Investigating Learning Approaches of Confucian Heritage Culture Students and Teachers’ Perspectives in Hong Kong

This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 07 October 2014, At: 16:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Teaching in Travel & TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttt20

Investigating Learning Approaches ofConfucian Heritage Culture Students andTeachers’ Perspectives in Hong KongPaul Penfolda & Robert van der Veenb

a Transform International Consultants Ltd, Hong Kongb Australian Centre for Asian Business, International Graduate Schoolof Business, University of South AustraliaPublished online: 05 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Paul Penfold & Robert van der Veen (2014) Investigating Learning Approaches ofConfucian Heritage Culture Students and Teachers’ Perspectives in Hong Kong, Journal of Teaching inTravel & Tourism, 14:1, 69-86, DOI: 10.1080/15313220.2014.872903

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2014.872903

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttt20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15313220.2014.872903

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2014.872903

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Investigating Learning Approaches ofConfucian Heritage Culture Students andTeachers’ Perspectives in Hong Kong

PAUL PENFOLDTransform International Consultants Ltd, Hong Kong

ROBERT VAN DER VEENAustralian Centre for Asian Business, International Graduate School of Business, University of

South Australia

The study presents a comparison between the learning approachesof first and final year students, supplemented with the teachers’perspective at a university in Hong Kong. The study examines thelearning approaches of Confucian heritage culture students andthe teachers’ perspective in the context of outcome-based curricula.The results indicate that a higher proportion of final year studentspursue surface learning goals than first year students. Nevertheless,the vast majority of first and final year students embrace a deepapproach to learning. This is in stark contrast to the teachers’perspective because they believe that the students generally adopta surface approach to learning. Steps to an interactive and positivelearning environment to effectively respond to outcome-basedlearning are provided.

KEYWORDS learning approaches, Confucian heritage culture,Study Process Questionnaire, outcome-based education, HongKong

Received October 10, 2012; accepted February 27, 2013Biggs, 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. Used withpermission by Professor John Biggs.

Address correspondence to Paul Penfold, Principal, Transform International ConsultantsLtd., Room 1801, 18/F, Public Bank Centre, 120 Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong. E-mail:[email protected]

Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 14:69–86, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1531-3220 print/1531-3239 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15313220.2014.872903

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

mailto:Received October 10, 2012; accepted February 27, 2013

INTRODUCTION

After 2,500 years, Confucian traditions continue to have an influence oncontemporary Asian culture, thinking, and behavior, as well as on approachesto learning and teaching. Educators find themselves in modern, multilingual,and multicultural classrooms around the globe and are often challenged tointegrate learners from different backgrounds into their classes. The objectiveof the study is to investigate the learning approaches of Confucian heritageculture (CHC) students and takes into account the teachers’ perspective in thecontext of outcome-based curricula. It also discusses how the teacher andinstitution can respond to the challenges and harness the potential of studentsfrom CHCs, particularly in using outcome-based education approaches.

The study employs the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire(Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001) to obtain the responses of first and final yearstudents from a university in Hong Kong to assess and compare theirapproaches to learning. In addition, we modified Biggs’ questionnaire toobtain the perception of the teachers on their students’ approaches to learn-ing. The background for this study was formed a few years ago when all HongKong universities transformed their curriculum from a “content-driven” to an“outcome-based” curriculum. In contrast to traditional education, defined asteacher directed and content based, “outcome-based education means clearlyfocusing and organizing everything in an educational system around what isessential for all students to be able to do successfully at the end of theirlearning experiences” (Spady, 1994, p. 12). This process has created manychallenges to teaching practices and in particular in how students areassessed. From our own experience and anecdotal evidence, we noticedthat many teachers have struggled to come to grips with outcome-basededucation and effectively adapt their courses, teaching, and assessment meth-ods. Therefore, we saw the need to examine both the students’ and teachers’perspective on learning approaches while “outcomes” in educational curriculawere being established.

The traditional acquisition of information—knowledge transmitted fromteacher to student—is one way of learning, which is then tested by examina-tion, and memory recall. However, this approach does not sit comfortablywith the outcome-based educational goals. In addition, a growing number ofteachers from the Western-based education cultures (where many CHC stu-dents choose to study) and in the CHC countries (where many Westerntrained academics teach) may not know how their students learn and whichlearning approaches they are comfortable with. Applying a teaching andassessment method that reflects a student-centered and an outcome-drivenapproach is challenging. Therefore, obtaining information about the learningapproach of the students seems like a reasonable first step in understandingand dealing with some of these uncertainties. At the same time, we believe it is

