Students' Attitudes To Classroom English Learning

Languagehttp://ltr.sagepub.
com/
Teaching Research
Students' attitudes to classroom English learning: a cross-cultural study

William Littlewood
Language Teaching Research 2001 5: 3
DOI: 10.1177/136216880100500102
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/5/1/3
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Language Teaching Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/5/1/3.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2001
What is This?
Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

Language Teaching Research 5,1 (2001); pp. 3–28
Students’ attitudes to classroom

English learning: a cross-cultural
study
William Littlewood Language Centre, Hong Kong Baptist
University
In recent years researchers have developed a range of perspectives for

conceptualizing the influences of culture on thinking and behaving.
Three perspectives which are of special potential relevance to language
teaching are the following: the distinction between collectivism and
individualism; different perceptions of power and authority; and
different types of achievement motivation. These dimensions were
taken as the basis for a survey of students’ attitudes towards classroom
English learning in eight East Asian countries and three European
countries. It was found that most students in all countries question the
traditional authority-based, transmission mode of learning. They wish
to participate actively in exploring knowledge and have positive
attitudes towards working purposefully, in groups, towards common
goals. Whilst there were statistically significant differences between the
mean responses of Asian and European students on several items, the
numerical differences were not great and the overall patterns of
responses were strikingly similar. Furthermore, within Asia and within
Europe, there were significant differences between individual countries,
and in every country there was a wide range of individual differences.
Whilst these ‘deep-structure’ cross-cultural similarities may hide
important ‘surface-structure’ differences in how students like to learn,
they also serve to make us question some commonly held assumptions
about the attitudes of Asian and Western students.
I Introduction
This paper is about a survey of attitudes to classroom English
learning amongst 2656 students in eleven different countries, eight
in Asia and three in Europe.1 It has four main parts:
Address for correspondence: Language Centre, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon,
Hong Kong; blittle@hkbu.edu.hk
© Arnold 2001 1362–1688(01)LR077.OA

4 Students’ attitudes to classroom English learning
1. First, the paper explains the background to the survey by

providing a brief outline of the theoretical issues which
stimulated it (Section II).
2. Second, it describes my initial explorations in the area and
introduces the present survey (Section III).
3. Third, it presents statistical results and discusses them,
particularly in relation to the theoretical background presented
earlier (Section IV).
4. Finally, it draws some conclusions concerning what these results
might tell us about students’ attitudes to learning in different
cultural contexts (Section V).
When the research reported here is evaluated in terms of the
design of its instruments and the nature of its sample, there are
weaknesses. Some of these will be mentioned at appropriate points
in the paper. Meanwhile, in spite of these shortcomings, it is hoped
that the results are robust enough to contribute something to our
understanding of learners from different cultures and to suggest
directions for future research.
II Background
Recent years have seen the publication of a large number of books
about the ways in which culture influences thought and behaviour
(e.g. Brislin, 1993; Gallois and Kallan, 1997; Gudykunst, 1994;
Klopf, 1995; Samovar and Porter, 1995; Smith and Bond, 1993; and
many more). They have made available a wide range of
perspectives for conceptualizing the influences of different cultures
on thinking and behaving. Three of these perspectives will be
outlined in this section.
1 Collectivism and individualism

The most influential perspective has been the distinction between
‘collectivist’ and ‘individualist’ cultures. It has inspired a large body
of research and theorizing (in addition to the references above, see
the more detailed treatments in Kim et al., 1994, and Triandis, 1995)
but can be briefly summarized as follows:
• ‘Collectivism’ refers to a value system in which a person’s
identity, attitudes and actions are determined to a large degree

William Littlewood 5
by the groups to which he or she belongs, especially so-called

‘ingroups’ with which there is regular and close interaction (e.g.
those based on family ties or, in some societies, the working
unit). A person does not claim rights which would affirm
individual interests in opposition to those of the ingroup.
• ‘Individualism’ is the converse of this. An individual person can
claim rights to self-fulfilment and freedom of choice, even if
these sometimes conflict with the interests of the ingroups to
which he or she belongs. In any case, a person’s social network
in an individualist society often consists of a wider range of
looser outgroups, rather than the narrow range of close
ingroups found in a collectivist society.
The distinction is often summarized by saying that collectivism is
oriented towards the ‘we’ whilst individualism is oriented towards
the ‘I’.
The most widely known research relating to the
collectivism–individualism distinction is that of Hofstede (1980;
1994). Hofstede conducted a survey of the beliefs and values held
by the employees of a multinational company in 53 different
countries. He found that the collectivism–individualism distinction
was an effective means of finding differential patterns in the
responses of members of different cultures. It was in Australasia,
Europe and North America that the responses revealed the
strongest individualist orientation, whereas the strongest
collectivist orientation was found in Latin American and East
Asian countries.
2 Attitudes to authority
A second perspective from which many researchers have analysed
cultural differences is in terms of attitudes to authority. In some
cultures, it is claimed, inequalities of authority and power are
accepted as normal facts of life. If a person has higher status or a
higher position than others, it is to be expected that this person
will exercise authority openly and enjoy other privileges that go
with power. In other cultures, however obvious it may be that
differences of power exist in reality, there is a widely accepted
ethos which says that they should in some way be minimized and
their effects reduced.

