Content uploaded by Jason Cong Lin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jason Cong Lin on Jul 10, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cape20
Asia Pacific Journal of Education
ISSN: 0218-8791 (Print) 1742-6855 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20
Multiculturalism in Chinese history in Hong Kong:
constructing Chinese identity
Cong Lin & Liz Jackson
To cite this article: Cong Lin & Liz Jackson (2019) Multiculturalism in Chinese history in Hong
Kong: constructing Chinese identity, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39:2, 209-221
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1621796
Published online: 08 Jul 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
Multiculturalism in Chinese history in Hong Kong: constructing
Chinese identity
Cong Lin and Liz Jackson
Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
ABSTRACT
Teaching young people to understand and appreciate diversity is crucial
in Hong Kong efforts for a just and inclusive multicultural society. History
is the main place where the cultural identity and values of Hong Kong
society have been reflected on, questioned, and problematized in the
curriculum, as changes to this curriculum interface with larger social and
political changes of the society. Although diversity is emphasized in
Hong Kong history curricula, representations of ethnic minorities pro-
vided in education may not always be effective toward multicultural
aims. This research explores how multicultural content is expressed in
Hong Kong Chinese history textbooks. In particular, we focus on how
relationships between Han and minority cultures are represented in the
texts, using qualitative content analysis. Based on the analysis, we ela-
borate three main descriptive codes and themes: (1) only majority per-
spectives are provided, (2) cultural superiority of the dominant group
(the Han), and (3) plural monoculturalism, where minority views are
treated as threatened and/or as threatening in relation to the society
as a whole. We argue that these codes are in contrast with a multicultural
stance that aims to enhance social justice and equity in relation to
diversity, through providing balanced perspectives, including positive
ethnic minority recognition and support for just forms of pluralistic
integration.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 June 2018
Accepted 14 April 2019
KEYWORDS
Multiculturalism; history
education; textbooks;
Hong Kong; Han; ethnic
minorities
Introduction
Multicultural education that responds to diversity in a just and effective way is increasingly deemed
essential across societies, as populations shift and change in relation to globalization
(Jackson,2014a ; Banks, 2017; Ben-Porath, 2009). In Hong Kong, education has had an interrelated
role to ameliorate potential political tensions between different cultural communities. During the
colonial era, such education was characterized by “depoliticization.”Educational policymakers
forbade teachers from engaging students in partisan discussions or activities, against the British
Empire, or for (or against) any other political groups, particularly those in Mainland China (Choi,
1990; Fairbrother, 2003; Morris, 1990; Vickers, 2005). Yet during this period, the curriculum reflected
Han cultural supremacy in Chinese societies (Luk, 1991). Since the handover in 1997, the curriculum
has increased such content, developing it as part of political education, in efforts to develop
a positive relationship between Hong Kong and Mainland China through schooling. Progressively,
more content has been added to history and other subjects, to enhance positive views and feelings
of affection and kinship in Hong Kong students toward Mainland China (Jackson, 2014b;
Fairbrother, 2003; Lee, 2008; Vickers, 2005).
CONTACT Cong Lin u3004761@connect.hku.hk Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 39, NO. 2, 209–221
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1621796
© 2019 National Institute of Education, Singapore
At the same time, research indicates that Hong Kong people young and old have varying, not
altogether positive, views about diversity (UNISON, 2012). In 2016 92% of Hong Kong’s population
was of Chinese ethnicity. Among the 580,000 non-Chinese, the largest ethnic groups were Filipinos,
Indonesians and Whites, constituting 32%, 26% and 10% of the non-Chinese population respec-
tively (Census and Statistics Department, 2016). Although diversity and unity are dual emphases of
Hong Kong history curricula (CDC, 2011,2009), Hong Kong textbook portrayals of ethnic minorities
have been charged with promoting stereotypes and prejudice (Ip, 2015; Zhao, 2014). In one subject
of Hong Kong schools’required curricula, Liberal Studies, the majority of representations of ethnic
minorities portrayed them as problematic, a source of tension, and/or as culturally deficient
(Jackson, 2017a, 2017b). Only a few works examine diversity in Hong Kong’s contemporary history
education.
This research aims to help fill this gap by analyzing textbooks teaching about Chinese history
for the attitudes they put forward toward multiculturalism and ethnic minorities. As Vickers
(2005) pointed out, history is the main place where the cultural identity and values of
Hong Kong society have historically been reflected on, questioned, and problematized in the
curriculum; and changes to this curriculum interface with larger social and political changes of
the society. Research on Chinese history in Hong Kong has mainly focused on the development
of the subject, and the relationship between Chinese history and Hong Kong politics. Luk (1991)
notes how Chinese cultural heritage was used in the curriculum historically to promote Chinese
identity among students, despite its potential to develop a sense of independence among youth
against British rule. Kan (2007,p.2)overtimeanalyzed“the development of Chinese History
through the colonial and post-colonial eras,”with the focus on how Chinese history has been
influenced by interest groups, social, economic, and political forces, and colonialism and deco-
lonization. Vickers’(2005)In Search of an Identity: the politics of history as a school subject in
Hong Kong, 1960s-2005 provides a background to the development of history subject(s) with
a focus on the political influence of Britain and Mainland China.
Most articles that explore Chinese history (Kan et al., 2007; Vickers, Kan & Morris, 2003)
examine the political situation between Hong Kong and China and its impact on the subject,
rather than how textbooks represent different groups. Yet as people of different groups live
together is a significant trend today in Hong Kong and China, examining how it is reflected in
social studies and history curriculum is vital. This research responds to the question of whether
school resources for Chinese history, a required curriculum in Hong Kong, aid students to
“respect pluralism of cultures and views”and recognize diversity (Curriculum Development
Council, 2011,p.31;2009,p. 2). We focus particularly on the relationship between Han culture
and minority cultures in Chinese history in this paper. This paper does not aim to demonstrate
what is happening in the classroom, and how educators are using resources for teaching about
diversity.Instead,themainresearchquestionofthispaperisansweredthroughexploringhow
narratives in history textbooks can delivermessagesthathamperorfacilitateeffective teaching
about diversity.