70 P. Penfold and R. van der Veen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

also important to obtain the teacher’s perspective on the student’s learninghabits. This study assesses the learning approaches in the context of anoutcome-based curricula with students and teachers using the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs et al., 2001). In such a context, thisstudy provides a useful comparison between different groups and provides aninsight into CHC students’ learning approaches, and how their teachers viewtheir learning approaches.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Western presumptions regarding the impact of Confucianism are a com-mon topic of higher education research (Ballard & Clanchy, 1984; Kingston &Forland, 2008; Watkins, Reghi, & Astilla, 1991). However, some scholars likeShi (2006) suggest that the Confucian learning culture is evolving into a moremodern individualistic culture. Nevertheless, there are noticeable differencesbetween Socratic education systems (for example, Europe, Australasia, andNorth America) reflecting individualistic cultures, and Confucian educationsystems (for example, China, Korea, and Japan) reflecting collective cultures(Tweed & Lehman, 2002; Woodrow & Chapman, 2002). Traditionally,Confucian-based cultures tend to be family-centered, hierarchical, collectivist,and value harmony—different to most Western values. Confucian values areechoed in students’ learning styles, by being noticeably respectful to teachers,preferring to learn collectively, and valuing hard work and high achievement(Kember, 1999; Watkins & Biggs, 1999). The traditional Confucian educationalenvironments tend to have large classes with a focus on passing examinationsand with the teacher as the central, authoritarian figure. This has been part ofCHC education systems for many centuries:

RQ1: A teacher is a person who transmits knowledge, philosophy, skills,answers questions and solves puzzles. (Han Yu, 768–824 AD)

Anecdotal evidence from lecturers, as well as from a number of studies,depict CHC students as hesitant to take part in class, struggling with ambiguity,needing clear direction, are more likely to depend on the teacher, relying toomuch on textbooks, not taking responsibility for their own learning and notunderstanding plagiarism (Chan, 1999; Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas,2000; Samuelowicz, 1987). In other words, memorization is encouraged ratherthan application and evaluation. This focus may limit to some degree thedevelopment of students studying applied programs such as hospitality andtourism management on which this study is based. On the other hand, CHCstudents have been found to be disciplined, hard-working, respectful ofteaching staff, high achievers, and careful note takers with good class atten-dance (Barron, 2006, Barron & Arcodia, 2003; Matthews, 2004; Nguyen,

Confucian Heritage Culture in Hong Kong 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Terlouw, & Pilot, 2006). Ryan and Louie (2007) suggest there is a Confucian/Western dichotomy. However, some studies have challenged the stereotypesof CHC students and discuss the “paradox of the CHC learner” from anauthoritarian education system (Watkins & Biggs, 1999). It is a paradoxbecause the CHC learner normally performs very successfully at a Western-style higher education institution.

Research has also shown that CHC students work well in groups due totheir collectivist background and that they have strong interpersonal relation-ships, and group cohesion (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Park, 2002). Littrell(2006) therefore recommends group learning as a positive and culturallyappropriate learning strategy for CHC students. Littrell also believes thatWestern methods of teaching and learning will only be successful if theteacher has an awareness of the Confucian ethic. Teachers need to understandthe cultural traditions of their learners and seek to develop suitable learningstrategies to bring out the best in their students especially in a multiculturalenvironment. If there is a lecturer–student mismatch in teaching and learningstyles, this can result in demotivated and frustrated students (Peacock, 2001).

There have been two common approaches to teaching CHC students in aWestern-style education system such as Hong Kong—the assimilation andaccommodation approach illustrated by Biggs (1999). Assimilation focuseson the perceived differences between Western and Confucian learning meth-ods, and can stereotype CHC students, who “need to assimilate or adapt” toWestern methods. Alternatively, the accommodation approach indicates thatthe teacher adapts his/her teaching strategies to take account of the needs ofCHC students. This can be a positive approach and can lead to better learningexperiences for the students. However, Biggs suggests a third way which hecalls the “teaching as education” approach, which focuses not on the differ-ences between systems or cultures, but on the learning processes. Theemphasis is on good teaching, and on finding approaches that help studentsachieve the learning outcomes and on what students “do.” This is a contextualapproach that aims to engage students in their learning in order to create thecontext in which students can develop appropriate learning behaviors toachieve set learning goals.

There is overlap between learning approaches and learning goals. Forexample, the learning subscale of the Learning and Performance OrientationQuestionnaire (Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995) contains 12items assessing the students’ concern with learning (e.g., “Improving my skillsin this course is important for me,” “My main concern in this course is learningnew things”). Even the performance aspect of the questionnaire could fit thelearning approaches; for example, the performance avoidance students couldbe categorized into the surface approach to learning due to a fear of failureand disinterest to engage in long term educational achievements. However,outcome-based education is not just for attaining goals at the individual level.For example, Spady (1998) notes that learning is successful when the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

educational outcomes echo the complexity of the real world and emphasizesthe life roles learners take after they have finished their educational journey.In other words, the learners will become future citizens and they do not serve,work, live in isolation but will be part of a greater community. To some extent,Spady’s vision on outcome-based education resembles Confucians’ take oneducation in that a learner should also fulfil a certain role in society, whileacting and behaving in accordance with their family background and socio-economic status. From both educational standpoints, the authors contend thatlong-term educational outcomes are best accomplished by having learnersdevelop attitudes, skills, and knowledge that are appropriate and relevant tothe community at large.

