Pradenric) 11-35 , 2006, Asians and Europeans—Similar and Yet Different A comparison of students’ attitudes towards learning and studying across four countries Gerhard Apfelthaler, Katrin Hansen, Stephan Keuchel, Christa Miiller, Martin Neubauer, Siow-Heng Ong, and Nirundon Tapachai INTRODUCTION The comparative, two-year project on learning styles in German- speaking and Southeast Asian countries! which is at the core of this contribution traces its origins back to the 1970s. It was then that Kolb (1976) introduced the idea of learning styles. The definition or meaning of learning styles varied according to personality, life experiences, and the purpose of learning, His differentiation of four prototypical learning types had widespread implication for education at al levels. Some time later, in 1979, Gordon Lawrence published his famous book “People ‘Types, Tiger Stripes.” Based on the work by Isabel Myers Briggs, it was Lawrence who, on a broader scale had turned educators’ attention to the fact that people can differ significantl Not long after, a whole plethora of research on learning styles emerged and learning style research has become quite popular in the past two decades. in their learning behaviour. Lownpafenecte in Hi gh . God yamagemork CMaarbtl Crnendl,6 LERCULL URAL GUMMUNILALION COMPE Interestingly enough, to date researchers have neglected the potential link between culture and learning styles. This is even more surprising if one looks at the facts. In the worldwide pursuit of global competitiveness, higher education is becoming ever more important for many countries, as is evidenced by growing enrolment numbers worldwide (see Table 1). In addition, not only is higher education as such becoming more important, but international student flows? have also increased steadily and sometimes dramatically over the past decades (see Table 2) According to recent estimates (Bohm et al. 2004), the number of students pursuing a university degree outside their home country will increase from about 2.1 million in 2003 to approximately 5.8 million by 2020, with demand for places in the English speaking destination countries forecast to rise from about 1 million to about 2.6 million places. As a result, classrooms worldwide are increasingly becoming multicultural. With diverse classrooms also comes diversity in learning, behavior of students which sometimes poses serious challenges for students, faculty, and administrators in higher education. It is therefore important for all stakeholders to gain a better understanding of cross- cultural differences, There also seemed to be a perceived need when in early 2002 one of the authors was asked by a group of university professors in Germany to teach a workshop on cultural differences in learning and education. Professors there had experienced a certain degree of frustration concerning the integration of Asian students into the German university context. One of the positive outcomes of that workshop was a research proposal which was submitted to the European Union and granted funds under the EuropeAid/AUNP funding mechanism. Under the leadership of FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences (Graz, Austria), a team of researchers from Singapore Management University (Singapore] Kasetsart University (Bangkok, Thailand) and FH Gelsenkirchen (Germany) embarked on a two year-project. The main objective was to understand the national culture’s impact on learning and studying behaviour of students, The major results of this endeavour are reported in this present paper. Students enroted in institutions of higher education TABLET China Asians and Exropeans—Siaar and Yt Dirt USA, Singapore Thailand UK Malaysia India Germany _Hong Kong Austria 13769362 13202880 13595580 15927987, 2080960 2028138, 2067349 2240680, 33722 1814096 1900272 36121 442625 2188224 2,157,958 2183129 6365625, 7364111 252093 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 473357 9404460 261229 264669 223735 2095694 2185334 9834046 549205 37983, 39156 128082 134038 9398581 12143723 557118 10576653 2001/2002 SOURCE: Compiled by authors, based on data from OECD, Institute of International Education 2003, BTABLE 2 Students enrolled {in institutions of higher education outside ofthe home countries Austria China Germany Hong Kong India Malaysia Singapore Thailand UK USA Austria 1998/1999 40s $679 “ 95 7 4 218828 1999/2000, 4075888 = 98 5 2 3000 273 2000/2001 4076100 6 2 3376 2001/2002 3e9 5157 7 4 1 31173308 2002/2003, 5275657 “ 7s 5 2 450175300 2003/2004 a China 1998/1999 1999/2000 10 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 8 486 1 2 37 v 1 2003/2004 ‘ 7 e Germany 1998/1999 67815355 41 1004140. 6 328 26793809 1999/2000 65886526 27 1282156 o 41325993661 2000/2001 6588 9109 4 42197 cz 48723973523 2001/2002 690114070, 1 2196 6 84 6232423400 Hong Keng 1998/1999 . ss 1999/2000, 2000/2001, 1492 2001/2002 1939 India 1998/1999 . . 1999/2000 320 7 168 7 179 223 2000/2001, 2 19 48 4 1 st 246 2001/2002 | 6 19 2 s 1 9 31 ‘TABLE 2 Students enrolled in institutions of higher education outside oftheir home counties (cont'd) Malaysia 1998/1999 % 6 7 79 69 “4 1999/2000 7 3 1 a 98 ws 56 2000/2001 597623 74 306 45766 38 2001/2002 433711 86497 278 wo 833739 Singapore 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001, 2001/2002 a Thailand — 1998/1999 B44 5 87 ? 