
playing or going outside.
Whole class instruction. Learning was facilitated in the Head Start classrooms
through whole class activities such as circle time and reading to the children.
The teachers reported that circle time was an opportunity to share news with the
class, to supervise the development of social skills, and to review concepts:
In circle time we sing good morning to everybody, everybody says their
names. I have the Number Rock [song] which is kind of jazzy and fun
and I have a big chart and as they are all singing I’m pointing to the

11
numbers going from 1 to 20, and I have a couple parents there singing
along with us.
Teachers reported limiting the length of circle time to accommodate the
developmental needs of the young children.
That is about fifteen minutes. I cannot have a circle longer than fifteen
minutes. The children are too young; they get too antsy.
Teachers generally did not expect students to gain much knowledge during the
whole class activities, but they saw it as an efficient way to introduce concepts
that would be learned in more depth in a small group activity at another time:
We will touch on something in a large group circle and especially for the
ones that we see we will intervene with all the children in small group.
Deciding Content
Head Start teachers facilitated student learning by designing instruction to
address specific content. They used three sources of information to determine
the concepts they would teach the children. These include the Head Start
Creative Curriculum, their understanding of the child’s current knowledge, and
the contents of the kindergarten readiness test that students typically take at the
end of their last year in preschool.
Creative Curriculum. The curriculum provided by Head Start gives teachers
very specific information about the concepts and skills the students should be
learning:
We have the Creative Curriculum and the Creative Curriculum has fifty
goals in there, and in those fifty goals there is three stages and its step
one, two, and three. Step one is the beginner, and that’s usually when
they’re first starting out. If the child is coming in for the second or third
year then they would naturally be not at the beginning stages; they
would be at the more or less that second stage or the accomplished stage.
Teachers saw the Creative Curriculum as a resource to create developmentally
appropriate activities, rather than using direct instruction. At the same time,
they saw it as limiting their options to facilitate learning through means they
would like to use:
Creative Curriculum is only play, you don’t instruct them, you don’t
question, you don’t ask them like ―Let’s count to ten.‖ With Creative
Curriculum I guess you’re not really supposed to do that. We are not
supposed to teach them how to write their name by just giving them a
piece of paper and saying ―Okay write your name.‖ But you never show
them the letters on how to write their names because we’re not really
supposed to teach them the alphabet.
The curriculum included assessments that teachers could use to identify the
specific skills to work on with each child.
We have progress and planning reports and we mark them on the
computer and we mark what stage they are and if they have not
accomplished the first stage then there is another set that’s the
forerunners. We do ESI’s through the year. It’s called an Early Screening

12
Inventory. I would take you in the room and it’s a fifteen minute
inventory. We would do the ESI on them and see the progress they’ve
made. We see where they are and things we can work on the next time
with them.
Child’s current knowledge. Teachers did not rely entirely on the Creative
Curriculum to choose the concepts and skills the students should learn. Their
estimation of the child’s current knowledge was also important in facilitating
learning in their classrooms:
We have the opportunity to pick and choose our activities. Sometimes
the activities that are given in the Creative Curriculum, sometimes our
children are past that and we have to be creative to kind of use that same
curriculum, but in a more advanced way to meet the needs of our
children.
The teacher’s knowledge of child development, in general, was combined with
their understanding of each child’s individual ability when facilitating learning.
In particular, the teachers mentioned adjusting the instruction based on the
needs they perceived of different aged groups of students.
I think this curriculum is awesome for the twos and early threes, but
when you’re talking about kids at four they need more structure and
more to challenge them. You can’t challenge them if they’re just playing
and then they start to get bored and then you get behaviors.
When asked whether the expectations of the Creative Curriculum were
appropriate for her students, another teacher described how she uses her
familiarity with a child to individualize the curriculum:
Sometimes I think they’re a little bit too much. For a two year, nine
month I think it is a little bit high, but we have two year, nine months
that are Einsteins, so, I mean, I think it depends on the child. Okay, I
think you actually just individualize for the child and then give them a
chance. We’re the teachers that are with them every day and even if
something in their assessments say we’ll bring them to this level, I know
if they’re ready to go there or not. You know what I mean? And if they’re
not, I’m not going to push them to something that’s going to frustrate
them.
Kindergarten readiness goals. The teachers were particularly concerned about
preparing their four year old students for kindergarten and reported that they
believed a student’s performance on a kindergarten readiness assessment was a
reflection of the quality of their teaching. This influenced the ways they
facilitated learning with their students:
So I always feel pressured because I make sure they learn what they are
supposed to learn. I ask every parent every year, ―How did they screen?
Did they screen higher?‖ And if they did screen a little lower I worry --
Oh my God did I not teach them that? Did they not get it from me? I
really do think it is a reflection of my teaching.

13
They used their understanding of the current expectations of students in
kindergarten classrooms to guide instruction of the older students in their
classroom. One teacher reported:
I’ve developed my teaching the way that I know that they are going to
get the skills that they need for kindergarten. I know they are going to
know their ABC’s, I know they are going to know their numbers, I know
they are going to see sight words and know how to read it because I have
my certain ways that I do that. I’m hoping it sticks with them. And when
I have my parent-teacher conferences I tell them what I do and I give
them ideas, ―Here do this with them at home.‖
Another teacher said:
I am big on literacy and I know that literacy is big in the standards and
school now so I really want my kids to go to kindergarten with a big
variety of literacy skills.
Preparing the students for kindergarten resulted in the teachers separating the
younger students from the older students, so that those who would be entering
kindergarten could receive instruction in the specific skills they would need:
Sometimes we have three and four year olds, so we know the four year
olds are going to kindergarten so we try to do activities that gear the kids
to get to kindergarten separate. Then we do the other activities also, but
we don’t do them all at once because the kids that are going to
kindergarten, they need to know how to write their name.
Addressing Other Viewpoints
The Head Start teachers reported that they consider the viewpoints of the
administrators of their Head Start center and the parents of their students when
they choose how they will facilitate learning in their classrooms. During the
interviews, several of the teachers mentioned receiving feedback from others
about their methods of teaching. Most frequently they mentioned differing
viewpoints about whether activities in a preschool classroom should focus
primarily on direct academic instruction or learning through free-choice play.
Administrators. Several teachers stated that their understanding about the
likelihood that children could learn through free-choice play differed from their
administrators’ viewpoint. Most of the teachers believed they valued learning
through play more than the administrators at their center.
I listen to what they have to say and then I explain my reasoning after as
to why I believe they should play. Then, honestly, when they leave I do
what I want, within reason obviously. A lot of times they say there is too
much but it fits into my routine, fits into the rules so… I listen and I try to
explain and sometimes they are understanding and sometimes the
administrators, they don’t understand and they come with their
philosophy and we just agree to disagree a lot of times.