METHODOLOGY

This study uses the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire devel-oped by Biggs et al. (2001) because it is a well-established diagnostic tool toidentify the learning approaches of students (Appendix A). The Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire subtracts two important learning factors:the deep approach and the surface approach. These two factors are dividedinto four subcomponents: the deep motive, which represents intrinsic interest(gains satisfaction from studying, from questioning and learning); deep strat-egy, which symbolizes to maximize meaning (seeking to fully understand themeaning of the topic); surface motive, which stands for fear of failure (tryingto do as little work as possible in order to pass the course); and surfacestrategy, indicating a narrow target and rote learning (memorizing what isprovided by the teacher in order to pass assessments). Both deep and surfaceapproaches have emerged in the literature as a way to describe student’slearning approaches, with empirical evidence showing that deep approacheslead to better learning outcomes (Biggs et al., 2001; Clare, 2007; Kember,2000; Lipinskiene & Glinskiene, 2005). The questionnaire consists of 20 ques-tions using a five-point Likert scale format (for example, “My aim is to pass thecourse while doing as little work as possible” or “I see no point in learningmaterial which is not likely to be in the examination”). The labels for the itemsare as follows, 1 (“this is never or rarely true of me”), 2 (“this is sometimes trueof me”), 3 (“this is true of me about half the time”), 4 (“this is frequently true ofme”), to 5 (“this is always or almost always true of me”).

The original study process questionnaire was designed in the late 1970sand has been used and refined over the years. It proved to be a valid andreliable instrument to measure teaching effectiveness and student approachesto learning. As outcome-based education curricula go mainstream, especiallyin tertiary education, instruments like these are useful in understanding stu-dents’ values, motivations, and their perceptions of assessment, classroomteaching, and learning. We believe the questionnaire is also suitable for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

capturing teachers’ perspectives on students’ learning approaches. For theteachers’ version of the questionnaire, the meaning and format was retainedand only the narrative point of view changed. The teachers’ version of thequestionnaire should therefore still represent the standardized measurementinstrument, which is vital in order to make reliable comparisons across groups.To obtain the teachers’ perception of students’ approach to learning thenarrative point of view is revised to the third-person narrative mode, forexample: “Most students’ aim is to pass the course while doing as little workas possible” or “Most students see no point in learning material which is notlikely to be in the examination.” In addition, the labels for the teacher’sversion of the questionnaire are also amended, 1 (“this is never or only rarelytrue of students”), 2 (“this is sometimes true of students”), 3 (“this is true ofstudents about half the time”), 4 (“this is frequently true of students”), 5 (“thisis always or almost always true of students”).

The questionnaires were distributed among teachers and two groups ofstudents in an undergraduate hospitality and tourism program at a universityin Hong Kong. The first group comprised students in their first semester andthe second group were in their final year of a three-year university degreeprogram. These two groups were purposeful selected in order to compare thelearning approaches. There is a widely held belief that Hong Kong Chinesestudents are rote learners and more inclined to adopt a surface approach tolearning because they come from schools in Hong Kong that teach with moredidactic methods. It was therefore assumed that first year students wouldgenerally be surface learners. On the other hand, it is thought that final yearstudents are more inclined to adopt a deep approach to learning because ofthe level of their study and their learning experience. Our assumptions aresupported by research showing that the emphasis on evaluation and academicperformance increases with school level (Marsh, 1989; Seidman, Allen, Aber,Mitchell, & Feinman, 1994; Wigfield, Eccles, Mac Iver, Reuman, & Midgley,1991). Apart from examining the differences in the learning approach betweenfirst and final year students, we also included the teacher’s perspective onstudents’ approach to learning. The teacher’s cultural background was areasonable mix of Western and Asian academics. The majority of them wereeducated at a Western university and the language of instruction is English.

The questionnaire was distributed to the students via e-mail without anyincentives offered. All the students were given an introduction brief explainingthe purpose of the study along with a link to the survey. For the first group,364 freshmen students from bachelor and higher diploma programs wereinvited to take part in the survey, and 179 completed questionnaires werereceived, which indicates a response rate of 49.2%. For the second group, 249final year degree students from bachelor and higher diploma programs wereinvited and 163 valid questionnaires were completed, indicating a responserate of 65.5%. For the last group, 26 full-time teaching faculty members out of36 returned the completed questionnaire, which represents a response rate of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

73.3%. The response rates are quite high, which shows that both the studentsand faculty felt that the survey was addressing an important topic that wasrelevant to them. The data was collected from September 1 to September 10 in2008 and analyzed with IBM SPSS 19. Although dated, the results still reflectthe situation and add value to current knowledge. In fact, it is the first study ofits kind to compare and contrasts the results between students and teachersusing the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire.

RESULTS

The majority of the students are female for both student groups (see Table 1).This is not a unique case, as in general, there is a higher proportion of femalestudents in many hospitality and tourism programs. All the respondents werefull-time students, either enrolled in Bachelor or Higher Diploma programsoffered by the university. The students in both groups reported a higheraccumulated score for the factor that reflects a deep learning approach.

