Docstoc

i The Use of Suggestion as a Classroom Learning Strategy in China

Document Sample
i The Use of Suggestion as a Classroom Learning Strategy in China Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                               i




                          The Use of Suggestion

                   as a Classroom Learning Strategy

          in China and Australia: An Assessment Scale with

Structural Equation Explanatory Models in Terms of Stress, Depression,

                 Learning Styles and Academic Grades




        Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

                               Doctor of Philosophy




                                  Dai Mou

                             B.Phil., M.A.Phil.




                            School of Education

            Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University

                                August 2006
                                                                          ii


                             Declaration


 a) Except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is
    that of the candidate alone;

 b) The work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to
    qualify for any other award;


c) The contents of the thesis are the result of work carried out since the
   official commencement date of the approved research program.




Signature of Candidate




 …………………………….

 Dai Mou
                                                                            iii


                            Acknowledgements



The author would like to thank a few individuals who made the task of writing
this thesis a little easier.


To Dr. Anthony M. Owens, Senior Supervisor, a special thank you for your
support, encouragement and patience.

To Dr. Ian R. Newbegin, consultant, for your support, encouragement and
offering advice when needed.

Associate Professor James Sillitoe, consultant, for your advice on research
methods and sensitivity to cultural differences.

To Professor Zhao Zixiang, for his support and encouragement from the
beginning to the end of the study.

To Professor Sun Hong-min, for her support and encouragement during the
whole study.

To David Mackenzie, for his advice and support during the last stages of the
study.

To Janet Owens, for her advice and technical support during the last stages of
the study.

To my wife, Ma Shu-ye, for her understanding, support and encouragement
during the closing stages of thesis writing.
                                                                               iv



                                   Abstract




This study is innovative in that it draws together the concepts of suggestion
from several cultural groups and develops an inventory to account for
variations the occurrence of scale to studies the relatively new area of the
effects of suggestion in classrooms and compares effect on personality and
academic variables. As new ideas and knowledge become more widespread
and accepted by the community and teaching profession, precision in the
applications of suggestion in the classroom is being seen as more important.
Although new to education, suggestion and similar variations has always been
central to influencing behaviour and learning among pastoral, counseling and
hypnotherapy fields. Teachers who had experience or influence from those
fields or the ideas of Lozanov (1978) or accelerated learning groups were and
are more the exception than the rule. However, as new ideas become more
influential, the influence of suggestion in is becoming increasingly important in
progressive, modern education.


A major goal of the study was to provide a valid instrument to compare
Chinese and Australian differences and similarities in use of suggestion in
learning. It was hoped that such a comparison would provide increased
mutual understanding of values, strategies, practices and preferences by
teachers and students. A second goal was to develop a causative model that
explained the relationships between the measured variables of personality
and learning behaviour and suggestion in teaching and learning.. A third aim
was to make a comparison on effects and performance of suggestion in
teaching and learning in Australian, Chinese and Australian accelerative
learning classes.


This study examined differences between Australian and Chinese high school
Science classrooms in their use of suggestion in teaching and learning. To
ascertain the prevalence and types of suggestion in the classroom the 39-item
suggestion in teaching and learning (STL) scale was developed and validated
                                                                               v


in Year 7, 9, and 11 high school classes in China and Australia. The STL
scale categorized suggestion into the following types or subscales:         Self-
suggestion, metaphor, indirect non-verbal suggestion, general spoken
suggestion,    negative   suggestion,   intuitive   suggestion,   direct   verbal
suggestion, relaxation, and de-suggestion.


The study involved surveying 344 participants (n=182 female, n=162 male)
from four high schools in Australia and China. A further 374 participants
(n=108 teachers, n=266 students) from six high schools were surveyed for
selecting a Chinese sample in a pilot study. About 284 participants (China:
200 students; Australia: 84 students [includes 8 adults]) were observed for
validation of the STL instrument. All subjects and classes were randomly
selected and were surveyed and observed for the purpose of scale and model
development.


The STL scale was found to be capable of distinguishing different types of
suggestion within Chinese, Australian, and Australian Accelerative Learning
classes. The STL scale was significant as a first scale to measure suggestion
in teaching and learning in Australian and Chinese classrooms. Items in the
scale were strongly and significantly correlated with other items within the
subscales and with the overall scale.


