Conceptions of learning held by upper primary children in government schools in Brunei

Conceptions of learning held by upper primary children in government schools in Brunei

Learning as doing hands‐on Learning as acquiring information

Learning as remembering

information

activities

Figure

23. An ordered set of qualitatively different categories of descriptions

Conceptions of learning held by upper primary children in government schools in

Brunei

Teachers play a

Teachers play an

more active role

active role in

in teaching

teaching

Learning as

Learning as

Learning as doing acquiring remembering hands ‐on activities

information information

Children play a

Children play a

less active role in

more active learning role in learning

Figure

24. Logical relationship between each category of description

CHAPTER SUMMARY

This study revealed three qualitatively different ways in which upper primary children in government schools in Brunei experience learning. The three ways are represented in three categories of description and these are: learning as acquiring information, learning as remembering information and learning as doing hands‐on activities, which in turn, are logically related in an outcome space. The findings demonstrate a set of quantitative conceptions of learning, which are at odds with the constructivist philosophy of the Ministry of Education in Brunei. The next chapter discusses the implications of this study in more detail. The discussion will include comparisons of findings against other studies in the field of children’s conceptions of learning.

Chapter 5: Discussion and conclusion

This final chapter provides a discussion of findings and key issues and draws conclusions from the study. The key issues are discussed in five separate sections. First, the key findings of this study will be examined and discussed with respect to previous literature and in the context of the new education system in Brunei (SPN 21). Second, the chapter outlines the research contribution of the study to current understandings about children’s conceptions of learning. Third, its methodological contribution and limitations will be discussed. Fourth, it notes several implications for future research, schools, teacher education and policy. Finally, it draws a series of conclusions.

DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGS

In this study, the main purpose was to identify and describe children’s experiences of learning in government schools in Brunei. The phenomenographical analysis revealed three categories of description depicting a range of qualitatively different ways in which learning was experienced by the children who participated in this study. Each of these categories of description is discussed now in terms of their relationship to the literature and in light of the new education system in Brunei.

Learning as acquiring information

In this category, learning was experienced as acquiring information. The children’s focus of awareness was to gain information and add to what they already know about a subject. According to some children, concentrating helped them to acquire information. These children acknowledged the importance of paying attention, listening to the teacher’s explanations and watching what the teacher does in class in order to gain information.

Learning, as acquiring information, fits with a more quantitative conception of learning in which the aggregation of information is central (Marton & Booth, 1997). In Bazilah’s words, ‘It is what we have to do. We learn new information. We must learn to acquire information’ (Interview Phase 1). The focus on aggregating information is similar to the features outlined in Säljö’s (1979) ‘learning as increasing knowledge’ and Marton et al.’s (1993) ‘learning as increasing one’s knowledge’. A similar finding was also noted in Purdie’s (1994) and Vermunt’s (1996) findings. Marton et al. (1993) argued that the ‘increase in one’s knowledge’ is the basic conception of learning from which all other conceptions develop. In the current study, however, there was no evidence that ‘acquiring information’ was the basis from which Category 2 and Category 3 developed, which means that the relationship between the categories is not hierarchical.

Although it was not foregrounded, some children talked about the importance of concentrating in order to acquire information. Concentrating includes listening to the teacher’s explanations and watching what the teacher does in the classroom. Both acts of learning indicated that the children engaged in surface approaches to learning (Marton & Säljö, 1976a, 1976b) where new facts and ideas were received without being questioned. The purpose of concentrating was to gain new information in class. This category demonstrates a link between quantitative conception and surface approach to learning. In the literature, quantitative conceptions of learning have been closely linked to surface approaches to learning (see for example Marton, Dall’Alba & Beaty, 1993; Marton & Säljö, 1976a, 1976b). Surface approaches to learning refer to the use of ‘low‐level strategies’ (Tang, 1994, p. 6) such as ‘rote learning, memorisation and reproduction’ (Gijbels, Segers & Struyf, 2008, p. 433).

In the background of this category (external horizon) was the notion that teaching and learning was highly teacher‐centred. Teachers played an active role in transmitting information while the children played a seemingly less active role in learning. This is consistent with the predominance of traditional teaching methods in government schools in Brunei. Researchers such as Attwood and Bray (1989), Azharaini (1986) and Burns and Upex (2002) have described typical lessons in Brunei as teacher‐centred and didactic where teachers talk and children listen. In a recent observation of classroom practices, Kitson (2002) noted that, ‘Brunei classrooms do not encourage discussion or conversational exchange of ideas’ (p. 36). However, In the background of this category (external horizon) was the notion that teaching and learning was highly teacher‐centred. Teachers played an active role in transmitting information while the children played a seemingly less active role in learning. This is consistent with the predominance of traditional teaching methods in government schools in Brunei. Researchers such as Attwood and Bray (1989), Azharaini (1986) and Burns and Upex (2002) have described typical lessons in Brunei as teacher‐centred and didactic where teachers talk and children listen. In a recent observation of classroom practices, Kitson (2002) noted that, ‘Brunei classrooms do not encourage discussion or conversational exchange of ideas’ (p. 36). However,

21 is likely to pose a challenge for teachers in primary schools to adopt teaching methods that are child‐centred. The feasibility of a child‐centred approach in an examination ‐oriented education system is an issue that the Ministry of Education may need to consider when fully implementing SPN 21 in 2009. Indeed, in addition to acquiring information, some children were also concerned with doing well in examinations. This was the focus of Category 2, that is, learning as remembering information.

Learning as remembering information

In Category 2, children were focused (internal horizon) on gaining good marks in examinations. The indirect object or the intention of this category was also focused on marks in exams. This means that, for this category, the main focus (internal horizon) was on the intention to gain good marks (indirect object). This same relationship between what was foregrounded and the indirect object of learning was discerned in Category 1, but not in Category 3. The similar pattern between

Category 1 and Category 2 illustrates a link that relates the two qualitatively different ways of experiencing learning. The act of learning in Category 2 was experienced as ‘studying’. The direct object or the ‘What’ aspect of learning in this category was focused on exam subjects such as mathematics, science, English, Malay, geography and history.

Like Category 1, learning, as remembering information, fits with a quantitative conception of learning that is focused on reproducing information for the purpose of scoring good examination marks. In describing learning as remembering information, most children in the study emphasised the importance of studying, which includes reading repeatedly and practising independently or with friends. Memorisation and repetition, according to the children, helped them to gain good marks in examinations. Learning, as remembering or memorising, was also evident in studies involving university students (Marton et al., 1993; Säljö, 1979) and secondary school students (Purdie, 1994). Similar to the primary school children in Brunei, university and secondary school students in Marton et al.’s British (1993) and Purdie’s Australian (1994) studies also used repetition to help them to memorise information.

This category relates to previous findings that link Asian learners, in particular Chinese or Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) learners, to the experience of learning as memorising. In previous studies, researchers such as Samuelowickz (1987), Kember and Gow (1991), Biggs (1996) and Watkins and Biggs (1996) noted the This category relates to previous findings that link Asian learners, in particular Chinese or Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) learners, to the experience of learning as memorising. In previous studies, researchers such as Samuelowickz (1987), Kember and Gow (1991), Biggs (1996) and Watkins and Biggs (1996) noted the

The current study adds to the growing body of cross‐cultural research on students’ conceptions of learning and their approaches to learning, by providing insights into the ways in which a group of children in an Islamic, South East Asian country experience learning. In a country where Islam plays a significant role in its educational context, children’s approaches to learning may have been influenced by the ways in which they learn verses from the Quran. As briefly discussed in Chapter

1, children listen to an expert’s recitation of the verses and repeat what they have heard until they can memorise the correct pronunciation of the verses. These methods of listening to an expert, repeating and memorising are regarded by parents as an effective way of learning Arabic verses from the Quran (Asmah, 2001). The correct pronunciation of verses is essential for use in the five‐times‐daily prayer. At a very young age, children are not obliged to understand the meanings of the verses because such comprehension may come later as the children grow older. The ways in which Bruneian children approach learning may have also been influenced by the socio‐hierarchical structure in which children have been trained to respect their elders at an early age. Respect for elders is very important among the Malay Muslim community in Brunei. Children who obey their teachers’ 1, children listen to an expert’s recitation of the verses and repeat what they have heard until they can memorise the correct pronunciation of the verses. These methods of listening to an expert, repeating and memorising are regarded by parents as an effective way of learning Arabic verses from the Quran (Asmah, 2001). The correct pronunciation of verses is essential for use in the five‐times‐daily prayer. At a very young age, children are not obliged to understand the meanings of the verses because such comprehension may come later as the children grow older. The ways in which Bruneian children approach learning may have also been influenced by the socio‐hierarchical structure in which children have been trained to respect their elders at an early age. Respect for elders is very important among the Malay Muslim community in Brunei. Children who obey their teachers’

As described in Chapter 2, previous cross‐cultural studies involving CHC learners have identified a link between memorisation and understanding (Au & Entwistle, 1999; Dart et al., 2000; Entwistle & Entwistle, 2003; Marton, Wen & Wong, 2005). In these studies, CHC learners used memorisation to enhance understanding and vice versa. Hence, two types of memorisation were identified, namely: ‘rote memorisation’ and ‘meaningful memorisation’ (Marton, Wen & Wong, 2005, p. 291). Marton, Wen and Wong (2005) assert that the latter can be divided further into two groups: ‘understanding followed by memorisation’ and ‘memorisation and understanding simultaneously with the two seen as two sides of the same coin’ (p. 291). The relation between understanding and memorisation, however, was not evident in the current study. Although there were instances where some children used the term understanding to describe their learning experiences, these children had used the term understanding to denote remembering. These children did not see understanding as a meaning‐making experience. Rather, the term understanding was equated to repetition, and so, this reflects the first of Marton et al.’s (2005) ‘rote memorisation’ category (p. 291). In the words of Lukman,

I: What tells you that you’ve understood something in class? P: Umm [long pause] when the things that I’ve learnt are in my head…

I: ‘In your head’ [pause]? Can you tell me more about that?

P: In my brain [pause]

I: Umm [pause] tell me more, what do you mean? P: [Silence]

I: Like, umm [pause] what do you do to understand something? P: When I understand something, it means I can remember the things that

I’ve learnt in class.

I: So, when, umm [long pause] is ‘remembering’ the same as ‘understanding something’?

P: Yes [pause]

I: Can you tell me why they are the same? P: Umm [long pause] because, if I remember something, then that means I

know what we’ve learnt in class and I understand it. (Lukman, Interview Phase 2)

In this excerpt, Lukman explained that understanding something means he can remember the things that he has learnt in class. Whether or not the children in Brunei use remembering to enhance understanding warrants further investigation. The children in this study may have found it difficult to articulate the understanding component of this category.

The external horizon of this category is limited to academic achievement. The Brunei education system which is highly academic and examination‐oriented may well have influenced the children’s conception of learning as remembering information. According to Gijbels, Segers and Struyf (2008), surface approaches such as rote learning, memorisation and reproduction are strongly linked to tests and examinations. Indeed, the traditional teaching methods that are commonly The external horizon of this category is limited to academic achievement. The Brunei education system which is highly academic and examination‐oriented may well have influenced the children’s conception of learning as remembering information. According to Gijbels, Segers and Struyf (2008), surface approaches such as rote learning, memorisation and reproduction are strongly linked to tests and examinations. Indeed, the traditional teaching methods that are commonly

The new education system (SPN 21) will remain examination‐oriented, even though it espouses a child‐centred approach to learning. Figure 25 illustrates the lack of change in terms of examination structure at primary school level in the new education system (SPN 21). While there are changes to the examination structure at the secondary school level, the Primary School Assessment (PSA) examination, or Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (PSR) in Malay, will remain in the new education system (see Figure 24). Given the strong link between examinations (comprising factual questions) and rote learning, it could be expected that not many changes will occur in the ways in which teachers teach in primary schools. The lack of change in examination structure at primary school level questions the rhetoric behind the Ministry of Education’s assertion that states ‘children should learn by doing and discovering’ (Ministry of Education, 2007b, p. 11). A guideline on how children can learn by doing and discovering while preparing for examinations is needed in order to clarify the Ministry’s stance with regard to children’s learning. A clear guideline may help teachers understand the direction of the new education system and adjust their teaching approaches accordingly.

Figure 25. The difference between the current education system and SPN 21

Retaining the PSA examination implies that a child’s success in primary school will

be determined by how well they perform in the exam. In this respect, the PSA examination puts considerable pressure on children in Brunei to gain good marks in examinations. Such pressure may influence children to use memorisation as a way to help them score good marks in examinations, as questions in PSA are typically be determined by how well they perform in the exam. In this respect, the PSA examination puts considerable pressure on children in Brunei to gain good marks in examinations. Such pressure may influence children to use memorisation as a way to help them score good marks in examinations, as questions in PSA are typically

A study in Singapore reported on how children feel about academic pressure (Wong, 2003). Like Brunei, Singapore has an examination‐oriented education system. While there is a lack of research investigating how children experience academic pressure in Brunei, Singapore offers findings that can be related to the Brunei context. In Singapore, Sharpe (2002) and Wong (2003) highlighted how academic pressure is being placed on children as early as Primary 1. Singaporean schools place heavy emphasis on academic adjustment in an examination‐oriented education system. Wong (2003) reported that children in Primary 1 expressed concern about ‘the amount of homework they had to finish everyday and the endless tests and examinations they had to finish during the year’ (p. 93). In other study by Yeo and Clarke (2005), Primary 1 children in Singapore described school as

a serious place of learning. The best part of school, according to these children, was the opportunity to learn and do well in certain subjects and the worst part of school for them was not being able to do the work expected in specific subjects. Based on these findings, Yeo and Clarke (2006) argue that, for primary school children in Asia, ‘being able to cope academically is a measure of school success and a mark of positive adjustment’ (p. 56). In trying to cope with the pressure of doing well academically in schools, children may focus on ways that can help them to gain good marks in examinations and overlook other aspects of learning such as play and creativity.

Unless the education system in Brunei is structured in such a way that accommodates child‐centred learning including creativity and problem‐solving, there may be little change in the ways in which children conceive of learning and approach learning tasks in the future. Nevertheless, there is evidence in this study that teachers try to implement child‐centred activities in schools, with some children describing their learning experiences as doing hands‐on activities in Category 3.

Learning as doing hands‐on activities

In this final category, children were focused (internal horizon) on hands‐on activities. Doing hands‐on activities refers to the act of learning in this category. This link between what is foregrounded in awareness and the act of learning differentiates this category from Category 1 and Category 2. In Category 1 and Category 2, children were focused on the intentions (indirect object) of learning. Despite the differences, each category of description forms part of the same phenomenon, that is, learning in the context of government schools in Brunei. The indirect object of learning or intention in this category was focused on doing projects such as experiments while the ‘What’ aspect of learning was focused on topics that offer opportunities for children to engage in hands‐on activities.

This category demonstrates that the children experienced some child‐centred activities in class. Some children said that they enjoyed doing these activities and This category demonstrates that the children experienced some child‐centred activities in class. Some children said that they enjoyed doing these activities and

I: So, you like doing [hands‐on] activities as well? P: Yes, they’re not boring [pause]

I: Do they help you to learn the topics better? P: Yes.

I: Do they help you in the exam as well? P: Not really.

I: Why is that? P: Because exams do not have puzzles [pause] (Bazilah, Interview Phase 2)

Based on the children’s descriptions of the projects they do in class, active participation in these hands‐on activities did not require the use of higher‐order thinking or problem‐solving skills. Rather, projects such as experiments were part of the children’s workbook exercises in which questions were outlined for the children to answer accordingly. Hani explained as follows,

P: Umm no [pause] ah I like science [pause] err because umm [pause] it’s about being creative [pause] like [pause] we do stuff.

I: Can you give me examples of the stuff that you have done?

P: Like [pause] umm [pause] like [pause] experiments.

I: Can you give me examples of these experiments? P: Umm experiments like [pause] umm [pause] soluble stuff [pause] you

know when you put them in water [pause] like salt and sugar [pause] they disappear [pause] umm that’s all.

I: What else did you do while learning about stuff that are soluble? P: We put some sugar into a glass of water [pause] mixed them and then

we did a written exercise on it in the workbook [pause] (Hani, Interview Phase 1)

Learning as doing hands‐on activities was not evident in research related to university and secondary school students’ conceptions of learning. As briefly discussed in Chapter 2, the absence of learning as doing in British university and Australian secondary school students’ conceptions of learning may have been due to their capacity to distinguish between doing an activity and learning. Older groups of students, according to Marton et al. (1993), are able to understand that the learning process involves more complex activities such as thinking than merely doing hands‐on activities.

CONTRIBUTION TO CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT CHILDREN’S

CONCEPTIONS OF LEARNING

The findings of this study make a significant contribution to the empirical research literature, particularly to the field of children’s conceptions of learning. In this section, the current study is discussed in light of three studies conducted by Pramling (1983), Steketee (1997) and Klatter et al. (2001), which involved The findings of this study make a significant contribution to the empirical research literature, particularly to the field of children’s conceptions of learning. In this section, the current study is discussed in light of three studies conducted by Pramling (1983), Steketee (1997) and Klatter et al. (2001), which involved

Studies by Pramling (1983), Steketee (1997) and Klatter et al. (2001) were selected for three main reasons. First, these studies used a phenomenographic research approach to explore children’s conceptions of learning. Although studies conducted by Pramling (1983) and Klatter et al. (2001) used a combination of phenomenography and other methodologies to examine conceptions of learning held by children, both studies along with Steketee’s (1997) are the only studies to use phenomenography to explore children’s experiences of learning. Second, these studies share the aim of the current study, that is, to describe the qualitatively different ways in which learning is experienced by children. Third, all of these studies involved children between the ages of 3 and 11 years old.

A summary of similarities and differences between the three studies and the current study is presented in Table 15.

Table

15: Comparison of Pramling (1983), Steketee (1997) and Klatter et al. (2001) with the current study

Pramling (1983)

Steketee (1997)

Klatter et al. (2001)

Current study

Context: Sweden

Context: Brunei Setting: Preschool

Context: Australia

Context: The Netherlands

Setting: Government primary school Research approach:

Setting: Primary school

Setting: Primary school

Research approach: Phenomenography Phenomenography

Research approach: Phenomenography

Research approach: Phenomenography

Results: 3 conceptions of learning

Results: 6 conceptions of learning

Results: Children have clear‐cut beliefs

Results: 3 categories of description

about the following 5 aspects of

1. Learning as doing

learning: 1. Learning as acquiring information 2. Learning as knowing

1. Generic learning

2. Learning as physically doing

1. Purpose of schools

2. Learning as remembering information

3. Learning as understanding

3. Learning as knowing more things

2. Learning orientation

3. Learning as doing hands‐on

4. Learning as knowing harder things

3. Regulation

activities

5. Learning as searching for meaning

4. Learning demands

6. Learning as constructing new

5. Mental activities

understandings

In the sections that follow, similarities and differences between each study are discussed under the following headings:

Variation in conceptions across studies

Variation in interpretation of the term conception across studies

Variation in conception across studies

This section presents a comparative discussion on children’s experiences of learning. These learning experiences include: acquiring information and knowing; remembering and understanding; and, doing hands‐on activities and physically doing.

The category, learning as acquiring information, described in this study, is similar to Swedish preschool children’s conception of learning as knowing (Pramling, 1983) and Australian children’s conception of learning as knowing more things (Steketee, 1997). In Pramling’s (1983) study, the conception of learning as knowing refers to the children’s ideas about learning as adding to one’s knowledge about the world that surrounds them. Similarly, Australian children conceive of learning as knowing more things, which according to Steketee (1997), refers to the accumulation of information such that they increase their stores of knowledge. Learning is perceived by the children as a process in which they gain more information. The distinguishing feature of this learning experience is the focus on quantity rather

In contrast to Pramling’s (1983) and Steketee’s (1997) studies, the conception of learning as understanding was not discerned in the current study. In Pramling’s (1983) study, learning as understanding was the highest level conception of learning. Swedish children in Pramling’s (1983) study were able to describe learning as a process in which they have come to understand the meaning inherent in an activity. A similar experience was evident in Australian (Steketee, 1997) children’s conception of learning. Primary school children in Steketee’s (1997) study described learning as an experience in which they were able to understand the overall meaning of information.

Some children in the current Brunei study, however, used the term understanding to describe their ability to remember what they have learnt in class. Learning as remembering was not evident in Australian (Steketee, 1997) and Swedish (Pramling, 1983) children’s conceptions of learning. Primary school children in the current study were concerned with gaining good marks in examinations and there was no indication that the children in this study searched for an overall meaning of the information that was transmitted to them in class. While there were instances of learning as a sense‐making experience, more data was needed in this study to support the sense‐making experience as a category. The absence of learning as remembering in Australian (Steketee, 1997) and Swedish (Pramling, 1983) children’s

Likewise, context may account for the difference between conceptions of learning held by older groups of students and those held by children. Learning as doing was absent in university and secondary school students’ conceptions of learning (Säljö, 1979; Marton et al., 1993; Purdie, 1994). Pramling (1983) explained that the absence of learning as doing in university students’ conceptions of learning is context ‐related. For example, a young child needs to master basic skills such as writing as a learning task, but for a university student, writing is merely a physical ability that does not contribute to his or her knowledge. This category of description, therefore, confirms previous findings that argue the influence of educational context on students’ conceptions of learning. It can be argued that, educational context, therefore, may be influential in the ways in which children conceive of learning.

Learning as doing hands‐on activities is a conception which is similar to the Swedish (Pramling, 1983) children’s conception of learning as doing and, Australian (Steketee, 1997) children’s conception of learning as physically doing. Pramling (1983) and Steketee (1997) noted that children in their studies did not perceive learning as separate from doing. Learning as doing, according to preschool children

203

in Sweden (Pramling, 1983), refers to physically participating in an activity or merely doing something. Such a description is similar to what the children in Brunei were referring to when they described learning as doing hands‐on activities. In Steketee’s (1997) study, Australian children described learning as physically doing to signify their ability to do something (Steketee, 1997). According to Steketee (1997), the conception of learning as physically doing has an action orientation, with learning as physical participation in an activity. Physical participation can vary from carrying out a manual skill to the manipulation of materials in problem‐solving activities. The latter, however, does not necessarily reflect a constructivist perspective. The children’s descriptions of learning as doing hands‐on activities in this study, for example, indicated that there was no meaning‐making experience as

a result of doing experiments and projects. These hands‐on activities were carried out as part of their workbook exercise, in which, step‐by‐step instructions had been outlined. As such, the experience was limited to carrying out instructions rather than exploring concepts.

Variation in interpretation of the term conception across studies

The interpretation of the term conception varies across studies. Klatter et al. (2001) defined conception as ‘a multi‐dimensional construct, consisting of several beliefs …’ (p. 489). The term belief reflects a social psychology tradition (Sinatra & Dole, 1998) rather than a phenomenographical perspective. As mentioned previously, the term conception is commonly used to describe ways of experiencing a phenomenon in phenomenographic research. Therefore, Klatter et al.’s (2001)

Pramling’s (1983) and Steketee’s (1997) interpretations of the term conception reflect the psychological orientation that influenced early phenomenographic studies. In Pramling’s (1983) Swedish study, the term learning conceptions is used to describe the children’s ‘thoughts of’ and ‘ideas about’ learning (Pramling, 1983, pp. 83‐88). In contrast, the current study focuses on the children’s experiences of learning. Pramling (1983) focused on metacognitive processes and consciousness wherein the children’s ability to think about, and reflect on learning was stressed. Like Pramling (1983), Steketee (1997) focused on children’s thoughts of learning rather than the ways in which they experienced learning. The difference of focus and interpretation of the term conception distinguishes the current study from Pramling’s (1983) Swedish study and Steketee’s (1997) Australian study.

This section has discussed the contribution that this study makes to current understandings of children’s conceptions of learning in relation to three significant studies in the field, namely, those carried out by Pramling (1983), Steketee (1997) and Klatter et al. (2001). The study has also made a methodological contribution to the literature through the use of scenario‐based interviews.

METHODOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTION AND LIMITATIONS

In keeping with the tradition of phenomenographic research, this study used interviews to elicit data from children. An initial draft of interview questions (see Appendix 1) was pilot tested with two upper primary children in Brunei. Both pilot interviews elicited limited data from the children. Accordingly, the supervisory team and the researcher, with input from Professor Ference Marton, agreed to use

a scenario approach. The scenario approach helped the children to reflect on their own learning experiences and share these experiences with the researcher. Two scenario ‐based sets of questions were used in this study and both scenarios were constructed based on the children’s limited responses in both pilot interviews. The children’s limited responses were used to construct both scenarios to make sure that the scenarios were in line with the children’s actual learning experiences. Nevertheless, consideration could be given to the extent to which the scenario‐ based questions may have influenced the children’s responses.

This study is the first of its kind to use a scenario approach in phenomenographic interviews with children. The scenario‐based question is similar to the problem‐ based questions used in early Swedish phenomenographic studies to obtain data. Problem ‐based questions have also been used in recent phenomenographic research (see for example, Edwards, 2006). The benefit of using the scenario approach was that the children could relate their experiences of learning to the characters introduced in the scenarios. Each character had different ways of experiencing learning that ranged from ‘learning to play computer games at home

206

and in school’ (Scenario 1), ‘learning through listening, watching and doing work’ to ‘learning through doing experiments and projects’ (Scenario 2). These learning experiences were constructed using the children’s limited responses during pilot interviews. All learning experiences used in both scenarios (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2), therefore, were based on the children’s actual experiences of learning. Learning is quite an abstract concept for children to reflect on and share with others. This was evident throughout all pilot interviews where the children found it difficult to articulate their understandings of learning to the researcher. They were more comfortable with questions that asked ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions. Both scenarios provided more concrete experiences for the children to reflect on and share their experiences of learning with the researcher.

Apart from the abstract nature of learning as a phenomenon, one of the problems in getting the children to talk during both pilot interviews was that the children were not used to being asked questions about learning, even when asked by a researcher who spoke their Mother Tongue and a Brunei resident. They were reticent and seemed unsure with what to say to the researcher. Indeed, according to Zwiers and Morrissette (1999), gaining the perspective of children is often a challenge, and children may find it unusual to be asked to reflect on what they have experienced.

The scenario approach, however, enabled the children to comment on the characters’ learning experiences and, in so doing, the children became more open in

The influence of structural hierarchy on the children’s role and behaviour in school was evident during the interview. In a social background in which they are expected to conform to their elders’ expectations, the children have limited scope to reflect on their experiences and express their understandings about an aspect of their world. Despite using the scenario approach, the children’s responses were still limited. Probing for further clarification was particularly difficult as the children paused and repeated their responses. The following excerpt illustrates how difficult it was for the researcher to probe the children’s responses,

I: What is the kind of learning that you like best? P: Doing something. [Hands‐on] activities [pause]

I: Why is that? P: I like [hands‐on] activities, but it’s important to listen to our teachers

too [pause]

I: Because [pause]?

P: [Silence]

I: Can you tell me more about ‘doing something’? What do you mean by ‘doing something’? Can you give me examples?

P: [Hands‐on] activities [pause] like [pause] umm [pause] experimenting, looking at pictures, puzzles [pause]

(Gayah, Interview Phase 2)

While the scenarios could have provided a direction for the children’s responses during the interviews, leading questions were avoided and open‐ended probes were used to elicit responses from the children.

The findings are grounded in the data and the outcome space of this study reflects the researcher’s attempt at describing the children’s qualitatively different ways of learning as faithfully as possible. The researcher made a conscious decision to avoid moving too quickly from the data to an attempt to structure the data in a hierarchy. During the analytic process, the researcher set aside the assumption that the categories of description would be hierarchically related. Indeed, the categories of description were discussed with different groups of researchers (for example, the supervisory team, PhD colleagues and university based phenomenographers) before any attempt to outline a structure was made.

IMPLICATIONS

The result of this study is three categories of description depicting three qualitatively different ways in which a group of sixteen upper primary children

At the school level, support should be provided to teachers so that they are exposed to child‐centred learning. Exposure can include theories and ideologies of developmentally appropriate curriculum that complement the children’s needs as learners. This study has shown that the children’s conceptions of learning are influenced by the educational context that they are in, which are highly academic and focussed on children doing well in examinations. Teachers may hold quantitative conceptions of teaching and learning and there needs to be a way in which these conceptions can be focussed on child‐centred learning.

In Chapter 2, child‐centred learning and its significance in the 21st century was reviewed and highlighted. McCombs and Whisler (1997) assert that students who perceive their teachers as using child‐centred approach to teaching exhibit greater achievement and motivation. Schuh (2004) affirms that, obtaining students’ perceptions about their classroom provides value‐added quality in that they are often a better measure of child‐centredness than teacher perceptions (McCombs &

Quait, 2002). Schuh’s (2004) assertion highlights the contribution that this study makes to the current education context in Brunei.

At the level of teacher education, the findings of this study suggests that there is a significant need to address teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning and the impact of such conceptions on practice in schools. A comparison between teaching and learning conceptions held by teachers and those held by children may provide a better understanding of how teaching and learning can be further improved. Teacher education institutions need to introduce programmes that expose pre‐ service teachers to child‐centred approaches to teaching and learning and how these can be implemented effectively in an education system that is highly examination ‐oriented. For effective change to take place, teachers’ conceptions of teaching need to be in line with the learning conceptions espoused by the Ministry of Education. Bolhuis and Marinus (2004) argue that the required change in teacher role will be difficult to make when teachers’ conceptions of learning deviate from the new ideas of learning.

The result of this study suggests that the examination‐oriented education system may have a significant impact on the ways in which the children conceive of learning. In SPN 21, primary education will have a new curriculum, but PSA examination remains. Policy‐makers in Brunei instigating a new curriculum for primary education must consider the significant impact examination‐oriented education system has on the ways in which children experience learning. Focusing

Policy ‐makers and educators are often faced with conflicting views on education. Consultation with all stakeholders, including children, may help in reducing conflict. UNESCO (2003) has outlined several suggestions on how conflict can be reduced and these are:

Consultations between local level and central levels

Shared commitments (resources and tasks)

Produce more pragmatic information on curriculum change

Use simple language and terminology

Provide support in local contexts

Provide a network of local consultation, encourage the consolidation of ideas

Establish communication networks

Articulate roles of stakeholders

Train and motivate in management of curriculum change

Organise more in‐service training and teacher orientation on curriculum change

Distribution of training packages for diverse audiences, for example, management, curricula design, multimedia, public relations and leadership

Provide locally produced resources for teacher educators and teachers (e.g. reference libraries, books, videos, toys, journals)

These suggestions outlined by UNESCO (2003) imply that there needs to be a close collaboration between the Ministry of Education and other stakeholders (which include teacher educators, teachers, parents and students) in order to reduce conflicting views of education. The current study sheds light on children’s conceptions of learning in Brunei, and in so doing, provides valuable information on the qualitatively different ways in which learning is experienced by this group of children. Such information can be used by the Ministry of Education to design a curriculum that will encourage more complex and inclusive learning conceptions. The Ministry of Education can also involve teachers in government primary schools by providing leadership to overcome the reliance on teacher‐centred approaches, in line with the of SPN 21.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study has revealed various conceptions of learning held by this group of children. The study has offered valuable insights into the children’s experiences of learning, and has raised some significant issues. For further research, possible points that may provoke future studies include:

Memorisation: With or without understanding?

Listening: Active or passive listening?

Conceptions of learning held by children in non‐government (international) schools in Brunei

Conceptions of learning held by primary school teachers in Brunei

Memorisation: With or without understanding? The study has identified the need to explore the relationship between memorising

and understanding. The children in the study described remembering or memorisation as significant in order to do well in examinations. Previous research revealed that there are different types of memorising, namely: rote memorisation and meaningful memorisation (see for example, Entwistle & Entwistle, 2003; Kember, 1996; Marton et al., 2005; Mugler & Lanbeck, 2000). Further research into the type of memorisation practised by children in Brunei would therefore, be most illuminating.

Children in Brunei share similar ways of studying with Chinese students from neighbouring countries. These students are found to be mainly rote learners. However, Watkins and Biggs (1996) have written about the Paradox of Chinese Learners, in which CHC learners, although known as rote learners, perform academically well compared with their Western counterparts. Research found that the Chinese students have different approaches to learning and they used memorising in order to develop understanding. Watkins (2000) noted that ‘the mistake that many Western teachers make when they see a Chinese student memorising is to assume that they are rote learning’ (p. 165). His research,

Repetition plays a very important role amongst children in this study. Many of them emphasised that reading repeatedly is a way to remember or memorise information for the purpose of examination. In other studies such as Dahlin and Watkins (2000), repetition plays an important role in building understanding (Watkins, 2000, p. 165). Watkins (2000) stated that, ‘through in‐depth interviews with Western International school and Chinese system secondary school students in Hong Kong, they were able to show that Chinese students, unlike students in the Western countries, used repetition for two different purposes: first, to create a ‘deep impression’ and therefore with memorization, and second, repetition was used to deepen or develop new understanding by discovering new meaning’ (Watkins, 2000, p. 166). Western students tend to use repetition to check whether they had really remembered something (Watkins, 2000). These studies highlight the significance of memorisation in building understanding. Whether or not

Listening: Active or passive listening? The children in this study stressed the importance of listening in order to acquire

information. However, listening can be active and / or passive. Active listening or active listeners, according to Jacobs (1990), get involved with what they hear, which means that the information that they hear is comprehended and assimilated. Passive listeners, on the contrary, merely hear information without necessarily understanding information. Further research needs to examine whether the children in Brunei practice active or passive listening because the former has been found to have valuable impact on learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Fung, 2001). Moreover, when a child engages in active listening, his or her learning experience becomes more meaningful.

Conceptions of learning held by children in non‐government schools in Brunei This time of crucial change in the provision of educational services in Brunei offers a

unique opportunity for further phenomenographic research into children’s conceptions of learning. A comparison between children’s conceptions of learning in government and non‐government (international) schools, for example, would provide a better understanding of learning in Brunei. Such study would provide an overall view of the children’s experiences of learning in two different contexts and strengthen the significance of the current study.

Conceptions of learning held by primary schools teachers in Brunei There is a significant need to investigate how primary school teachers in Brunei

experience learning as previous studies have found strong links between teachers’ conceptions of learning and approaches to teaching (see for example, Campbell et al., 2000; Dart et al., 1999, 2000). This type of research would shed light on what learning means to these teachers and how their conceptions relate to the ways in which they approach teaching. Teachers’ own views about learning affect the ways in which they teach, which, in turn, has an effect on student learning. This link between teachers’ views or conceptions of learning, their approaches to teaching and student learning is very important given that the quality of student learning experiences is the ultimate goal of education (Biggs, 1999; 2003). In addition, factors that may influence teachers’ choices in using teacher‐centred approach to teaching could be explored further through studies that investigate teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching. It is anticipated that results from such study would provide ideas for how to incorporate teacher‐centred and child‐centred teaching methods in government schools in Brunei to encourage qualitative conceptions of learning and deep approaches to learning without jeopardising the society’s culture and tradition.

CONCLUSION

Conceptions of learning represent ways in which learning is experienced. This study has provided insights into the ways in which a number of children experienced

217

learning in government schools in Brunei. The findings of this study have shown that the children held a range of quantitative learning conceptions and these conceptions were framed by the cultural and pedagogical context in which the study took place. The children’s conceptions of learning reflect the Islamic values and beliefs of the Malay Islamic Monarchy philosophy practised by the Malay Muslim community in Brunei. These values and beliefs include obedience (as a sign of respect for elders) and compliance (adhering to the rules and regulations set out in the absolute Monarchy system). It is possible that qualitative experiences of learning such as understanding, sense‐making or meaning‐making were not discernable in the data for these reasons. In this way, the current study provides a better understanding of the ways in which the children experienced learning. Such understanding can assist policy‐makers and teachers to design teaching and learning experiences that are more child‐centred and, therefore, more in keeping with the policy direction espoused by the Ministry of Education.

This study has shown that the incorporation of children’s views of learning is both conceptually sound and practically useful for educational reform and practice. By giving the children an opportunity to share their views on learning experiences in government schools in Brunei, the current study contributes to a more child‐ centred approach and, thereby, makes an important contribution to the Ministry of Education’s effort to improve primary education provision.

Primary education is a critical phase in a child’s schooling career as it sets the foundation for future academic success. The provision of quality primary education is a high priority in Brunei and this study provides a strong empirical evidence base for advancing this priority both now and into the future.

References

Adawi, T., Berglund, A., Booth, S., & Ingerman, A. (2002). On context in phenomenographic research on understanding heat and temperature. Revised paper presented at EARLI 2001, Fribourg, Switzerland, 2001. Submitted to Learning & Instruction.

Aghion, P., Caroli, E., & Garcia‐Penalosa, C. (1999). Inequality and economic growth:

The perspective of the new growth theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1615 ‐1660.

Ainscow, M., & Muncey, J. (1998). Meeting individual needs: Studies in Primary Education. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Aisah, Y., Ebbeck, M., Asmah, M., & Rosberg, M. (1995). Child‐rearing study in Brunei Darussalam. Unpublished paper, Universiti Brunei Darussalam.

Akerlind,

G. (2005). Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis and the qualitative research paradigm. In J.A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Developmental Phenomenography (pp. 63‐73). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Akerlind, G., Bowden, J. A., & Green, P. (2005). Learning to do phenomenography: A reflective discussion. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing Developmental Phenomenography (pp. 74‐100). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Akerlind, G.S. (2007). Constraints on academics’ potential for developing as a teacher: Variation in meaning, Studies in Higher Education, 32, 21‐37.

Alderson, P. (2005). Designing ethical research with children. In A. Farrell (Ed.).

Exploring ethical research with children (pp. 27‐36). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Alverson, M. (1988). Under African Sun. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Anderson, J. (1976). Language, memory and thought. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Anderson, J. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. In American

Psychologist, 51(4), 355‐365. Anderson, J., & Bower, G. (1973). Human Associative Memory. Washington DC:

Winston. Apple, M. W. (1995). Education and power (Second edition). London: Routlegde. Aroni, R., & Goeman, D. (1999). Concepts of rigour: When methodological, clinical and

ethical issues interact. AQR, 2000. Ashworth, P. D. (1999). ‘Bracketing’ in phenomenology: Renouncing assumptions in

hearing about student cheating. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12, 702‐722.

Ashworth, P.D., & Lucas, U. (1998). What is the ‘world’ of phenomenography?. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 415‐431.

Ashworth, P.D & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving empathy and engagement: a practical

approach to the design, conduct and reporting of phenomenographic research. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 295‐308.

Asmah, M. (2001). The quality of preschool education in Brunei Darussalam. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Exeter, United Kingdom.

Atherton, J. S. (2005). Learning and teaching: Behaviourism. Retrieved April 17, 2007. From http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/behaviour.htm

Attwood, J., & Bray, M., 1989. Wealthy but small and young: Brunei Darussalam and its education system. Education Research and Perspectives, 16(1).

Australian Health Ethics Committee / National Health and Medical Research Council

(2003). National statement for the Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans. Canberra: AHEC.

Ausubel,

D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grunne and Stratton.

Ausubel,

D. P., Novak, J. S., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Au, C., & Entwistle, N. (1999). Memorisation with understanding' in approaches to

studying: Cultural variant or response to assessment demands? Proceedings of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Conference, August 1999, Gothenburg.

Baker, T. L. (1994). Doing social research (Second edition). New York: McGraw‐Hill Inc. Ballantyne, R., Thompson, R., & Taylor, P. (1994). Principals’ conceptions of competent

beginning teachers. In R. Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.), Phenomenography: Philosophy and practice. Proceedings of the 1994 Phenomenography Conference (pp. 23‐45). Brisbane: Centre for Applied Environmental and Social Education Research, Queensland University of Technology.

Barro, R. J. (1997). Corruption and development: A review of the issues. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 1320‐1346.

Bateson,

G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Benware,

C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755‐765.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal or instruction. In L.

B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 361‐392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berry, J., & Sahlberg, P. (1996). Investigating pupils’ ideas of learning. Learning and Instruction, 6, 19‐36.

Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study process and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381‐394.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorn, Victoria.

Biggs, J. (1990). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong

Kong: Some comparative studies. Seventh Annual Conference of the Hong Kong Educational Research Association, University of Hong Kong.

Biggs, J. (1993). ‘What do inventories of students’ learning process really measure?' A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 3‐

19. Biggs, J. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian‐heritage learning culture. In

Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (Eds.), The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and contextual influences (pp.45‐68). Hong Kong: Centre for Comparative Research in Education / Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. (2000). Teaching for quality learning at university. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: OUP. Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two‐factor study process

questionnaire: R‐SPQ‐2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133‐149. Biggs, J. B., & Moore, P. (1993). The process of learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Biggs, J. B., & Watkins, D. A. (1993). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and

contextural influences. Melbourne and Hong Kong: Australian Council for Educational Research and the Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

Blishen,

E. (Ed.) (1969). The school that I’d like. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Blundell, R., Dearden, L., Meghir, C., & Sianesi, B. (1999). Human capital investment: The returns from education and training to the individual, the firm and the economy. Fiscal Studies, 20(1), 1‐23.

Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bonwell,

C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE‐ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Booth, S. (1997). On phenomenography, teaching and learning. In Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 135‐158.

Boulton ‐Lewis, G. M., Marton, F., Lewis, D., & Wills, L. (2004). A longitudinal study of learning for a group of Indigenous Australian university students: Dissonant conceptions and strategies. In Higher Education, 47, 91‐112.

Boulton ‐Lewis, G. M., Wills, L., & Lewis, D. C. (2001). Changes in conception of learning for Indigenous Australian university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 327‐341).

Bowden, J. (1994). Experience of phenomenographic research: A personal account. In

J. Bowden and E. Walsh. (Eds.), Phenomenographic research: Variations in method (pp. 44‐55). Melbourne, RMIT: EQARD.

Bowden, J.A. (1995). Phenomenographic research: some methodological issues. Nordisk Pedaggogik, 15(3), 144‐155.

Bowden, J. A. (1996). Phenomenographic research: Some methodological issues. Educational Sciences, 109, 49‐66.

Bowden, J. A., & Green, P. (2005). Doing phenomenography (Qualitative research methods series). Melbourne, Vic: RMIT Publishing.

Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning. Kogan Page. Bowden, J. A., & Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenography (Qualitative research methods

series). Melbourne: RMIT University Press. Bransford, J. D., & Brown, A. L. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and

school. Washington DC: The National Academy Press. Brew,

A. (2001). Conceptions of research: A phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 271‐285.

Bright, th M. (1997). The schools children want, Observer Review, 12 January, p. 5. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, B. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria,

VI: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Browne ‐Miller, A. (1994). Learning to learn: Ways to nurture your child's intelligence.

NY and London: Insight Books, Plenum Press. Brown, S., & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing learners in Higher Education. London: Kogan

Page. Bruce,

C. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide, Australia: Auslib Press.

Bruce, C., & Gerber, R. (1994). Towards university lecturers conceptions of student

learning. In R. Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.), Phenomenography: Philosophy and practice. Proceedings of the 1994 Phenomenography Conference (pp. 57‐70). Brisbane: Centre for Applied Environmental and Social Education Research, Queensland University of Technology.

Bruce, C., McMahon, C., Buckingham, L., Hynd, J., & Roggenkamp, M., (2003). Ways of experiencing the act of learning to program: A phenomenographic study of introductory programming students at university. Unpublished Final Report, February 2003, Australia: QUT.

Brunei st Forum (2008). Human resource development for the challenges of the 21 century: The role of education in Brunei Darussalam. Address presented at the

Institute of South east Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore. Retrieved October 15, 2008. From http://www.moe.edu.bn/web/moe/resources/speeches

Brunei Press (2005, December 13). 10th Conference on English in South East Asia. The Borneo Bulletin. Bandar Seri Begawan.

Brunei Press (2006). About Brunei. Retrieved March 1, 2006. From http://www.bruneipress.com.bn/brunei/brunei.html

Brunei Press (2006, November 29). New education system for brighter future. The Borneo Bulletin. Bandar Seri Begawan.

Burke, C., & I. Grosvenor (2003). The school I'd like: Children and young people's reflections on an education for the 21st century. London: Routledge Falmer.

Burnett, P. C., Pilay, H., & Dart, B. C. (2003). The influences of conceptions of learning

and learner self‐concept on high school students’ approaches to learning. In School psychology International, 24(1), 54‐66.

Burns, R. & Upex, S. (2002) Education in Brunei Darussalam. In T. Clayton (Ed.),

Education and social change in South East Asia: From colonialism to ASEAN. New York: Falmer / Garland.

Butler, I., & Williamson, H. (1994). Children speak: Trauma and social work. Essex, England: Longman.

Candy, P. (1991). Self‐direction for lifelong learning. San Fransisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers.

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1992). Assertive discipline: Positive behaviour management for today's classroom. California: Lee Canter and Associates.

Carlile, O., & Jordan, A. (2005). It works in practice but will it work in theory? The theoretical underpinnings of pedagogy. In S. Moore, G. O’Neill & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.

Carlsson ‐Paige, N., & Lantieri, L. (2005). A changing vision of education. In Reclaiming Children & Youth, Summer 2005, 14(2), 97‐103.

Centre for British Teachers (2006). Teaching in Brunei. Retrieved March 9, 2006. From http://brunei.cfbt.org/bn

Chambers,

E. (1992). Workload and the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 17(2), 316‐330.

Chan, K. (2003). Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning. Research in Education, 69, 36‐50.

Chapman, D., & Adams, D. (2002). The quality of education: Dimensions and strategies. The Asian Development Bank / Hong Kong. Manila, Comparative Education Research Centre, the University of Hong Kong.

Chalmers, D., & Fuller, R. (1996). Teaching for learning at University. Theory and practice. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Charleston, R. (1998). Implementing a developmental perspective of learning in the first year of school: Brunei Darussalam. Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, November 29‐December 3, 1998, North Terrace Adelaide.

Cobb, P. (1999). Where is the mind? In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, learning and assessment. London: Open University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007) Research methods in education (Seventh edition). London: Routledge.

Cope,

C. (2002). Using analytical framework of a structure of awareness of to establish validity and reliability in phenomenographic research. Proceedings of the Current

Issues in Phenomenographic Symposium. Canberra: CEDAM, Australian national University.

Cope,

C. (2004). Ensuring validity and reliability in phenomenographic research using the analytical framework of a structure of awareness. In Qualitative Research Journal, 4(2), 5‐18.

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (2001). Large classes in China: ‘Good’ teachers and interaction.

Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives. Hong Kong: CERC.

Courtney, J. (2008). Do monitoring and evaluation tools, designed to measure improvement in the quality of primary education, constrain or enhance educational development? International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 546‐559.

Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). University mathematics

students’ conceptions of mathematics. Studies in Higher Education, 23(1), 87‐94. Cresswell, J.W. (1994). Research Design. Qualitative and quantitative approaches

(Second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cresswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the

research process. Australia: Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd. Curro,

G. (2003). Teaching the Chinese Learner. Issues in teaching and Learning at JCU, 1(2).

Dahlgren, L. O. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of content‐ oriented guidance. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Dahlgren, L. O., & Fallsberg, M. (1991). Phenomenography as a qualitative approach in social pharmacy research. Journal of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 8(4), 150‐ 157.

Dahlin, B., & Watkins, D. (2000). The role of repetition in the process of memorising and understanding: A comparison of the views of German and Chinese secondary school students in Hong Kong. British Journal of Education Psychology, 70, 65‐84.

Dall'Alba, G., & Hasselgren, B. (1997). Reflections on phenomenography: Toward a methodology? Goteborg, Sweden, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Dart,

B. (1997). Adult learners’ metacognitive behaviour in higher education. In P. Sutherland (Ed.), Adult learning: A reader (pp. 30‐43). London: Kogan Page.

Dart,

B. (1998). Teaching for improved learning in small classes. In B. Dart & G. Boulton ‐Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 222‐249). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Dart,

B.C, Burnett, P. C., Purdie, N., Boulton‐Lewis, G., Campbell, J., & Smith, D. (2000).

Influences of students’ conceptions of learning and the classroom environment on approahces to learning. In Journal of Educational Research, 93, 262‐272.

Dart,

B. C., Burnett, P. C., Purdie, N., Boulton‐Lewis, G., Campbell, J., & Smith, D. (2001). Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. In International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277‐300.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2003). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Derebssa,

D. S. (2006). Tensions between traditional and modern teaching‐learning

approaches in Ethiopian primary schools. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 9(1), 123‐140.

Donaldson, M. (1984). Children’s minds. London: Fontana. Doverborg, E., & Pramling, I. (1996). Learning and development in early children

education. Sweden: Liber. Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery

processes. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109‐143). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Erlbaum.

Eckerdal, A., (2006). Novice students’ learning of object‐oriented programming. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Department of Information Technology.

Eklund ‐Myrskog, G. (1998). Students’ conceptions of learning in different educational contexts. Higher Education, 35(3), 299‐316.

Eley, M.G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23, 231‐254.

Ellington,

H. (1987). How to design programmed learning materials. In Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 12, 4‐24.

Emerson,

A. (1993). Teaching media in the primary school. London: Cassell. Entwistle,

H. (1970). Child‐centred education. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd. Entwistle, N. J. (1987). A model of the teaching learning process. In J. T .E. Richardson,

M. W. Eyesenck and D. Warren Piper (Eds.), Student learning research in education and cognitive psychology. London: SRHE / Open University Press.

Entwistle, N. (1997a). Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in Higher Education. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Entwistle, N. (1997b). Introduction: Phenomenography in Higher Education. In Higher Education Research and Development, 16(2), 127‐ 134.

Entwistle, N. (1998). Conceptions of learning, understanding and teaching in higher education. Retrieved March 12, 2006. From http://www.scre.ac.uk/fellow/fellow98/entwistle.html

Entwistle, N. J. (2000). Approaches to studying and levels of understanding: The influences of teaching and assessment. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, xv, 156‐218.

Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, D. (2003). Preparing for Examinations: The interplay of memorising and understanding, and the development of knowledge objects. Higher Education Research and Development, 22, 19‐41.

Entwistle, N., & Peterson, E. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. In International Journal of Education Research, 41, 407‐428.

Entwistle N. J., & Ramsden P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

Erickson,

F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 119‐161). New York: MacMillan.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215 ‐251.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivsm, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an Instructional Design perspective. In Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50‐72.

Farrell,

A. (2005). Ethical Research with Children. Milton Keynes, UK, Open University Press / McGraw‐Hill.

Framsson,

A. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning: IV. Effects of intrinsic

motivation and extrinsic test anxiety on process and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 244‐257.

Francis,

H. (1996). Advancing phenomenography: Questions of method. In G. Dall'Alba &

B. Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography: Toward a methodology? (Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences No.109). Gothenburg, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London: Sage.

Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (Fourth edition). New York: CBS College Publishing.

Gagnon,

G. W., & Collay, M. (2006). Constructivist learning design. Retrieved March

30, 2006. From http://prainbow.com/cld/cldp.html Geddes, J. B. (1997). Childhood and children: A compendium of customs, superstitions,

theories, profiles and facts. Arizona: Oryx Press. Gemmell, N. (1995). Endogenous growth, the Solow model and human capital.

Economics of Planning, 28, 169‐183. Gemmell, N. (1996). Evaluating the impacts of human capital stocks and accumulation

on economic growth: Some new evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 58, 9‐28.

Gibbs,

G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: Technical & Educational Services.

Gibbs,

G. (1999). Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn. In S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education (61‐74), Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Gibbs, G., Morgan, A., & Taylor, E. (1982). A review of the research of Ference Marton

and the Goteborg Group: A phenomenological research perspective on learning. Higher Education, 11(2), 123‐145.

Gillard,

D. (2005). ‘The Plowden Report’, the encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved March 10, 2006. From www.infed.org/schooling/plowden_report.html

Ginsburg,M. (2006). Challenges to promoting active learning, student‐centred pedagogies. EQUP1LWA.

Giorgi,

A. (1986). A phenomenological analysis of descriptions of concepts of learning obtained from a phenomenographic perspective. Publikationer fran institutionen for pedagogic, 18.

Giorgi,

A. (1991). Phenomenography (Terminology). Retrieved August 5, 2007. From, http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/civil/main/firstidea.html

Glesne,

G. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Longman.

Goodnow, J. J. (1991). Cognitive values and educational practice. In J. B. Biggs (Ed.), Teaching for learning: The view from cognitive psychology. Hawthorn, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L.E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A

theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 1‐30.

Gordon, M., & Cantwell, R. H. (1998). Developing understanding: international student explanations of how they learn. Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference, Adelaide.

Gothenburg University, Institute of Education, (1975). The Goteborg Project on Non‐ Verbatim Learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational rd Research Association, Washington D.C., March 30 ‐ April 3 , 1975. Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods and

th

ethics. London: Sage.

Gravoso, R. S., Pasa, A. E., & Mori, T. (2002). Influence of students’ prior learning experiences, learning conceptions and approaches on their learning outcomes. Proceedings of HERDSA.

Green, P. (2005). A rigorous journey into phenomenography: From a naturalistic inquirer viewpoint. In J.A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Developmental Phenomenography (pp. 32‐46). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Grisay, A., & Mahlck, L. (1991). The quality of education in developing countries: A

review of some research studies and policy documents. Paris: International Institute of Educational Planning.

Guba,

E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75‐91.

Guba,

E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Guba,

E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Guba,

E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105‐117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gurwitsch,

A. (1964). The field of consciousness. Pittsburgh: Duquense University Press.

Gylfasson, T. (2001). Natural resources, education and economic development. European Economic Review, 45, 847‐859.

Haddad, W., Carnoy, M., Rinaldi, R., & Regel, O. (1990). Education and development: Evidence for new priorities. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Hammersley, M. (2000). The relevance of qualitative research. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3 and 4), 393‐405.

Hanapi, M. (2006). Promoting creativity in early childhood education in Brunei. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Western Australia, Australia.

Hanushek,

E. A., & Wößmann, L. (2007). The role of education quality in economic growth. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4122.

Hawes, H., & Stephens, D. (Eds.). (1990). Questions of quality: Primary education and development. Essex: Longman.

Harnard, S. (1982). Neoconstructivism: A unifying theme for the cognitive sciences. In

T. Simon and R. Scholes (Eds.), Language, mind and brain, (pp. 1‐11). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography ‐ A ‘good‐for‐nothing brother’ of phenomenology? Retrieved March 30, 2006. From http://www./biorn/constr/goodno2.html

Hess, R. D., & Azuma, H. (1991). Cultural support for schooling: Contrasts between Japan and the United States. Educational Research, 20(9), 2‐8.

Hildebrand, G., Mulcahy, D., & Wilks, S. (2001). Learning to teach through PBL: Process and Progress. Proceedings of the Australian Teacher Education Association Conference, Melbourne.

Hounsell,

D. (1997). Contrasting conceptions of essay‐writing. In Marton, F., Hounsell,

D., & Entwistle, N. (Eds.), The experience of learning (Second edition). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Huitt, W. (2003). Constructivism. In Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved January 18, 2008. From http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/construct.html

International Baccalaureate (2008). Primary years programme (Curriculum framework). Retrieved December 19, 2008. From http://www.ibo.org/pyp/curriculum/

Iran ‐Nejad, A. (1990). Active and dynamic self‐regulation of learning processes. Review of Educational Research, 60, 573‐602.

Ireland (1971). The primary teacher's handbooks (Volumes 1 and 2). Dublin: Government Publications office.

Irvin, L. (2005). Using theories of awareness to strengthen phenomenographic analysis. The International Journal of Learning, 12(4), 284‐292.

Irvine, S. (2005). Parent conceptions of their role in early childhood education and care:

A phenomenographic study from Queensland and Australia. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.

Johansson, B., Marton, F., & Svensson, L. (1985). An approach to describing learning as

change between qualitatively different conceptions. In A. L. Pines, & L. H. T. West (Eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, New York: Academic Press.

Jones,

C. (2004). Quantitative and qualitative research: conflicting paradigms or perfect partners? In S. Banks, P. Goodyear, V. Hodgsons, C. Jones, V. Lally, D. McConnell & C. Steeples (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 106‐113). Lancaster: Lancaster University & University of Sheffield.

Kelly, L. (2000). Understanding conceptions of learning. CERG. Kember,

D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: another approach to learning? Higher Education, 31, 341‐354.

Kember,

D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into academics’ conceptions of teaching. In Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255‐275.

Kember,

D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40(1), 99‐121.

Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay, J., & Stott, V. (1997). Evaluating the

effectiveness of educational innovations: Using the study process questionnaire to

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1990). Cultural specificity of approaches to study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 356‐363.

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1991). A challenge to the anecdotal stereotype of the Asian learner. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 117‐128.

Kember, D., Wong, A., & Leung, D. (1999). Reconsidering the dimensions approach to learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 323‐343.

Kershner, R., & Pointon, P. (2000). Children’s views of the primary classroom as an environment for working and learning. Research in Education, 64, 64‐77.

Kirby, P., Lanyon, C., Cronin, K., & Sinclair, R. (2003). Building culture of participation: Involving children and young children in policy service planning, delivery and evaluation. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Kitson, R. (2004). Starting school in Brunei: Listening to children, parents and teachers. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(2), 236‐242.

Klahr,

D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Knapper,

C. K. (1995). Approaches to study and lifelong learning: Some Canadian

initiatives. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning through assessment and evaluation, Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigour in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. In The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214‐222.

Kroksmark, T. (1987). Fenomenografisk didaktik. Unpublished thesis, Acta Universitatis

Gothoburgesis, Goteborg. Online translation. Retrieved August 3, 2007. From, http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/civil/faq/etymol.html.

Kuhn,

D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674 ‐689.

Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference. Journal of Cognition and Development, 5, 261‐288.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Laurillard,

D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. Routledge: London.

Laurillard,

D. (1997). Styles and approaches in problem‐solving. In F. Marton, D.

Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in

the Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25‐42). Hong Kong: CERC and ACER.

Lewis, A., & Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching children’s perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Li, J. (2003). US and Chinese beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 1‐15.

Lidstone, J. (2006). Qualitative research (Lecture notes for EDN612). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage publications. Locsin, R. C., Barnard, A., Matua, A. G., & Bongomin, B. (2003). Surviving Ebola:

Understanding experience through artistic expression. In International Nursing Review, 50(3), 156‐166.

Lockheed, M., & Hanushek, E. A. (Eds.). (1987). Improving the efficiency of education in

developing countries: A review of the evidence. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Loyens, S., Rikers, R., & Schmidt, H. (2007). Students’ conceptions of distinct

constructivist assumptions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(2), 179 ‐199.

Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3‐42.

Lybeck, L., Marton, F., Stromdahl, H., & Tullberg, A. (1988). The phenomenography of

the “mole concept” in chemistry. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning : New perspectives (pp. 81‐108). London: Kogan page.

Majeed, A., B., Fraser, J., & Aldridge, J. (2001). Junior Secondary Mathematics Student's

Learning Environment and Satisfaction in Brunei Darussalam. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Western Australia.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Marton,

F. (1974a). Inlarning och studiefardighet [Study skills and learning; in Swedish]. Rapporter fran Pedagogiska institutionen. Goteborgs Universitet.

Marton,

F. (1974b). Some effects of content‐neutral instructions on non‐verbatim learning in a natural setting. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 18, 199‐ 208.

Marton,

F. (1975). On non‐verbatim learning, I: Level of processing and level of outcome. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 16, 273‐279.

Marton,

F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177‐200.

Marton,

F. (1984). Towards a psychology beyond the individual. In K. M. J. Lagerspertz & P. Niemi (Eds.), Psychology in the 1990’s (pp. 45‐72). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Marton,

F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28‐49.

Marton,

F. (1988). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. In R. R. Sherman & R. B. Webbs (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Education: Focus and Methods. London: Falmer Press.

Marton,

F. (1992). The phenomenography of learning: A qualitative approach to

educational research and some of its implications for didactics. In Learning and Instruction, 2(1), 601‐616.

Marton,

F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 4424‐4429). Oxford: Pergamon.

Marton,

F. (1998). Towards a theory of quality in higher education. In B. Dart & G.

Boulton ‐Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 177‐200). Camberwell, Vic., Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Marton,

F. (2000). The structure of awareness. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography, (pp. 102‐116). Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1996). The learner’s experience of learning. In D. Olsen & N.

Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 534‐563). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Limited.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 277‐300.

Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Tse, L. K. (1992). Solving the paradox of the Asian learner.

Proceedings of the Fourth Asian Regional Congress of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Tse, L. K. (1996). Memorising and understanding: the keys to the paradox? In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 69‐83). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and the Australian Council for Educational Research.

Marton, F., Hounsell, D. J., & Entwistle, N. J. (Eds.). (1997). The experience of learning (Second edition). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Marton, F., & Pang, M. (1999). Two faces of variation. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference for Learning and Instruction, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Marton, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. In Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 334‐348.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4‐11.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning: II. Outcome as a function of the elarner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115‐127.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N.

Entwistle (Eds.), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Marton, F., & Trigwell, K. (2000). Variatio Est Mater Studiorum. Higher Education

Research & Development, 19(3), 381‐395. Marton, F., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Marton, F., Watkins, D., & Tang, C. (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the

experience of learning: An interview study of high‐school students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instruction, 7, 21‐48.

Marton, F., Wen, Q., & Nagle, A. (1996). Views on learning in different cultures.

Comparing patterns in China and Uruguay. Anales de Psicologia, 12(2), 123‐132. Marton, F., & Wenestam, C. G. (1978). Qualitative differences in the understanding and

retention of the mainpoint in some texts based on the principle‐example structure. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykess (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 633‐643). London: Academic Press.

Marton, F., Wen, Q.F., & Wong, K.C. (2005). “Read a hundred times and the meaning will appear...” Changes ini Chinese university students’ view of the temporal structure of learning. Higher Education, 49, 291‐318.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching (Second edition). London: Sage Publications. Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research designs: An interactive approach. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research (A philosophic and

practical approach). London: The Falmer Press. McCune, V., & Entwistle, N.J. (1999). First year students’ perceptions of course work

outcomes. In C. Rust (Ed.). Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning Outcomes, pp. 216‐226. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

McCombs,

B. L., & Quait, M. A. (2002). What makes a comprehensive school reform model learner‐centred? In Urban Education, 37(4), 476‐496.

McCombs,

B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner‐centered classroom and school. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.

McLean, M. (2001). Can we relate conceptions of learning to student academic achievement. In Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 399‐413.

Menon,

G. (2008). Active‐learning pedagogies‐policy, professional development and classroom practices – A case study of two post‐conflict contexts: Afghanistan and Somaliland. Retrieved February 22, 2009. From http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADM719.pdf

Meyer, J. H. F. (1998). Variation in student learning: A basis for improving teaching and

learning. In B. Black and N. Stanley (Eds.), Teaching and learning in changing times (pp. th 214‐222). Proceedings of the 7 Annual Teaching Learning Forum, the

University of Western Australia, February 1998. Perth: UWA. Meyer, J. H. F., & Boulton‐Lewis, G. M. (1997). The association between university

students’ perceived influences on their learning and their knowledge, experience and conceptions, of learning. Proceedings of the Seventh EARLI Conference, Athens.

Ministry of Education (2005). Government Primary School Statistics: November 2005. Bandar Seri Begawan: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (2007a). Institutions (Government Institutions). Retrieved August

21, 2007. From http://www.moe.edu.bn/Pages/institutions/inst1.html. Ministry of Education (2007b). The Ministry of Education Strategic Plan 2007‐2011.

Brunei: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education (2008). Student‐centred learning pedagogy and experiential

learning th workshop, 20 August 2008, Brunei Darussalam. Retrieved, 28 August, 2008. From http://www.moe.edu.bn/web/moe/news/2008/August/20th

Morgan,

A. (1993). Improving your students’ learning: Reflections on the experience of study. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Morgan, A., & Beaty, L. (1997). The world of the learner. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (Second Edition). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Morgan,

G. (1992). Children are clients: What have primary pupils got to say about

equal opportunities?. In Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 20(3), 193‐197.

Morrow,

V. (2005). Ethical issues in collaborative research with children. In A. Farrell (Ed.), Ethical research with children. New York: Open University press.

Moustakas,

C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. London: Sage. Mugler, F., & Landbeck, R. (1995). The meanings of learning for students at the

University of the South Pacific: A pilot study. Paper presented at the 6th EARLI Conference, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, August 26 ‐ 31.

Newbie, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). Learning styles and approaches. In J. Bowden (Ed.), Student Learning. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.

Newstead, S. E. (1992). A study of two quick and easy methods of assessing individual

differences in student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 299‐ 312.

Oliver,

D. G., Serovich, J, M., & Mason, T. L. (2005). Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. In Soc Forces, 84(2), 1273‐1289.

O'Sullivan, M. (2006). Lesson observation and quality in primary education as

contextual teaching and learning processes. International Journal of Educational Development, 26, 246‐260.

Osman, N. (2005). Children’s perceptions of school. In J. Mason, & T. Fattore (Eds.), Children taken seriously: In theory, policy and practice. London, Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

Otsuka, S. (1996). Why do Asians do well at school? Retrieved March 10, 2006. From http://www.otago.ac.nz/DeepSouth/vol2no1/setsuo.html#intro.

Pandey, P., & Zimitat, C. (2005). Student learning of anatomy. Proceedings of HERDSA‐ 2005, Sydney, Australia.

Pang, M. F. (2003) Two faces of Variation‐ On continuity in the phenomenographic movement, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 145‐156.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (Second edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Perkins,

D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6‐

11. Piaget, J. (1978). Piaget's theory of intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. Pillay, H., Purdie, N., & Boulton‐Lewis, G. (2000). Investigating cross‐cultural variations

in conceptions of learning and the use of self‐regulated strategies. In Educational Journal, 28(1), 65‐84.

Poland,

B. (2002). Transcription quality. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research. Sage Publications.

Pollard, A., & Tiggs, P. (2000). What pupils say: Changing policy and practice in primary education. London, Continuum.

Pollard, A., Thiessen, D., & Filer, A. (1997). Children and their curriculum: The

perspectives of primary and elementary school children. London Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Pong, W.Y. (1999). The dynamics of Awareness. Paper presented at the

Paperedpresented at the 8th European Conference for Learning and Instruction, August 24‐28, 1999, Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden.

Pramling,

I. (1983). The child’s conceptions of learning. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Pramling,

I. (1995). Phenomenography and practice. New Zealand of Educational Studies, 30(2), 135‐148.

Pramling, I., & Thylander, G. (1990). Learning to learn: A study of Swedish preschool children. New York: Springer‐Verlag.

Prosser, M. (1994). Some experiences of using phenomenographic research

methodology in the context of research in teaching and learning. In J. Bowden and

E. Walsh (Eds.), Understanding Phenomenographic Research: The Warburton Symposium, (pp. 31‐43). Melbourne, RMIT: EQARD.

Prosser, M. (2000). Using phenomenographic research methodology in the context of research in teaching and learning. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Prosser, M. & Millar, R. (1989). The how and what of learning physics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4(4), 513‐528.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham: OUP.

Purdie, N. (1994). What do children think ‘learning’ is and how do they do it? A cross‐ cultural comparison. Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Newcastle, Australia.

Purdie, N., & Hattie, J. (2002). Assessing students’ conceptions of learning. In Australian Journal of Educational and Development Psychology, 2, 17‐32.

Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their

use of self‐regulated learning strategies: A cross‐cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87‐100.

Putnam,

H. (1998). Pragmatism and realism. In M. Dickstein (Ed.), The revival of pragmatism, (pp. 37‐53). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Ramsden, P. (1988). Studying learning: Improving teaching. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives, (Ch.2, pp.13‐31). London: Kogan Page.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in Higher Education. New York: Routledge. Ramsden, nd P. (2003). Learning to teach in Higher Education (2 Edition). New York:

Routledge. Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2002). Students’ conceptions of statistics: A phenomenographic

study. In Journal of Statistics, 10(2), at www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v10n2/reid.html

Reid, A., Smith, G. H., Wood, L. N. and Petocz, P. (2005). Intention, approach and

outcome: University mathematics students’ conceptions of learning mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 567–586.

Reynolds, P. D. (1979). Ethical dilemmas and social science research: An analysis of

moral issues confronting investigators in research using human participants. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.

Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenography. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53 ‐ 82.

Richardson, T. (2005). Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education. In Educational Psychology, 25(6), 673‐680.

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage Publications.

Rivlin, L. G., & Weinstein, C. S. (1995). Educational issues, school settings and environmental psychology. In C. Spencer. (Ed.), Readings in environmental psychology: The child’s environment. London: Academic Press.

Robson,

C. (1993). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rolfe,

G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. In Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(333), 304‐310.

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London: Sage.

Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R., & Wallace, G. (Eds.) (1996). School improvement: What can pupils tell us?. London: Fulton.

Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differeneces in epistemological standards. In Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 129‐142.

Sachs, J., & Chan, C. (2003). Dual scaling analysis of Chinese students’ conceptions of learning. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 181‐193.

Sadlo, G., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the

academic environment in students following problem‐based and subject‐based curricula. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(3), 253‐274.

Säljö, R. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner's conception of the task. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learners’ perspectives: Some common‐sense conceptions. Reports from the Institute of Education, 76.

Säljö, R. (1982). Learning and understanding. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Säljö, R. (1997). Talk as data and practice: A critical look at phenomenographic inquiry

and the appeal to experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 16(2), 173 ‐190.

Samuelowicz (1987). Learning problems of overseas students. Higher Education Research and Development, 6(2), 121‐134.

Sandberg, J. (1994a). Human competence at work, PhD thesis, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

Sandberg, J. (1994b). Human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Sweden.

Sandberg, J. (1996). Are phenomenographic results reliable? In G. Dall'Alba & B. Hasselgren. (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography: Toward a Methodology? (Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences No.109). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Sandberg,

A. (2002). Childrens’ concepts of teachers’ ways of relating to play. In Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(4), 18‐22.

Satterly,

D. (1987). Piaget and education. In R. L. Gregory (Ed.) The Oxford Companion to the Mind Oxford. England: Oxford University press.

Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31‐

57. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge‐rich

contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102‐119. Scott, R., & Fisher, D. (2002). The impact of an in‐service course for primary teachers.

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, December 1‐5, 2002, Brisbane: Australia.

Scouller K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning

approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453‐452.

Sharpe, P. (2002). School days in Singapore: Young children’s experiences and opportunities during a typical school day. In Childhood Education, 79, 9‐14.

Shreeve, A., Baldwin, J., & Farraday, G. (2004). Variation in Student Conceptions of Assessment. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning: Theory Research and Scholarship. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Shuell, T.J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. In Review of Educational Research, 56, 411‐436.

Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 531 ‐547.

Shughnessy, J. J., & Zechmeister, E. B. (2000). Research methods in education (Fifth edition). Boston: McGraw‐Hill.

Sieber, J. E. (1992). Planning ethically responsible research: A guide for students and internal review boards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sjostrom, B., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Applying phenomenography in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40, 339‐345.

Smith, L. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of teaching at a Gulf university: A starting point

for revising a teacher development program. In Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), January 2006.

Smith, M. K. (1999). Learning theory: The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved February 12, 2006. From www.infed.org/biblio/b‐learn.htm.

Smith, R. (2002). Creating the effective primary schools: A guide for school leaders and teachers. London: Kogan Page.

Smith,

A. B., & Taylor, N. J. (2000). The sociocultural context of childhood: Balancing dependency and agency. In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor & M. M. Gollops (Eds.), Children’s Voices: Research, Policy and Practice (pp. 1‐17). Auckland, NZ: Pearson Education New Zealand Limited.

Sobel,

D. M., Li, J., & Corriveau, K. (in press). “They danced around in my head and I learned them”: Children’s developing conceptions of learning. Journal of Cognition and Development. Retrieved March 15, 2007. From http://cog.brown.edu/~sobel/papers&presentations/Papers/press ‐sobel‐li‐ corriveau.pdf.

Stafford, A., Laybourn, A., & Hill, M. (2005). ‘Having a say’: Children and young people talk about consultation. In Children and Society, 17(5), 361‐373.

Steketee,

C. (1997). Conceptions of learning held by students in the lower, middle and upper grades of primary schools. Retrieved November 11, 2005. From http://education.curtin.edu.au/waier/forums/1997/steketee.html.

Strommen,

E. F., & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Retrieved 4 October, 2008. From http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/k12/livetext/docs.construct.html

Sugrue,

C. (1997). Complexities of teaching: Child‐centred perspectives. London: Falmer Press.

Svensson, L. (1976). Study skill and learning. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Svensson, L. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning: III. Study skill and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 233‐243.

Svensson, L. (1985). Manniskobilden i INOM‐gruppens forksning. Den larande manniskan [The image of man in the research of the INOM‐group: Man as learner]. (Report No. 3, the Department of Education, University of Gotborg). Gothenburg: University of Gotborg, Department of Education.

Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education Research and Development, 16(2), 159‐171.

Svensson, L., & Theman, J. (1983). The relation between categories of description and an interview protocol in the case of phenomenographic research. In Research Report, No. 2, University of Goteborg: Department of Education.

Tang,

C. (1991). Effects of different assessment methods in tertiary students' approaches to studying. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Hong Kong.

Tang,

C. (1998). Effects of collaborative learning on the quality of assignments. In B. Dart & G. Boulton‐Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education, (pp. 102‐ 123). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

The Borneo Project (2008). Borneo (A brief overview of Borneo’s human history). Retrieved December 19, 2008. From http://www.borneoproject.org/article.php?list=type&type=4

The School We’d Like (2001, June 5). The Guardian. Retrieved February 6, 2008. From http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,501373,00.html

Tickle, L. (1993). Testing for quality in educational action research: A terrifying taxonomy? Educational Action Research, 3(2), 233‐236.

Tickle, S. (2001). What have we learnt about student learning? A review of the research on study approach and style. In Kybernetes, 7(8), 955‐969.

Torney ‐Purta, J. (1990). International comparative research in education: Its role in educational improvement in the US. Educational Researcher, 19, 32‐35.

Trigwell, K. (2000). Phenomenography: Variation and discernment. Improving student learning. Proceedings of the 1999 7th International Symposium, Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22(3), 251‐266.

Tynjälä, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 277‐292.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12. Retrieved October 6, 2008. From http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Uljens, M. (1996). On the philosophical foundations of phenomenography. In G. Dall'Alba & B. Hasselgren. (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography: Toward a methodology? (Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences No.109). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Oganisations, (2003). Process of

curricula change: Workshop 1, 9‐13 September 2002. Retrieved November 29, 2005. From http://www.ibe.unesco.org/Regional/AsianNetwork/AsianNetworkPdf/laows1.pdf

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisations, (2005). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005. Retrieved October 15, 2008. From http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php ‐ URL_ID=35939&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisations, (2007). Towards a

better quality learning for all through active pedagogy. Paper presented at the National Training Workshop for Foreign Language Teachers.

United Nations Children’s Fund, (2000). Defining quality in education. Paper presented at the International Working Group on Education.

United Nations Children’s Fund, (2008). Child friendly schools. Retrieved October 15, 2008. From http://www.unicef.org/lifeskills/index_7260.html

van Harmelen, U. (1998). Is learner‐centred education, child‐centred?. Paper

presented at NIED Educational Conference: Education reform and innovation in Namibia.

van Rossum, E. J., Deijkers, R., & Hammer, R. (1985). Students’ learning conceptions

and their interpretation of significant educational concepts. Higher Education, 14, 617 ‐641.

van Rossum, E. J., & Schenk, S. M. (1984). The relationship between learning

conception, study strategy. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73‐83.

Veerman, P. E. (1992). The rights of the child and the changing image of childhood. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25‐50.

Wagner,

E. D., & McCombs, B.L. (1995). Learner‐centred psychological principles in practice: Designs for distance education. Educational Technology, 35(3), 32‐35.

Walsh, D., Tobin, J., & Graue, M. E. (1993). The interpretive voice: Qualitative research in early childhood education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Education of Young Children, pp. 464‐476. New York: Macmillan.

Walsh,

E. (2000). Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In Bowden, J.A. & Walsh, E. (Eds.), Phenomenography (Qualitative Research Methods Series), pp. 19‐

33. Melbourne: RMIT. Watkins,

D. (1983). Depth of processing and the quality of learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 12(1), 49‐58.

Watkins,

D. (1996). The influence of social desirability on learning process

questionnaires: Neglected possibility. In Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21,

80 ‐82. Watkins, D., & Akande, A. (1994). Approaches to learning of Nigerian secondary school

children: Emic and etic perspectives. International Journal of Psychology, 29(2), 165‐ 182.

Watkins D., & Biggs, J. (Eds.) (1996). The Chinese Learner: Cultural, psychological and

contextual influences. Melbourne & Hong Kong: Australian Council of Education Research and the Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

Weinstein, C.E., Underwood, V.L., Wicker, F.W., & Cubberly, W.E. (1979). Cognitive learning strategies: Verbal and imaginal elaboration. Cognitive and affective learning strategies (pp. 45‐75). New York: Academic Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Cultural, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: University Press.

White, J. (2002). The child's mind. London: Routledge Falmer. White, R. (1994). Commentary: Conceptual and Conceptual Change. Learning and

Instruction, 4, 117‐121. Willmett, T. (2002). Phenomenography and sensitive issues: Researching sexuality

education in religiously affiliated schooling system. Proceedings of the Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods Symposium, Current Issues in Phenomenography, Canberra, ACT, November 2002.

Wilson, C., & Powell, M. (2001). A guide to interviewing children: Essential skills for

counsellors, police, lawyers and social workers. New South Wales, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87‐101.

Wong, N. C. (2003). A study on children’s difficulties in transition to school in Hong Kong. In Early Child Development and Care, 173(1), 83‐96.

Wong, K., & Wen, Q. (2001). The impact of university education on conceptions of learning: A Chinese study. International Education Journal, 2(5), 138‐147.

Wood,

D. (1998). How children think and learn (Second edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Yeo, L. S., & Clarke, C. (2006). Adjustments to the first year in school: A Singapore

Perspective. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 14(2), 55‐68.

Yong,

B. C. (1999). The career commitment of primary school teachers in Brunei Darussalam: Perceptions of teaching as a career. Research in Education, 62, 1‐7.

Zaitun, T. (1997). Focus on the teacher: The transfer of knowledge from teacher education into the classroom. Proceedings of the International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, January 1997, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Zaitun, T. (2004). Bringing teachers to centre phase relating to teachers concerns of

mathematics education. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, in Melbourne, 2004.

Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2008). A cross‐cultural study of Chinese and Flemish university students: Do they differ in learning conceptions and approaches to learning? Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 120‐127.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Initial interview questions

Appendix 2: Descriptions of learning

Appendix 3: Ways of learning

.. ,th 'l""';'" «

.... 1"0. �1IOt 'a. bo<n

Appendix 4: Pool of meanings

Meanings Examples of excerpts

Learning is experienced as easy. ‘Malay is easier compared to the rest, unlike science, geography, and umm, others’ (Cahaya).

‘I like maths’ ‘Because it’s easy’ (Emma). ‘My favourite subject is mathematics [pause]’ ‘Why do you like

mathematics?’ ‘Umm, because it’s easy [pause]’ (Ina). Learning is experienced as

‘How about a time when you think you have not learnt difficult. something?’ ‘Geography [pause] it’s difficult [pause] too many to memorise [pause] like, umm, locating the names of the

districts [pause] and the rest I don’t know’ (Gayah). ‘Okay, umm, can you tell me why you think mathematics is not

fun?’ ‘Because it’s difficult. I don’t really like numbers’ ‘Yeah? Why don’t you like numbers Lukman?’ ‘Because umm, numbers are difficult [pause] I mean, umm, I’m okay with times tables but the rest. They’re difficult [pause]’ (Lukman).

Learning is experienced as ‘Because it will make me speak good English. It’s a good enabling,

i.e. to speak in English

practise’ (Bazilah).

and to count. ‘Learning maths will enable me to count, like counting money’

(Cahaya).

Learning is experienced as ‘fun’. ‘I like math classes because they’re fun’ (Aminah). ‘We’re lucky because our science teacher doesn’t make us write

down notes all the time. Sometimes, she lets us do experiments and projects. Like the other day, we did this project, making aquariums [pause]’ ‘I think that was fun’ (Bazilah).

Learning is experienced as doing ‘We usually do stuff like umm, you know, the things that my school stuff.

teacher asks us to do’ (Bazilah). ‘We usually do some questions about what we have learnt that

day, umm, usually after my teacher explains stuff’ (Cahaya). ‘I like learning science in school [pause] because there are many

experiments to do [pause] we always do experiments in the classroom’ (Gayah).

Learning in school is an ‘My parents say I must do my homework first’ (Danial). obligation.

‘Why must we learn?’ ‘Because, I want to be like [pause] like [pause]

I want my parents to be proud of me [pause]’ (Norman). Learning is experienced as

‘I like learning. I like listening to my teacher’ (Cahaya). listening to the teacher.

‘I listen to my teacher [pause]watch what she does on the white board [pause] like umm, in math, how she subtracts, adds, divides [pause] and [pause] umm, fractions [pause] and umm, everything else that she does in the classroom’ (Fauzi).

Learning is to understand. ‘I like learning at school, because if I don’t understand about

I can ask my teachers and I can talk about it with my

best friend’ (Danial). ‘How about when you have not learnt something?’ ‘When I find

it hard to remember [pause] when I don’t understand’ ‘What do your teachers do to help you if this happens? I mean, what do they do to help you when you have not learnt something?’ ‘They will explain to me again until I can understand and remember’ (Fauzi).

Learning is important.

For the future: ‘What do you think learning at school is?’ ‘It’s important

[pause]’ ‘Why is it important?’ ‘It’s for our future’ (Emma). For the Primary School Assessment (PSA) examination: ‘Umm,

I like English, maths and Malay’ ‘Because they are important subjects’ ‘Umm, they’re important, err, umm, because we need them. We need to learn to count, and umm, we have to study for PSA next year. My teachers say these are very important subjects for PSA’ (Danial).

‘Practising with a lot of exercises also helps us to understand better [pause] because it prepares us for the exam questions [pause]’ (Ina).

Learning in school is experienced ‘Learning in school is very important for us to acquire as gaining information.

information’ (Danial)

Learning is experienced as being

‘[Pause]

I like science [pause] err, because umm, it’s about being creative. creative [pause] like, we do stuff [pause]’ ‘Can you give me examples of the stuff that you have done?’ ‘Like, umm, like

experiments [pause]’ (Hani).

Learning is experienced as ‘How would you know that you haven’t learnt anything?’ ‘If I remembering. can’t remember anything, and ah, if I get stuck’ (Emma).

‘How about when you have not learnt something?’ ‘When I find it hard to remember [pause] when I don’t understand’ ‘What do your teachers do to help you if this happens? I mean, what do they do to help you when you have not learnt something?’ ‘They will explain to me again until I can understand and remember’ (Fauzi).

Learning is experienced as ‘Because it helps me to memorise things [pause]’ ‘What do you memorising. usually do when you try to memorise things?’ ‘I practice on my own [pause] like, ah, I read something and then, without looking

at my notes, I ask myself questions about what I have read [pause]

I practice until I can memorise them [pause]’ (Lukman).

Appendix 5: Letter to the Ministry of Education

Application to conduct research in Brunei government primary schools

(Sample letter)

Date

Acting Director of Schools 2nd Floor, Block 2J Ong Sum Ping Condominium Jalan Ong Sum Ping Bandar Seri Begawan BA1311 Brunei Darussalam

Dear Sir,

RE: Application to conduct research in several Brunei government primary schools

My name is Dyg. Jainatul Halida binti Jaidin. I am currently undertaking Master of Education by Research in Queensland University of Technology with the intention to articulate to PhD under the supervision of Dr. Joanne Brownlee and Professor Ann Farrell.

In accordance with the protocol of the Ministry of Education pertaining to conducting research in Brunei government schools, I wish to seek your permission and approval to conduct research with several upper primary children in a number of government primary schools across Brunei. The list of schools that I am interested in are as attached.

My area of interest is children’s conceptions of learning. The focus of this research centres on what upper primary children think about learning in government primary schools. These thoughts are expressed in terms of experiences and are referred to as ‘conceptions’ in this study. A brief elaboration and introduction to this research project is attached for your perusal and further action.

Your cooperation and kind consideration in this matter is highly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me if any issues in the application require clarification.

Yours sincerely,

Appendix 6: Letter of permission from the Ministry of Education

I T ",.,s:--..:.»","

• .uJ...;..A� J" ...

'_I'L . ..,.,.

r:AJo ft -'lA ,js.)

.... ........,..,..,.. """'""'-' ........... """"C'O'_.&CTIO. "n<lfTII�OI'''''''''A'''''''

Al'r� TOI � � ,� . '-May2OOf'>

Dayang .IMaM liaIIdo bintI Jaidin

Unl69f7�T'" T.,.." ""' - ..... .......

Your IettJ!< d.Jtrd ]6" ,..". 2006 fer IhI is IMnbV rwI'f!naI. Fer � kn:I WOITIYtIan, Iloo Mnwy fduaJtIon Sectloro. � d

Scncdt. Mristry <If ""' .......... Noogara _ � has no CIt.ojedb. in

PmIr,- Sd'Icw:Ib. _, 11........., be -"f _

yOU tu

d\ '"""" be <afTIO'd aut"""'"

disnJl'lIIIIIi;he IIOITTIIII tI«tOng ..., -.....g. �yOU...,-.

(.wJe��")

Adinv -..nt DireaI;Ir (PmIary EdU03ltln SettlDnJ -,,- MinI!try r;r( EdLCltlon

Ne!Wl IIrv'Iei �

Appendix 7: Application to conduct research to UHREC

RESEARCH II'N00VIHG HUMAN PARTICIPANTS.

-.. -.. "" -. ... L<t.o4 L .

"""" .,. .... � - ,- -.. -. .. "'" , ..... ...-.... ........ _ ""'" �..-q, ...... ..., .... r.",." _�

_...:I ... . ,to<""' ' " lOo ..-( . ... __ of ..., .......... )oct '" ,--.,;_ ..... no" .............. !HtC .........

.. --�-�-�-... "' ..... -.. - -_

- .... --.Jo r.- OIfk .. . 01"'" '" -...... ...... ' . " .... -....

1� 12OJt

Appendix 8: Full ethical clearance given by UHREC

From: ethics(;ontact@qut,edu.an To: j.jaidin@studellt.qut.edlulU CC: elhicscolliact@qui.edu.au Subject: Ethics Applicatiou Approval: 0600000317 Date: Fri. 2 lUll 2006 16:44:t5 +1000

Dear Ms Jainatul Jaidin

R e : conc e p t ion s of learning held by upper pr i m ary children in govern men t schools in 3runei Darussalan

This ernail is to advise that your application 0600000317 and subsequent

response to queries raised, has been considered and approved. Consequently, you are authorised to imnediately cow�ence your project.

The decision is subject to ratification at the next available committee

m e et i ng . You will only be contacted again 1n r e l a t i o n to this m a t t e r if the

cowmittee raises any additional questions or concerns in regard to the clearance.

please do n o t hesitate to c o nt ac t me further if you have any q ue r i e s

regarding this matter. Regards David wisenan

R�s�ar�h Ethics Offic�r

265