The accumulated score for each factor is the sum of its subcomponents,which in turn consists of five related questions with values ranging from oneto five. For example, if a respondent rates a deep strategy question with “thisis always or almost always true of me,” it will receive a score of five. Thehigher the score on each question representing the deep strategy subcompo-nent, the more it can be assumed that the student is likely to adopt a deepstrategy approach to learning. The results for all the three groups are pre-sented in Appendix B. The data shows that the majority of first year students(85.5%) adopted a deep approach to learning. Although the majority of thefinal students (68.7%) indicated they have a deep approach to learning, morethan a third (31.3%) reported they have a surface approach to their learning.This is quite surprising considering the syllabi at the university should encou-rage students to take up a deep approach to learning.

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics

First Year Students Final Year Students

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Male 27 15.1% 20 12.3%Female 152 84.9% 143 87.7%BSc Hotel Management 55 30.7% 52 31.9%BSc Tourism Management 46 25.7% 44 27.0%BSc (C) Hotel Management 17 9.5% 21 12.9%HD Hotel Management 34 19.0% 32 19.6%HD Tourism Management 27 15.1% 14 8.6%Deep Approach 153 85.5% 112 68.7%Surface Approach 26 14.5% 51 31.3%Total 179 100% 163 100%


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

A one-way independent ANOVA was conducted, 3 (groups) × 2(approaches), in order to examine whether there are significant differencesin the learning approaches between first and final year students, and how theteachers perceived the students’ approach to learning. The Games-Howellprocedure for contrasts was selected due to unequal sample sizes andunknown variances (Toothaker, 1993). The results show that final year stu-dents reported on average a higher mean score for a surface approach tolearning (M = 24.13, SE = 0.467), than first year students (M = 21.97, SE =0.403) and the mean difference (2.16) is significant at the .05 level. Regardingthe deep approach, the first year students reported a higher average for adeep approach to learning (M = 28.69, SE = 0.393), than final year students(M = 27.69, SE = 0.462); however, the mean difference (1.00) is not significantat the .05 level. The results indicate that the mean scores for both learningapproaches were significantly different between the two student groups andhow the teachers perceived the student’s approach to learning. The teacherson average reported a higher mean score for surface approach to learning(M = 36.92, SE = 1.02) than both student groups. The mean differencescompared to the first year students (14.95) and the final year students(12.78) are significant at the .05 level. In addition, the teachers report alower average for the students’ deep approach to learning (M = 24.24, SE =0.99) than both student groups. The mean differences compared to the firstyear students (4.45) and the final year students (3.45) are significant at the .05level. Results indicate that the teachers have a very different view when itcomes to the students’ approach to learning compared to the way the studentssee themselves. The means are plotted in Figure 1 for illustrative purposes.

FIGURE 1 Mean score of all groups.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

In general, the first and final year students subscribe to a deep approachto learning. Although it is believed that the first year students have beenexposed to a surface learning approach during high school, the fact thatthey entered a new stage of learning may motivate them to set higher learninggoals. The learning approaches for first year students indicate that they enteruniversity with a deeper approach to learning, interested in their subjects andwanting to go further in exploring the topics. This is despite the fact that manyHong Kong secondary school students study in traditional teacher-led, exam-ination-driven schools.

On the other hand, over a third of the students in their final year seem toembrace the surface goals. Although the majority of the final year studentsadopt a deep approach to learning, they report significantly higher meanvalues on the surface approach factor when compared to the first yearstudents. It seems that a greater portion of the final year students are con-cerned with doing the minimum required passing their course than first yearstudents. The greater share of final year students attaining surface goals isperhaps due to the fact that they see that the end of their educational journeyis near. This would make them more pragmatic in their learning approachbecause they are keen to start the next stage of their (working) life. Or theyare simply more mature, confident, and comfortable with expressing theirviews. Therefore, they are not afraid to show their real “face,” and are morehonest and critical in their self-judgment.

Even though the findings differ from what we expected, they do concurwith previous studies using the Revised Two-factor Study ProcessQuestionnaire in Hong Kong (Kember, 2000) and in other geographicalareas (Smith, 2005; Zeegers, 2002) in that CHC students are deep learners.In stark contrast, the teachers believe that the students have a surfaceapproach to learning and that few are deep learners. The significant gapbetween the teachers and the students could be caused by social desirabilitybias. The students could have rated the items in a way it will be viewedpositively by others. Alternatively, the teacher’s response could be based onstereotypes or they simply did not challenge the students sufficiently. Futurestudies should include control measures for social desirability bias when usingthe study process questionnaire.

DISCUSSION

Reading the literature and reflecting on the results, it seems that the teachersfeel that the introduced outcome-based education in the university systemmay not improve the student’s approaches to learning. There still seems to bea strong focus on passing courses and examinations which may encouragestudents to become surface learners. In addition, enticing students, peers, andtheir parents with outstanding academic performance certificates may also


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

contribute to this focus. The emphasis on the destination (the degree orcertificate) rather than the journey (the learning experience) can lead to“just in time” learning rather than deeper approaches such as critical thinkingand evaluation.