Multiculturalism and Hong Kong Chinese history
Multicultural education aims to improve unjust parts of structures, institutions, and environments
through school curricula and practices. Transforming “the curriculum so that all students can
acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to become effective citizens in a pluralistic
democratic society”is necessary to enable students to work for justice (Banks, 2008,p.x).
However, “manyschool,college,anduniversitypractices related to race, ethnicity, language,
and religion are harmful to students and reinforce many of the stereotypes and discriminatory
practices”(Banks, 2008, p. 1), failing to enable students to work toward better multicultural
societies.
210 C. LIN AND L. JACKSON
Multiculturalism has a complicated place in Hong Kong education (Jackson, 2013). On the
one hand, it seems to be promoted in curriculum guidelines for Hong Kong, which specify that
the curriculum aims to enhance students’understanding and appreciation for diversity in
society (Curriculum Development Council, 2011). On the other hand, many people in
Hong Kong feel that multiculturalism may have less local relevance than an intercultural
approach, which focuses more on pragmatic issues of living together well in society than on
promoting an ideology of appreciating diversity and pluralism. Given concerns that have been
raised across societies that multiculturalism can result in stereotypical views of cultural differ-
ence that are not particularly empowering or workable, many feel that interculturalism is
a helpful replacement, wherein students could meet with diverse members of communities
rather than learn about them in an abstract way (Jackson, 2013). In this paper, we retain the
use of the concept of multiculturalism, given the needs of students to learn about historical
intergroup relations and identities in history education, and not only about everyday events,
contemporary identities, and future possibilities.
The complicated legacy of Hong Kong politics leads to a unique feature of teaching history in
Hong Kong: the concurrence of courses on History and Chinese history. One reason for teaching
Chinese history in Hong Kong, indicated by curriculum guidelines, is to strengthen Hong Kong
students’sense of belonging to Mainland China. The subject, from its beginning, was inclined to
strengthen unity rather than diversity. As a factor in simmering anti-mainland sentiment which has
at times boiled up into public movements in Hong Kong (e.g. the umbrella movement), the
Chinese government has cited a continued lack of youth understanding –and appreciation –of
Chinese history. Some Beijing officials believe that Chinese history should thus place more
emphasis on nationalism and promoting positive conceptions of Mainland China (Ministry of
Education, 2016; Sing Tao Daily, 2017).
Chinese history is a major venue for students in Hong Kong to learn about the relationship
between past Chinese history and the present society around them (Vickers, 2005). Since Chinese
history textbooks mainly focus on the history of China from ancient times to the early 21st century,
multicultural content is found primarily in the descriptions of China’s ethnic minorities and their
relations with the majority ethnic group, the Han. The term ethnic minority groups in Chinese
history refers to ethnic minority groups which have always been in what is now Chinese territory,
rather than immigrant groups. China now has 55 official ethnic minority groups who live in nearly
all provinces. Who can be counted within ethnic minority groups has been different in different
times, as Chinese territory has changed. In this large country with only one party and central
government, unification and xenophobia have been crucial pillars for national support. As Lam and
Zhao (2017) argue, current Chinese history textbooks “put too much emphasis on positive aspects
such as unification and prosperity.”
We focus on textbooks for Chinese history here, as textbooks are the most commonly used
resources in schools (particularly in Hong Kong). They are understood by curriculum researchers
to be reflective of prominent social values (McCarthy, 2003;Morris&Adamson,2010), and thus
reveal a “latent”curriculum: not necessarily a secret or “hidden”curriculum, but rather an
incidental content when it comes to complex political issues (Jackson, 2014a;Fraenkel&
Wallen, 2015;Kelly,2004). In particular, textbooks can reflect “themyths,hopes,anddreamsof
the people in society with money and power”while neglecting or even rejecting minority
perspectives (Banks, 2008,p.15).ThishasalsobeenfoundtobethecaseinHongKongtextbook
studies in the past (Yan, 2016).
Textbooks are also resources Hong Kong students learn from outside classrooms, as they are
presumed valid and accurate. While facts within texts may be valid (textbooks are normally approved
by the Textbook Committee in Hong Kong), their latent content remains worth analyzing, given the
possible impact of incidental messages on student learning. This study thus affords a critical view
about how the relationship between unity and diversity is reflected in Chinese history education and
used in constructing contemporary Chinese identity, in relation to multicultural aims.
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 211
Methods
Multicultural orientations manifest in curriculum mainly in the form of text. Content analysis which
systematically categorizes the content of Chinese history textbooks can be useful to examine how
Chinese identity is constructed. This paper focuses on latent content (Fraenkel et al., 2015): not just the
obvious presence of subject(s), but the meaning and context of references as a whole. We therefore
used summative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) with systematic data coding in this paper.
“Coding is not just labeling, it is linking”(Saldaña, 2013,p.8).Coding“leads you from the data to the
idea, and from the idea to all the data pertaining to that idea”(Richards & Morse, 2007,p.137).We
followed three principles for coding: comprehensiveness, transparency, and neutrality. By comprehen-
siveness, we: 1) examined as much content as possible and 2) coded as much relevant content as
possible. We coded all content that was related to the relationship between the Han and ethnic
minority groups, Han culture and its influences on ethnic minority groups, and the relationship
between unity and diversity. Transparency implies that anyone could do the coding and analysis in
asimilarwayandfind similar things. As to the principle of neutrality, coding and interpretation of
textbooks can be subjective. As Weber suggests, “[t]o make valid inferences from the text, it is
important that the classification procedure be reliable in the sense of being consistent: Different
people should code the same text in the same way”(1990, p. 12). Neuendorf (2002)alsoarguesfor
the use of two coders to reduce subjectivity and increase validity.
The following techniques were used to initially examine the content, which also reflect in part
how students and teachers are expected to interpret textbooks (Mikk, 2000).
(1) Key Words in Context: 40 characters immediately before and following references to multi-
cultural content are transcribed and analyzed to understand the context of the content.
(2) Text coding: Each reference to multicultural content is coded within relevant ethnic cate-
gories. The aim is to identify how groups are being represented. The quotation and basic
aspects of the reference are captured.