14
There were some teachers who reported their administrators encouraged them
to use more free-choice play, but they preferred to facilitate learning through
play-like activities or direct instruction:
They just think it is over their head, it is too much. But I don’t think it is
because, you know, they are getting familiar with the days of the week.
We have songs for that, and okay maybe they are not grasping the
concept, but they are learning something. You know I am pointing and
they are getting familiar with the letters and the numbers.
A few of the teachers reported that due to a Head Start policy change, they were
discouraged from using the calendar as an instructional tool during circle time,
as they had in the past, because it was too abstract for the students and,
therefore, developmentally inappropriate:
Two years ago we got a thing in our mailbox explaining why you
shouldn’t do calendar. One of the supervisors doesn’t like it. They
haven’t ended it, but they don’t like it. Our supervisors don’t and they
put a thing in there claiming that the kids don’t understand yesterday,
they don’t understand today, and that some kids actually have a fear
when you get to the end of the numbers that there is no more. I guess
there have been studies on it – that once they see the last number on the
calendar they get scared. They get confused because they don’t
understand that there is actually another month and there is more
numbers. We actually got this pretty good article on it but…
Parents. While parents do not set policies for Head Start classrooms, the teachers
felt obligated to address any concerns the parents raised. Unlike students in
other school settings, preschool students are brought to their classroom each day
by a caregiver, increasing the interaction between parents and teachers and,
thereby, the influence of parents on classroom practices. Many of the teachers
mentioned that parents wanted greater emphasis on direct instruction than the
teachers would generally include in their facilitation of learning.
Parents don’t like when kids go home and they ask their kids ―What did
you do all day?‖ and the kids say ―Play.‖ Parents are like ―All they do is
play in here all day.‖ You know what -- for a good part of the day, yes,
they do just play. Because the parents don’t understand that kids learn,
they learn from play, they learn everything, every area that I told you
that we have to develop with them they learn during play. They learn it
from each other they learn it by themselves. They learn problem solving.
These are all steps towards higher skills and parents just don’t
understand.
Teachers reported appeasing parents and attempting to increase the parents’
engagement in the children’s education by providing them with worksheets to
use at home, even though they would not use them in the classroom.
The agency or administrators, they would prefer if we not even use a
worksheet. We want the child’s idea and mainly that’s what we do in the
classroom. It’s just that sometimes the parents don’t understand that we
allow the children to be creative because the parents are looking for that
more instructional activity thing. So we do it to kind of meet the needs of

15
the parents and make them feel like they are getting involved. But what
we do in the classroom is based upon that child’s creativity. It is really
based on the creativity of the child and really to tell you the truth the
worksheets are something we do just to get the parents involved.
Some teachers reported that parents pushed for more academic learning because
they were concerned about the children being prepared for kindergarten.
Parents today very much worry because school is hard now and the
standards in school are harder and they’re higher so they want their kids
going to kindergarten reading.
Teachers did not always meet parents’ requests for more emphasis on direct
instruction. Instead they explained to parents that some forms of instruction,
such as traditional worksheets which require specific answers, are not
developmentally appropriate.
I know we have a very difficult time explaining to the parents why we do
not do dittos. They want them to do dittos; they want them to sit down
and do more structure and we try to explain to them that you don’t need
a ditto to know how to write your name, you don’t need a ditto to know
your numbers and colors.
Discussion
We interviewed Head Start teachers to determine the approaches to teaching
they used in their classrooms. We wanted to know how they helped their
students learn in the current early childhood education climate where there is an
increased emphasis on academic instruction to meet learning standards. The
core category and basic social psychological process that emerged from the data
was facilitating learning. We found that the primary goal of all the teachers was
to make sure their students were learning the skills and concepts they were
expected to gain in preschool. They used free-choice play, incidental teaching
opportunities, play-like activities, and direct instruction in their classrooms to
help the children learn. In the play-like activities and direct instruction, the
teachers conducted planned lessons with individual students, small groups of
students, or the whole class. They chose the concepts and skills to teach the
students using Head Start’s Creative Curriculum and their familiarity with the
gaps in the students’ knowledge and skills. The teachers’ facilitation of learning
was also influenced by the expectations of their Head Start center administrators
and the parents of their students.
In general, the findings from this study show that the teachers interviewed used
empirically and professionally recommended practices (Ashiabi, 2007; Hanley,
Tiger & Ingvarsson, 2009; Lee, 2006). For most instruction, teachers planned
lessons that used play-like activities. Occasionally they facilitated learning
during children’s free-choice play, changing those child directed activities to
incidental teaching opportunities. These approaches to teaching are appropriate
because they allow preschool students to engage in activities they enjoy as they
construct knowledge (Gronlund, 2001).

16
Implications
Utilizing play and play-like activities as the primary means of preschool
instruction can provide more enjoyable learning experiences for the students. In
order to do that, and avoid resorting to didactic methods, the teachers must feel
confident that this approach provides children with everything they need to
learn and teachers must have the pedagogical skills to implement learning
though play (Nicolopoulou, 2010; Trawick-Smith & Dziurgot , 2010). Further,
while all of the Head Start teachers reported valuing developmentally
appropriate classroom practices, they did not always feel they had the option to
structure classroom activities exactly in the way they believed best served the
developmental needs of their students. Their own concerns about their students’
performance on kindergarten readiness assessments, along with comments from
parents and directives from supervisors, pushed them to include direct
instruction of academic skills rather than allowing learning to unfold through
the mechanism most natural to the children they teach – play (Brooker, 2011;
Emfinger, 2009; Ginsburg, 2007; Miller & Almon, 2009).
Research about the influence of administrators and parents on Head Start
teachers’ classroom pedagogical practices is clearly an important next step.
Studying the conflicts among preschool stakeholders about what are appropriate
instructional methods for young children can reveal the reasons behind them
and lead to effective ways to address them. It may be found that administrators
and parents are less aware of appropriate preschool teaching methods (Stephen,
2010) and may need information about best practices with young children so
that they can provide more informed feedback to teachers and influence
instruction in ways that support children’s enjoyment of learning. This is
particularly critical as children start their formal education.
Overall the findings from this study may not be unexpected, but they are
important. This study, uniquely, looked at Head Start teachers perspectives on
instruction across the Head Start learning framework. While it was not the intent
of this study to develop a typology of Head Start classroom activities, the
findings can provide teachers with some guidance in designing instruction.
Figure 1 provides a conceptual construct based on our findings that summaries
the strategies teachers can consider as they organize learning opportunities in
their classrooms. Teachers are provided with a framework for planning
instruction that includes facilitating learning, choosing instructional settings,
and deciding lesson content. As they identify the skills and knowledge they
want their students to gain, they can consider the types of activities and settings
that would be most effective to meet those goals. Should a particular skill be
gained through discovery within free play or through a teacher-led play-like
activity? Should small groups be used for instruction? If so, how should those
groups be formed, and, specifically, which students should work together? This
type of planning exemplifies intentional teaching, a current movement in
education which encourages early childhood teachers to share responsibility for
learning with their young students and to both plan for organized learning
experiences and recognize unplanned opportunities for teaching in their