Path analytic techniques were used to explain relationships between the STL
scale, its subscales, nation, gender and high school students profiles on
stress, depression, learning styles and academic grades. Limitations of the
study included problems arising from language and cultural differences as
well as newness of the scale and the field of study.     Recommendations for
further study included strengthening aspects of the scale with new items and
further qualitative and quantitative studies on the uses of suggestion in
academic learning and other forms of change in childhood and adolescence.
                                                                       vi


                         Table of Contents


LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………… ….xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………xx
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
    Background …………………………………………………………….. 1
    Problem statement and study motivation …………………………              1
    Theoretical need for the study ………………………………………                 2
    The Chinese educational context …………………………………..                3
    Need for individual student’s personality development ……….     5
    The Australian educational context ………………………………..              6
    Phenomenon of cultural conflict …………………………………..                9
    Previous studies ………………………………………………………                         11
    Studies into cross-cultural issues in teaching …………………….       14
    Suggestion in teaching ………………………………………………                      16
    Interim summary ………………………………………………………                          18
    Research questions ………………………………………………….                        20
    Independent & dependent variables…………………….…………..               22
    Research goals ………………………………………………………..                         23
    Limitations of the study………………………….……………………                    24
    Significance of this study ……………………………………………                   26


CHAPTER 2     LITERATURE REVIEW
    Background……………………………………………………………… 29
    The importance of definition …………………………………………                  29
    Suggestion in Western and Eastern cultures ……………………..          30
    Eastern and Western approaches to psychology ……………….           30
    Definitions of suggestion …………………………………………….                   32
    Dictionary definitions: Western dictionaries ……………….........   33
    Chinese dictionary definitions ………………………………………                 34
    A Chinese psychologist’s definition ………………………………..             37
    A cross-cultural interpretation ………………………………………                37
    Synonyms for suggestion……………………………………………                       38
    Western synonyms ……………………………………………………                          38
                                                             vii


Chinese synonyms ……………………………………………………. 39
Western researchers’ & practitioners’ definition ……………………    40
Chinese researchers’ practitioners’ perspective …………………… 42
Comparison with similar practices …………………………………              43
Suggestion in western teaching and learning approaches………….. 46
Suggestion in Chinese teaching and learning approaches ………… 48
An emerging definition of suggestion for this study …………….   49
Reported applications of suggestion in teaching
      and learning – western contributions …………………………..50
Suggestopedia …………………………………………………………                         50
Suggestive-accelerative learning and teaching ……………….        51
Superlearning ………………………………………………………….. 52
Integrative learning …………………………………………………...                  52
Superstudy …………………………………………………………….. 53
Other applications of suggestion in teaching………………………..      53
‘Face’ and ‘suggestion’ in a Chinese context ………………………       54
Comparison of Western and Eastern types of suggestion ………… 55
Measurement of Suggestion:
Developing an Instrument …………………………………………….                  58
Conceptualisation of Suggestion………………………………………. 58
Self-suggestion ………………………………………………………..                      59
Metaphor ……………………………………………………………….. 59
Indirect non-verbal suggestion ……………………………………..              59
General spoken suggestion ………………………………………….                  60
Negative suggestion …………………………………………………..                    60
Intuitive suggestion ……………………………………………………                    62
Direct verbal suggestion ……………………………………………..                 63
Relaxation ………………………………………………………………. 63
Desuggestion …………………………………………………………... 64
Phases of barriers to suggestion …………………………………..             64
Stress……………………….……………………………………….                             67
Stress and relaxation…………………………………………………… 69
Depression ………………………………………………………….. …. 70
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………. 72
                                                                                             viii


CHAPTER 3            METHODOLOGY – Phase one
    Background …………………………………………………………….                                                      74
    Preliminary investigations on the sample population …………………74
    Selection of sample schools for this preliminary study ……………….75
    Eliminated areas ………………………………………………………….75
    Sample selection details …………………………………………………76
    Measurement instruments used in the preliminary study …………….79
    Preliminary study questionnaire administration ………………………79
    Results of preliminary study using Chinese teaching method
    Questionnaire ……………………………………………………………...80
    Multiple Choice Items 1-11 ………………………………………………80
    Open-ended Items 12-16               ……………………………………………...88
    Results of preliminary study using Learning Styles
            VAK Preference Indicator ……………………………………….93
    Conclusion to preliminary study ………………………………………..94