37 1999/2000 o : 2000/2001 = 2 sas 14 5 5632 6 a 2001/2002 oo 6 10a 7 6 2 UK 1998/1999 1220425014146 8099 392212924 «0222753 veri 1999/2000 12356158 13466, 8301 3962 1035152852549 an169 2000/2001 124110388 1338883174302 9193S 46282720 sie} 2001/2002 1256 1748312530 «== 012,616.01 38702420 12274 Usa 1998/1999 86346949 B08 Boa] 34504 10638 3710144977148 1999/2000 - ae 2000/2001 91,1 $1986 8784 6615474116760 «361397027059 1079632119613, 7S] 66836739544) 11606 Bat 2001/2002 SOURCE: Compiled by authors, based on data from OECD, Institute of international Education 2003, " maser 9p anus—surnose pus easy SIDNaL34NOD NOLLVOINANNOD TVUALTNOWILNT16 INTERCULTURAL COMM! ICATION COMPETENCIES CRACKING THE QUESTION: METHODOLOGY Based on sometimes painful experiences of differences in learning behaviour many educators have pursued a deeper understanding of a complex problem (Coffield et al. 2004: 44). An initial review of the existing literature showed thar there are three major streams in learning styles research, The first stream followed by Kolb (1976) or the work based on the Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) by Honey and Mumford (1992) sees variance in learning styles based in differences in personality, life experiences, and the purpose of learning. This stream is strongly rooted in Kolb’s four basic learning styles, Under this model, students are either accommodators who favour concret experiencing and active experimentation (good at ca-rying out plans divergers who prefer concrete experiencing and reflective observa (good imaginative ability), convergers who are good at abstract conceptualization and active experimentation (good problem solvers and decision makers), and assimilators who like abstract conceptualization and reflective observation (good at inductive reasoning). The second stream of research revolves around the idea of Deep and Surface learning, terms originally introduced by Marton and Saljé (1976), and further developed by Entwistle and Ramsden (1983), Biggs (1987), Entwistle (1992), Entwistle and Tait (1995), Tait, Entwistle and McCune (1998), or Biggs, Kember and Leung (2 One of the main differences compared to the first research stream is the conviction that deep or surface learning are types of behaviour, but ne attributes of individuals, While surface learners focus on memorization, are extrinsically motivated by the fear of failure, and focus strictly the task at hand, deep learners try to create meaning and understand the coherent whole, are intrinsically motivated, and relate previous knowledge to new knowledge. In addition to the deep approaches, Biggs (1987), Ramsden (1988) and Entw ified a third approach to learning, the Achieving, or somet called Strategic approach, In theie learning behaviour, strategic learners aim to obtain the highest possible grades or other rewarcs. They identify assessment criteria and chen apply appropriate and well-organized study methods. Widely used survey instruments in this stream of research include the Teaching and Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ) and the ‘Learning and Studying Questionnaire (LSQ) which has been developed 1}, among others. ‘Aston and Europeans—Siilr and Ye Different | 7 within the project on Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Study (ETL} in the UK (e.g., Entwistle 2003, Xu 2004), Biggs’ (1987) Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ), the Approaches to Study Skills inventories for Students (ASSIST) by Tait, Entwistle and McCune (1998), the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI} by Entwistle and Tait (1995), or the Studying Inventory (ASI) by Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) and many others Outside these two streams of learning styles research exists a rather mixed bag of models of humongous dimensions,’ butof far less impact. Felder and Silverman's (1988) Index of Learning Styles (ILS) assess students’ learning preferences on four dimensions (active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, and sequential/glob: ich, Smith, Garcia and McKeachie's (1991) Motivated Learning Questionnaire (MLSQ) is designed to measure students’ motivational orientations and learning strategy use. Motivational orientation is measured by three scales namely, value, expectancy and affective components. Learning strategy use is made up of three scales, cognitive, meta-cognitive, and resource management, Vermunt and Van Rijswijk’s (1987) Invent of Learning Styles (ILS) seeks to integrate cognitive, meta-cog: affective, and conarive processes and includes motivations for learning, learning strategies, and preferences for organization of information. interest, and achievement. Learning styles models and learning styles inventories abound. After Jong and thorough discussion, our project team made a conscious decision not to pursue any of the existing streams or use any of the existing survey instruments. The three main reasons for this decision * The majority of research on learning styles is from within Aus Hong Kong, and the UK, thus rendering the instruments less applicable in other countries or in a cross-cultural setting, + Existing studies are inconclusive or even contradictory. Whilst some authors identify the Asian learner in general as surface and rote learners, others challenge this view.18 | INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES * The majority of the reviewed models are difficult to translate into hands-on recommendations for improving learning environments and teaching. Our project’s main intention, however, has