It is usually claimed that differences in power and authority are

accepted most readily in more collectivist cultures (see for example
Hofstede, 1994: 54–57; Smith and Bond, 1993: 39–40; Triandis, 1995:
46). This may be because a general orientation towards (or
dependence on) the group is also likely to lead members to accept
roles which are defined in terms of their position within that group,
from the leader at the ‘top’ of the hierarchy to the followers at the
‘bottom’.
3 Motivational orientation
A third dimension along which cultures are said to vary is based
on a distinction between two kinds of achievement motivation.
One of these is a form of achievement motivation which is
primarily individually oriented: a person is motivated to succeed
in order to satisfy personal goals and reach individual self-
fulfilment. The other kind is primarily socially oriented: a person
is motivated to succeed because success will bring prestige or other
benefits to others within the ingroup. This distinction, too, is related
to the individualist–collectivist continuum, with a more collectivist
orientation being associated with a higher degree of socially
oriented motivation (see for example Markus and Kitayama, 1991;
Yu, 1996; Yu and Yang, 1994).
Another sub-dimension of achievement motivation is simply its
strength. Many observers and researchers (e.g. Stevenson and Lee,
1996) have highlighted the strong motivation and perseverance
which leads many Asian students who move to the West to achieve
impressive degrees of success, even in unfavourable circumstances,
by comparison with indigenous students.
It goes without saying that each of the differences mentioned in

this section refers in reality to a continuum rather than a clear-cut
distinction: there exist different degrees of individualist or
collectivist orientation, acceptance of authority, socially or
individually oriented motivation. Also, as the results reported in
this paper will illustrate, we need to distinguish carefully between
the tendency of a particular culture to exhibit particular features
and the wide range of differences that will exist between
individuals within that culture.

III Preliminary explorations and the present study

In this section I will first describe my preliminary explorations in
this area. I will then describe the present study, which grew out of
these explorations.
1 Preliminary explorations
The relationship between dimensions such as those described in
Section II and individuals in the real world is a problematic issue
and may lead to dangerous stereotyping. Thus we frequently find
whole cultures being described in homogeneous terms, as if all
members were alike. For example, we read that ‘Asians go to great
lengths to preserve not only their own face but everyone else’s’ or
that ‘since harmony is a guiding principle for the Chinese, they will
not tolerate outward displays of anger’ (Samovar and Porter, 1995),
as if these were characteristics that allowed no exceptions.
Specifically about students, we read that Asian students are
expected to show ‘total obedience or submission to their teachers’,
to be ‘passive receivers of knowledge’ and that they offer ‘little
input to the class’ (Song, 1995: 35–36). Generalizations such as
these may have intuitive appeal and are often expressed not only
by outsiders but also by members of the cultures concerned.
However, they cannot be acceptable, since they allow for none of
the exceptions and differences that we know to exist in the real
world.
As part of my own attempts to come to terms with such issues,
I decided to explore to what extent these generalizations
correspond to the students’ own preferences and perceptions. From
the dimensions outlined above and the more specific claims found
in the literature on intercultural differences, I derived a set of
‘predictions’ about Asian learners:
a To the extent that Asian students have a predominantly

collectivist orientation:
• Prediction 1: They will have a strong inclination to belong to
groups that work towards common goals.
• Prediction 2: They will be eager to engage in activities that
involve discussion within groups.

• Prediction 3: They will be concerned to maintain harmony

within their groups.
• Prediction 4: In the open classroom, they will be reluctant to
‘stand out’ from the group by expressing their views or raising
questions.
b To the extent that Asian students have a high degree of

acceptance of authority:
• Prediction 5: They will perceive the teacher as a figure whose
authority should not be questioned.
• Prediction 6: They will see knowledge as something to be trans-
mitted by the teacher rather than discovered by themselves.
• Prediction 7: They will expect the teacher, as the holder of
authority and knowledge, to be responsible for the assessment
of learning.
c To the extent that Asian students have strong, socially

oriented achievement motivation:
• Prediction 8: They will show strong motivation to complete
learning tasks, provided they perceive the practical value of
these tasks.
• Prediction 9: Their motivation will be strengthened when
success contributes to the goals or prestige of significant
ingroups.
• Prediction 10: They will be very concerned to perform well in
what they do in class.
The ten predictions were converted into 10 corresponding
questionnaire items, to which a pilot group of 50 Hong Kong
Chinese students were asked to indicate their degree of agreement
on a five-point scale. Details will not be given here, since they are
not the main focus of the present article and are available in
Littlewood (1999), but the results can be briefly summarized as
follows:
• There was reasonable support for predictions 1, 2 and 3, which
are related conceptually to a collectivist orientation (average
score = 3.99, where 5 would be maximum agreement, 3 would
be neutral and 1 would be maximum disagreement).

• However, the other prediction derived from the concept of

collectivism (item 4) achieved an average score of only 3.16,
suggesting that readiness to ‘speak out’ in class should be taken
as a separate factor.
• There was reasonable support for the predictions which relate
to the strength and socially oriented nature of the students’
motivation (items 8, 9 and 10; average score = 3.65).
• The three predictions which relate to teacher authority and the
transmission of knowledge (items 5, 6 and 7; average score =
2.79) did not receive support.
The sample of 50 Hong Kong Chinese students was too small
and limited in nature to allow generalizations to be made.
Nonetheless, the results served to show clearly the limitations of
the predictions on which the items were based. Since these
predictions are amongst those that are often stated as ‘facts’ about
Asian learners, the results also served to encourage a continuing
questioning of the assumptions that are often made about learners
in Asian cultures.
2 The present study