CHAPTER 4         METHODOLOGY – Phase two
    Background ……………………………………………………………                                                       98
    Development of the Scale of Suggestion in
            Teaching and Learning (STL) ……………………………….                                        98
    Parameters used for the initial construction of the STL scale …                          99
    Conceptual definitions ………………………………………………..                                              100
    Reliability of the STL Scale …........................................................   101
    Validity of the STL Scale ……………………………………………… 103
    Development of the STL survey ……………………….......................105
    Application and investigation of the Scale of
            Suggestion in Teaching and Learning (STL)…………………..105
    Selection of schools………………………………………………………106
    Test Administration …….………………………………………………..108
    Information provided by the teachers ………………………………….109
    The Suggestion in Teaching and Learning (STL) scale ………........109
    Scale/subscale item property check……………………………………110
    Observation Method ………………………………………………… ..111
    Observer Reliability Development and Assessment .………..……. ..111
                                                                   ix


    Observation Procedure …………………………………………………112
    Class Observations in Australia ………………………………………..112
    Class Observations in China ……………………………………………113
    Class Observations in Accelerated Learning classrooms …. .………114
    Observation checklist ……………………………………………………115
    Statistical Procedures used in development
            and analysis of the STL scale ………………………………….115
    Model Development ……………………………………………………116
    Cross-cultural comparisons ……………………………………………117


CHAPTER 5      RESULTS – Part one
    Background ……………………………………………………………..118
    Reliability ………………………………………………………………..118
    Inter-correlation of items in the subscales ………………………….120
    Inter-correlation of STL subscale items for Chinese ………………121
            Self-suggestion subscale ………………………………………121
            Metaphor subscale ……………………………………………..121
            Indirect nonverbal suggestion subscale……………………….122
            Spoken Suggestion subscale …………………………………..123
            Negative Suggestion subscale …………………………………123
            Intuitive Suggestion subscale …………………………………..124
            Direct Verbal Suggestion subscale …………………………….125
            Relaxation subscale ……………………………………………..125
            Logical-Rational Barrier subscale ………………………………126
            Emotional-Intuitive barrier subscale …………………………….127
            Moral-Ethical Barrier subscale ,………………………………….127
    Inter-correlation of STL subscale items for Australians …………….128
            Self-suggestion subscale ……………………………………….128
            Metaphor subscale ………………………………………………129
            Indirect nonverbal suggestion subscale………………………..129
            Spoken Suggestion subscale ……………………………………130
            Negative Suggestion subscale ………………………………….131
            Intuitive Suggestion subscale ……………………………………132
            Direct Verbal Suggestion subscale …………………………….132
                                                                    x


      Relaxation subscale …………………………………………….133
      Logical-Rational Barrier subscale ………………………………134
      Emotional-Intuitive barrier subscale ……………………………134
      Moral-Ethical Barrier subscale ………………………………….135
Inter-correlation of STL subscale items for all participants ………...135
      Self-suggestion subscale ……………………………………….136
      Metaphor subscale ………………………………………………137
      Indirect nonverbal suggestion subscale……………………….138
      Spoken Suggestion subscale …………………………………..138
      Negative Suggestion subscale …………………………………138
      Intuitive Suggestion subscale …………………………………..139
      Direct Verbal Suggestion subscale …………………………….139
      Relaxation subscale …………………………………………….140
      Logical-Rational Barrier subscale ,……………………………..141
      Emotional-Intuitive barrier subscale ……………………………141
      Moral-Ethical Barrier subscale ………………………………….142
Inter-correlation for all STL Subscales for all participants ………….143
Summary of item and subscale correlations ……………………….....144
Cultural differences ……………………………………………………..144
Mean Differences in Suggestion in Teaching and Learning
      Scale Item Scores by Australian and Chinese Students …….145
Discussion of Subscale data…………………………………………….149
Mean Differences in Subscales Scores on Suggestion in Teaching
      and Learning Scale by Australian and Chinese Students
      ……..149
Mean differences of variables for Chinese & Australians ………….150
      Depression ………………………………………………………..150
      Stress ……………………………………………………………..151
      Visual Learning Style ……………………………………...........152
      Auditory Learning Style …………………………………………152
      Kinaesthetic Learning Style …………………………………….153
      Science Grades ………………………………………………….154
Mean Differences for Depression, Stress, Grade Scores & Learning
Style for High & Low Levels of STL Subscales for All Participants…155
                                                                                xi


