Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 109–139 | Cite as

Poststructural feminist pedagogy in English instruction of vocational-and-technical education

  • Ya-huei WangEmail author
  • C. Y. Chao
  • Hung-Chang Liao
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a poststructural feminist pedagogical model and to investigate whether vocational-and-technical college students receiving poststructural feminist instruction would exhibit better learning achievement and critical thinking ability, and express greater satisfaction with their classes than those receiving traditional instruction. In applying a poststructural feminist model, the researchers intended to help both the teacher and students work together to overcome the estrangement and alienation that have long been the norm in the contemporary Chinese education system. The research results show that the poststructural feminist pedagogy had a positive effect upon the participants in the experimental group. Several conclusions are elicited from the study. First, in the English language achievement post-test, the participants receiving the poststructural feminist instruction significantly outperformed those receiving the traditional banking instruction in terms of listening, vocabulary, grammar, and reading. Second, in the critical thinking ability post-test, the participants significantly outperformed those receiving the traditional banking instruction in terms of length, focus, content, organization, and style. Third, in regard to the students’ satisfaction, it was clearly shown that the students who received the instruction informed by poststructural feminist pedagogy expressed significantly greater satisfaction than those who had received traditional banking instruction in terms of instructional objective, teaching method/materials, teacher quality, class environment, and assessment.

Keywords

Banking education Empowerment Poststructural feminist pedagogy Vocational-and technical education 