Continuing the line of exploration indicated above, I extended the
sample to include students in a wider range of countries in Asia
and, for comparison, a small number of European countries. For
each country involved, Table 1 gives details of the number of
students, their gender and educational level, and whether English
is their ‘major’ or not.
It can be seen that most of the subjects were female students
who (except for Thailand) were studying at tertiary level. The
proportion of English to non-English major students varied
between countries. The unevenness of the sample is a weakness of
the research and reflects the conditions under which the study was
carried out. Although it was ‘large-scale’ in that it involved a large
number of subjects, it was ‘small-scale’ in that it involved minimal
funding and only one main investigator. The nature of the sample
thus depended to a large degree on how many teachers I was able
to contact at the time and which classes they were teaching.
Fortunately, this shortcoming may be less serious than one might
expect, since subsequent data analysis revealed only weak

10
Students’ attitudes to classroom English learning
Table 1 Details of subjects in the present study
Brunei M’land Finland Germany Hong Japan South Malaysia Spain Thailand Vietnam
China Kong Korea
No. of students 39 371 130 158 286 212 344 605 61 355 95
Gender (%):
Male 20.5 32.9 16.2 19.6 28.3 31.1 44.5 40 11.5 37.5 31.6
Female 79.5 67.1 83.8 80.4 71.7 68.9 55.5 60 88.5 62.5 68.4
Ed. level (%):

Upper sec. 0 0 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.9 20.3 1.6 54.4 0
Year 1 tertiary 89.7 74.4 35.8 47.5 73.4 38.7 84 37.9 52.5 27 50.5
Year 2/3 tertiary 10.3 23.2 30 32.3 25.2 59 13.4 25.1 23 18.6 49.5
Other tertiary 0 2.4 15.4 19.6 1 1.9 1.7 16.7 23 0 0
English major
or other (%):
English 23.1 83.3 37.7 88.6 51 48.6 44.2 25.3 93.4 30.4 72.6
Not English 76.9 15.9 55.4 7.6 34.3 42 52.6 60.8 3.3 51.8 25.3
Not yet chosen 0 0.8 6.9 3.8 14.7 9.4 3.2 19.3 3.3 17.7 2.1
associations between the students’ responses and their gender,

educational level and major. (Details of this analysis are not
included here, since they do not contribute directly to the purpose
of this paper, but may be obtained from the author.)
The questionnaire itself was revised in the light of the earlier
experience and discussions with colleagues. In particular, since
‘reluctance to speak out in class’ had elicited in the pilot study a
different response from the other items related to collectivism,
students’ attitudes to performing in whole-class activities were
treated as a separate factor and represented (like the other factors)
not by one but by three items. Thus the questionnaire now
consisted of 12 items which aimed to explore the following four
dimensions:
1. students’ attitudes to working in groups;
2. students’ attitudes to speaking out in open class;
3. students’ attitudes to authority in the classroom; and
4. the nature and strength of students’ motivation.
The constructs that the research aimed to explore encompass
obviously a very broad domain of perceptions and attitudes. A
‘purer’ research design would have been possible by selecting a
smaller number of constructs, but that was not my purpose or
interest in this particular research. Given this broader purpose,
then, it would have been possible to achieve greater reliability by
including more items for each construct. However, the research
depended entirely on the goodwill of many busy people and there
could be no researchers ‘on the spot’ to help administer the
questionnaire. In view of this I imposed upon myself the condition
of keeping the questionnaire short enough to fit onto one side of
A4 paper.
Subsequent factor analysis of students’ responses confirmed in
general the four construct-based groups but suggested also a
number of adjustments. The 12 items are listed below under the
four factors that emerged from the analysis. The differences
between these factors and the original grouping concern only the
three items printed in bold (the item numbers refer to the order
of items in the actual questionnaire):

a Factor 1
1. I feel more relaxed when we work in small groups than when
the whole class works together.
8. I like activities where I am part of a group in which we are all
working towards common goals.
12. I like activities where there is a lot of discussion with
classmates in small groups (of between 3 and 5 students).
(Moved from group 2 into factor 1.)
b Factor 2
5. In the open classroom, I do not like to ‘stand out’ by voicing
my opinions or asking questions.
9. Sometimes I feel nervous to answer a question because I am
afraid of being wrong.
6. In the classroom I see the teacher as somebody whose
authority should not be questioned. (Moved from group 3 into
factor 2.)
c Factor 3
11. I see knowledge as something that the teacher should pass on
to me rather than something that I should discover myself.
3. I expect the teacher (rather than me myself) to be responsible
for evaluating how much I have learnt.
d Factor 4
10. In the classroom I am always very eager to perform well and
correctly in what I do.
2. I work especially hard when I can see a practical purpose in
what I am asked to do.
4. When I am working in a group, I like to help keep the
atmosphere friendly and harmonious. (Moved from group 1
into factor 4.)
7. I work especially hard when my own success will benefit other
people (e.g. my family or other students) as well as me.
The emergence of item 12 as part of factor 1 rather than factor
2 makes sense in terms of the original underlying constructs, since