            Self-suggestion subscale ……………………………………….156
            Metaphor subscale ………………………………………………156
            Indirect nonverbal suggestion subscale………………………..157
            Spoken Suggestion subscale ……………………………………158
            Negative Suggestion subscale …………………………………..159
            Intuitive Suggestion subscale ……………………………………160
            Direct Verbal Suggestion subscale …………………………….161
            Relaxation subscale ……………………………………………..162
            Logical-Rational Barrier subscale ……………………………….163
            Emotional-Intuitive barrier subscale …………………………….164
            Moral-Ethical Barrier subscale …………………………………..165
    Country of Origin Differences ……………………………………………165
    Mean differences in depression, stress, grade scores and learning
    styles for high and low levels of STL subscales scores
            Self-suggestion subscale …………….....................................166
            Metaphor subscale ………………………………………………167
            Indirect nonverbal suggestion subscale………………………..168
            Spoken Suggestion subscale …………………………………..169
            Negative Suggestion subscale …………………………………170
            Intuitive Suggestion subscale …………………………………..171
            Direct Verbal Suggestion subscale …………………………….172
            Relaxation subscale …………………………………………….173
            Logical-Rational Barrier subscale ………………………………174
            Emotional-Intuitive barrier subscale ……………………………175
            Moral-Ethical Barrier subscale ………………………………….176
    Mean differences for depression, stress, grade scores and learning
    style for Chinese and Australian participants………………………….177
    Cultural Differences, Interpretation of Data & Recommendations for
    Further Studies       …………………………………………………… 178


CHAPTER 6    -   RESULTS – Part two
    Background ……………………………………………………………...179
    Factor Analysis ………………………………………………………….179
    Un-rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities …………………….179
                                                                          xii


    Summary …………………………………………………………………186
    Sorted Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities: Equamax
    Rotation …………………………………………………………………..183
    Observational data ……………………………………………………...186
    SEM Model Development ……………………………………………...189
    Relationship between suggestion, learning style, depression, stress
    and grades ………………………………………………………………189
    Initial theory-driven model for STL …………………………………..…191
    Derived model for suggestion ………………………………………….192
    Un-standardized Path Coefficients by country ……………………….194
    Revised Early Model: Relationship of suggestion (STL) with
            Learning style, Depression, Stress and Grades………...…….194
    Final model: Relationship between suggestion, depression,
            stress and academic grades. ………………………………….196


CHAPTER 7     -   DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
    Background ……………………………………………………………….197
    Pilot Study ………………………………………………………………...197
    Scale Development ……………………………………………………...200
    Inter-Correlation Test …………………………………………………...204
    Two sample t-test and Confidence interval for measured variables
    between the two countries.    …………………………………………...209
    Factor analysis …………………………………………………………..212
    Adjusted STL Scale ………………………………………………………212
    Items of the Adjusted Scale   …………………………………………..215
    Analysis of research questions ……………………………………… 218
    Discussion    ……………………………………………………………...217
    Prerequisites for Suggestion in Teaching and Learning
    (accelerative learning) …………………………………………………..218
    Teaching according to students’ personality …………………………223
    Solo- or Multi- teaching or learning approach ………………………..223
    SEM Model Development ………………………………………………224
    Recommendations for future research………………………………… 226
                                                                    xiii


REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………….227


APPENDIX A School permission Letters.…………………………………….239
APPENDIX B VAK Learning Styles Preference Indicator………..………….243
APPENDIX C Suggestion in Teaching & Learning Scale………………… 245
APPENDIX D Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale…………………… 248
APPENDIX E Physical Stress Indicator Checklist English & Chinese……. 250
APPENDIX F Chinese Teaching Method Questionnaire & Data Tables…. 252
APPENDIX G Pilot Study Flyer [Accelerated Learning].……………………255
APPENDIX H Plain Language Statements ………………………….……….257
APPENDIX I Observation Checklist of Suggestions in Teaching &
            Learning ………………………………………………………….260
APPENDIX J Observation Data Tables ..…………………………………….262
                                                                                 xiv



                               LIST OF TABLES



1. Reasons students don’t want to attend class        .      .      .     . 85

2. Purposes of teaching in China        .      .      .      .      .     . 86

3. Does student gender affect teaching method         .      .      .     . 87

4. Main teaching methods currently used in China .                  ..    . 90

5. Use of accelerated learning in classroom teaching.   .                 . 91
    .
6. Barriers to using Overseas Teaching Methods in China .           .       92

7. VAK Learning Styles of Chinese Participants in Preliminary Study         93

8. Alpha reliability for the STL scale by subscale and total
      for Chinese and Australian participants        .       .      .      119