An initial analysis of one series of Chinese history textbooks was conducted in parallel by one of
the authors (ethnic Han Chinese) and a project research assistant (Hong Kong Chinese), and then
compared to establish basic interpretative validity and reliability. Any discrepancies in analyzes
were explored to evaluate any possibility of potential differences in interpretation. In any such
cases, revised categories were implemented in a re-examination of the data, with parallel analyzes
repeated until disparities were negligible.
As the Chinese history textbooks in Hong Kong are written in Chinese, we translated relevant
sections of texts for this article. The major data source is textbooks for junior (middle grades)
Chinese history. Current textbooks for this subject are vetted and recommended by the Education
Bureau Textbook Committee, although different publishers provide slightly different versions of the
texts. 38 Chinese history textbooks including 8 series were analyzed for this article. This is roughly
half of the 87 existing textbooks from between 1997–2017. However, as all textbooks closely
followed the 1997 guidelines, the content is quite similar in most textbooks. A table which includes
basic information about all of the textbooks analyzed for this paper is provided as an appendix. The
presentation of findings in the next section focuses on three main descriptive codes that we
identified in the analysis: (1) majority perspective only, (2) cultural superiority, and (3) plural
monoculturalism. We explain what is meant by these descriptive codes and provide representative
extracts in the next section.
Findings
Critically assessing the multicultural content in Chinese history textbooks, we identified (1) majority
perspective only, (2) cultural superiority, and (3) plural monoculturalism as major descriptive codes
212 C. LIN AND L. JACKSON
and themes for depicting the relationships between groups in the curriculum. Majority perspective
only means that the multicultural content was apparently expressed from the perspectives of
members of the majority (i.e. the Han) group in society, while minority perspectives were only
included in textbooks when they benefited a majority view. Cultural superiority here refers to how
the “Han Chinese often view minority cultures as backward”(Postiglione, 1999, p. 7) and see the
culture of the Han as advanced and superior. Sen’s(2006) concept, plural monoculturalism, provides
a further lens to examine the textbooks. In contrast to the types of inclusion and recognition of
different cultures sought under pluralistic multiculturalism, plural monoculturalism suggests or
creates an illusion that mutual contact naturally or necessarily leads to assimilation and the
disappearance of minority cultures, which reinforces exclusion and segregation.
Majority perspective only
In part, the history of China reflects the assimilation of ethnic minority groups by the central
governments of the territory over time. In this case, history is mainly told from the perspective of
central government leaders past and present, rather than from a minority view, to provide
a complementary and celebratory connotation in describing interactions which had mixed impacts
when seen from minority perspectives. In particular, this is seen in the way the Chinese history
textbooks positively describe and normalize practices of assimilation and territorial expansion by
central government leaders throughout Chinese history. Practices of assimilation and invasion
typically are promoted as good, as having “broadened the connotation of Chinese nation”
(Liang, Liang, Ye, Deng, & Lin, 2011a, p. 6. 25).
This theme is evident in discussions of social developments across all major time periods in
Chinese history. During the first main period, a textbook narrates that
In the spring and autumn period, the country in the central plains often suffered harassment from barbarians.
Qi, Jin and Qin dynasties not only defended against the attacks, but also subjugated barbarians and included
their territories into the territory of the country in central plains. This action, besides protecting the culture of
Hua Xia, also included barbarians in the Hua Xia nationality, and thus broadened the meaning of the Chinese
nation. (Li, Xu, & Fu, 2012a, p. 61)
By the time of the Qin and Han dynasties, Han ethnicity had developed from the identity of the
Hua Xia. Qin, the first unified country in Chinese history, was a dynasty that effectively sought to
diminish diversity through assimilation and colonization of ethnic minority groups in their terri-
tories. Textbooks do not indicate any harms to ethnic minorities brought about by the Qin, but
praise its policies of unification which “facilitated the development of the Chinese nation”(Li et al.,
2012a, p. 74), enhanced “national cohesion [and] eliminated the estrangement among different
nationalities [as] various ethnic groups were gradually merged into Hua Xia nationality”(Li et al.,
2012a, p. 88).
In the third period (the three Kingdom Period, Jin dynasty, and the Northern and Southern
dynasties), ethnic minorities including the Xiong-Nu, Xian-Bei, Qiang, Shi, and Jie (the “five Hu
groups”) are described in texts as unmanageable, uncourteous, and responsible for riots. Textbooks
tell a story that “[u]ntil the Western Jin dynasty, some ministers forecasted that Hu people who had
moved to the interior would threaten the Jin family’s rule, so they strongly advocated that they
should move the Hu back to outside the frontier”(Li et al., 2012a, p. 190). The Hu stand against the
central government is described as the “Uprising of the Five Barbarians”(Li et al., 2012a, p. 190).
The text does not provide a comprehensive picture of the uprising, which might include (for
example) consideration of discrimination that Hu people faced in this period, which aroused their
hostility.
Another important topic in this period is Sinicization led by emperor Xiao-wen of the Northern
Wei dynasty. The policy includes (Chen, Hong, & Luo, 2013a, p. 173):
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 213
(1) Adopt Han’s bureaucracy and law, abolishing Xian-Bei’s old system.
(2) Forbid Xian-Bei people to wear Hu clothes or speak Hu language, and advocate Xian-Bei
people to wear Han clothes and speak Han language.
(3) Change Xian-Bei surnames to Han surnames.
(4) Encourage Hu people to marry Han people.
(5) [C]hange the lifestyle of Hu from nomadism to agricultural production.
These changes were fundamental, and had significant influence on the survival of Hu culture.
However, from the majority perspective of textbooks, this reform “was extremely thorough, which
not only eliminated the gap between Hu and Han, but also accelerated the mergence between Hu
and Han by birth”(Chen et al., 2013a, p. 173). It is also said to have “add[ed] new blood and vitality
to the Chinese nation”(Chen, Hong, & Luo, 2013b, p. 7). Although this Sinicization resulted in the
diminishment of Xian-Bei culture, the textbooks do not mention this, but only compliment it as
beneficial for the Han and the Chinese nation.