this item is about attitudes to working in groups (rather than in

the whole class) and thus relates conceptually as much to the other
items in factor 1 as to those in factor 2. The same is true of the
emergence of item 4 in factor 4 rather than factor 1: the desire to
maintain group harmony can be interpreted (like item 7) as an
aspect of socially oriented motivation.
The appearance of item 6 in factor 2 rather than factor 3 is more
difficult to interpret. Item 6 was originally conceptualized as
tapping (with items 3 and 11) students’ attitudes to various aspects
of authority – authority as embedded in established knowledge
(item 11), the teacher’s authority to evaluate students’ learning
(item 3) and the teacher’s authority in the classroom (item 6). The
first two aspects stay together, as predicted, in factor 3. However,
in the factor analysis, the students’ attitudes to the teacher’s
authority are associated not so much with their perceptions of
learning and its evaluation, as with their readiness to voice
opinions and answer questions in class.
From a pedagogical point of view, students’ attitudes to the
teacher do not affect only their readiness to voice opinions and
ask questions. They are also related to the items with which they
were originally grouped, namely, students’ attitudes to learning
(item 11) and evaluation (item 3). Indeed, when we group items
according to the degree of agreement they elicited, item 6 is most
closely associated with factor 3, particularly with item 11: items 6
and 11 are the only two items for which the overall agreement in
both Asia and Europe was below the mid-point. For these reasons,
though item 6 will be grouped statistically with items 5 and 9 into
factor 2, it will also be discussed below as a separate sub-factor
(2b). Students’ attitudes to the teacher’s authority thus provide a
conceptual link between their attitudes to speaking out in class
(sub-factor 2a) and their perceptions of learning (factor 3).
Here, then, are the factors on which discussion will be based:
1 students’ attitudes to working in groups
2a students’ attitudes to speaking out in class
2b students’ attitudes to the teacher’s authority
3 students’ perceptions of learning
4 the nature and strength of students’ motivation.

Unfortunately it is not possible to claim that the four factors

described above are robust. As measured by Cronbach’s Alpha, the
reliability is 0.52, 0.43, 0.44 and 0.47 respectively. Thus, though the
analysis reveals four identifiable factors, the elements within these
factors are not strongly linked and could also be distinguished as
separate elements within the students’ overall set of attitudes. As
mentioned earlier, future research might focus on a smaller
number of these elements and submit them to closer individual
scrutiny.
IV The students’ responses

In the tables that appear in this section, means and standard
deviations are given for each of the 12 items. In addition, the right-
hand column gives means for each of the four main factors. These
figures are given for (a) the individual countries, (b) students in
the eight East Asian countries combined, (c) students in the three
European countries combined and (d) students in all 11 countries
combined. This last figure (d) is given for information only: the
preponderance of Asian students in the survey means that it will
inevitably be much closer to the Asian than to the European mean.
As in the preliminary study, ‘Strongly Disagree’ is scored as 1,
‘Disagree’ as 2, ‘Neutral’ as 3, ‘Agree’ as 4 and ‘Strongly Agree’
as 5.
Analyses of variance between East Asian and European
students (viewed as two groups) were performed using the t test
and the Mann–Whitney U test. The results can be viewed in the
Appendix and will be referred to as appropriate in this section.
Analyses of variance between individual countries within East Asia
and within Europe were performed by means of ANOVA; these
results will be referred to below as appropriate and detailed figures
can be obtained from the author. Significance levels were set at p
< .05.
1 Students’ attitudes to working in groups (factor 1)

Even a cursory glance at the figures in Table 2 reveals that the
majority of students in all countries approach working in groups
with positive attitudes. The lowest figure in the table is 3.42 (Japan,
item 12) and they range as high as 4.26 (Vietnam, item 12).

Table 2 Students’ responses to items comprising factor 1
Item 1 Item 8 Item 12 Factor 1
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean
Brunei 3.69 0.66 4.23 0.63 3.79 0.61 3.91

M’land China 3.64 0.97 3.91 0.90 3.75 0.93 3.77
Hong Kong 3.77 0.83 3.78 0.73 3.63 0.82 3.73
Japan 3.64 0.94 3.72 0.93 3.42 1.08 3.60
S. Korea 3.88 0.93 3.67 0.95 3.73 0.96 3.75
Malaysia 3.88 0.82 4.28 0.65 4.03 0.85 4.06
Thailand 3.90 0.84 4.14 0.75 3.81 0.92 3.95
Vietnam 3.99 0.94 4.25 0.85 4.26 0.78 4.16
Finland 3.95 0.72 4.00 0.79 4.05 0.78 4.00

Germany 3.45 0.91 3.61 0.93 3.51 1.03 3.52
Spain 3.98 0.87 3.63 0.91 3.57 0.83 3.73
East Asia 3.81 0.89 3.99 0.84 3.81 0.93 3.87

Europe 3.73 0.87 3.76 0.89 3.72 0.94 3.74
All countries 3.80 0.89 3.96 0.85 3.79 0.93 3.85
Item 1: I feel more relaxed when we work in small groups than when the
whole class works together.
Item 8: I like activities where I am part of a group in which we are all working
towards common goals.
Item 12: I like activities where there is a lot of discussion with classmates in
small groups (of between 3 and 5 students).
Frequency tables (which may be obtained from the author) show

that on each of the three items above, in each country, the most
frequently chosen response was ‘Agree’. The only three instances
where the responses on the ‘Disagree’ side of the scale account for
15 per cent or more are Germany (item 1 and item 12) and
Mainland China (item 1).
If we take factor 1 as a whole, the difference between East Asia
and Europe is statistically significant. However, this is due mainly
to item 8, which is the only individual item where the difference
reaches statistical significance. Since East Asian countries reveal
the higher values, these results go in the direction that would be
predicted by the concept of collectivism referred to earlier. In spite
of this, the differences between the raw mean scores of individual
countries, and also between those for East Asia and Europe, are
not so great as the literature on individualism and collectivism

might lead us to expect. They do not support the broad

generalizations that are often made about differences between
Asian and European students.
This last point is reinforced by the fact that the East Asian and
European countries are very far from constituting homogeneous
blocks with respect to these items. On each item there is
considerable overlap between the two groups of countries; on item
1, for example, Finland and Spain come second and third behind
Vietnam in level of agreement, whilst on item 12, Finland is second
to Vietnam. This variation within the two major groups of countries
is confirmed by the ANOVA test, which found significant
differences, for every item, both between individual countries
within East Asia and between individual countries within Europe.
2 Students’ attitudes to speaking out in class (factor 2a) and