Many studies suggest that using more interactive learning approaches thatengage the students more will help develop deeper learning. For example,problem-based learning (Groves, 2005), case-based learning, virtual learning(Mimirinis & Bhattacharya, 2007), and teaching that manages to integrateacademic theory with practical application are good examples. Outcome-based educational approaches help to provide the context for more integratedlearning; however, lecturers less willing or able to change the way they havealways taught could lead to “outcome-based” learning in name but not inpractice. The move to become “research” institutions may further distancemany universities from “real-world” learning, and lead to less diligence givento creating innovative and engaging learning activities due to time constraintsand lack of reward for good teaching.

Research on CHC students in Australia (Jonasson, 2004) indicates thatCHC students are “extremely motivated and always attend class,” yet theywere “less willing to participate during tutorials and avoided asking ques-tions.” These perceptions are noted by Kember (2000, p. 108) in which hestates, there are “widespread beliefs that these students prefer to be passivelearners and resist the introduction of forms of teaching which are not didacticand require them to play an active role in their own learning.” However,Kember concludes that many of these perceptions are only perceptions, andnot necessarily founded on facts. Shi (2006) argues that the traditionalConfucian culture of learning is in a state of transition, and these are possiblyin conjunction with that of the rapidly changing culture and economy in Asia.The findings of this study also indicate that the majority of the students appearto adopt and prefer a deep learning approach. However, the teachers providea contrasting view and it may be that they are unable to augment the out-come-based education aspirations. How then can the institution provide anenvironment that encourages deeper learning and at the same time helpteachers to implement outcome-based curricula successfully?

The results show some serious dissonance between students’ perceptionsof their study process and their teachers’ perceptions of the learners. This maybe due to preconceived ideas, lack of cultural understanding, or other perso-nal factors. A recent study in New Zealand (Baker & Clark, 2010) of colla-borative learning methods and Chinese students indicated cognitivedissonance between lecturers and students which reinforced the importanceof understanding cultural differences and their impact on student patterns ofclassroom behavior. The contrast has been made visible due to the adaptionof the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire for the teachers.However, further research is necessary to understand the gap between thestudents’ and teachers’ perceptions on learning approaches. Teachers need to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

recognize that CHC students are taught to respect teachers and that theteacher is a role model who should not be questioned by the student.Confucian cultures stress that the hardworking student will pass if they arediligent and fail if they are lazy; therefore, long hours studying is acceptableand it is the teacher’s responsibility to ensure the student passes otherwisethey neglect their professional duty. Teachers need to acknowledge andsometimes discuss the cultural basis of their learning styles and habits. It isimportant to show respect for differences and recognize the strong points ofthe CHC learning style. Encourage good study habits in students and useconstructivist approaches—regular formative feedback and scaffolding—tohelp students build on what they know to encourage deeper learning.

CHC students are often seen as being unwilling to enter into discussion,avoid asking questions in case they are wrong and lose face, and expect theteacher to provide the answers. Sometimes reluctance to speak in class can bea language issue, and sometimes students may not understand the questiondue to colloquialisms or regional accents (this can be especially true in placeslike Hong Kong where teachers come from every continent). It is importantfor the teacher to encourage and explain why participation is necessary and toprovide the framework for participation. Find ways to prepare students foranswering questions such as giving enough reflection time, or allow them todiscuss with another student first. Recognize the challenge of learning in asecond language, and allow time for this, especially at undergraduate level.Therefore, we recommend those teaching CHC students to provide an inter-active and positive learning environment and be aware of the unique char-acteristics of CHC students.

CONCLUSIONS

Our motivation for respecifying the questionnaire for the teachers was ourcommitment to examine the perceptions of the outcome-based curricula forthe students and faculty concerned. This commitment was sparked by ourown experience implementing the outcome-based curricula and from theanecdotes at the teacher’s lounge. The results show that there is a significantgap between the perceptions of learning approaches between the studentsand teachers. This may reflect that several teachers have difficulties imple-menting outcome-based education and effectively adapt their courses, teach-ing, and assessment methods. It is reassuring that the adaptation of thequestionnaire was successful in capturing and testing for differences in stu-dents’ learning approaches. We think that the modified Revised Two-factorStudy Process Questionnaire for the teachers is an effective tool which can beused in addition to other evaluation programs to ensuring high quality teach-ing and learning within the context of outcome-based curricula. However,examination systems, assessment and program design should be reviewed


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

regularly to ensure that students see that the outcome is not just the examina-tion or the diploma but that the process of learning itself is valued andrewarded. New ways of assessing, both formative and summative, should beintroduced along with perhaps more portfolio development and reflectivelearning.