When it comes to the Yuan dynasty, one of two dynasties governed by ethnic minorities,
textbooks start describing the majority Han people as victims. Although issues of inequity are
not highlighted in other periods, texts identify in the case of Mongol rule that the government
“implemented ethnic division”(Li, Xu, & Fu, 2012b, p. 162), and “divided people into different
levels. They imposed pressure on the Han people . . . [and] ethnic discrimination”(Du et al., 2012b,
p.135). As another text describes it:
At the political level, Magistratus in the central government and local government could only be taken by
Mongolian, Semu could only take the deputy position, and Han and Southerner could only take the posts of
lower position. Imperial examination was split into left and right announcements, and the left announcement
prepared for Han and Southerner was much more difficult, so Han people found it much harder to be
admitted. . . . At the rule of law level, if a Mongolian beat to death a Han or Southerner he or she would
only receive a fine or be exiled, while if a Han or Southerner beat to death a Mongolian, he or she would
receive a capital offence or even genocide, and if Han were beaten by Mongolian, they were not allowed to
fight back. (Li et al., 2012b, p. 168)
Arguably, such discrimination should be pointed out to students so they know what happened
in history. However, that the Han implemented the same policies (or worse) in relation to ethnic
minorities in many time periods is overlooked. This is especially worth scrutinizing, given that one
of the learning aims for studying the policy of cohesion in the Yuan dynasty is that “students
should establish the notion of equity, freedom and racial equality . . . learn not to bring about
prejudice by racism, and should understand the historical significance of valuing regimes of ethnic
groups in frontier”(Li et al., 2012b, p. 162).
Cultural superiority
In all periods, the culture of the Han is described as advanced, superior to others, and beneficial to
ethnic minority groups. In some instances, textbooks try to take a balanced stance about cultural
spreading from ethnic minority groups. For example, one text states, “After the long-term ruling of the
Hu people in China in Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern dynasties, the culture of the Hu had a profound
effect on ancient Chinese culture”(Tan, Luo, Huang, & Chen, 2009a, p. 49). However, all the “profound”
things it lists are superficial, such as clothes and furniture. Textbooks narrate the assimilation of ethnic
minorities by the Han as more deeply beneficial: “The central plains’people who emigrated to the
south also brought advanced production technology and cultural system to the south”(Chen et al.,
2013a,p.172);“rulers of the Hu deeply desired Han culture, so after they built up their countries, they
adopted the administrative system and political system, established schools, advocated farming and
sericulture, and these policies changed the traditional nomadism of the Hu”(Li et al., 2012a,p.204).
214 C. LIN AND L. JACKSON
As mentioned previously, in discussing the Sinicization implemented by emperor Xiao-wen,
numerous Hu people lost their original identity and family name, and the culture of the Xian Bei
disappeared. Textbooks, however, describe this reform as follows:
1) it “made Xian-Bei become the most Sinicized nationality among the five Hu”(Li et al., 2012a, p. 204);
2) it urged “Xian Bei to learn from the advanced Han culture (e.g. started to farm, and studied Confucianism)
and thus greatly improved the living standard and cultural standard of its posterity. Besides, the Xian-Bei also
developed and expanded by Sinicization and the mergence with the Han. Therefore . . . emperor Xiao-wen of
Northern Wei dynasty was a hero rather than a sinner of Xian-Bei”(Chen et al., 2013a, p. 171).
3) it “improved the cultural level and living standard of the Xian Bei, and bridged the distance between Hu and
Han”(Liang et al., 2011a, p. 6.25).
One text raises the question of “whether it was wise for emperor Xiao-wen of the Northern Wei
dynasty to implement Sinicization”(Du et al., 2012a, p. 166). In this case, the authors of the
textbook provide two possible answers, indicating which is “right”and “wrong”. Both answers
(the “right”one and the “wrong”one) given in the textbook emphasize the culture of the Han as
more advanced and superior to that of the Xian Bei. The preferred answer to the question is that:
The Xian Bei at that time, regardless of population or culture, was inferior to the Han, so it was difficult for
them to govern the Han people. The strict Sinicization of emperor Xiao-wen of Northern Wei dynasty not only
improved the culture of Xian Bei, but also eliminated the contradictions between Han and Hu and thus was
easier for regulation. Hereby, the Northern Wei dynasty was the longest regime during the Southern and
Northern Dynasties period. (Du et al., 2012a, p. 166)
The “incorrect”answer is:
[T]here is no doubt that Sinicization did improve the cultural level of Xian Bei, but it also aroused strong
opposition within the Xian Bei, and impaired their loyalty to the royal family. What’s worse, the measures (e.g.
changing their surnames to Chinese surname, and marrying with Han people) made the Xian Bei blend in with
the Han, both from the perspective of consanguinity and culture, and made the Xian Bei disappear in the
world. (Du et al., 2012a, p. 166)
In this case, students are precluded from scrutinising Han cultural superiority, which is in both
replies assumed. This example also points to the emphasis on Han majority perspectives over other
views, as the views of the Xian Bei about the matter are judged as incorrect, in comparison with
perspectives that only consider the Han side of things.
In the fourth period, textbooks narrate that the culture of the Han “facilitated the development
of the culture of Tu-Jue,”and that “[a]ll countries in the Western regions imitated the Tang dynasty
in all aspects, including politics, culture, criminal law, economics, dance, and custom. Countries in
the Western regions even sent students to Chang An for better education, to deeply understand
the connotation of Chinese culture”(Li et al., 2012b, pp. 38–39).
On the other hand, textbooks observe with regard to the Hu people that they “advocated force,
and ignored culture and education”(Du et al., 2012b, p. 65); “frequently resorted to arms and
squeezed its ruling people, while neglecting agricultural production”(Liang et al., 2011a, p. 6.25);
and “lacked political foresight, and neglected culture and education”(Tan, Chen, Huang, & Luo,
1999b, p. 45). When the Yuan dynasty was controlled by the Mongolians, textbooks describe how
the “Mongolian was a group with a low cultural and educational level, lacking political wisdom”
(Chen et al., 2013b, p. 128). The Mongolians “specialized in military while being short of civility,
which resulted in chaos of administration and impertinent policies”(Tan et al., 1999b, p. 97); “The
culture of Mongolian is inferior to Han, thus Kublai Khan imitated the system of past central plains
dynasty, changed Mongolian tribalism, and set up a Sinicized state system”(Du et al., 2012b,
p. 135). The conclusion in textbooks is that the reason for the fall of the Yuan dynasty is its “less
developed culture”and “depressed Han people”(Du et al., 2012b, p. 142).