17
classrooms (Epstein, 2014). Through this mindful planning, teachers can develop
effective, fun, and developmentally appropriate instruction that addresses the
needs of individual students and prepares them for the classroom structure and
instruction they will encounter in later grades.
Finally, it is important to note that although the teachers interviewed for this
study typically used professionally recommended practices, some of them
revealed a lack of awareness of the subtle ways learning changes as children
move from free-choice play, where the children have control of their activities, to
incidental teaching led by the teacher, and then to play-like activities entirely
planned by the teacher. While the teachers recognized that most students do not
like direct instruction, some of them assumed that children were not bothered by
the interruptions of their free-choice play for incidental instruction as well as the
play-like activities. Even though these are designed by teachers to be fun and
play-like, they must be sensitive to students’ reactions to teacher-imposed
activities. If they are not, student degree of engagement, and thereby the amount
of learning, is reduced. Teachers must consider whether children can learn more
by being immersed in uninterrupted free-choice play instead (Gray, 2013).
FACILITATING LEARNING
Basic Social Psychological Process
1. Free-Choice Play
2. Incidental Teaching Opportunities
3. Play-Like Activities
4. Direct Instruction Greater teacher effort
to plan activity
Greater student
influence on activity
CHOOSING A SETTING
How does the teacher decide how the students will learn?
Individual Student
Small Group
Whole Class
DECIDING CONTENT
How does the teacher decide what students will learn?
Creative Curriculum
Current Knowledge
Kindergarten Readiness Assessments

18
Figure 1. Approaches to teaching used in Head Start classrooms.
Relevance and Limitation of Findings
Head Start policies, curricula, teacher training, and the role of parents are
generally uniform across the country, so interviews of other groups of Head
Start teachers may have findings similar to those from this study. While our
participants were enrolled in a teacher preparation program at our institution,
they had a number of years teaching experience and had established beliefs
about effective instruction of their own. Also, they volunteered to participate in
this study and were not chosen based on their philosophies about teaching in
their classrooms.
References
Armstrong, T. (2007). The curriculum superhighway. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 16-20.
Ashiabi, G. (2007). Play in the preschool classroom: Its socioemotional significance and
the teacher’s role in play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2), 199-207.
Brooker, L. (2011). Taking children seriously: An alternative agenda for research? Journal
of Early Childhood Research, 9(2), 137-149.
Brown, C. P. (2010). Balancing the readiness equation in early childhood education
reform. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(2), 133-160.
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of
early education interventions on cognitive and social development. The
Teachers College Record, 112(3): 579–620.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Basics of developmentally appropriate practice: An
introduction for teachers of children 3 to 6. Washington, D.C.: NAEYC.
Elias, C. L., & Berk, L. E. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for
sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 216-238.
Emfinger, K. (2009). Numerical conceptions reflected during multiage child-initiated
pretend play. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(4), 326-334.
Epstein, A.S. (2014). The intentional teacher: Choosing the best strategies for young children’s
learning. Washington, D.C.:National Association for the Education of Young
Children.
ADDRESSING OTHER VIEWPOINTS
Who influences the teacher’s choices?
Administrators
Parents

19
Fantuzzo, J., Sekino, Y., & Cohen, H. L. (2004). An examination of the contributions of
interactive peer play to salient classroom competencies for urban Head Start
children. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 323-336.
Frost, J. (2007). The changing culture of childhood: A perfect storm. Childhood Education,
83(5), 225-230.
Gewertz, C. (2010). Potential for both value and harm seen in K-3 common standards.
Education Week, 29(28), 1-20.
Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development
and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics 119(1), 182-191.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.
Graue, E. (2009). Reimagining kindergarten. School Administrator, 66(10), 10-15.
Gray, P. (2013). The play deficit. Aeon Magazine. Retrieved from:
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/being-human/children-today-are-suffering-a-
severe-deficit-of-play/
Gronlund, G. (2001). Rigorous academics in preschool and kindergarten? Yes! Let me tell
you how. Young Children, 56, 42-43.
Hanley, G. P., Tiger, J. H., Ingvarsson E.T., & Cammilleri, A.P. (2009). Influencing
preschoolers’ free-play activity preferences: An evaluation of satiation and
embedded reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 33-41.
Lee, J. S. (2006). Preschool teachers’ shared beliefs about appropriate pedagogy for 4-
year-olds. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 433-441.
Miller, E. & Almon J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school.
College Park, Maryland: Alliance for Childhood.
Nemeth, K. (2011). Head Start’s revised framework and resources. Teaching Young
Children, 4(4),
Nicolopoulou, A. (2010). The alarming disappearance of play from early childhood
education Human Development, 53, 1–4.
Office of Head Start. (2010). Head Start development and early learning framework: Promoting
positive outcomes in early childhood programs serving children 3-5 years old. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families. Retrieved from:
http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/teaching/eecd/Assessment/Chil
d%20Outcomes/HS_Revised_Child_Outcomes_Framework(rev-Sept2011).pdf
Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Bojczyk, K. E., & Gerde, H. G. (2008). Head Start teachers'
perspectives on early literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 422-460.
Stephen, C. (2010). Pedagogy: the silent partner in early years learning. Early Years 30(1),
15-28.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Trawick-Smith, J & Dziurgot, T. (2010). Untangling teacher–child play interactions: Do
teacher education and experience influence ―good-fit‖ responses to children’s
play? Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32, 106-128.

