Abstract
In this paper we investigate the current tensions for pedagogic change in the Chinese higher education system, and explore how the intricate interplay between the stakeholder relationships drives and mediates the system, and impacts on potential pedagogy. To achieve these goals, this study takes an inductive theory-building approach to gather the unique perceptions of 66 Chinese academics, and critically analyses the findings based through an Activity Theory framework. The findings indicate that institutional pedagogy is driven generally by regulated knowledge sources, knowledge dissemination, student compliance, parental expectations, examination achievement and pastoral care. The academics were enthusiastic about introducing more interactive, self-paced, authentic and web-based pedagogy, but continually indicated how traditional practice, social expectations, local regulations and economic restraints would frustrate reforming practices. The findings also show how pedagogic reform confronts existing subjectivity, and emphasise the importance of building and disseminating a rationale for changing prior to any pedagogic innovation. The Activity Theory framework demonstrates how potential pedagogic change has to be preceded by changing the understanding of stakeholders about the new goals and practices of learning. This study and the results have important implications for restructuring and reforming Chinese higher education system to meet future global and societal demands.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beer, M., Eisenstatt, A., & Spector, B. (1993). In C. Mabey & W. B. Mayon White (Eds.), Why change programmes don’t produce change (2nd ed., pp. 99–107). Buckingham: The Open University.
Behrend, M. B. (2014). Engeström’s activity theory as a tool to analyse online resources embedding academic literacies. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 8(1), A109–A120.
Carlsson, F., He, H., & Martinsson, P. (2013). Easy come, easy go: The role of windfall money in lab and field experiments. Experimental Economics, 16(2), 190–207.
Davidov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalisation in instruction. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ellis, V., Edwards, A., & Smagorinsky, P. (Eds.). (2010). Cultural historical perspectives on teacher education and development: Learning teaching. London: Routledge.
Ellis, V., McNicholl, J., Blake, A., & McNally, J. (2011). The work of teacher education: Final research report for the Higher Education Academy. Bristol: ESCalate Subject Centre for Education.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engestrom, Y. (1999). Expansive learning theory at work. Keynote address, 7th International Post Compulsory Education and Training Conference, Changing practice through research proceedings, Centre for Learning and Work, 3/5th December, Griffith University, Surfers Paradise, Queensland.
Glaser, B. G. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Hasan, H. (1999). Integrating IS and HCI using AT as a philosophical and theoretical basis. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 6(2), 44–55.
Hasan, H., & Kazlauskas, A. (2014). Activity theory: Who is doing what, why and how. In H. Hasan (Ed.), Being practical with theory: A window into business research (pp. 9–14). Wollongong: THEORI.
Healey, N. M. (2008). Is higher education really internationalising? Higher Education, 55(3), 333–355.
Hofstede, G. (2010). Culture and Organisations; software of the mind. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
Kanter, R. M. (1992). The challenge of organisational change and how companies experience it. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Brighton: Harvard Business School Press.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge: MIT Press 1995.
Li, M., & Bray, M. (2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push–pull factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education, 53(6), 791–818 Springer.
Liu, J. (2012). Examining massification policies and their consequences for equality in Chinese higher education: A cultural perspective. Higher Education, 64(5), 647–660.
Malhotra, N. (2013). Basic marketing research: Pearson International edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian model. Higher Education, 61(5), 587–611 Springer.
McConnell, D. (2018). E-learning in Chinese higher education: the view from inside. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 75(6), 1031–1045.
Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442–457.
Oswald, M., & Engelbrecht, P. (2013). Leadership in disadvantaged primary schools: Two narratives of contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 620–639.
Pham, T. (2016). Student-centredness: Exploring the culturally appropriate pedagogical space in vietnamese higher education classrooms using activity theory. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n1.1.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Thanh Pham, T. H., & Renshaw, P. (2015). Formative assessment in Confucian heritage culture classrooms: Activity theory analysis of tensions, contradictions and hybrid practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 45–59.
Toulmin, S. (1999). Knowledge as shared procedures. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 70–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A., & Law, D. (2007). Learning as boundary crossing in School University partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1289–1301.
Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vavrus, F., & Bartlett, L. (2012). Comparative pedagogies and epistemological diversity: Social and materials contexts of teaching in Tanzania. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 634–658.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Original work published 1933.
Wang, L., & Byram, M. (2011). ‘But when you are doing your exams it is the same as in China’–Chinese students adjusting to western approaches to teaching and learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(4), 407–424.
Waycott, J., Jones, A., & Scanlon, E. (2005). Using a PDA as a learning or workplace tool. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 107–130.
Wilson, V. (2014). Examining teacher education through cultural historical activity theory. TEAN Journal, 6(1), 20–29.
Zaja, E. J., & Krattz, J. L. (1993). A diametric force model of strategic change: Assessing the antecedents and consequences of restructuring the higher education industry. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 83–102.
Zha, Q. (2009). Diversification or homogenization: How governments and markets have combined to (re) shape Chinese higher education in its recent massification process. Higher Education, 58(1), 41–58.
Zhang, A., Hua, J., & Yi, L. (2012). Contemporary Chinese public relations education: Development and challenges. Asian Journal of Communication, 22(4), 386–404.
Zhao, H., Chen, L., & Panda, S. (2014). Self-regulated learning ability of Chinese distance learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 941–958.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the 66 Chinese scholars who participated and contributed to this study. They also wish to acknowledge the financial support from Edith Cowan University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barratt-Pugh, L., Zhao, F., Zhang, Z. et al. Exploring current Chinese higher education pedagogic tensions through an activity theory lens. High Educ 77, 831–852 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0304-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0304-8