This article is an attempt to identify some of the issues faced by students,teachers, and institutions in coming to terms with the challenges of theirapproach to learning, and some methods to best address the challenges andmeet students’ needs especially as the move toward outcome-based educationtakes place. There are several limitations to this study: (1) the selected groupsof students are from a “service” discipline, and the results may not apply tostudents from other disciplines such as engineering, computing, or history; (2)it is recommended to control the gender ratio for future studies; and (3) theRevised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire reflects only one way toobtain information regarding the learning approaches, and other tools mayneed to be utilized to obtain a more balanced picture. Triangulation of variousdata sources is highly recommended.

REFERENCES

Baker, T., & Clark, J. (2010). Cooperative learning—a double-edged sword: A coop-erative learning model for use with diverse student groups. InterculturalEducation, 21(3), 257–268.

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1984). Study abroad: A manual for Asian students. KualaLumpur, Malaysia: Longman.

Barron, P. (2006). Learning issues and learning problems of Confucian heritageculture students studying hospitality and tourism management in Australia.Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 6(4), 1–17.

Barron, P. E., & Arcodia, C. (2003). Linking learning style preferences and ethnicity:International students studying hospitality and tourism management in Australia.Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 1(2), 1–13.

Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The Revised Two-factor Study ProcessQuestionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.

Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Societyfor Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goalorientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 65(3), 317–329.

Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner: A question of style. Education and Training,41(6–7), 294–304.

Clare, B. (2007) Promoting deep learning: A teaching, learning and assessmentendeavour. Social Work Education, 26(5), 433–446.

Groves, M. (2005) Problem-based learning and learning approach: Is there a relation-ship? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10(4), 315–326.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.-J. (2005) Cultures and organization: Software of theminds (2nd ed.), New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Jonasson, D. (2004). Assessment: The master key unlocking deep learning andlanguage. Paper presented at the 15th ISANA international conference,Melbourne. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from http://isana.org.au/files/2005101716555_Assessment.pdf

Kember, D. (1999). The learning experience of Asian students: A challenge to widelyheld beliefs. In R. Carr, O. Jegede, T. Wong, & K. Yuen (Eds.), The Asiandistance learner (pp. 82–99). Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.

Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation andstudy practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40(1), 99–121.

Kingston, E., & Forland, H. (2008). Bridging the gap in expectations between inter-national students and academic staff. Journal of Studies in InternationalEducation, 12(2), 204–221.

Lipinskiene, D., & Glinskiene, R. (2005). The factors of educational environment:Their influence on students’ approach to learn. Pedagogy Studies (Pedagogika),78, 10–16.

Littrell, R. F. (2006). Learning styles of students in and from Confucian cultures. In O.S. Heng, G. Apfelthaler, K. Hansen, & N. Tapachai (Eds.), Intercultural commu-nication competencies in higher education and management (pp. 56–83).Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.

Marsh, H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept: Pre-adolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3),417–430.

Matthews, B. (2004). An examination of changes in the approaches to learning ofConfucian heritage culture (CHC) students’ over time in a new social, cultural,and academic environment. International Education Association Inc. RetrievedJuly 10, 2012, from http://www.isana.org.au/academic/an-examination-of-changes-in-the-approaches-to-learning-of-confucian-heritage-culture-chc-students.html

Mimirinis, M., & Bhattacharya, M. (2007). Design of virtual learning environments fordeep learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(1), 55–64.

Nguyen, P., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2006). Culturally appropriate pedagogy: The caseof group learning in a Confucian Heritage Culture context. InterculturalEducation, 17(1), 1–19.

Park, C. C. (2002) Cross-cultural differences in learning style of secondary Englishlearners. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 443–459.

Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1–20.

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students’ learn-ing environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi Technique.Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 89–102.

Ryan, J., & Louie, K. (2007). False dichotomy? Western and Eastern concepts ofscholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Learning, 39(4),404–417.

Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of astory. Higher Education Research and Development, 6(2), 121–133.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

http://isana.org.au/files/2005101716555_Assessment.pdf

http://isana.org.au/files/2005101716555_Assessment.pdf

http://www.isana.org.au/academic/an-examination-of-changes-in-the-approaches-to-learning-of-confucian-heritage-culture-chc-students.html



Seidman, E., Allen, L., Aber, J. L., Mitchell, C., & Feinman, L. (1994). The impact ofschool transitions in early adolescence on the self-system and perceived socialcontext of poor urban youth. Child Development, 65(2), 507–522.

Shi, L. (2006). The successors to Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnairestudy on Chinese students’ culture of learning English. Language, Culture andCurriculum, 19(1), 122–147.

Smith, L. (2005). An investigation into student approaches to learning at a multi-cultural university using the Revised Study Process Questionnaire, in Highereducation in a changing world, Proceedings of the 28th HERDSA AnnualConference, Sydney, 3–6 July 2005: pp 533–541.

Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

Spady, W. G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basis of authentic restructuring andreform. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 4–7.