One text argues that the reason that Mongolian reign was overturned by the Han in 100 years
while Manchu reign lasted 268 years is:
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 215
[T]he extent of Sinicization in Manchu was far more than Mongolian, so the Manchu totally understood the
sense of cultural superiority in the Han and the Han’s tradition governed by civility. Therefore, the Qing
Dynasty, on the one hand, strived to absorb Han culture to enhance their ruling and .. . convened Han elites to
establish a regime of integration between Han and Manchu. (Chen, Hong, & Luo, 2013c, p. 14)
In the last period, the Qing dynasty, “Manchurians conquered the central plains as an alien race,
with both its population and cultural level inferior to Han”(Li, Xu, & Fu, 2012c, p. 14). As the Qing
dynasty prevented Mongolians “studying Chinese or marrying Han people, it alienated the
Mongolian and Han people and maintained the Mongolians’low cultural level, so they could not
revolt”(Li et al., 2012c, p. 18). Similarly, the Qing dynasty prevented relations between Tibetans
“and other people in mainland China, so Tibetan politics and society could not move forward”(Tan,
Chen, Huang, & Luo, 1999c, p. 12), and “forbade Hui people interacting with Han people, which
meant that Hui culture could not improve, and could be easily controlled”(Li et al., 2012c, p. 19).
These topics are not discussed from the perspective of minority groups, but as strengths of the
(contemporary) majority, the Han.
Plural monoculturalism
Sen uses the concept plural monoculturalism (2006) to describe a problematic form of multi-
culturalism wherein rigid cultural boundaries divide ethnic minorities from the majority, creating
a“safe”, exclusive space for cultural development. From the perspective of plural monoculturalism,
dialogue and contact will imperil ethnic minorities culture and thus segregation will maintain
beneficial separate cultures. Levinson (2002, p. 113) describes this as “‘divided pluralism’–i.e.
a pluralistic national community composed of mutually uninterested monoreligious, monocultural,
[or] monolinguistic . . . subcommunities.”
In relation, narratives in textbooks suggest that mutual contact leads to cultural extinction,
concealing the possibility that communication and dialogue can help minority cultures and
develop mutual respect. One text notes: “The general trend of the relationship among different
ethnic groups always is gradual assimilation”(Liang et al., 2011a, p. 6.16). This naturalizes the
extinction of cultural groups within the national community, because it obscures the possibility for
minority groups to positively influence and peacefully coexist with the majority.
Another textbook narrates that:
As in the Spring and Autumn Period, all vassal states and other ethnic minority groups (e.g. Rong and Di) often
fought with each other . . . which accelerated the mergence among different nationalities imperceptibly. Qi, Chu,
and Qin were the center of ethnic integration in the East, South, and West respectively, so political hegemony has
some good influences on the development of the Chinese nation. (Tan, Chen, Huang, & Luo, 1999a,p.33)
These sentences deliver a message that contact between majority and minority groups will
lead to assimilation which will contribute to the Chinese nation (with the Han as dominant).
This message applies to different periods. In the Qin dynasty, the “circumjacent Yi and Di”and
Bai Yue people “emerged into Hua Xia nationality gradually”(Li et al., 2012a, p. 88; 106) by
conquer and communication (two types of contact). In Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern
Dynasties, as subjects “continually interacted with the Han people in economic, cultural and
lifestyle aspects, so they were assimilated by the Han”(Chen et al., 2013a,p.172).IntheSong
dynasty, the Qi Dan and Dang Xiang cultures merged into Han culture by conflict (Liang, Liang,
Ye, Deng, & Lin, 2011b).
These quotes do not provide any possibility for ethnic minority groups to protect their culture
in a period of assimilation, as the only apparent choice is to seclude themselves. Yet this can not
substantively help minority groups to develop their culture, as it impedes minority groups to
know, participate in or change society, framing their cultures as out-of-date antiques. As
Postiglione (2014,p.31)writes,“In this scenario of growing ethnic isolation, minorities become
frustrated by a lack of opportunities in the national economy and social mainstream.”In this
216 C. LIN AND L. JACKSON
situation, disparities and boundaries among ethnic groups are created and reinforced as they are
naturalized and justified through a plural monocultural mentality.
Conclusion
Hong Kong has a diverse population, which includes both those identified as ethnically Chinese, as
well as ethnic minorities who are not labelled as “Chinese”. The Hong Kong Education Bureau
states that Chinese history education, as a compulsory subject in Hong Kong schools, should teach
about Chinese society in an inclusive way, and enable positive recognition of different identities
(Davies, 2017). However, junior Chinese history textbooks’role in teaching about Chinese identity
in an inclusive way is limited. Rather than promoting respect for different identities, the textbooks
reflect majority perspectives on Chinese identity, which naturalize assimilation and diminishment
of minority cultures. Superiority of the Han and its culture over those of ethnic minority groups is
often assumed, effectively promoting plural monoculturalism, given the naturalization of assimila-
tion in the texts.
In part, these trends are not particularly new; it has been documented in past research how
textbook narratives of Chinese history in Hong Kong are Han-centric, continually constructing
Chinese identity by emphasizing shared cultural heritage and ethnicity (Fairbrother, 2006; Leung
& Ng, 2004; Luk, 1991; Vickers, Kan, & Morris, 2003). In this case, some may question whether the
narratives of Chinese history today reflect a new, post-1997 patriotic agenda, or instead represent
a continuation of Han-centric narratives previously established. In this context, we suggest that
past trends have been formalized and politicized in contemporary Hong Kong education, with
a move from emphasising cultural identification to promoting overt political identification with the
majority in Mainland China, given increased pressure faced by the Hong Kong government to add
political content to textbooks in response to observed anti-mainland sentiments. In other words,
past trends which were subtler and more culturally based in the so-called depoliticized era are
being formalized at present through political promotions of the majority in Mainland Chinese
society in Chinese history education.