been t0 ultimately provide assistance concerning concrete learning and studying behaviour. + Many learning style inventories show noticeable psychometric weaknesses (Coffield et al. 2004: 56). The development of our own instrument was guided by several core elements: a workable definition of learning styles, the concept of cross- cultural differences and the concept of attitudes. The frst core element is learning style. In the context of this project we used one of the most popular and rather broad definitions of learning style as given by Robert M. Smith more than 20 years ago (1982). He defined learning style as the individual's characteristic ways of processing, information, feeling, and behaving in learning situations. Price (1983) added that when people learn, they perceive, think, and interact with instructors, methods and environments. They develop tendencies and preferences that accompany learning. This development brings about one’s learning style, a characteristic way of learning which might or might not lead to performance. Smith’s and Price’s definitions served as a sound basis for the identification of questionnaire items. ‘The second core element refers to culture, cross-cultural comparist as well as inter-cultural interactions. The term “cross-cultur applies to research across borders which focuses on the observation of individuals from different cultures, on observations of different cul groups (Lenartowiez & Roth 1999), or on comparisons of one to the other (Avruch & Black 1991). The focus is on cultural differences and similarities, finding out that certain aspects of learning will differ while ‘others might be uniform in different countries (Weinert 2004: 121). The core of our project, and thus the aim of designing a survey instrument, in this respect has been to identify relevant differences and similarities among Austrian, German, Singaporean and Thai students. The term “inter-cultural,” on the other hand, focuses on “interaction” between people descending from different cultures or between people coping with a different (“strange”) culture (Lenartowicz & Roth 1999, Barmeyer ral Aris end Europeans—Sier ond Yer Diffrent 19 & Bolten 1998, Adler & Bartholomew 1992). One additional goal of our project has been to make that interaction effective. Right from the onset to the interpretation of results, our work has been guided by such works as Hofstede’s seminal work (e.g., 1980, 2001) or the GLOBE project (House et al. 2004). The third core element is rooted in Aj three components of attitudes to be empirical 11993) who distinguishes researched by verbal responses—cognition as expression of beliefs, affect as expression of feclings, and conation as expression of intentions. Ajzen’s (1993: 43) view that “given that the three components reflect the same underlying attitude, they should correlate to some degree with each other. Yet, to the extent that the distinction between cognitive, affective, and conative response categories is of psychological significance, measures of the three components should not be completely redundant.” This was another major guiding principle for the development of our own survey We took this as a basic definition in our project, using the concept of learning styles as a description of the attitudes and behaviour which determines an individual's preferred way of learning. Based on these core elements, profiles of students’ attitudes to different aspes al cross-cultural differences of attitudes to learning. After a thorough review of the literature, the new instrument has been designed in several collaborative fac multicultural research team, resulting in a collection of a total of 92 items on students? attitudes concerning learning, studying and learning environments. The 92 items have been grouped into sections on group behaviour, professors, teaching methods, individual study behaviour, the physical environment and demographic characteristics. In addition, each item, three dimensions each were formulated according to the three different components of the concept of attitude. Examples of items and their three components are given in Figure 1 below. After the first draft, the questionnaire was critiqued and improved by outside experts, translated and reviewed, as well as pre-tested on student populationsin Austria, Germany, Singapore and Thailand. After slight final modifications the new instrument was administered to about 2800 business students in the four participating countries*. instrume of learning were derived as a basis to describe pote:20. | INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION Com TENCIES oo 3.1 Professors should use | Stongly| Agree | Neither | Disagree] strongly aucio-visual materil/ agree agree nor disagree equipment to complement disagree | oral teaching. ule | s 4 3] at 5 | | stronaiy] Agree | Neither | Disagree] Strongly 3.2! enjoy eaming rom | agree agree nor disagree exposure to diferent forms isagree of media, 7 pa bs 7s Strongly] Agree | Neither | Disagree 3.3 amiikely to pay more | agree agree nor attention when the professor disagree uses diferent forms of media 1]2/] 3 ats] FIGURE 1 Quesionnaice item: Cognitive, etlecve and conve dimensions xampie) ANALYSIS OF DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS Analysis of the data for each of the four participating regions has revealed attitudes to learning for 23 different aspects of learning. Surprisingly, for most factors the differences between