Toothaker, L. E. (1993). Multiple comparison procedures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context:

Confucian and Socratic approaches. The American Psychologist, 57(2), 89–99.Watkins, D. A., Reghi, M., & Astilla, E. (1991). The Asian-learner-as-a-rote-learner

stereotype: Myth or reality? Educational Psychology, 11(1), 21–34.Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (1999). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychology and

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

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D. A., & Midgley, C. (1991).Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain-specificself-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior highschool. Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 552–565.

Woodrow, L., & Chapman, E. (2002). Assessing the motivational goal orientations ofinternational English for academic purposes (EAP) students. Current Research inSocial Psychology, 7(15), 257–274.

Zeegers, P. (2002) A revision of the Biggs’ Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ).Higher Education Research and Development, 21(1), 73–92.

APPENDIX A

Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire from Biggs et al. (2001)Students were asked to rate the following questions on a scale of 1–5:

1 = This item is never or only rarely true of me.2 = This item is sometimes true of me.3 = This item is true of me about half the time.4 = This item is frequently true of me.5 = This item is always or almost always true of me.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

(1) I find that at times studying gives me a feeling of deep personalsatisfaction.

(2) I find that I have to do enough work on a topic so that I can form myown conclusions before I am satisfied.

(3) My aim is to pass the course while doing as little work as possible.(4) I only study seriously what’s given out in class or in the course outlines.(5) I feel that virtually any topic can be highly interesting once I get into it.(6) I find most new topics interesting and often spend extra time trying to

obtain more information about them.(7) I do not find my courses very interesting so I keep my work to the

minimum.(8) I learn some things by rote, going over and over them until I know them

by heart even if I do not understand them.(9) I find that studying academic topics can at times be as exciting as a good

novel or movie.(10) I test myself on important topics until I understand them completely.(11) I find I can get by in most assessments by memorizing key sections rather

than trying to understand them.(12) I generally restrict my study to what is specifically set as I think it is

unnecessary to do anything extra.(13) I work hard at my studies because I find the material interesting.(14) I spend a lot of my free time finding out more about interesting topics

which have been discussed in different classes.(15) I find it is not helpful to study topics in depth. It confuses and wastes

time, when all you need is a passing acquaintance with topics.(16) I believe that lecturers shouldn’t expect students to spend significant

amounts of time.(17) I come to most classes with questions in mind that I want answering.(18) I make a point of looking at most of the suggested readings that go with

the lectures.(19) I see no point in learning material which is not likely to be in the

examination.(20) I find the best way to pass examinations is to try to remember answers to

likely questions.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

APPENDIX B

TABLE B1 First Year Students’ Approach to Learning

Question n Mean SD Approach

(1) I find that at times studying gives me afeeling of deep personal satisfaction.

179 2.94 0.84 Deep

(2) I find that I have to do enough work on atopic so that I can form my own conclusionsbefore I am satisfied.

179 3.25 0.92 Deep

(3) My aim is to pass the course while doing aslittle work as possible.

179 1.88 0.94 Surface

(4) I only study seriously what’s given out inclass or in the course outlines.

179 2.68 0.90 Surface

(5) I feel that virtually any topic can be highlyinteresting once I get into it.

179 3.04 0.92 Deep

(6) I find most new topics interesting and oftenspend extra time trying to obtain moreinformation about them.

179 2.96 0.90 Deep

(7) I do not find my courses very interesting so Ikeep my work to the minimum.

179 1.78 0.79 Surface

(8) I learn some things by rote, going over andover them until I know them by heart even ifI do not understand them.

179 2.57 0.93 Surface

(9) I find that studying academic topics can attimes be as exciting as a good novel or movie.

179 2.73 1.00 Deep

(10) I test myself on important topics until Iunderstand them completely.

179 2.94 1.02 Deep

(11) I find I can get by in most assessments bymemorizing key sections rather than trying tounderstand them.

179 2.39 0.86 Surface

(12) I generally restrict my study to what isspecifically set as I think it is unnecessary todo anything extra.

179 2.30 0.87 Surface

(13) I work hard at my studies because I find thematerial interesting.

179 3.08 0.92 Deep

(14) I spend a lot of my free time finding out moreabout interesting topics which have beendiscussed in different classes.

179 2.52 0.99 Deep

(15) I find it is not helpful to study topics in depth.It confuses and wastes time, when all youneed is a passing acquaintance with topics.

179 1.75 0.80 Surface

(16) I believe that lecturers shouldn’t expectstudents to spend significant amounts oftime.

179 2.35 0.98 Surface

(17) I come to most classes with questions inmind that I want answering.

179 2.43 0.88 Deep

(18) I make a point of looking at most of thesuggested readings that go with the lectures.

179 2.80 0.94 Deep

(19) I see no point in learning material which isnot likely to be in the examination.

179 2.06 0.89 Surface

(20) I find the best way to pass examinations is totry to remember answers to likely questions.

179 2.22 1.00 Surface

Total sample size 179

Note. Original scale A to E is transformed to 1 to 5: (1) This item is never or only rarely true of me; (2) Thisitem is sometimes true of me; (3) This item is true of me about half the time; (4) This item is frequently trueof me; (5) This item is always or almost always true of me.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TABLE B2 Third Year Students’ Approach to Learning


(1) I find that at times studying gives me afeeling of deep personal satisfaction.