to the teacher’s authority (factor 2b)
As observed earlier, an observation commonly made about Asian
learners is that they are reticent and more reluctant than their
European counterparts to take an active part in classroom
interaction. The students’ responses to items 5 and 9 could be taken
as weak support of this observation but it is, indeed, weak support.
On item 9, the difference between the responses of Asian and
European students is statistically significant, but on item 5, it is not.
As with factor 1, the raw mean scores confirm that it would be
inappropriate to interpret the responses in terms of distinct
cultural groupings. For example, against the overall trend, the
lowest score on item 5 is from Asia (Vietnam) and the highest is
from Europe (Spain). Spain also follows closely on Brunei as
second highest for item 9. Furthermore, again as with factor 1, the
ANOVA test shows that the differences between individual
countries within Asia and within Europe are themselves
statistically significant. We are again drawn to a two-fold
conclusion: first, that the figures do not support the contrasts often
drawn between Asian and European students; second, that the
countries of Asia and Europe do not in any case form
homogeneous groups. If we consider also the standard deviations,
we are also reminded of the wide range of differences between
individual students within each country.

Item 5 Item 9 Item 6 Factor 2
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean
Brunei 2.97 0.91 3.82 0.94 3.00 1.01 3.26

M’land China 3.00 1.09 3.56 1.03 2.29 0.98 2.95
Hong Kong 3.31 0.97 3.52 0.97 2.59 0.84 3.14
Japan 3.24 1.03 3.58 1.17 2.52 0.96 3.11
S. Korea 3.08 1.05 3.60 0.95 2.41 1.04 3.03
Malaysia 2.79 1.07 3.69 0.96 2.42 0.99 2.97
Thailand 3.03 1.10 3.74 1.07 2.61 1.21 3.13
Vietnam 2.59 0.97 3.35 1.02 2.27 1.14 2.74
Finland 2.87 1.10 3.07 1.04 2.39 0.92 2.78

Germany 2.77 1.05 3.34 1.02 2.56 1.09 2.89
Spain 3.48 1.04 3.78 1.11 2.76 1.00 3.34
East Asia 3.01 1.07 3.62 1.01 2.46 1.03 3.03

Europe 2.93 1.09 3.32 1.07 2.53 1.02 2.93
All countries 3.00 1.07 3.58 1.03 2.47 1.03 3.02
Item 5: In the open classroom, I do not like to ‘stand out’ by voicing my

opinions or asking questions.
Item 9: Sometimes I feel nervous to answer a question because I am afraid of
being wrong.
Item 6: In the classroom I see the teacher as somebody whose authority should
not be questioned.
The responses to item 6 give still more cause to question

common stereotypes. In complete contrast to these stereotypes,
item 6 is one of only two items (the other is item 2) on which the
overall score for the Asian students is lower than that for the
European students (the difference is not statistically significant,
however). With the exception of Brunei, this item and item 11
(concerning the teacher’s transmission of knowledge) scored
lowest of all items in every country in Asia. Furthermore, as with
items 5 and 9, there is considerable overlap between the countries
of East Asia and Europe; the differences between countries within
East Asia and within Europe are significant; and the standard
deviations reveal the wide range of individual variation
everywhere.

3 Students’ perceptions of learning (factor 3)

These items were derived conceptually from the common
stereotype of the Asian learner as reluctant to be creative and
critical, wanting only to receive knowledge passively (a view
recently presented provocatively, by an Asian writer, in Shaw,
1999).
On both items 11 and 3, as well as on factor 3 as a whole, the
differences between Asia and Europe are statistically significant in
the direction that would be predicted by the stereotype. As before,
however, the differences within Asia and within Europe are
themselves also significant; the overlap between the two groups of
countries is considerable (e.g. Vietnam and Mainland China score
below the European mean on both of the individual items, as well
as on factor 3 as a whole); and there is considerable variation
within countries.
In the light of the conviction with which the stereotype of the
‘passive Asian learner’ is often expressed, the most striking aspect
Item 11 Item 3 Factor 3
Mean SD Mean SD Mean
Brunei 2.87 1.09 3.28 1.02 3.08

M’land China 1.99 0.91 2.87 1.17 2.43
Hong Kong 2.94 0.84 3.61 0.74 3.28
Japan 2.72 0.94 2.74 0.98 2.73
S. Korea 2.04 0.90 3.10 1.07 2.57
Malaysia 2.74 1.04 3.25 1.08 3.00
Thailand 2.73 1.11 3.38 0.97 3.06
Vietnam 1.95 1.07 2.67 1.25 2.31
Finland 1.77 0.75 2.54 0.83 2.16

Germany 2.25 0.95 2.54 0.96 2.40
Spain 2.62 1.12 3.08 1.09 2.38
East Asia 2.51 1.05 3.16 1.07 2.83

Europe 2.14 0.96 2.64 0.96 2.39
All countries 2.46 1.05 3.09 1.07 2.78
Item 11: I see knowledge as something that the teacher should pass on to me
rather than something that I should discover myself.
Item 3: I expect the teacher (rather than me myself) to be responsible for
evaluating how much I have learnt.