9. Inter-correlation of items in SLS subscale for Chinese participants    .121

10. Inter-correlation of items in MT subscale for Chinese participants    .122

11. Inter-correlation of items in INS subscale for Chinese participants   .122

12. Inter-correlation of items in SS subscale for Chinese participants    .123

13. Inter-correlation of items in NS subscale for Chinese participants    .124

14. Inter-correlation of items in IS subscale for Chinese participants    .124

15. Inter-correlation of items in DVS subscale for Chinese participants   .125

16. Inter-correlation of items in RL subscale for Chinese participants    .126

17. Inter-correlation of items in LB subscale for Chinese participants    .126

18. Inter-correlation of items in EB subscale for Chinese participants    .127

19. Inter-correlation of items in MOB subscale for Chinese participants   .127

20. Inter-correlation of items in SLS subscale for Australian Participants .128
                                                                              xv


21. Inter-correlation of items in MT subscale for Australian
      Participants .        .     .     .      .      .      .     .   .129

22. Inter-correlation of items in INS subscale for Australian
      Participants .        .      .     .      .     .       .    .   .130

23. Inter-correlation of items in SS subscale for Australian
      Participants .        .      .    .      .      .      .     .   .130

24. Inter-correlation of items in NS subscale for Australian
      Participants .        .     .     .      .      .      .     .   .131

25. Inter-correlation of items in IS subscale for Australian
      Participants .        .      .     .      .      .       .   .   .132

26. Inter-correlation of items in DVS subscale for Australian
      Participants .        .     .     .     .      .       .     .   .132

27. Inter-correlation of items in RL subscale for Australian
      Participants .        .     .     .       .     .      .     .   .133

28. Inter-correlation of items in LB subscale for Australian
      Participants .        .      .     .      .      .     .     .   .134

29. Inter-correlation of items in EB subscale for Australian
      Participants .        .      .    .      .      .      .     .   .134

30. Inter-correlation of items in MOB subscale for Australian
      Participants .        .     .     .     .      .      .      .   .135

31. Inter-correlation of items in SLS subscale for all
      Participants .        .      .    .      .       .       .   .   .136

32. Inter-correlation of items in Metaphor subscale for all
      Participants .        .     .     .      .      .        .   .   .136

33. Inter-correlation of items in Indirect Nonverbal suggestion
      subscale for all participants       .     .      .     .     .   .137

34. Inter-correlation of items in Spoken suggestion
      subscale for all participants     .     .     .          .   .   .138

35. Inter-correlation of items in Negative suggestion
      subscale for all participants      .     .      .        .   .   .138

36. Inter-correlation of items in Intuitive suggestion
                                                                                xvi


      subscale for all participants      .      .       .     .      .       .139

37. Inter-correlation of items in Direct Verbal suggestion
      subscale for all participants       .      .    .       .      .       .140

38. Inter-correlation of items in Relaxation subscale for all participants   .140

39. Inter-correlation of items in Logical-Rational Barrier
      subscale for all participants       .     .      .      .      .       .141

40. Inter-correlation of items in Emotional-Intuitive barrier
      subscale for all participants     .       .       .     .      .       .142

41. Inter-correlation of items in Moral-ethic Barrier
      subscale for all participants      .      .       .     .      .       .142

42. Correlation test for all subscales in Suggestion
     in Teaching and Learning scale .          .     .        .      .       .143

43. Student’s t-test on country differences for all items in Suggestion
     in Teaching and Learning scale .           .       .      .     .       .145

44. Student’s t-test on country differences for subscales in Suggestion
     in Teaching and Learning scale .           .     .      .     .         .149

45. Student’s t-test for Depression of both Chinese and
     Australian participants     .      .      .     .        .      .       .151

46. Student’s t-test for Stress of both Chinese and
     Australian participants      .      .     .        .     .      .       .151

47. Student’s t-test for Visual Learning Style Preference of
     both Chinese and Australian participants .       .      .       .       .152

48. Student’s t-test for Auditory learning of both Chinese and
     Australian participants       .     .      .      .     .       .       .153

49. Student’s t-test for Kinaesthetic learning of both Chinese and
     Australian participants     .       .      .      .     .     .         .153

50. Student’s t-test for group statistics for grades    .     .      .       .154

51. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Self-suggestion for
     all participants     .      .     .      .      .      .       .        .155
                                                                            xvii


52. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Metaphor for all
     participants .       .      .     .      .      .     .        .     .156

53. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of indirect nonverbal
     suggestion for all participants   .      .       .      .     .      .157

54. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Spoken suggestion
     for all participants .      .     .      .      .     .      .       .158

55. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Negative suggestion
     for all participants .      .     .      .      .      .     .       .159

56. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of intuitive suggestion
     for all participants .      .     .      .       .       .      .    .160

57. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Direct Verbal
     suggestion for all participants . .      .       .      .   .        .161

58. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of relaxation for all
     participants .       .      .     .      .       .      .        .   .162

59. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Logical-Rational
     Barrier for all participants .    .      .      .      .       .     .163

60. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Emotional-Intuitive
     Barrier for all participants .    .      .      .     .        .     .164

61. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Moral-Ethic barrier
     for all participants .      .     .      .      .      .       .     .165

62. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Self-suggestion for
     each country’s participants       .      .      .      .       .     .166

63. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Metaphor for each
                                                                            xviii


     country’s participants      .      .      .      .      .      .     .167

64. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Indirect nonverbal
     suggestion for each country’s participants       .      .     .      .168

65. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Spoken Suggestion
     for each country’s participants .        .      .     .     .        .169

66. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Negative suggestion
     for each country’s participants .        .      .      .     .       .170

67. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Intuitive suggestion
     for each country’s participants .        .       .       .     .     .171

68. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Direct Verbal
     suggestion for each country’s participants       .      .   .        .172

69. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Relaxation for each
     country’s participants      .     .      .      .      .       .     .173

70. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Logical-rational
     barrier for each country’s participants .       .       .      .     .174

71. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Emotional-Intuitive
     barrier for each country’s participants .       .     .        .     .174

72. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for high and low levels of Moral-Ethic barrier
     for each country’s participants .        .      .      .       .     .176

73. Difference in mean values for depression, stress, grade scores
     and learning style for each country’s participants    .     .        .177


74. Principal Component Factor Analysis of the Correlation Matrix Un-rotated
    Factor Loadings and Communalities        ..     .      .      .      180
                                                                            xix



75. . Sorted Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities of the Equamax
    Rotation.      .     .      ..    .     .    ..      .      .    ..184

76. Observation Results on Classroom teaching in China and Australia .187

77. Un-standarized Path Coefficients for each country .       .      .   .194

78. SLT Scale reliability test for two Chinese schools        .      .   .203

79. Three items of SS subscale correlation      .      .      .      .   .206

80. Four items of SS subscale correlation (without Q18)       .      .   .206

81. Four items of SS subscale correlation (without Q17)       .      .   .206

82. Data-based Adjusted subscales of STL        .      .      .      .   .213

83. Adjusted scale of “Suggestion in teaching and Learning”          .   .214

84. Reliability for the adjusted STL scale by subscale and total for
     Chinese and Australian participants       .      .     .        .   .215

85. Correlation test for all subscales in Adjusted scale of
     Suggestion in teaching and Learning        .      .      .      .   .217
                                                                            xx


                         LIST OF FIGURES



1.    Current Teaching Methods in 6 Geographic Areas of China        . 80

2.    Class Use of Suggestion in China     .      .      .       .   . 81

3.    Proportion of teachers who had heard of AL         .       .   . 82

4.    Proportion of teachers who consider teaching
      method important      .     .     .      .         .       .   . 82

5.    Relationship of teaching method to personality of teachers     . 83

6.    Teachers who consider teaching methods
      tied to student ability . .     .      .           .       .   . 83

7.    Anticipated effects of introduction of
      Accelerative learning to schools     .      .      .       .   . 84

8.    Teachers’ opinion of students’ interest in participation
      in class teaching     .     .       .       .      .       .   . 85

9.    Reasons students don’t want to attend class        .       .   . 86

10. Purposes of teaching in China          .      .      .       .   . 87

11. Does student gender affect teaching method           .       .   . 88

12. Traditional Chinese teaching methods          .      .       .   . 89

13. Best teaching methods for Chinese students           .       .   . 89

14. Main teaching methods currently used in China .              .   . 90

15.   Is accelerative learning used in
      Chinese classroom teaching now .            .      .       .   . 91

16. Barriers to using overseas teaching methods in China .           . 92

17. Chinese students’ VAK learning style preferences             .   . 93

18. An early model to explain the relationship between suggestion,
   learning style, depression, stress and grades.    .     .      .190
                                                                 xxi


19.   Initial model for suggestion-initial .   .      .   .   .191

20.   Derived model for suggestion         .   .      .   .   .193

21.   Final Model: relationship between suggestion,
      depression, stress and grade      .     .       .   .   .196

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:2
posted:4/25/2010
language:English
pages:21
Description: i The Use of Suggestion as a Classroom Learning Strategy in China ...