Students are not likely to develop a sense of an inclusive Chinese identity from this curriculum,
but instead only of the benefits of unity and assimilation. It is possible to highlight a Chinese
national identity that is not monocultural, but this is not taking place at this time. Instead, by
emphasising the shared Han Chinese ethnic and cultural identity between Hong Kong and
Mainland, Chinese history textbooks send a political message in favour of a Han-centric Chinese
national identity. Regardless of the value of or decisions involving the inclusion of nationalistic or
patriotic aims of curricula –a topic for another paper –national identities need not be mono-
cultural. Diverse identities are part of Chinese and Hong Kong life, and they need not be hidden
from student views. As this is recognized by the Education Bureau in Hong Kong, so too should it
be considered at the level of curriculum and resource development.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Cong Lin is a Ph.D. candidate at the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. His research interests include civic
and citizenship education, philosophy of education, multiculturalism, multicultural education, and identity. His latest
published articles (both with Liz Jackson) are From Shared Fate to Shared Fates: An Approach for Civic Education
(Studies in Philosophy and Education), and Politics in History Education in Hong Kong: Towards Critical Political
Education (Educational Studies in Japan). He is currently working on projects exploring multiculturalism and identity
formation in Hong Kong and Mainland China.
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 217
Liz Jackson is Associate Professor and Director of the Comparative Education Research Centre at the Faculty of
Education, University of Hong Kong. She is also the President of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia.
She is the author of Muslims and Islam In US Education: Reconsidering Multiculturalism and Questioning Allegiance:
Resituating Civic Education (both with Routledge). She is currently working on a third book which will be published
with Cambridge University Press and is entitled Against Virtue: The Politics of Educating Emotions. She has also edited
the books From 'Aggressive Masculinity' to 'Rape Culture': An Educational Philosophy and Theory Reader and Feminist
Theory in Diverse Productive Practices (both with Michael A. Peters).
ORCID
Liz Jackson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5626-596X
References
Banks, J.A. (2008). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Banks, J.A. (2017). Citizenship education and global migration: Implications for theory, research, and teaching.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Ben-Porath, S.R. (2009). Citizenship under fire: Democratic education in times of conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Census and Statistics Department. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.bycensus2016.gov.hk/data/16bc-main-results.pdf
Chen, H.S., Hong, T.Y., & Luo, G.C. (2013a). New concise Chinese history (second edition) (1A). Hong Kong: Ling Kee
Publishing Company.
Chen, H.S., Hong, T.Y., & Luo, G.C. (2013b). New concise Chinese history (second edition) (2A). Hong Kong: Ling Kee
Publishing Company.
Chen, H.S., Hong, T.Y., & Luo, G.C. (2013c). New concise Chinese history (second edition) (3A). Hong Kong: Ling Kee
Publishing Company.
Choi, P.K. (1990). A search for cultural identity: The students’movement of the early seventies. In A. Sweeting (Ed.),
Differences and identities: Educational argument in late twentieth century Hong Kong (pp. 81–108). Hong Kong:
Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.
Curriculum Development Council. (2009). Senior secondary curriculum guide: The future is now: From vision to realisa-
tion: (secondary 4-6). Hong Kong: Govt. Logistics Dept.
Curriculum Development Council. (2011). General studies for primary schools curriculum guide: (primary 1-primary 6).
Hong Kong: Government Logistics Dept.
Daily, S.T. (2017). Xi Jin Ping: Focus on strengthening patriotic education to teenagers. Sing Tao Daily, Retrieved from
http://std.stheadline.com/instant/articles/detail/441805-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF-%E7%BF%92%E8%BF%91%E5%
B9%B3%EF%BC%9A%E8%91%97%E5%8A%9B%E5%8A%A0%E5%BC%B7%E9%9D%92%E5%B0%91%E5%B9%B4%
E6%84%9B%E5%9C%8B%E4%B8%BB%E7%BE%A9%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2+
Davies, L. (2017). Justice-sensitive education: The implications of transitional justice mechanisms for teaching and
learning. Comparative Education,53(3), 333–350.
Du, Z.Z., Hu, Z.W., Liang, G.X., Qu, D.R., Guang, W.H., Rong, Z.S., . . . Zhen, J.T. (2012a). New concept in Chinese history
(third edition) (1). Hong Kong Educational Publishing Company.
Du, Z.Z., Hu, Z.W., Liang, G.X., Qu, D.R., Guang, W.H., Rong, Z.S., . . . Zhen, J.T. (2012b). New concept in Chinese history
(third edition) (2). Hong Kong Educational Publishing Company.
Fairbrother, G.P. (2003). Toward critical patriotism: Student resistance to political education in Hong Kong and China.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Fairbrother, G.P. (2006). Between Britain and China: Hong Kong’s citizenship education policy paradigm. Journal of
Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice,8(1), 25–42.
Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research,15(9),
1277–1288.
Ip, R. (2015). The harm of fake liberal studies. South China Morning Post, 2 February.
Jackson, L. (2013). Multicultural or intercultural education in Hong Kong?. International Journal of Comparative
Education and Development,15(2), 99–111.
Jackson, L. (2014a). Muslims and Islam inU. S. education: Reconsidering multiculturalism. London; New York:
Routledge.
Jackson, L. (2014b). Under construction: The development of multicultural curriculum in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,23(4), 885–893.
Jackson, L. (2017b). Learning about diversity in Hong Kong: Multiculturalism in liberal studies textbooks. The Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher. Education Researcher,26(1), 21–29.
218 C. LIN AND L. JACKSON
Kan, F. (2007). Hong Kong’s Chinese history curriculum from 1945. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Kan, F., Vickers, E., & Morris, P. (2007). Keepers of the sacred flame: Patriotism, politics and the Chinese history subject
community in Hong Kong. Cambridge Journal of Education,37(2), 229–247.
Kelly, V.A. (2004). Curriculum: Theory and practice. London: Sage.
Lam, J., & Zhao, S. (2017). Why do Chinese history lessons get a bad reputation in Hong Kong? South China Morning
Post, 1 November.
Lee, W.O. (2008). The development of citizenship education curriculum in Hong Kong after 1997: Tensions between
national identity and global citizenship. In D.L. Grossman, W.O. Lee, & K.J. Kennedy (Eds.), Citizenship curriculum in
Asia and the Pacific(pp. 29–42). Hong Kong: Springer.
Leung, Y.W., & Ng, S.W. (2004). Back to square one: The “re-depoliticizing’of civic education in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education,24(1), 43–60.
Levinson, M. (2002). The demands of liberal education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, W.X., Xu, X.Q., & Fu, P. (2012a). Travelling through Chinese history (1A). Hong Kong: Aristo Educational Press.
Li, W.X., Xu, X.Q., & Fu, P. (2012b). Travelling through Chinese history (2A). Hong Kong: Aristo Educational Press.
Li, W.X., Xu, X.Q., & Fu, P. (2012c). Travelling through Chinese history (3A). Hong Kong: Aristo Educational Press.
Liang, Y.M., Liang, C.Y., Ye, X.B., Deng, J.L., & Lin, B.Y. (2011a). Comprehensive Chinese history (1). Hong Kong: Marshall
Cavendish Education.
Liang, Y.M., Liang, C.Y., Ye, X.B., Deng, J.L., & Lin, B.Y. (2011b). Comprehensive Chinese history (2). Hong Kong: Marshall
Cavendish Education.
Luk, B.H.K. (1991). Chinese culture in the Hong Kong curriculum: Heritage and colonialism. Comparative Education
Review,35(4), 650–668.
McCarthy, C. (2003). After the canon: Knowledge and ideological representation in the multicultural discourse on
curriculum reform. In C. McCarthy & W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race, identity, and representation in education (pp. 289–305).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Mikk, J. (2000). Textbook: Research and writing. Frankfurt am Main, New York, NY: P. Lang.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2016). Opinions of Ministry of Education of the People’s
Republic of China on the implementation of deepening patriotic education in the education system. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.edu.cn/srcsite/A13/s7061/201601/t20160129_229131.html
Morris, P. (1990). Curriculum and development in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of
Hong Kong.
Morris, P., & Adamson, B. (2010). Curriculum, schooling and society in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Postiglione, G.A. (1999). Introduction: State schooling and ethnicity in China. In G.A. Postiglione (Ed.), China’s national
minority education culture, schooling, and development (pp. 3–20). New York; London: Falmer Press.
Postiglione, G.A. (2014). Education and cultural diversity in multiethnic China. In J. Leibold & Y.B. Chen (Eds.), Minority
education in China: Balancing unity and diversity in an era of critical pluralism (pp. 27–44). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Richards, L., & Morse, J.M. (2007). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. London: Penguin Books.
Tan, S.S., Chen, Z.H., Huang, J.L., & Luo, G.R. (1999a). Chinese history (1). Hong Kong: Modern Educational Research Society.
Tan, S.S., Chen, Z.H., Huang, J.L., & Luo, G.R. (1999b). Chinese history (2). Hong Kong: Modern Educational Research
Society.
Tan, S.S., Chen, Z.H., Huang, J.L., & Luo, G.R. (1999c). Chinese history (3). Hong Kong: Modern Educational Research
Society.
Tan, S.S., Luo, G.R., Huang, J.L., & Chen, Z.H. (2009a). Chinese history (third edition) (2). Hong Kong: Modern Educational
Research Society.
UNISON. (2012). Racial acceptance survey report. Hong Kong: Author.
Vickers, E. (2005). In search of an identity: The politics of history as a school subject in Hong Kong, 1960s-2005.
Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/The University of Hong Kong.
Vickers, E., Kan, F., & Morris, P. (2003). Colonialism and the politics of ‘Chinese History’in Hong Kong’s schools. Oxford
Review of Education,29(1), 95–111.
Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Yan, H.K.T. (2016). Learning from the barbarians? Reflections on Chinese identity and ‘race’in the educational context.
Educational Philosophy and Theory,48(12), 1218–1232.
Zhao, S. (2014). Publisher insists controversial textbooks ‘promote racial harmony’.South China Morning Post, 4 June.
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 219
Appendix List of textbooks used in the study
No. Publisher Title Volume Authors Year
Curriculum
Document
1 Sky Education Press (HK) Ltd. 初中中國歷史(Junior Secondary Chinese History) 1A 梁國全、沈思敏2012 Syllabus 1997