© 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
20
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 20-38, November 2015
A Grounded Theory Study of Learning Patterns
of Asian Students in Higher Education
Abu Bakar
Institute of Education, University of Worcester,
United Kingdom
Abstract. A large chunk of studies has focused on variations in
students‟ learning approaches and issues in higher education (HE). The
issues to learning in HE have been extensively investigated from
perspective of Chinese students. However, the question is to what
extent studies exist which can identify the patterns in which other
Asian students alongside those with a Confucian Heritage Culture
(CHC) find themselves comfortable when learning in HE in the United
Kingdom (UK). The current study examines the learning patterns of
Chinese (CHC), Indian and Pakistani (non-CHC) students from their
prior learning (PL) experiences, the major academic issues they face,
and how differently they consider the very process of learning in the
UK. Data was collected through 3 phases of semi-structured in-depth
interviews (and interpreted with personal narratives) from 24 students
from the three sample countries, currently studying in the UK.
Qualitative-narrative analysis of data using Grounded Theory (GT)
revealed that Indian and Pakistani students along with other Chinese
face similar challenges in coping with learning (patterns)
independently in the UK. Similarly they equally feel the need towards
lingual inadequacy and lack of academic writing support, surrounding
their learning patterns. Asian students also consider HE learning as
part of a process that require essential teaching. The key to the study is
based on students‟ own perceptions of the learning patterns they find
significant in HE in order to promote the process of learning.
Keywords: Confucian; higher education; language; independent
learning; learning patterns.
Significance
A record number of international students have entered the UK to study in the
past few years (Coughlan, 2011). An overwhelming number of these
international students arrived from Asian countries (HESA, 2010) where
Chinese, Indian and Pakistani form the overall majority of Non-EU students
(2011). The HESA statistics (2011) indicate that during the year 2009/10, the
number of Chinese students in the UK was 56,990 and increased to 67,325 in

21
2010/11, while the number of Indian students was 56,990 and increased to
67,325 in 2010/11. At the same time, the number of Pakistani students was 9,815
in 2009/10 which increased to 10,185 in 2010/11. Hence this proportion made a
total of Asian students‟ population of 105,305 in 2009/10 out of 280,760 and
116,600 out of 298,110 non-EU students (39.11%) in 2010/11.
With these figures in perspective, the identification of learning patterns among
Asian students and their PL history is significant in relation to their learning
experiences in the UK. Although most recently, research studies mainly focused
on Chinese and East Asian students of Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) (Wu,
2008; Tian, 2008; (McMahon, 2011)), it is increasingly becoming vital to bridge
the gap in CHC and non-CHC Asian students‟ patterns of learning in the UK.
Indeed, various factors (Fleming, 2007; Tian, 2008) and issues (Caruana &
Spurling, 2007; Spronk, 2004) influence the way overseas students learn in HE,
however the question about Asian students as one identity is yet unclear in
literature.
In the past decade, institutions in the UK have consistently struggled to recruit
students with adequate language and learning skills. This was because many of
the arriving students were initially facing language and learning issues. In
response to these difficulties, United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) moved to
tighten the immigration rules for overseas students (Home Office, 2011), even
establishing rules to refuse entry to students with inadequate language skills at
airports (Lotbiniere, 2012). These efforts coincided with a period of major
funding cuts for universities by the UK Government. However, in order to
attract overseas students, universities had to loosen the English language
requirements and even set English language scores below the recommended
standards (Mathews, 2012). Clearly there is/was tension between the need for
universities to compensate for funding cuts and the need of students who value
British HE to cope with the demand for academic rigour (Brooks & Walters,
2009). Instead of raising the entry standard to enable students to cope better with
learning, the reverse has actually happened and the problem is likely to grow
rather than decline. The current study adds to assess this issue by providing a
better understanding of the students‟ learning patterns in the UK higher
Education.
The Context
The platitude, that quality education is essentially designed to generate learners
who can promote theirs‟ learning experiences, begs the question about the
quality of that education and the support those being educated receive to enable
them to gain maximum benefit from education. Universities in the UK benefit in
many ways, not least financially, from the presence of students from many
countries, with a majority from Asian countries (HESA, 2011). However, studies
largely report the learning experiences of Asian students without seeking
students‟ perceptions to build a consensus on how they benefit from the learning
experiences in the UK. To enable students to benefit more from quality

22
education also begs the question whether the nature and extent of the learning
process is felt different among CHC students than Pakistani and Indian (non-
CHC) students and what issues are of utmost importance which can support
their process of learning in the UK.
Identifying learning issues among overall Asian students who have been
generalised as surface and rote learners in HE (Li, 2004: p.12; Huang, 2008)
requires a research setting, involving both CHC and Non-CHC student where
students‟ perceptions are heard in informal settings. The way to involve the
practicing (learners) and the practiced (learning patterns) would add more value
to the current research questions.
A similar idea has narrowly been looked at in numerous studies. The majority of
such studies have sampled Chinese and other east-Asian students (Wu, 2008;
Tian, 2008; McMahon, 2011) ignoring perceptions of South Asian (non-CHC)
students. Sovic‟s (2008) suggestion, that learners must be looked at from
educational backgrounds in order to minimise the risk of arising
misunderstanding, fits in context of the current study. This study adopts a
generic approach to identify students‟ perceptions as “what they say” about the
learning issues they find in context of studying in British HE and what lesson/s
can be learnt from CHC and Non-CHC students history of PL in order to
facilitate the learning process for those students at need. Taking the above
studies in context, a better understanding of students‟ perceptions would help to
explore their learning patterns in a diverse learning environment in the UK and
reflect on a framework that will help in the development of a learning process.
Aims
The aims of the study were two-fold in nature. First to explore how CHC and
Non-CHC students consider learning in the UK and prior HE learning, and the
issues of major concern in relation to aspects of academic and cultural settings;
and secondly to identify a common ground for students issues of major concern
to facilitate the learning process in which they are currently involved.
Literature Review
The existence of learning issues stands in contrast to some studies that indicate
the majority of Asian students are deep learners (Bilgin & Crowe, 2008) who
prefer a student-centred approach to learning. In relation to a style of learning
Kolb and Kolb (2005) illustrate that students can easily adopt their independent
style within the initial two to three month period of their studying in an alien
learning environment. While the common perception, that Asian students are
more rote and passive learners, is also controversial (Exley, 2005; Hall, 2008;
Siddiqui, 2006; Valiente, 2008), and has been disputed by many researchers
including Biggs (1999 & 2003) and Tian (2008) etc. Cooper (2004) generalises the
issue of a process of learning development to overall students in universities.
Given these views, the increasing demand of testimony of students might
convey a variety of messages about themselves; it might even suggest that the
real problems have not yet been correctly explored or else have been