References

  1. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2000). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, S. M. (1993). The current status of gender equity research in American schools. Educational Psychologist, 28, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (1996). Hong Kong students cope with assessment. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological & contextual influences (pp. 159–182). Victoria, Australia: Australian Council of Educational Research.Google Scholar
  5. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. (1987). Research in social psychology: Interpersonal processes. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 241–266). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Bucker, A. (2004). The congruence of student and faculty goals as a predictor of student satisfaction in undergraduate business sport management courses. Doctoral dissertation. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami.Google Scholar
  8. Bulter, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, K. (2002). Power, voice and democratization: Feminist pedagogy and assessment in CMC. Educational Technology & Society, 5(3), 27–39.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, M. H. (1986). An evaluation of two sets of English textbooks for industrial vocational high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  11. Chow, E. N., Fleck, C., Fan, G., Joseph, J., & Lyter, D. M. (2003). Exploring critical feminist pedagogy: Infusing dialogue, participation, and experience in teaching and learning. Teaching Sociology, 31(3), 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research method in education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Crabtree, R. D., & Sapp, D. A. (2003). Theoretical, political, and pedagogical challenges in the feminist classroom. College Teaching, 51(4), 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Criswell, J. R., & Criswell, S. J. (2004). Asking essay questions: Answering contemporary needs. Education, 123(3), 510–516.Google Scholar
  16. De Lauretis, T. (1984). Alice doesn’t: Feminism, semiotics, cinema. Bloomington, IN: University of Indianan Press.Google Scholar
  17. English, L. M. (2005). Narrative research and feminist knowing: A poststructural reading of women’s learning in community organizations. McGill Journal of Education, 40(1), 143–155.Google Scholar
  18. Ennis, R. (1984). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  19. Epstein, B. (1995). Why poststructuralism is a dead end for progressive thought. Socialist Review, 25(2), 83–119.Google Scholar
  20. Falk-Rafael, A. R., Chinn, P. L., Anderson, M. A., Laschinger, H., & Rubotzky, A. M. (2004). The Effectiveness of feminist pedagogy in empowering a community of learners. Journal of Nursing Education, 43(3), 107–113.Google Scholar
  21. Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysm, feminism, and postmodernism in the contemporary west. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Flinders University. (2001). Internal coursework student satisfaction survey 2001. Retrieved April 30, 2006, from http://planning.reg.flinders.edu.au/downloads/surveys/.
  23. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
  25. Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (4th ed.). New York: Merrill.Google Scholar
  26. Goonewardena, K., Rankin, K. N., & Weinstock, S. (2004). Diversity and planning education: A Canadian perspective. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 13(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  27. Hair, J. F., Babin, B., Money, A., & Samouel, P. (2003). Essential of business research methods. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Hong, Z., Lawrenz, F., & Veach, P. M. (2005). Investing perceptions of gender education by students and teachers in Taiwan. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hooks, B. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1990). Dialectic of enlightenment. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  32. Huang, C. C. (1999). The effect or prior knowledge and prior knowledge on reading comprehension of EFL students in Taiwan. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ohio, Athens, Ohio.Google Scholar
  33. Huang, C. C. (2001). An investigation of ESP students’ vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. Selected papers from the tenth international symposium on English teaching (pp. 435–445). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.Google Scholar
  34. Huang, C. C. (2004). A comparison of vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge and reading comprehension between senior high and vocation high school students. Journal of Taipei Municipal Teachers College, 35(1), 55–84.Google Scholar
  35. Jackson, S. (1997). Cross borders and changing pedagogies: From Giroux and Freire to feminist theories of education. Gender and Education, 9, 457–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kayes, D. C., & Kayes, A. B. (2003). “Through the looking glass” management education gone away. Journal of Management Education, 27(6), 694–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lather, P. (1992). Post-critical pedagogies: A feminist reading. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminist critical pedagogy (pp. 120–137). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Maher, F. A., & Tetreault, M. K. T. (1994). The feminist classroom: An inside look at how professors and students are transforming higher education for a diverse society. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  39. Orner, M. (1992). Interrupting the calls for student voice in “Liberatory” education: A feminist postructural perspective. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminism and critical pedagogy (pp. 74–89). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Rendon, L. (2005). Realizing a transformed pedagogical dreamfield: Recasting agreements for teaching and learning. Spirituality in Higher Education, 2(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  41. Ropers-Huilman, B. (1998). Feminist teaching in theory and practice: Situating power and knowledge in poststructural classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ropers-Huilman, B. (2003). Gendered features in higher education: Critical perspective for change. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sadker, D., Sadker, M., & Bauchner, J. (1984). Teacher reactions to classroom responses of male and female students. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  44. St. Ambrose University. (2006). Omnibus assessment plan: Documenting a culture of learning. Retrieved April 30, 2006, from http://web.sau.edu/assessment/2004.Assessment.Plan.Draft4.27.04.htm.
  45. Su, Y. H. (1997). Needs survey and evaluation scheme for industrial vocational high school English textbooks. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Taipei, Taiwan: Chengchi University.Google Scholar
  46. Su, M. M. (2005). A study of EFL technological and vocational college students’ and their self-perceived English proficiency. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(1), 44–56.Google Scholar
  47. Taiwan Ministry of Education. (2004). Retrieved November 28, 2004, from http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/SECRETARY/EDU8559001/guide/93guide.htm.
  48. Tisdell, E. J. (1998). Poststructural feminist pedagogies: The possibilities and limitations of feminist emancipatory adult learning theory and practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tisdell, E. J. (2000). Feminist pedagogues. In E. Hayes & D. D. Flannery (Eds.), Women as learners: The significance of gender in adult learning (pp. 155–184). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  50. Tuckman, B. W. (1991). Evaluating the alternative to multiple-choice testing for teachers. Contemporary Education, 62(4), 299–300.Google Scholar
  51. Walstad, W. B., & Becker, W. E. (1994). Achievement differences on multiple-choice and critical thinking ability tests in economics. The American Economics Review, 84(2), 193–196.Google Scholar
  52. Wang, W. K. (2002). Educational research methodology. Taipei: Wu-nan.Google Scholar
  53. Weiler, K. (1991). Freire and feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review, 61(4), 449–473.Google Scholar
  54. Wong, A. K. (1978). The modern Chinese family. In M. S. Das & P. D. Bardis (Eds.), The family in Asia. New Delhi: Vikas.Google Scholar
  55. Wooldridge, J. M. (2003). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. South-Western: Thomson.Google Scholar
  56. Wu, C. Y. (2001). A promising avenue for improvement in English instruction and general education curricula: An integrated curriculum and theme-based instruction. Paper presented at Elliott Masie’s LMS Conference Multi-Vendor in Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  57. Zhuang, M. J. (1997, August 13). How to build gender-equity atmosphere in classrooms? Chinese Daily.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Foreign LanguagesChung-Shan Medical UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Education and TechnologyNational Changhua University of EducationChanghua CityTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Health Services AdministrationChung-Shan Medical UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Medical EducationChung-Shan Medical University HospitalTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations