Research in the area of student's learning approaches has been conducted by numerous educators since the late 1970's (e.g. Marton & Saljo, 1976; Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Biggs, 1985, 1987). Marton & Saljo (1976) have suggested two basic approaches to learning, viz. "surface" and "deep" approach. A surface approach describes the intention to reproduce information in compliance with externally imposed task demands while a deep approach involved an intention to understand. Biggs (1985, 1987, 1993) added a third one, the "achieving" approach. According to Biggs (1993), the achieving approach is based on the ego-enhancement aiming at the achievement of high grades. Similar to the surface approach, the focus is not task-centred but on the recognition gained from top performance. The strategy is to organize time, workplace, and syllabus coverage cost effectively, with much use of cue-seeking, systematic use of study skills, planning ahead, allocating time according to task importance. Biggs (1985, 1987) has developed two different versions of questionnaires in his survey study with Australian tertiary and high school students, viz. "Study Process Questionnaire" (SPQ) and "Learning Process Questionnaire" (LPQ) respectively. Many of these studies of learning approaches were conducted with university / college students in western countries to identify what kind of study approaches were adopted and to relate the chosen study approaches with other variables such as academic achievement. Judith's (1992) study of the learning processes in distance learning students concluded that deep motivation was a way to success, but to succeed in gaining credit and good grades, deep strategy, achieving motive and achieving strategy were also needed. This was in support of the meaning assigned by Biggs to achieving approach. Studies employing Biggs' instruments have also been replicated in various situations and contexts, (e.g. Biggs, 1992; Watkins & Hattie, 1981, 1985; Watkins & Ismail, 1994

It is probably true that the teaching hierarchy in primary schools in many countries remains gendered, as men still disproportionately occupy more leadership positions than women. However, in recent years, some countries, such as Hong Kong, also notice a steady growth of female head teachers in the teaching force. How can we make sense of an increased access to leadership positions of women? And more curiously, how do male head teachers in primary school make sense of the rise of female leaders? This paper attempts to explore the situation by critically examining the perspectives of male principals in primary schools – a “successful minority” who is thus far an under-researched group in the field of gender and education. By focusing on the narratives of 12 male head teachers who talked about the rise of female leaders and any possible differences between female and male principals, this qualitative study aims to problematize men’s views and illuminate the complexity of gender equity in education. As the paper unfolds, all male principals interviewed regarded the rise as “natural” not simply because there are more female teachers in the pipelines, but more importantly women have now overcome their obstacles, as they become more educated; get married later; bear fewer or no children; stay single; and are more career—minded. More importantly, it has also identified three main discourses that men used to make sense of “gender differences”: a) women and men principals communicate differently; b) women are more thorough but men think ‘big’; c) women manage and men lead. However, when those “differences” are closely examined, most men actually perceive women principals and their styles of leadership as less competent. In other words, even though some women have gained access to position of leadership, their effectiveness as leaders is being questioned by their counterparts, as “leadership” is still conceptualized as a male and masculinedominated domain. Implications of this

A wealth of literature on gender identities undertaken by western research communities shows that gender scripts have real consequences for male and female teachers' identity constructions. Social expectations and stereotyped images of men and women teachers affect teachers' gender identities as well as their professional experiences and opportunities (Biklen, 1995; Casey, 1990; Coffey & Delamont, 2000; Smedley, 2007; Tamboukou, 2000; Wayne & Blye, 2006). There has been growing research efforts into research on Chinese women primary teachers (Chan, 2004; Luk-Fong, 2010). Little published work on Hong Kong Chinese men and women secondary teachers have been found. Understanding teachers' gender identity is important because the way gender dynamics has worked to shape teachers' gender identities in their school days may field results for the students they interact with. Sabbe and Aelterman (2007), in their comprehensive review on gender in teaching, rightly spell out that 'teaching is historically and culturally imbued with multiple discourses and subjectivities of gender' (p. 529). This chapter portrays gender identity construction, negotiation and renegotiation of two Hong Kong Chinese teachers, Shuijing and Baibin, who both have been involved in painstaking struggles with their gender identities but with varied learning backgrounds. Their narratives aim to illuminate understanding of: - How the gender identities of the Hong Kong Chinese male and female teachers were negotiated and renegotiated, their varied institutional experiences, and; - Crucial elements contributing to gender identity negotiations.

Home economics has been a school subject in Hong Kong for over fifty years. It stayed mainly as a female subject until 1999 when a survey on Equal Opportunity in Education was carried out by the Hong Kong Equal Opportunities Commission. The report of that survey revealed that boys were generally deprived of the opportunity in learning home economics in the curriculum. Schools were alert to the situation and home economics has subsequently been offered to both boys and girls in a co-educational environment in most schools in recent years. However, the participation of boys in home economics has caused some concerns in the field. Teachers are particularly anxious of their interaction with boys in a once female-dominated learning environment. Despite they understand that gender bias can be a serious detriment to learning, many are aware that they lack the ability to foster a more equitable teacher-student interaction in the classroom in order to meet the learning needs of both genders. Studies which looked at teacher interactions with boys and girls in different subject areas are abundant, such as Mathematics and Science. However, published studies on interaction in home economics classes are rare particularly in Hong Kong context. This may due to the fact that its history in co-educational learning environment is still short in Hong Kong. This study is a pioneer work which aims to find out whether home economics in Hong Kong co-educational classes supports patriarchal patterns of domination by males as researched in many studies. It also examines whether classroom processes in home economics lessons sustain or break down barriers between the sexes. It is hoped that useful strategies can be generated from this study to help all students participate equally in the classrooms in general, and within home economics lessons in particular.