of the above figures is not that the differences point in the

predicted direction, but that the East Asian students’ scores are so
consistently low, particularly on item 11. If East Asian students do
indeed behave generally in more conformist, non-questioning ways
than their European counterparts, the responses suggest that this
is not from any predisposition to do so but because of the
educational traditions and contexts that have influenced them (this
point is discussed further in Littlewood, 2000).
4 Nature and strength of students’ motivation (factor 4)

The original reason for including items 10 and 2 was the
observation commonly reported in the literature that in countries
where they are immigrants, Asian students show a strong ability to
succeed and often outperform students born locally. The
differences between the Asian and European students’ responses
to item 10 are indeed in this direction but they are not statistically
significant. The differences on item 2 are significant but it is the
European students who show the highest level of agreement. On
both items, we again find significant differences within each
geographical group, considerable overlap between these groups,
and a wide range of individual variation.
The responses to item 4, which elicited the strongest agreement
of all items in the questionnaire, suggest that students in East Asia
and Europe are equally concerned to maintain harmony within
their working groups. This runs counter to the claim that concern
for interpersonal harmony is an Asian rather than a Western
characteristic. (This concern is sometimes said to hinder the critical
questioning of ideas; see, for example, Oetzel, 1995.)
Item 7 was intended to measure the extent to which students’
motivation is socially oriented. Conceptually it is therefore closely
related to the items in factor 1, particularly item 8, which attempted
to measure the importance attached to working in groups towards
common goals. Item 7 produced the most pronounced difference
in means for East Asia and Europe. This is in agreement with the
claims made in the literature that achievement motivation is more
likely to be socially oriented in Asian ‘collectivist’ societies than in
European ‘individualist’ societies. Again, however, the differences
between the scores are not so great as to let us ignore the relative

20

Item 10 Item 2 Item 4 Item 7 Factor 4
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean
Brunei 3.61 0.92 4.06 0.57 4.33 0.62 4.13 0.88 4.01
M’land China 4.00 0.83 4.08 0.86 4.44 0.70 4.18 0.89 4.18
Hong Kong 3.44 0.73 3.81 0.72 4.03 0.73 3.65 0.69 3.73
Japan 3.01 0.84 3.81 0.79 3.93 0.86 3.68 0.88 3.61
S. Korea 3.63 0.90 4.22 0.84 4.09 0.79 3.95 0.84 3.97
Malaysia 3.65 0.83 3.94 0.84 4.35 0.70 4.23 0.81 4.04
Thailand 3.50 0.85 3.93 0.83 4.32 0.82 4.11 0.82 3.97
Vietnam 3.97 0.72 4.17 1.00 4.28 0.81 4.33 0.81 4.19
Finland 3.27 0.82 4.23 0.59 4.35 0.64 3.65 0.73 3.88
Germany 3.58 0.79 4.20 0.82 4.12 0.68 3.50 0.84 3.85
Spain 3.93 0.85 3.87 0.78 4.33 0.60 3.66 0.90 3.95
East Asia 3.61 0.87 3.99 0.83 4.24 0.77 4.04 0.85 3.97
Europe 3.52 0.84 4.15 0.75 4.24 0.66 3.58 0.81 3.88
All countries 3.60 0.87 4.01 0.83 4.24 0.76 3.98 0.86 3.96
Item 10: In the classroom I am always very eager to perform well and correctly in what I do.
Item 2: I work especially hard when I can see a practical purpose in what I am asked to do.
Item 4: When I am working in a group, I like to help keep the atmosphere friendly and harmonious.
Item 7: I work especially hard when my own success will benefit other people (e.g. my family or other students) as well as me.
nature of the ‘collectivist vs. individualist’ distinction and the wide

degree of individual variation.
V Some preliminary conclusions

As mentioned earlier, the research reported here has a number of
weaknesses, deriving partly from its conditions and partly from its
design. It is perhaps best seen as exploratory in nature and as a
springboard for further investigations. However, from the results
reported, some preliminary conclusions may be suggested.
1 Most students in all countries question the traditional

authority structure of the classroom
One of the starting points for the present investigation was the
commonly stated belief (discussed further in, e.g., Littlewood, 2000;
Liu, 1998; Song, 1995) that Asian students are more ready than
European students to accept the traditionally dominant role of the
teacher. It may be that this tradition is still felt or imposed more
strongly in Asia than in Europe. However, the results of this survey
suggest that it does not correspond to the way in which most
students in Asia (specifically here: East Asia) would like to learn
in the classroom. This conclusion is supported by several other
sources. For example, Aoki and Smith (1996) reach a similar
conclusion on the basis of the diaries of Japanese learners. Outside
the specific field of language teaching, Marton et al. (1997) report
that many sixth-form students in Hong Kong would like to adopt
a more independent approach to their learning but feel that
current teaching approaches prevent them from doing so.
2 Most students in all countries would like to see themselves

as active participants in the classroom learning process
This conclusion is closely related to the first. The stereotype of the
‘passive Asian learner’ is pervasive in teachers’ reports about
students and even in students’ reports about themselves. Often,
however, these students add that the main cause of their apparent
passivity is that this is how they have always been expected to learn
and they find it difficult to behave otherwise in the semi-public
classroom setting (own data). The responses to the present survey

reflect a desire to break out of these constraints and engage more

actively in their learning. There are now numerous reports from
teachers who have created learning contexts which stimulate this
engagement (e.g. Aoki, 1999; Ho and Crookall, 1995; Lee and
Littlewood, 1999; Marshall and Torpey, 1997; Whitehill et al., 1997).
3 Most students in all countries have a positive attitude towards