countries were significant, but relatively small. The most important of these differences were found in the aspects shown in Table 3. When interpreted in the light of literature on cross-culeural differences, especially those by Hofstede (2001) and the GLOBE project (House et al. 2004), we find obvious—though not statistically validated—links to the dimensions identified in these studies. Several aspects of the attitudes towards learning from our results seem to be related to differences in power and status. Most evidently, students in Thailand perceive themselves as not being equal to their professors, which is in alignment with the relatively high values on Hofstede’s and GLOBE's power distance dimensions for Thailand. The scores on the “Criticism not Allowed” and “Cheating not Allowed” items can be explained through the corresponding dimensions by Hofstede or GLOBE, in which both Singapore and Thailand show relatively high values. Even the “Memorizing” item might fir into that partern TABLE 3 Largest ferences in attitudes towards earning ( Aspect of learning/ max. difference of agreement/ disagreement Germany Singapore Thailand ‘Austria Country with max. Mean Country with max. agreement Dis-agreement 2.8954 3.5878 2.2267 3.6351 3.0180 1. Griticism not allowed (degree to SingaporeAustria/ Germany Which students think tis acceptable tocaltcize their professor) 2. Preferred Gender Homogeneity of 3.8381 2.6867 3.2048, 4.0823 3.3649 ustia Singapore ‘Work Groups (degree to which students prefer to work in groups of the same gender) 3. Cheating not allowed (degree to Thalland Austin ‘Asian ond Europeone—Sinilr and Yer Different 1.9603 23206 1.9678 2.4134 2.1108 which academie dishonesty is accepted) 4. Professor's Responsibility for 3.4219 3.2605 3.4917 2.6317 3.0756 Singapore Thaland Student’s Success (degree to whic students think that thee professors are responsible for their own success or failure) 5. Learning not beyond the Required 3.8000 2.9997 3.3011 3.2886 3.2808 Singapore Thailand Scope (degree to which students! are ready and actively pursue learning beyond the required scope ofa cass) {6 Memorizing (degree to which 3.3207 3.1153 3.8833 3.4161 3.3424 austria Thaland students have a preference for ‘memorization of content)22_| INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES | Asians and ExropeansSonir and Ye Different | 23, of explanation as the acceptance of memorization may be interpreted s 8 ¢ as obedience towards professors. Quite interesting in this context “ “8 | is also Thailand’s somewhat extreme position on the “Professor's . - . | Responsibility for Student Success” item. The strong belief in status is 3 8 | differences in Thailand apparently has created a feeling of dependence 5 28 fon professors, which in return establishes professors” esponsibility S| towards students. Nevertheless, there were also some surprising results, Bis e585 such as the fact that despite its higher power distance value Singapore is Zs § 3 the country which perceives the smallest differences between students 3)" “Ss and professors in our sample. Elo es Looking at the individualism/collectivism dimension which is also Fis go known from both the Hofstede and the GLOBE studies, we can also aa" “Ss establish some meaningful links to our results: students from countries BS 5 3 with a higher collectivistic orientation also show a more positive attitude £|8 2 5 towards working in groups in our data. In addition, they prefer groups 4 | to be somewhat homogeneous. The strong group orientation of Asian a . | cultures is also reflected in the fact that a practice which could bring 2] & g @ shame upon one’s own group and cause its members to lose face, such es SE as cheating, is much less accepted in collectivistic cultures. Even the BE a = results on the question if professors can be criticized by students can be es < interpreted through this dimension in a meaningful way: in collectivistic £| cultures, harmony isa key value which needs to be maintained at all cost, Ps go which implies that professors must not be criticized by their students 5\2 3 & In return, in collectivistic cultures, students expect their professors to git #2 ¢ take responsibility for their success or failure, as our data shows at i least for Thailand, S > Only some of the differences in our data can potentially be linked Eie2k Sag2s to the concept of uncertainty avoidance, i. ¢., the degree to which g37 fe3he individuals try to avoid risk, uncertainty and ambiguity. Students from e322 S9322 Singapore and Thailand have relatively lower values on this dimension £222 S238 in the Hofstede and GLOBE studies compared to Austrian or German 2 bs: 22228 students and are therefore more risk-taking and innovative. This might g Fes 2552 explain why they are more willing to embrace new technology in the bifinsiiil classroom. Other potential links between uncertainty avoidance and a i|eeeeves sed our results, however, are rather weak. For instance, we had expected 3) 28232383 2) that students from cultures with high uncertainty avoidance would be 2\. soa! looking for security which is better provided by traditional classroom24 | INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES seating. With interactive seating they might feel uncomfortably exposed. Our results are only partially—e.g., for Singapore—corroborating this hypothesis. The same is true for initiative and excellence—taits which only students from cultures with low uncertainty