23
particularised to a specific group of students from CHC (Biggs, 1999); or else
Asian students have been branded “surface learners” on the basis of their
identities or else do not consider learning a process at all because learning is fed
to them rather than taking the spoon to feed themselves (Smith, 2008).
Whilst previous studies have looked narrowly at „learning issues‟ in relation to
overall Asian (Pakistani, Chinese and Indian) students studying in the West
(Adeeb, 1986; Carroll & Ryan, 2005). Some studies have only listed particular
problems of overseas students in the UK (Merrick & Robinson, 2006; UKCOSA,
2006); others have only investigated similar challenges of East Asian students in
another English-speaking country (Wu, 2008; Tian, 2008). Similarly Heijne-
Penninga et al. (2008) and Valiente (2008) have narrowly looked at coping issues
among overseas students in western countries.
The extent to which studies might exist with reference to learning patterns, one
might argue that they have not previously been studied in relation to the current
sample in UK-based institutions. Some genuine attempts have been made by
Tian (2008), Wu (2008), McMahon (2011), Siddiqui (2006), Pritchard (2008),
Prosser and Trigwell (1999), and Felder and Brent (2005) and many others.
However the literature is still scattered in respect of identifying the core issues
which undermine the very process of learning development among overall
Asian students.
Although teaching and learning (both) have considerable influence on the way
in which students start and develop learning in HE (Kember et al., 2008; Reid et
al., 2005 cited by Pritchard, 2008), there is a general agreement that different
students adopt different ways of learning in different learning environments
(Musa & Wood, 2003; Zeegers, 2004) and use different learning styles
(Houghton, 2004) or else have different interpretations of the learning in
different learning environments. However the perception that Asian students
are highly influenced by a prior history of education is rooted in the conception
of learning paradigms they inherit from their previous education settings
(Mukhtar et al., 2011). Hence, adaptations of a certain learning style might arise
as a result of PL patterns which could be encompassed by many other aspects.
For example, Kolb and Kolb (2005) note; that “Many students enter higher
education conditioned by their previous educational experiences to be passive recipients
of what they are taught” (p.209).
The understanding students‟ having about a different learning environment, as
claimed in numerous prior studies (Kember et al., 2008; Entwistle & Smith, 2013;
World Bank, 2000), may also have different connections in context of those
students who find similar prior educational challenges (Wakeling, 2008). Such
significance may be rooted in Liu‟s (2012) findings who claim that the aims of
HE are not only to meet the assessment requirements but to learn and process
information more effectively (Brownlee et al., 2009); and are bound to be studied
from other social and educational aspects of other Asian students.

24
The context of academic issues, i.e. lingual incompetence, PL patterns, and
dependence on teachers, can be surpassed by the ways in which students
approach their learning. For example, Barron et al. (2007) found lingual
incompetence as a major factor in international students‟ discontinuation with
their studies. Forland (2008) explains to the point that “that many studies outline
that educational differences, cultural, lingual and social of international students must
be looked at in order to enable them to gain maximum benefits from their achievement”
(p.205) but very few studies come up with what needs to be done to end the gap
in students prior history of learning and current education to promote learning
as a process in HE.
One way to start with the academic aspects may be to identify how students
approach their learning in contrast to what style they adopt, and what they see
as “issues” in HE. This debate, over learning approaches/styles, has been active
for the last forty years where Kolb (1984), and Honey and Mumford (1992) tend
to dominate. While some authors use them interchangeably, as Hinkel (2011)
uses reading and literary with respect to the way students‟ learn, others are
more specific as Franzoni & Assar (2009) specify learning styles to subject-
specific courses like linguistics and physics. Similarly Nicholls (2002) point out
certain skills and mentions that students‟ approaches to learning encompasses
intellectual skills (knowing how rather than knowing what); verbal skills
(communication); cognitive skills (thinking and memorising); attitudes
(concerned with emotions, social and cultural approaches to learning); and
motor skills (required for physical tasks of learning) (pp.22-23). The case of CHC
(in this case Chinese) with regard to such skills, on the ground of common
practice in UK universities, is too vague (Edwards & Ran, 2006: p.4). Similarly
the scenario of other Asian students (non-CHC type) is not viewed differently.
As a result, a common perception that “Asian students as rote learners” has widely
prevailed. This perception has jeopardised the learning process undertaken by
overall Asian students, despite the notion of a high ratio of successful
completion of studies by Asian students (Wakeling, 2008).
Although the perception of „surface learners‟ is in itself widely controversial. For
example, Gordon & Debus (2002) suggest that change in the current teaching
and assessment methods will result in students acquiring deeper understanding
of learning. This would mean that even surface learners can soon become deep
learners, by gaining adequate English and study skills, enhancing the learning
experiences of students (UKCOSA, 2006), through some institutional changes.
The lack of lingual and other issues concerning less-developed study skills
(academic aspects) are likely a result of alienness towards the requisite of
language skills and cultural understanding (Sovic, 2008; Tan, 2011). However,
similar problems originate from historical education of PL (Yorke & Longden,
2008) where students, according to Valiente (2008), simply accept the teacher‟
authority and knowledge. Teacher‟s authority may also dominate the traditional
conception of teacher as „a hub of knowledge‟, often practiced in the form of
spoon-feeding (Smith, 2008), and the result of such spoon-feeding „teacher-

