Constructivist learning practices have recently been chosen as an alternative instruction to the conventional teacher-centered approaches to teaching and learning in Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) classrooms. However, the top–down management procedures of implementing this instruction has led to various innovation failures. This paper proposes a theoretical framework that is central to Activity Theory to assist reformers to achieve better success. This framework emphasizes that learning should be seen as a factor that has connections with many other factors in a complexity. Therefore, reformers need to address various factors at different implementation levels. It is crucially important that the teachers’ and students’ voices need to be taken into careful consideration because they play a key role in determining the reformative success.
AdamsonB., KwanT., & ChanK. K. (Eds.). (2000). Changing the curriculum: The impact of reform on primary schooling in Hong Kong.Hong Kong SAR, China: Hong Kong University Press.
2.
BallS. J. (1997). Policy sociology and critical social research: A personal review of recent education policy and policy research.British Educational Research Journal,23(3), 257–274.
3.
BiggsJ. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying.Hawthorn, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
4.
BiggsJ. B. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative studies.Educational Research Journal,6, 27–39.
5.
ChristieP. (2005). Learning guide: Part 1.The University of Queensland.
6.
ColeM., EngestromY., & VasquezO. A. (1997). Mind, culture and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CorbettD., & WilsonB. (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students: A plea to researchers and reformers.Educational Researcher,24(June/July), 12–17.
8.
Confucius (1947). The wisdom of Confucius. In ComminsS., & LinscottR. N. (Eds.), Man and man: The social philosophers (pp. 323–258). New York, NY: Random House. (Original work published ca. 479 B.C.E.).
9.
The Curriculum Development Centre (2001). Pembelajaransecarakonstruktivisme (Learning by means of constructivism). Kuala Lumpur: Curriculum Development Centre, Ministry of Education.
10.
DavidsonN. (1995). International perspectives on cooperative and collaborative learning: Anoverview.International Journal of Educational Research,23(3), 197–200.
11.
ElmoreR. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice.Harvard Educational Review,66(1), 1–26.
12.
FullanM. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.London: Cassell.
13.
FullanM. (2000). The three stories of education reform.Phi Delta Kappan,81(8), 581–584.
14.
EngeströmY. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In EngeströmY., MiettinenR., & PunamakiR. L. (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 19–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
EngeströmY. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation.Journal of Education and Work,14(1), 133–156.
16.
FinnanC., & LevinM. H. (2000). Changing school cultures. In AltrichterH., & ElliottJ. (Eds.), Images of educational change (pp. 87–98). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
GoodT. L., & BrophyJ. E. (1994). Looking in Classrooms, HarperCollins College Publishers, New York, NY.
19.
GoosM. (2009). Reforming mathematics education: Theorising teachers abd students’ use of technology. In NgC-H., & RenshawP. D. (Eds.), Reforming learning: Concepts, Issues and Practice in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 46–66). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
20.
GuthrieJ. T., WigfieldA., & VonSeckerC. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading.Journal of Educational Psychology,92, 331–341.
21.
HackerD. J., & TenentA. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications.Journal of Educational Psychology,94, 699–718.
22.
HalsteadM., & ZhuC. (2009). Autonomy as an element in Chinese educational reform: A case study of English lessons in a senior high school in Beijing.Asia Pacific Journal of Education,29(4), 443–456.
23.
HamanoT. (2010). Educational reform and teacher education in Vietnam.Journal of Education for Teaching,34(4), 397–410.
24.
HargreavesA. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change.Teaching and Teacher Education,21, 967–983.
25.
IsmailH. N., & AlexanderJ. M. (2005). Learning within scripted and nonscripted peer-tutoring sessions: The Malaysian context.The Journal of Educational Research,99(2), 67–77.
LuuT. T. (2010). Infusing cooperative learning into an EFL classroom.English Language Teaching,3(2), 64–75.
28.
Leont'veA. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
Le-Van-Giang2003. A timeline of 1000 years of Viet Nam education. [Lich su gian luoc hon 1000 nam nen giao duc Viet Nam].Hanoi: NXB Chinh Tri Quoc Gia [The National Politics Publisher].
30.
LevinB. (2001). Reforming education: From origins to outcomes.New York, NY: Rouledge/Falmer.
31.
LukeA., RahimR. A., KohK. H., LauS., IsmailM., & HoganD. (2005). Innovation and enterprise in classroom practice: A discussion of enabling and disenabling pedagogical factors in P5 and S3 classrooms.Singapore: Centre for Research in Instruction and Practice.
32.
MarsoR. N., & PiggeF. L. (1991). An analysis of teacher-made tests: Item types, cognitive demands, and item construction errors.Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology,16, 279–286.
33.
MessierP. W. (2003). Traditional teaching strategies versus cooperative teaching strategies: Which can improve achievement scores in Chinese middle schools? Retrieved from http://www.teacher.org.cn/doc/ucedu200501/ucedu20050101.doc on 5 May 2007.
34.
MorrisP. (1985). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to the implementation of a pedagogic innovation: A South East Asian case study.International Review of Education,31, 3–18.
35.
Munro-SmithN. (2003). A culturally aware course design. In CrispG., ThieleD., ScholtenI., BarkerS., & BaronJ. (Eds.), Interact, integrate, impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual conference of the Australian Society for Computer in learning in tertiary education, Adelaide, December 7–10, 2003.
36.
NewmannF. M., MarksH. M., & GamoranA. (1996). Authentic instruction and student performance.American Journal of Education,104, 280–312.
37.
NgC-H. (2009). Exploring the linkage between reforms and learning in the Asia-Pacific region: An Activity Theory perspective. In NgC-H., & RenshawP. D. (Eds.), Reforming learning: Concepts, issues and practice in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 3–21). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
38.
Nguyen-ThiD. (2000). Students’ perception about learning and teaching approaches at college (Unpublished master's thesis). The Teachers’ College, Vietnam.
39.
NieY., & LauS. (2010). Differential relations of traditional and constructivist instruction to students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement.Learning and Instruction,2, 117–175.
40.
NieY., TanG. H., LiauA. K., LauS., & ChuaB. L. (2012). The role of teacher efficacy in instructional innovation: its predictive relations to constructivist and didactic instruction.Educational Research for Policy and Practice,12, 67–77.
41.
PhamT. H. T. (2014). Implementing Cross-Culture Pedagogies: Cooperative Learning at Confucian Heritage Cultures.Springer, Singapore.
42.
Phuong-MaiN. (2008). Culture and Cooperation Cooperative Learning in Asian Confucian heritage cultures: The case of Viet Nam.Netherlands: IVLOS Institute of Education of Utrecht University.
43.
Phuong-MaiN., TerlouwC., & PilotA. (2012). Cooperative learning in Vietnam and the West-East transfer.Asia Pacific Journal of Education,32(2), 137–152.
44.
Pong-Wing-Yan, & ChowJ. (2002). On the pedagogy of examination in Hong Kong.Teaching and Teacher Education,18, 139–149.
45.
SabatierP. A., & MazmanianA. D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis.Policy Studies Review Annual,4, 181–203.
46.
SachsG. T., CandlinC., RoseK. R., & ShumS. (2003). Learner behaviour and language acquisition project: Developing cooperative learning in the EFL/ESL secondary classroom.RELC Journal, 34(3), 338–369.
47.
SahlbergP. (2006). Education reform for raising economic competitiveness.Journal of Educational Change,7(4), 259–281.
48.
ScheinE. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
49.
TanJ., & GopinathanS. (2000). Education reform in Singapore: Towards greater creativity and innovation.NIRA Review, Summer issue.
50.
TanI. G. C., LeeC. K. E., & SharanS. (2007). Group investigation effects on achievement, motivation, and perceptions of students in Singapore.The Journal of Educational Research,100(3), 142–154.
51.
TangC., & BiggsJ. (1996). How Hong Kong students cope with assessment. In WatkinsD. A., & BiggsJ. B. (Eds.), The Chinese learner: cultural, psychological, and contextual influences (pp. 159–181). Hong Kong: CERC and ACER.
52.
Tran-Huu (2003). Problems while executing the National Education Development Strategy 2001–2010.Hanoi Moi, January 11.
53.
VoletS. E., RenshawP. D., & TietzelK. (1994). A short-term longitudinal investigation of cross-cultural differences in study approaches using Biggs’ SPQ questionnaire.British Journal of Educational Psychology,64, 301–318.
54.
WellsG., & ClaxtonG. (Eds.). (2002). Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education.London: Blackwell.
55.
YuY., & WangB. (2009). A study of language learning strategy use in the context of EFL curriculum and pedagogy reform in China.Asia Pacific Journal of Education,29(4), 457–468.
56.
ZhuM. (2002). Exploring the new curriculum: A dialogue with the implementers.Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