avoidance such as Singapore would value. Other expectations, such as that students from uncertainty avoiding cultures would feel mote comfortable with the precise memorization and retrieval of texts are not backed up by our data at ‘When it comes to questions of masculinity and gender egalitarianism we found it remarkable that gender homogeneity is clearly stronger preferred by Singaporean students than by Austrian or German students. ‘One possible explanation is the fact that Singapore scores higher on gender egalitarianism practice than the latter societies. As a result, the importance of gender diversity that Austrians and German students feel might not be relevant in the Singapore context. Another explanation ‘may be that Austrians’ and Germans’ preference for groups which are diverse in gender is not necessarily an expression of gender equality, bur quite to the contrary—as we can only make assumptions of the roles of female students in work groups—as an expression of gender inequality. As Hofstede’s masculinity dimensions also carries the facet of relationship orientation vs. task orientation, we may even use it to explain the fact that cheating seems to be a much more commonly acknowledged practice in Austria than in other cultures. The common assumption in a masculine, achievement-oriented society which values challenge and advancement may be that whatever leads to good rest should be allowed, including not playing by the rules. The same holds true for the question of criticizing a professor. Only in less masculine societies (such as Singapore and Thailand in our sample) which value relationships and harmony over tasks and achievements, crit Professors would not be acceptable behaviour. For an even berter view of issues related to masculinity and gender egalitarianism, we split the samples into male and female populations. Separate analysis of the data revealed significant, but rather small differences between male and female students for a number of selected items. As Table 4 shows, it can be assumed that very little of the variance in the data can be explained through gender. ‘izing “Asons and Europeans—Siiar and Yet Different | 25 As can be seen from Table 4, we find most gender differences in Germany. This is followed by Austria, and by far the fewest in Singapore. TABLE 4 Differences in attudes towards earning by gender (I=strongest agreement, Sestrongest disagreement) Factor ‘Ausvia Germany. Singapore Thal cm) _ ey 1 Consstengandintensity of eter (Segreto which - 22/2 ts havea pelerece for cosistency and intensty ofr) 2. National Homogeneity of Work Groups (dais to 36/38 ch tents acep pelt natal omageney nas 27128 24/26 24/26 sec ypes ct eating arangenent) jon for beter understanding 23/24 (degre to wich stds’ 7 eating not beyond the Reuied Scope 29/30 (Gees to which suden ar ready and actively ing beyond the requited cope oa las) students 22/23 profeson) 9. Preference for Witten Exams (Degree towhich 30/27 27/24 stuns refer to have assesment in the fom of uns of study content importa to and enjoyable for ster sso a apers (age to which stucerts ‘pec tress to be engi expe i thee 12. Grading based not nly on exam (Saye owen 20/18 ste accept reer that cra in a couse is based on re exam on) 1B. Kesping of deans (Dee to which sents 2 ‘one end accep dete sig) 26/2426 | INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES For example, German female students prefer professors who show empathy and who are stricter against cheating, and who prefer written ‘exams than their male colleagues, and who are stricter when it comes to keep deadlines. These results are in complete alignment with the four countries’ ranks on Hofstede’s masculinity index where Austria and Germany have far higher values than Singapore or Thailand. The only gender-related difference which is from Singapore concerns the demand of “expert professors”—male students there show a slightly stronger agreement. In order to get a more complete understanding of the differences in learning attitudes, we also took a look at the influence the type of institution has on the differences in attitudes towards learning. There are two distinct university tracks in Austria and Germany—traditional universities with a stronger emphasis on academic disciplines and a stronger orientation towards theory and the so-called universities of applied sciences which have a stronger orientation towards the needs of specific industries and which are more applied in their teaching. As in the case of gender differences, we were able to find several significant, but small such differences according to the type of university, as shown in Table 5. These results shows specific profiles of students related to the different types of univers in Austria, Students in Austrian universities of applied sciences are more open to different abilities of student peers and to exams other than written ones. They seem to be more active in class (criticism, discussion) and more demanding or used to higher standards related to professor's expertise, seating arrangement and use of technology. Job prospects are more relevant to them than to their peers from traditional universities. Especially in the case of Austria these observations may be rooted in the fact that universities of applied sciences there have rather strict entry requirements whereas entry into tra ' is completely open to all students regardless of their merit. This apparently has created an atmosphere in