2 Sky Education Press (HK) Ltd. 初中中國歷史(Junior Secondary Chinese History) 1B 梁國全、沈思敏2012 Syllabus 1997
3 Sky Education Press (HK) Ltd. 初中中國歷史(Junior Secondary Chinese History) 1C 梁國全、沈思敏2012 Syllabus 1997
4 Sky Education Press (HK) Ltd. 初中中國歷史(Junior Secondary Chinese History) 2A 梁國全、沈思敏2012 Syllabus 1997
5 Sky Education Press (HK) Ltd. 初中中國歷史(Junior Secondary Chinese History) 2B 梁國全、沈思敏2012 Syllabus 1997
6 Sky Education Press (HK) Ltd. 初中中國歷史(Junior Secondary Chinese History) 2C 梁國全、沈思敏2012 Syllabus 1997
7 Sky Education Press (HK) Ltd. 初中中國歷史(Junior Secondary Chinese History) 3A 梁國全、沈思敏2012 Syllabus 1997
8 Sky Education Press (HK) Ltd. 初中中國歷史(Junior Secondary Chinese History) 3B 梁國全、沈思敏2012 Syllabus 1997
9 Hong Kong Educational
Publishing Company
新理念中國歷史(第三版) (New Concept in
Chinese History (Third Edition))
第一冊(Volume 1) 杜振醉、胡志偉、梁國雄、區達仁、鄺文慧、容
子思、陳志偉、甄錦棠
2012 Syllabus 1997
10 Hong Kong Educational
Publishing Company
新理念中國歷史(第三版) (New Concept in
Chinese History (Third Edition))
第二冊(Volume 2) 杜振醉、胡志偉、梁國雄、區達仁、鄺文慧、容
子思、陳志偉、甄錦棠
2012 Syllabus 1997
11 Hong Kong Educational
Publishing Company
新理念中國歷史(第三版) (New Concept in
Chinese History (Third Edition))
第三冊(Volume 3) 杜振醉、胡志偉、梁國雄、區達仁、鄺文慧、容
子思、陳志偉、甄錦棠
2012 Syllabus 1997
12 Ling Kee Publishing Co Ltd 探索中國史(第二版) (Exploring Chinese History
(Second Edition))
1(乙部課程) (Part
B Topics)
張志義、文永光、陳錦輝2011 Syllabus 1997
13 Ling Kee Publishing Co Ltd 探索中國史(第二版) (Exploring Chinese History
(Second Edition))
2(乙部課程) (Part
B Topics)
張志義、文永光、陳錦輝2011 Syllabus 1997
14 Ling Kee Publishing Co Ltd 探索中國史(第二版) (Exploring Chinese History
(Second Edition))
3(乙部課程) (Part
B Topics)
張志義、文永光、陳錦輝2011 Syllabus 1997
15 Ling Kee Publishing Co Ltd 新簡明中國史(第二版) (New Concise Chinese
History (Second Edition))
1(甲部課程) (Part
A Topics)
陳漢森、洪天宇、羅國持2013 Syllabus 1997
16 Ling Kee Publishing Co Ltd 新簡明中國史(第二版)(New Concise Chinese
History (Second Edition))
1(乙部課程) (Part
B Topics)
陳漢森、洪天宇、羅國持2013 Syllabus 1997
17 Ling Kee Publishing Co Ltd 新簡明中國史(第二版) (New Concise Chinese
History (Second Edition))
2(甲部課程) (Part
A Topics)
陳漢森、洪天宇、羅國持2013 Syllabus 1997
18 Ling Kee Publishing Co Ltd 新簡明中國史(第二版) (New Concise Chinese
History (Second Edition))
2(乙部課程) (Part
B Topics)
陳漢森、洪天宇、羅國持2013 Syllabus 1997
19 Ling Kee Publishing Co Ltd 新簡明中國史(第二版) (New Concise Chinese
History (Second Edition))
3(甲部課程) (Part
A Topics)
陳漢森、洪天宇、羅國持2013 Syllabus 1997
(Continued)
220 C. LIN AND L. JACKSON
(Continued).
No. Publisher Title Volume Authors Year
Curriculum
Document
20 Ling Kee Publishing Co Ltd 新簡明中國史(第二版) (New Concise Chinese
History (Second Edition))
3(乙部課程) (Part
B Topics)
陳漢森、洪天宇、羅國持2013 Syllabus 1997
21 Marshall Cavendish Education 全方位中國歷史(Comprehensive Chinese History) 1 梁一鳴、梁操雅、葉小兵、鄧京力、林寶英2011 Syllabus 1997
22 Marshall Cavendish Education 全方位中國歷史(Comprehensive Chinese History) 2 梁一鳴、梁操雅、葉小兵、鄧京力、林寶英2011 Syllabus 1997
23 Marshall Cavendish Education 全方位中國歷史(Comprehensive Chinese History) 3上(3A) 梁一鳴、梁操雅、葉小兵、鄧京力、林寶英2011 Syllabus 1997
24 Marshall Cavendish Education 全方位中國歷史(Comprehensive Chinese History) 3下(3B) 梁一鳴、梁操雅、葉小兵、鄧京力、林寶英2011 Syllabus 1997
25 Modern Educational Research
Society, Ltd
中國歷史(Chinese History) 1 譚松壽、陳志華、黃家樑、羅國潤1999 Syllabus 1997
26 Modern Educational Research
Society, Ltd
中國歷史(Chinese History) 2 譚松壽、陳志華、黃家樑、羅國潤1999 Syllabus 1997
27 Modern Educational Research
Society, Ltd
中國歷史(Chinese History) 3 譚松壽、陳志華、黃家樑、羅國潤1999 Syllabus 1997
28 Modern Educational Research
Society, Ltd
中國歷史(第三版) (Chinese History) 1 譚松壽、羅國潤、黃家樑、陳志華2009 Syllabus 1997
29 Modern Educational Research
Society, Ltd
中國歷史(第三版) (Chinese History) 2 譚松壽、羅國潤、黃家樑、陳志華2009 Syllabus 1997
30 Modern Educational Research
Society, Ltd
中國歷史(第三版) (Chinese History) 3上(3A) 譚松壽、羅國潤、黃家樑、陳志華2009 Syllabus 1997
31 Modern Educational Research
Society, Ltd
中國歷史(第三版) (Chinese History) 3下(3B) 譚松壽、羅國潤、黃家樑、陳志華2009 Syllabus 1997
32 Aristo Educational Press Ltd 中國史遊蹤(Travelling Through Chinese History) 1甲(1A) 李偉雄、徐曉琦、傅萍2012 Syllabus 1997
33 Aristo Educational Press Ltd 中國史遊蹤(Travelling Through Chinese History) 1乙(1B) 李偉雄、徐曉琦、傅萍2012 Syllabus 1997
34 Aristo Educational Press Ltd 中國史遊蹤(Travelling Through Chinese History) 2甲(2A) 李偉雄、徐曉琦、傅萍2012 Syllabus 1997
35 Aristo Educational Press Ltd 中國史遊蹤(Travelling Through Chinese History) 2乙(2B) 李偉雄、徐曉琦、傅萍2012 Syllabus 1997
36 Aristo Educational Press Ltd 中國史遊蹤(Travelling Through Chinese History) 3甲上李偉雄、徐曉琦、傅萍2012 Syllabus 1997
37 Aristo Educational Press Ltd 中國史遊蹤(Travelling Through Chinese History) 3甲下李偉雄、徐曉琦、傅萍2012 Syllabus 1997
38 Aristo Educational Press Ltd 中國史遊蹤(Travelling Through Chinese History) 3乙李偉雄、徐曉琦、傅萍2012 Syllabus 1997
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 221