163 3.00 0.92 Deep

(2) I find that I have to do enough work on atopic so that I can form my own conclusionsbefore I am satisfied.

163 3.26 0.93 Deep

(3) My aim is to pass the course while doing aslittle work as possible.

163 2.14 1.24 Surface

(4) I only study seriously what’s given out inclass or in the course outlines.

163 2.96 1.09 Surface

(5) I feel that virtually any topic can be highlyinteresting once I get into it.

163 3.08 0.96 Deep

(6) I find most new topics interesting and oftenspend extra time trying to obtain moreinformation about them.

163 2.83 0.95 Deep

(7) I do not find my courses very interesting so Ikeep my work to the minimum.

163 1.98 0.96 Surface

(8) I learn some things by rote, going over andover them until I know them by heart even ifI do not understand them.

163 2.60 0.91 Surface

(9) I find that studying academic topics can attimes be as exciting as a good novel or movie.

163 2.45 1.03 Deep

(10) I test myself on important topics until Iunderstand them completely.

163 2.89 0.97 Deep

(11) I find I can get by in most assessments bymemorizing key sections rather than trying tounderstand them.

163 2.64 0.91 Surface

(12) I generally restrict my study to what isspecifically set as I think it is unnecessary todo anything extra.

163 2.39 0.93 Surface

(13) I work hard at my studies because I find thematerial interesting.

163 3.02 0.97 Deep

(14) I spend a lot of my free time finding out moreabout interesting topics which have beendiscussed in different classes.

163 2.16 0.94 Deep

(15) I find it is not helpful to study topics in depth.It confuses and wastes time, when all youneed is a passing acquaintance with topics.

163 1.99 1.02 Surface

(16) I believe that lecturers shouldn’t expectstudents to spend significant amounts of time

163 2.52 1.12 Surface

(17) I come to most classes with questions inmind that I want answering.

163 2.39 0.97 Deep

(18) I make a point of looking at most of thesuggested readings that go with the lectures.

163 2.61 1.02 Deep

(19) I see no point in learning material which isnot likely to be in the examination.

163 2.31 1.00 Surface

(20) I find the best way to pass examinations is totry to remember answers to likely questions.

163 2.61 1.12 Surface




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TABLE B3 Teachers’ Perception of Students’ Approach to Learning


(1) Most students find that studying gives them afeeling of deep personal satisfaction

26 2.96 0.77 Deep

(2) Most students do enough work on a topic so thatthey can form their own conclusions before theyare satisfied.

26 2.38 0.98 Deep

(3) Most students’ aim is to pass the course whiledoing as little work as possible.

26 4.08 1.01 Surface

(4) Most students only study seriously what’s givenout in class or in the course outlines.

26 4.12 0.76 Surface

(5) Most students feel that virtually any topic can behighly interesting once they get into it.

26 2.69 1.22 Deep

(6) Most students find most new topic interesting andoften spend extra time trying to obtain moreinformation about those topics.

26 2.69 0.67 Deep

(7) Most students do not find their courses veryinteresting so they keep their work to the minimum.

26 3.08 1.01 Surface

(8) Most students learn some things by rote, goingover and over them until they know them by hearteven if they do not understand them.

26 3.00 1.05 Surface

(9) Most students find that studying academic topicscan at times be as exciting as a good movie.

26 1.81 0.89 Deep

(10) Most students test themselves on important topicsuntil they understand them completely.

26 2.54 1.10 Deep

(11) Most students find they can get by in mostassessments by memorizing key sections ratherthan trying to understand them.

26 3.52 0.87 Surface

(12) Most students generally restrict their study to whatis specifically set as they think it is unnecessary todo anything extra.

26 3.76 0.77 Surface

(13) Most students work hard at their studies becausethey find the material interesting.

26 2.76 1.05 Deep

(14) Most students spend a lot of their free time findingout more about interesting topics which have beendiscussed in different classes.

26 2.24 0.87 Deep

(15) Most students find it is not helpful to study topicsin depth. It confuses and wastes time, when allthey need is a passing acquaintance with topics.

26 3.52 0.96 Surface

(16) Most students believe that lecturers shouldn’texpect them to spend significant amounts of timestudying material everyone knows won’t beexamined.

26 3.96 0.73 Surface

(17) Most students come to most classes with questionsin mind that they want answering.

26 1.92 0.86 Deep

(18) Most students make a point of looking at most ofthe suggested reading that goes with the lectures.

26 2.12 0.88 Deep

(19) Most students see no point in learning materialwhich is not likely to be in the examination.

26 4.04 0.97 Surface

(20) Most students find the best way to passexaminations is to try to remember answers tolikely questions.

26 3.80 1.11 Surface




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:54

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Investigating Learning Approaches of Confucian Heritage Culture Students and Teachers’ Perspectives in Hong Kong