which challenge and performance are valued. In our pursuit of “Asian” versus “European” characteristics, we 5 especi ional universi analysed differences of students’ attitudes not only between countries bur also between the subgroups in Asia and Europe. Interestingly, ‘Asien and Earopeone—Similar and Yer Different 27 ‘TABLE S_ Differences in attitudes towards leaming by type of university (Iestrongest agreement, Sestrongest csagreement) Aspect of aring Germany Asta Universty University Univers Universty of Appied of pled Sriences Sciences Relevance of job prospects (degre to wich . = “oR 30 2” 2s 232 Non qu Interaction (eee 7B stents ee themsehes sequal in status to the proesos) 5. Professors as Experts (Deg toch a stents expec ther profess be recone exertsin ter area of teaching) 6. Citism not alowed (eye 0 which Baa skits acceptable to cic ther 30 8 21 20 24 aa 3 2 w utineda tecnoogy nthe 12 Homogeneity of ably of student pers ao (Gages to which student tleate seek being in groups of students wth ieee lee of aby)28 | INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENC:ES there was not always a clear line between the Asian and the European, countries. Quite to the contrary, only 7 out of the 23 aspects of learning, attitudes showed significant differences between Asia and Europe, as, is shown in Table 6. At the same time, a number of Intra-Asian and Intra-European’ differences were identified. ‘As an example, itcan be seen from Table 6 that Asian and European students hold different attitudes wi iticizing their professors. Its fair to assume that European students, by and large, do not shy from criticizing professors, atleast less than Asian students. In addition, our results also point to intra-Asian differences concerning this question, meaning that students feom Thailand are still more likely to criticize theit professors than students from Singapore. The stereotype of the Asian learner therefore is both confirmed and cchallenged—on the one hand Asians are different from Europeans, but nevertheless it is not correct to assume that all Asians hold the same attitudes towards learning, it comes to the question of CREATING ACTIONABLE RESULTS With this research directed at several different target groups, the goals of our research have never only been to report on differences in academic outlets, but also to create practical, hands-on advice. We therefore extended the group process to establish recommendations to professors and students in institutions of higher education alike. These recommendations are part of a “toolbox” which forms an integral part of the project. The information provided in the toolbox is necessary for professors, tutors and teachers in order to be able to understand the way students from other countries approach learning and studying. Natur to know about new pursue their studies. The education literature proposes that students who are engaged in the learning process will be more likely to achieve it is equally important for foreign students arning environments in order to successfully ‘way to get students actively involved in learning lies in understanding their learning style preferences, which can positively or nega influence a student's performance (Birkey & Rodman 1995; 1996; Hartmann 1995), Alans and Europeons—Somlr and Yet Different 29 ‘TABLE. nte-continental and intra-continental differences in attitudes towards leaning Dierences BETWEEN Differences WITHIN Differences WITHIN ASIA and EUROPE As EUROPE Profesor Resposity 1. Cheating not allowed for Student’ Success (Gegre to which academic Sones isacceped) 2. Memorizng (eats to Homogenly of Work Groups (degree to which 2, Leaming not beyond the student peer toworkin _ Requvd Scope dere to cjoups lhe same genet) which tens’ reread 3 National Homogenety and active pursue ang of Work Groups (gree ‘4 Homagenety of Work 6 Groups (degre to which (degree to which student’ students prferto workin preert sudyingroups) groups the same genet) Useand importance of 6, Empathy and students! suggestions (earee to ‘sich studs peer profeser who how ‘empathy and ‘timed technology in the clasoom) Exams (Degen which students prlerto have40. ANLERCULI URAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES The toolbox contains a series of “products”: an information folders a brochure which provides detailed insights into the results of our research and matching recommendations; proceedings of a conference organized within the framework of the research project, and containing contributions from researchers worldwide; the present book publication; an electronic database with up to date information on the topic of learning styles and cultures; and finally supplementary material such as, a case study and designs for workshops on cross-cultural learning: 1. Folder: the folder is intended to give brief information on the challenges of cross-national teaching, our project and its results. It is intended to make readers (professors, students and administrators) aware of the topic and create an interest in the projects results 2. Brochure: the brochure was designed to deliver detailed information for professors, students and administrators on what to expect from other countries, especially those participating in our project, and how to manage one’s expectations and how to adapr one’s own behaviour. Itis structured to give an easy to use overview, including summary, ‘main findings, recommendations, outlook, further information and basic sources. 