co-operating in groups in order to achieve common goals
The literature on dimensions of cultural variation (particularly the
‘individualism–collectivism’ continuum) might lead us to expect
European students to be less positively disposed than Asian
students towards working in groups. This expectation is not
supported by the present survey, though the responses to items 7
and 8 do suggest that motivation may be more socially oriented in
East Asian than in European countries.
4 In every country, there is considerable variation between the

responses of individual students
The research was stimulated initially by a desire to examine
critically the generalizations that are often made about students
(and others) in different cultures. Even a cursory glance at the
standard deviations shows that, in every country, students varied
greatly in their responses to all items. The frequency tables for each
country (not reproduced here but obtainable from the author)
show this variation even more graphically and underline the need
to reject the generalizations that are made.
5 The differences in the means of ‘whole countries’ and ‘whole

cultures’ are considerably less than the range of variation
between individuals within each country or culture
In spite of the statistically significant differences that have been
noted, the profiles of the students’ mean responses to the
questionnaire items are remarkably similar and do not show the
extent of variation that one might expect from current discussions
of intercultural differences in language learning styles (e.g.
Kramsch and Sullivan, 1996; Nelson, 1995; Oxford and Anderson,
1995). This similarity of overall pattern is clearly visible in Figure

Comparison of Asia and Europe (questions)

Mean
Question number
Figure 1 Comparison of responses of East Asian and European students
1, which compares question-by-question the responses of students

in Asia and Europe. The order of questions from left to right
follows the order adopted in the previous discussion of individual
items.
VI Conclusion
The graph in Figure 1 shows a striking degree of similarity in the
pattern of responses of students in East Asia and Europe to the
statements included in this survey. However, before we conclude
that ‘students everywhere have the same perceptions and
preferences’, it is necessary to make a proviso concerning the
nature of the statements themselves. Since the statements attempt
to cover a wide range of perceptions within the scope of an
intentionally brief questionnaire, they address the ‘deep structure’
of these perceptions rather than their ‘surface level’ realizations.
This deep structure may be similar (perhaps even universal) across
cultures, but there may still be significant differences in how it is
realized through specific reactions and behaviours. For example,
the responses suggest that most students in all settings like to work
in groups towards common goals, but there may still be important
differences in how students in different settings conceive these
‘common goals’. It has been suggested, for example, that collectivist
cultures encourage members to give higher priority to relationship-
oriented goals (such as maintaining consensus), whilst individualist

cultures emphasize outcome-related goals (see Carson and Nelson,

1994, on how this may affect writing groups and Oetzel, 1995, on
how it may influence group decision-making). Similarly, most
students everywhere may like to keep their groups harmonious,
but they may have different perceptions of what kinds of behaviour
disturb this harmony; most students may like working in groups,
but they may have different ideas on how these groups should be
organized; and so on.
To explore such details, further research is needed. In the
meantime, the research reported here encourages us to continue
to question sweeping generalizations about cultures. When a
teacher or student moves from one cultural setting to another, he
or she may well be faced with differences in habitual classroom
behaviour, but these should not mask either the underlying
similarities that exist across cultures or the individual differences
between students everywhere.
Note
1
The work described in this paper was supported by Faculty Research
Grants from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the Hong Kong
Baptist University. It could not have been completed without the
generous help of a large number of teachers in the countries concerned,
in particular: in Brunei: Agneta Svalberg, Allistair Wood; in Mainland
China: Chen Yajie, Wang Xiaoling, Wu Xin, Zhang Hong, Zhao Qinling;
in Finland: Jane Honka, Paula Kalaja, Sirppa Leppänen, Kari Sajavaara;
in Germany: Eija Ventola, Dieter Wolff; in Hong Kong: Phil Benson,
Hilary Bower, Victoria Chan, Nancy Choi, Richard Farmer, Gillian
Gaston, Jan Hamilton, Linda Lin, Jasmine Luk, Richard Moore, Jimmy
Tong, Madeleine Tsoi, Cathy Wong, Jennie Shum, Miles Spink; in Japan:
Jackie Beebe, Lynne Parmenter, Richard Smith; in Korea: Hwang Na-
eun, Lee Sung-hee, Lee Young-Ja, Lee Young Shik, Yoon Hee Soh; in
Malaysia: Lucille Dass, Foo Suit Mooi, Hyacinth Gaudart, Shiv Ludher,
Catherine Lee Cheng Kiat, Cordelia Mason, Su Siok Khim, Jean Yeoh
Poh Chin; in Spain: Mia Victori; in Thailand: Virginia Henderson,
Sonthida Keyuravong, Somkuan Poonanua, Bill Savage, Marisa
Singhaphan, Somporn Srirattanakul, Jo Ann Unabia; in Vietnam: Dang
Kim Anh. The questionnaire also benefited from forming part of the
stimulus materials at a workshop on questionnaire design conducted by
Charles Alderson at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The
responses to the questionnaire were converted into the statistics