25
centeredness‟ is seen in the shape of variant issues hindering the learning
process among Asian students.
Wakeling (2008) questioning the surface-learner label, during a study, found that
overseas students were more critical than UK students in their first year of
study, leaving a gap for further research to identify similarities, differences and
educational background across intercultural group of students. It is vital that the
overall number of students, in the first year, consider learning as a process of
creating links with prior learning (Brownlee, et al., 2009) which, in the context of
Asian students as „teacher-centeredness‟ (Valiente, 2008; Huang, 2008), is still
disputed in the literature. Similarly, Cooper (2004), exploring the learning
perceptions of Chinese students and Australian students, mentioned that
Chinese students come from different educational and social environment and
hence they cannot be expected to show similar patterns of learning (p.295) as
western students. Cooper found that there are clear differences among Chinese
students on their educational backgrounds (p.296). These differences may be
similar to those of other non-CHC backgrounds. To understand this
phenomenon of CHC and non-CHC on the grounds of PL history, it is vital to
seek students‟ voices about the learning process development through the lens
of issues and history of learning when studying in the UK.
Theoretical Framework
A grounded theory approach was used in this study, and a constructivist
framework (Charmaz, 2006) informs our findings as data was coded, analysed
and themised (refer to Glaser & Strauss, 1967). A number of studies have drawn
insights about the way Chinese students learn in HE (e.g. Tian, 2008; Wu, 2008
etc.), however there is no existence of grounding the data to locate a sample of
diverse Asian, CHC and non-CHC, students studying in British HE institutions.
This as a matter of conceptual categorisation did allow us to apply coded data to
sensitise the emerging concepts underlying Asian (students) specific
understandings of learning habits and coping mechanism of the learning issues.
Given this, Charmaz (2006) points out that “Coding is the pivotal link between
collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data and define what
is happening in the data and begin to grapple with what it means” (p.46).
In this way the emerging theory, in this study, is grounded in the data when
theoretical sampling reached a point of saturation resulting from reflection and
revisiting the theory and thus refining it. The transcription of data was coded
through NVIVO software which gave rise to further categories (see A.2) and
concepts (again revisited in further phases), leading to a formation of theory. A
brief graphical representation of process is shown below.

26
Diagram 1.1: Process of Grounded Theory used in the current study
Given our Grounded Theory approach, this study constructs the reality from
within the data obtained from learners‟ own understandings of learning and
relevant academic issues.
Sample
Chinese, Indian and Pakistani students were recruited, based on convenience
sampling, in three British universities studying different programmes at
undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) levels.
The overall number of students, who were interviewed in the first phase,
studying at University of Worcester, University of Edinburgh, and University
College Birmingham, is shown in the following table 1.1.
Table 1.1: List of interviewees with level of study in the UK
Origin Male
(UG)
Female
(UG)
Male
(PG)
Female
(PG)
Male
(Research)
Female
(Research)
Total
India 1 0 0 1 1 0 3
China 1 1 1 1 0 0 4
Pakistan 1 0 1 0 1 0 3
Total 3 1 2 2 2 0 10
In phase-two, a total of 8 students were probed from the above sample and were
selected based on their availability. While in the last phase-three, only 6
participants from the above table were interviewed for the purpose of
clarification of issues identified in first and second phases.
Method
In accordance with the sample, this study draws on qualitative data obtained
from students‟ perceptions of learning in the UK which combines semi-
structured in-depth interviews with a three phase formula (Kvale, 2007), and
personal narratives (Elliott, 2006) using a grounded approach, originally used by
Glaser and Strauss whilst locating its sphere within its constructivist version

27
(Charmaz, 2006). This multi-method was designed to help the researcher
combine personal experiences with those obtained from students‟ opinions. To
obtain a portion of preliminary understanding of students‟ views about learning
issues some generic questions were designed as an effective and useful way of
data collection (Twigg, 2006: p.45). From this point the interviews sessions
revolved around broader academic and learning aspects of studying in the UK.
All interviewees consented voluntarily for all three phases of interviews.
Phase-one was aimed to establish a consensus of how Asian students view
learning in HE and the issues they encounter during a transitional period. This
was then followed by two more phases of interviews designed to explore the
emerging theory (Corbin & Straus, 1990) to gain a fuller picture of the issues in
order to explore the nature of learning, seen as a process, and issues in CHC and
Non-CHC students, if they exited.
The original principle of this study was based on evaluating the data obtained
from semi-structured in-depth interviews through the help of personal
narratives, to develop, refine and present a basis of learning development
(theory) and the major concerns the sample students encounter during this
process development.
In this context-based setting, qualitative methods of interviews and personal
narratives seem realistically closer in a naturalist paradigm. Grounded theory
research was thus used which allowed construction of knowledge rather than
relying on pre-existing ideas (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: pp.12-15). The use of
personal narratives allowed reflecting on the issues faced by sample students.
The Process
Previous studies have merely looked at the academic dimensions directly
affecting the learning behaviours of Chinese students (i.e. Tian, 2008) and
adjustment and language issues of East Asian students studying in a single
university in the UK (i.e. Wu, 2008; Tian, 2008 etc.). Hence, the current study
looked at a bigger picture of issues undermining an overall population of Asian
students‟ learning and the key issues by linking theirs‟ PL experiences to those
in the UK and focusing not only on academic issues but also those aspects
hindering students‟ approaches to learning and the very process of learning.
In this study, for the purpose of identifying similarities and differences, all codes
were constantly compared with each other. As a result, themes started to emerge
from the combination of data, codes, categories and sub-categories. Initially,
there were 120 refined codes, which decreased to 44 codes when integrated into
common categories (see A.1 & A.2). This paved the way for the later
development of 12 axial codes (see A.1). Each emerging concept was coded and
each code was constantly compared with overlapping codes to identify
similarities and differences. The emergent themes from the coding process
facilitated making logical connections with the research aims. The emerging
themes were gradually moved from a low level to more sophisticated categories

28
which were based on selective coding, providing support for the evidence of the
literature review, the stage when theoretical composition, saturation (Charmaz,
2006), was complete.
Analysis and Discussion
A constructivist tradition of Grounded Theory approach was used to develop
codes, categories and learning patterns across sample students‟ transitional and
later period of learning experiences. This study used some pre-planned
questions during interviews to probe the issues in generic way and then develop
and probe the questions further on the basis of initial data. After coding the data
(open coding), that lead to the thematic codes, axial coding was conducted to
combine some overlapping codes. As a result the core categories emerged
through analytical process. The core categories were further regrouped,
compared and refined on the basis of central point “IL development”.
Throughout this process, writing memos, and conducting a constant comparison
of data, codes and categories was key to constructing the reality from within the
data (Charmaz, 2006).
During three consecutive sessions of interviews with the current sample
students, I developed a sense of cultural sensitivity which helped in sensitising
concepts during the data analysis process. My experience with Asian students
helped me to establish a trustworthiness of data obtained. First, I ensured to get
access to those Asian students who were keen to discuss their learning
experiences and issues. This gave me more confidence to draw upon a
convenient pattern of discussion than structured interview. Second, as a result,
confidence building measures were developed to revisit the same students for
further clarification that would establish authenticity (Cousin, 2009). Last, the
timing of each interview was set not to exceed an hour.
In phase-one the study attempted to explore academic issues in detail from both
CHC and non-CHC students. In phase one, the analysis of the data identified the
existence of some issues in common with those identified in the literature review
(see Tian, 2008, Wu, 2008; Edwards & Ran, 2006; Ahmed, 2011). As a result of the
analysis of the data at phase-one, students found it difficult to cope within the
learning culture in the UK at early stages of learning. The reasons for this
difficulty were language barriers, lack of IL skills, difficulty in social adjustment,
and dependency in learning as a result of prior educational history. The
expression of students‟ concerns about the lack of IL skills – which was
identified as an issue of prior educational learning (students were found to be
too dependent on their teachers) – is an early indicator of learning dependency.
Therefore the assumption that IL patterns are significant among students in HE
was noted for further elaboration because it also matched the researcher‟s initial
experience in studying in the UK. The theme of dependent approach to learning
was identified among overall students for further exploration and clarification,
though its nature was differently experienced by the researcher itself.