3. Conference Proceedings: as part of our project, an international conference on the topic of cross-cultural communication competence, with a focus on learning in higher education was held. A selection of the papers presented at this conference has been included in a ‘conference proceedings CD-ROM. 4. Book: based on the mentioned conference and the proceedings, a selection of the best papers was chosen to be part of this present publication. 5. Database: in order to collate the plethora of information collected during the course of our project, an electronic database has been set up. Itcontains searchable references to information unearthed during the project such as articles, research results, recommendations, best Practice examples and case studies. The database will be updated regularly, 6. Others (cases, workshops): as supplementary material, a case study and corresponding workshop design have been developed for foreign. students coming into a new learning and teaching environment. ‘sans ona earopeons—somr an Through the use of this case study, students will not only be made aware of the fact of cultural differences as such, but also of different didactic approaches and the fact that students from different cultures perceive and process information differently. ‘Through the use ofall these products we hope to be able to reach as many different target groups as possible and thus to contribute to meeting the many challenges that are faced in a multi-cultural environment in higher education by professors, students and administrators. OUTLOOK Almost two years ago a small group of researchers from four different countries had set out to produce meaningful material on differences in students’ learning and studying behaviour. We now have a better understanding of the attitudes towards learning as held by students in Austria, Germany, Singapore and Thailand. Based on the results wwe are able to make recommendations on a large number of diverse topics such as group work vs. individual work, oral vs. written exams, memorization vs. application and many more, Through the use of our results, students and professors alike are able to adjust their behaviour toa culturally foreign environment. Nevertheless, although the project objectives have been fulfilled, it cannot be denied that for each question which has been answered, new ones have surfaced. One of the most important insights has been that the idea of one “Asian learner,” especially the “Asian rote learner” has to be discarded as has been suggested by other authors previously (e.g,, Kember & Gow 41991 or Watkins & Reghi 1991). We not only identified clear differences between Singaporean and Thai students as well as between Austrian and German students, but we also found astounding similarities between Asian and European students. In some cases Asian students even scored higher in areas where we expected European students to “lead.” More insight into these observations can be expected through an extension of our study into other Asian and European countries". Based on the differences identified for different types of universities {traditional vs. applied), we also recommend a closer look at the influence of factors in the internal and external environment of32 | INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES institutions of higher education. As learning (or teaching) styles are ‘not properties of the individual, but rather emerge out of an interaction between learner and the learning envionment, it is important to scrutinize the narrow view of individual attitudes. Richardson found evidence that learning styles “vary systematically from one culture to another” (Richardson 1994: 449), but at the same time his analysis does not attribute undesirable approaches to leaning to personal characteristics of individuals, but instead to students’ “attempts to cope with counterproductive institutional practices that are likely to show systematic cultural variation.” (1994: 464). We find it therefore important for future work ro include multiple concepts of culture besides national culture, including organizational culture anc even professional culture as educational institutions may be rooted in national cultures, but they are equally embedded into institutional and other frameworks which may be a strong source of variance. From a methodological perspective it has to be admitted that our original hope, to identify a set of a few selected patterns or factors — learning styles—in our data which would enable us to classify learners from different countries into a typology has not materialized. Instead Wwe identified a larger number of meaningful attitudes towards learning with significant differences between countries. A little less ambitious approach using an established learning styles instrument may lead to improved results in this respect. Furthermore, as one of the core assumptions of our project is that it needs an improved understanding of cross-cultural differences in learning in order to achieve better results in the classroom, one ore more measures of success need to be integrated And finally, the use of qualitative methods would greatly enhance the Quality of the interpretation of the results, Bibliography Adler N.Jand8, Bartholomew. 1992. Managing Globally Competent ‘Academy of Management Executive 6:33.66 Axruch, K. and P.W. Black. 