29
In addition to the issue of learning dependency, students‟ views about learning
experiences in the UK revealed certain interconnected issues, including language
issue as a source of difficulty in adaptation to a different learning environment.
Linking the issues in learning in both prior and UK-based learning, two major
codes, „likes and dislikes‟, (as used in NVIVO 9) were identified. In relation to
likes and dislikes, students expressed their liking for IL and the availability of
learning resources, particularly libraries, IT facilities, and internet speed and
availability in the UK. They also expressed their dislike for less support from
teachers; whilst in the case of their home country; students liked the extra
support from teachers but disliked dependency and the lack of resources. The
study also noted the significance of dislike for dependency in the home country
as a shift in educational approach among selected students. A clear dichotomy
was apparent in both prior and UK learning experiences and in that of the
researcher‟s one. Differences in views about preference for learning patterns, i.e.
from dependent (prior) to IL (current), were noticed as a clear change in
approaches to learning from dependent (traditional) to independent (non-
traditional) and may lead to the development of successful independent
learners. A question as to whether support is vitally important in HE in the UK
and whether support is required for certain subjects was sought for further
clarification. In comparison to the previous comments in phase-one and
comments made by students in phase-two, there was a clear inclination, among
students, towards the possibility of impact of language over IL.
Given that language issue exists in multiple shapes, the analysis shows that
academic writing (AW) and communication skills, at level of competence to
convey and receive ideas effectively, are two major lingual problems. Both
academic writing and oral communication – the level of oral skills required for
learning, were probed to examine the extent of lingual issues among students in
HE. Although the researcher experienced a different form of lingual
incompetence than the sample students but as theirs‟ perceptions were central to
this study, it emerged from data that these students consider English language
skills crucial to becoming independent learners.
Students also viewed support as a key requirement, vital for kick-starting the
process of learning in HE at the initial stages of their studies, confirming
previous findings (see McMahon, 2011; Wu, 2008) and it matches the
researcher‟s own experience of starting the learning process. Questions arise
whether the importance of language skills to students is limited to competence
in interactive speaking and academic writing abilities, and whether the same
language skills are required for all students or whether language expertise is
required for certain subject areas (subject-specific).
Given that language issue have other dimensions, the issues examined related to
IL and the effects of dependency on IL, and the features students liked and
disliked in both their prior and current learning were explored further. When
themes of „likes‟ and „dislikes‟ were compared in both prior and UK learning, it

30
became apparent that students liked IL patterns because there were enough
resources in the UK in contrast to the ones in their PL and they were in a sense
forced to adapt to IL patterns, a sense of behavioural approach (refer to Pavlov
& Skinner) to teaching learning interaction was found. The level of studying
support was appreciated in PL in contrast to concern for lack of available
support in the UK. In other words, we can assume that behavioural approach to
learning existed in the UK, and not in PL. Therefore, liking for support in PL
while liking for availability of resources and use of IL skills in the UK were
noted as the main themes. Dislike of a lack of resources dependency on prior
learning, and the level of support provided in the UK were categorised as
themes.
The overall population of students consider support vitally important for IL
skills and the same practice was felt by the researcher during a doctorate degree.
It appears, from students perceptions in phase-two, support is mainly felt only
in certain fields of study and the amount of support tends to vary according to a
field of study, for example the one which was noted in students of petroleum
engineering. Students also considered IL difficult to acquire at the beginning but
possible through support, and difficulties only vanished gradually. A different
view, in comparison to the one in phase-one, emerged „as a result of the
importance of support for learning in HE and students‟ differentiations in
between the teachers in the UK and those in their home countries in terms of the
support they provide. An example of such support might be that teachers
provide more intensive support in theirs‟ home countries than in the UK. Hence,
there is a clear gap of understanding among students when they judge teachers,
both in the home countries and UK, on the basis of the nature of support
teachers provide. At first it appeared that all students desired greater support
but differences emerged as a result of in-depth probing. Chinese students
indicated more openness towards discussion about the importance of support
while Indian and Pakistani students refrained from doing so despite their
tendency towards learning support.
As explored in detail, the emerging theory was built upon the core indicators
derived from categories and included both academic (language – writing and
expert communication; learning support – impact of support on IL; likes and
dislikes, and IL – from exam-oriented learning to IL) and adjustment issue. It is
noted that language skills as a whole influence IL in contrast to previous
understanding which shows that IL influence language skills (see Tian, 2008;
Tan, 2011). Alongside, learning support influences both language and IL skills.
This present a cyclical process of learning competency and the key for gradual
change lies with the nature of learning support that steers the learning process
as a whole.
In the course of investigating the impact of language skills on IL, it was found
that students‟ initial enthusiasm towards their studies in the UK mislead them at
the point of assessment, when they found themselves trapped in a learning