1991. The Culture Question and Conflict Resolution, Peace & Change 16: 2245, Barmeyer, C.l. and J. Bolten, 1998. Interkulturelle Perscnalorganisation. Vorwort. Sternenfels: Verlag Wissenschaft und Praxis Bigs J.B. 1987. Student Approaches to Learning and Staying. Hawthorn, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research pe Biggs, J.B, Kember, D. & Leung, D.Y.P. 2001. The revised :wo-factor Study ple ‘Avian and Exropeans—Sonlr and Ye Different 33 Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology 71, 133-149. Birkey, R. C., and J. J. Rodman. 1995, Adult Learning Styles and Preference for Technology Programs, National University Research Instirute. Bohm, A. etal. 2004. Vision 2020: Forecasting International Student Mobility. British Coun Coffield, F, D., E. Moseley, E. Hi and K, Ecclestone. 2004, Should We Be ch Has to Say to Practice. London: The Dewar, 7.1996. Adult Learning Online. http://www.cybercorp.net/-tammy/ Tofoned2.hem| Entwhistle, NJ. 2003. Concepts and Conceptual Frameworks. Underpinning the ETL Project. Occasional Report 3. Edinburgh et al. 2003, tetrieved from heepsliwww.ed.acwule etl N4J, and P. Ramsden, 1983. Understanding student learning. room Helm, NJ. 1992. The Impact of Teaching on Learning Outcomes in Higher . Sheffield: CVCP Staff Development Unit. NJ, &¢H. Tait, 1994. The revised Approaches t0 Study Inventory, Edinburgh: Centre for Research into Learning and lastruction, University of Edinburgh, Entwistle, N. 2003. University Teaching-Learning Environments and Their Influences on Scudent Learning: An Introduction to the ETL Projecr, paper presented arthe British Educational Research Association (BERA) conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11-13 September. Felder, R.M. and L. K. Silverman. 1988. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Vol.78(7): pp. 674-681. Fishbein, M. and I. Aizen, 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavi Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975. Hartman, V. F. 1995. Teaching and learning style preferences: Transitions through technology. VCCA Journal 9/2; 18-20. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culcure’s Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviours Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Honey, P.and A. Mumford, 1992. The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Berkshire. House, RJ. PJ. Hanges, M, Javidan, PW, Dorfman and V. Gupta (Eds) 2004, Culture, Leadership, is. The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. ‘Thousand Oaks, Lon age. ducation (Ed.). 2003. Atlas of Student Mobility. Compiled by Todd M. Davis. Kember, D. & L. Gow. 1991. A Challenge to the Anecdotal Stereotype of the Asian Student. Studies mz Higher Education Vol. 16, No. 2, 117-128 Kolb, D. 1976. Learning Style Inventory Technical Manual. Boston: MeBer. Lawrence, G. 1979. People Types and Tiger Stripes. A Practical Guide to Learning Styles. Center for Applications of Psychological Type.34 | INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES Lenartowicz, T. and K. Roth. 1999, A Framework for Culture Assessment. Journal of International Business Studies 30, n0. 4, Fourth Quarter, 781 738. Marton, F, and R. Said, R. 1976. On qualitative diferences in learning I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Prychology 46, 4-11 ‘Myers, I. B., and M. H. McCauley. 1985. Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Poyehologsts Pres, Pintrich, D. A. F. Smith, T. Garcia and W. J. McKeachie, 1991. A manual for the use of motivated strategies for learning question. (MSLQ). Ann ‘Arbor, MI: National Center for Research ro Improve Postsecondary Teaching land Learning, University of Michigan. Price, G. F. “Diagnosing learning style.” In Helping Adult Learn, ed. Robert M. Sn Ramsden, P. “Studying learning: Improving teaching Tn Improving earning: new perspectives, ed. Rameden, P. (Great Bi Richardson, JT. 1994, Culeural pectcigy of approaches to studying in higher eciveatio igher Education 27449468, Smich, R. M. 1982. Learning How to Learn: Applied Theory for Adults Chi Publis HN. J. une, V. “ASSIST: # Re-conceptuslisation ofthe Approaches Inventory In Improving Students as Learners, ed. C. Rust (Oxtord: Oxford Centce for Staff and Learning Develo Veemunt, J.D. and F. A. Van Ri het Hoger Onderurjs muertory of lesrning Tilburg, The Netherlands: Ketholiske Universi Brabant. r-as-a-rote-learner stereotype: No. 1, 21-35. A. B. 2004. Organisations. und Personalpsychologie, Sth ed. Bele Weinheim, Bas land Students’ Experiences of Teaching and ‘University, paper presented at the BERA 2004 conference, UMIST, Manchester, 15-18 September, 2004, NOTES 1 The generous support ofthe European Union through its AUNP funding mechanism i gratefully acknowledged by the authors. 2 Student flows inthis context refers to students pursuing a degree outside their home country. It doesnot include short-and medium-term foreign student exchanges. offield et al. (2004) identified a total of 71 different models. ction in the four countries was jenna and Graz), Germany (Ruht German speaking countries, both in the sample, ‘Adon and Earopaane —Simier and Yet Different 38 Significant differences with a difference between mean values of larger than 0.5. Items are ranked in order of importance/magnitude of differences. “Asia” refers only to the Asian countries participating “Europe” refers only t© ipating European countries (Austria and Germany). Projects in such diverse countries as Argentina, Colombia, France, India, ‘Mexico and Peru are already under way.