31
culture beyond their comprehension at the early phases, as they realised at later
phases of their studies. Another indication given by students is about the need
for support towards learning patterns that arise from a lack of knowledge about
the practicing learning patterns in the UK. Students find out about learning
patterns in the UK only upon their arrival in the UK. Students indicated that
additional generic learning support has a positive impact on their learning in the
UK.
The student perceptions also indicated that liking in prior and UK-based
learning for support and liking for IL and availability of resources in the UK lead
to successful adjustment in the academic environment in the UK, which is
considered by students as a guarantee for successful learning development. This
is often called „widening participation‟ which the researchers realised at later
stage of studies.
Students‟ perceptions also revealed that upon abandoning the mono-ethnic
concept of communication (see Brown, 2008) and students‟ restricted access to a
wider community, in which English is spoken in daily life, the process of
adjustment could be achieved. In other words the wider use of English and the
emancipation from the mode of translation – a mode in which students try to
translate ideas from their 1st language (L1) to English - to a more natural use of
spoken English would facilitate the adjustment process, which also leads to
successful learning in the UK – developing IL patterns. Important to note that
the impact of the issues is equally found among both CHC and non-CHC
students.
Conclusions
Reiterating that students‟ perceptions were central to this study, the Grounded
Theory process explored students‟ voices, additive to the researcher‟s personal
narrative, which are likely to replace some of the existing perceptions about
CHC and non-CHC students in relation to their learning patterns, the adaptation
issues they find in the UK, and the variance in issues among theirs‟ learning
experiences. The process involved in developing ideas from already prevailed
perceptions to more fundamental ideas forms the basis of issues of urgent need
and the differences between these students, relevant to learning encounters.
Though, the literature highlights that cultural and social differences are most
evident among Asian and Western students (Twigg, 2006) because different
students have different cultural and social needs (Wu, 2008). This current study
negates previously held perceptions about Asian students on the basis of socio-
cultural understanding and learning experiences. Students with educational
ambitions are less prone to socio-cultural habits and aspirations; and their socio-
cultural values are only liable to represent their history of prior social
backgrounds; which might be the only way to see diversity in HE (Ahmed, 2011;
Spronk, 2004), this has nothing to do with their academic journey in the UK but
it does provide us more freedom to explore their learning adaptations and
learning abilities.

32
One example might be worth mentioning that Asian students expressed that
they are the ones respecting their teachers and not their western counterparts.
This does not mean that western students do not respect their teachers but it is
simply a matter of how one culturally perceives the kind of respect. The way
Asian students perceive respect may be differently perceived by western
students (Bakar, 2013). These socio-cultural perceptions are similarly found
among CHC (Tian, 2008) and non-CHC students (Ahmed, 2011) which means
that Asian students as whole, from both CHC and non-CHC backgrounds, share
a range of socio-cultural similarities.
Crucially important is the students‟ socio-cultural aspects that integrate them
into one single Asian identity which informs us to formulate similar teaching
and learning strategies for them. Hence the label of CHC and non-CHC students
is not relevant anymore, and we find no difference in Asians‟ socio-cultural
understandings; a strength that may be used to explore the needs of Asian
students under one „cultural‟ umbrella. Thus a dichotomy in CHC and non-CHC
students apparently does not exist.
On a similar note, steering academic aspects are the ones to sustain the basis of
students‟ academic journeys. For example, student revelations, about IL as a
solid learning approach, will encourage and ease formulating „teaching
strategies‟ but what really constitutes and sustains this approach is also
important. For one to continue IL, it appears vital to have adequate language
skills, in particular academic writing and expert level of oral skills through
which students enable themselves to transmit ideas more effectively (Bakar,
2013). The level of incompetent language skill (particularly written) originates as
a result of different interpretation students‟ conceive and convey. Indeed
students with inadequate language skills are less likely to demonstrate coherent
argumentations during demonstrations and presentations etc. Similarly, the
ability of coherent analytical approach to argumentation in particular might be
important in „academic writing skills‟ for all students in some subject studies
while oral communication skills are already acknowledged as different among
Asian students on the basis of different subject studies (see Entwistle, 2005). The
reason for difference in communication skills requirement in different subject
studies might be that some subject areas do not require competency in speaking.
Hence, the level of required competency in spoken language varies from
discipline to discipline because some subject areas may require intensive spoken
skills for the purpose of demonstration while others don‟t, and this trend may
not be limited to Asian students. Hence, language skills in respect of academic
disciplines force students to seek alternatives to meet the demand of academic
language skills. Currently students‟ perceptions have revealed the implications
of support from within the learning environment, i.e. from teachers and this was
seen a facilitating factor to overcoming language issues in general. However it is
vital to note that students‟ both multi-ethnic approach to learning and language
enable them to experience a successful transition. This is seen to turn the trend
towards IL skills.

33
Theory into Practice
As previously noted, it was suggested that raising the required level of English
language competence (i.e. IELTS scores) would be necessary to meet the
growing demands of internationalisation (Quality Assurance Agency, 2012), in
which language was picked as a major constraint (Hinkel, 2011). It was also
suggested that in this way, universities would be able to recruit competent
students (BIS, 2010) even if English language ability remains one of the major
problems among students in higher education (Dees et al., 2007; UKCOSA,
2006).
At large, to continue recruiting Asian students, they would need to be made
aware of the need for early stage-preparation as well as intermingling in multi-
cultural learning environment. This practice is vital as students are often mis-
sold a dream of British qualification whilst they have not aware of the
implications of ‟IL‟ in the real sense. If universities are really serious about
educating these students, then they need to act in collaboration to ensure a range
of learning support is available for them so that they can make successful
transition to UK‟s institutions.
Similarly, the levels of English measured through IELTs etc. cannot be
considered the only criteria because it gives a very crude picture of the student‟s
capability of learning adaptation. Preparation for IL in the UK is currently
underdeveloped and very worrying (see Cartwright, 2007; Nieto, Dimitriadou &
Davy, 2008), causing anxiety (Coutu, 2002) and sometimes failure and
discontinuation (see Biggs, 2003). Unless different structured approaches to
preparation for IL (perhaps in the home country as well) are not considered, it
would be unenlightened to expect a successful process of learning in the UK,
leave alone a successful IL experience.
Limitations
As a common practice of research not every issue can be probed in a single
study, nor all aspects of an issue, but those which affect participants more can
realistically be explored (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Hence in the current study, it
was thought necessary to identify perceptions of both CHC and non-CHC
student in relation to issues they face. It is possible that multiple issues may exist
among sample students, as Tian (2008) and Wu (2008) found among Chinese
students but this study only focused on how different Asian students consider
learning as a process in HE and the related issues they encounter during this
time. Thus the current study forms the basis for HE learning in the UK,
extending the nature of inquiry from Chinese towards Indian and Pakistani
students. The sample was not cohesive in number but was sufficient for the
three-phase interviews, supported by the researcher personal narratives. The
study did not consider concerns other than academic nor sought identify in
broad national (identity) interpretation. Similarly students‟ perceptions
regarding different subject-studies in relation to learning issues were not
explored in detail as it would not have been feasible in a single study, leaving a

Vol 14 No 1 - November 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Vol 14 No 1 - November 2015

Similar to Vol 14 No 1 - November 2015 (20)

More from ijlterorg

More from ijlterorg (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Vol 14 No 1 - November 2015