presented here by Fiona Chan and Iris Choi, two students at the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, and Christy Cheung, a student at the City
University of Hong Kong.
VI References
Anderson, F.E. 1993: The enigma of the college classroom: nails that don’t
stick up. In Wadden, P., editor, A handbook for teaching English at
Japanese colleges and universities, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
101–10.
Aoki, N. 1999: Affect and the role of teachers in the development of
learner autonomy. In Arnold, J., editor, Affect in language learning,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 142–54.
Aoki, N. and Smith, R. 1996: Learner autonomy in cultural context: the
case of Japan. Paper presented at the 11th World Congress of
Applied Linguistics, Jyväskylä, Finland, 4–9 August 1996.
Brislin, R. 1993: Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. Orlando,
FL: Harcourt Brace.
Carson, J.G. and Nelson, G.L. 1994: Writing groups: cross-cultural issues.
Journal of Second Language Writing 3(1): 17–30.
Gallois, C. and Callan, V. 1997: Communication and culture: a guide for
practice. Chichester: John Wiley.
Gudykunst, W.B. 1994: Bridging differences: effective intergroup
communication, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ho, J. and Crookall, D. 1995: Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions:
learner autonomy in English language teaching. System 23(2):
235–43.
Hofstede, G. 1980: Culture’s consequences: international differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
–––– 1994: Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London:
HarperCollins.
Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G., editors,
1994: Individualism and collectivism: theory, method and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klopf, D.W. 1995: Intercultural encounters: the fundamentals of
intercultural communication, third edition. Englewood, CO: Morton.
Kramsch, C. and Sullivan, P. 1996: Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal
50(3): 199–212.
Lee, L. and Littlewood, W. 1999: What makes interactive learning work?
HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies 4: 80–92.
Littlewood, W. 1999: Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian
contexts. Applied Linguistics 20(1): 71–94.
–––– 2000: Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT
Journal 54(1): 31–36.

Liu, D. 1998: Ethnocentrism in TESOL: teacher education and the

neglected needs of international TESOL students. ELT Journal
52(1): 3–10.
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. 1991: Culture and the self: implications
for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review 98(2):
224–53.
Marshall, N. and Torpey, M. 1997: Autonomy and interaction in a self-
directed classroom. In Berry, V., Adamson, B. and Littlewood, W.,
editors, Applying linguistics: insights into language in education.
Hong Kong: English Centre, University of Hong Kong, 107–22.
Marton, F., Watkins, D. and Tang, C. 1997: Discontinuities and continuities
in the experience of learning: an interview study of high-school
students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instruction 7(1): 21–48.
Nelson, G.L. 1995: Cultural differences in learning styles. In Reid, J.M.,
editor, Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston, MA:
Heinle and Heinle, 3–18.
Oetzel, J.G. 1995: Intercultural small groups: an effective decision-making
theory. In Wiseman, R.L., editor, Intercultural communication
theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 247–70.
Oxford, R.L. and Anderson, N.J. 1995: A crosscultural view of learning
styles. Language Teaching 28: 201–15.
Samovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. 1995: Communication between cultures,
second edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Shaw, S.M. 1999: It’s true. Asians can’t think. TIMEAsia, May 31: 23.
Smith, P.B. and Bond, M.H. 1993: Social psychology across cultures.
Hemel Hempstead: Harvester.
Song, B. 1995: What does reading mean for East Asian students? College
ESL 5(2): 35–48.
Stevenson, H.W. and Lee, S.Y. 1996: The academic achievement of
Chinese students. In Bond, M., editor, Handbook of Chinese
psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 124–42.
Triandis, H.C. 1995: Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Whitehill, T.L., Stokes, S.F. and MacKinnon, M.M. 1997: Problem-based
learning and the Chinese learner. In Murray-Harvey, R. and Silins,
H.C., editors, Learning and teaching in higher education: advancing
international perspectives. Adelaide: Flinders Press, 129–46.
Yu, A.B. 1996: Ultimate life concerns, self, and Chinese achievement
motivation. In Bond, M., editor, Handbook of Chinese psychology.
Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 227–46.
Yu, A.B. and Yang, K.S. 1994: The nature of achievement motivation in
collectivist societies. In Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi,
S.C. and Yoon, G., editors, Individualism and collectivism: theory,
method and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 239–50.

Appendix Comparisons between East Asian and European students
1. Comparisons for the 12 items
Item Compare: N Mean Standard T-test: Mann–Whitney
(abbreviated) deviation significance U test:
(2-tailed) asymp. sig.
(*p<.05) (2-tailed)
1: I feel more relaxed when Asia 2307 3.807 .883 .114 0.08
working in groups Europe 349 3.727 .873
8: I like working towards Asia 2307 3.992 .834 .000* 0.00
common goals in groups Europe 349 3.762 .886
12: I like activities with Asia 2307 3.806 .922 .114 0.19
discussion in small groups Europe 349 3.722 .938
5: I do not like ‘standing out’ by Asia 2307 3.006 1.063 .222 0.19
voicing opinions in class Europe 349 2.931 1.089
9: I sometimes feel nervous to Asia 2307 3.621 1.012 .000* 0.00
speak for fear of being wrong Europe 349 3.319 1.066
6: The teacher’s authority is Asia 2307 2.462 1.012 .256 0.22
not to be questioned Europe 349 2.528 1.000
11: Knowledge should be Asia 2307 2.505 1.040 .000* 0.00
William Littlewood
transmitted, not discovered Europe 349 2.141 .954
3: The teacher, not students, Asia 2307 3.162 1.063 .000* 0.00
should evaluate learning Europe 349 2.640 .951
10: I am always eager to Asia 2307 3.608 .860 .076 0.22
perform well in class Europe 349 3.521 .829
2: I work specially hard Asia 2307 3.988 .828 .000* 0.00
for a practical purpose Europe 349 4.152 .745
4: I like to keep the group Asia 2307 4.240 .771 .991 0.40
atmosphere harmonious Europe 349 4.239 .659
7: I work especially hard if my Asia 2307 4.043 .846 .000* 0.00
success also benefits others Europe 349 3.598 .802
27
28
2. Comparisons for the four factors

Compare: N Mean Standard T-test: Mann–Whitney
deviation significance U test:
(2-tailed) asymp. sig.
(*p<.05) (2-tailed)
1: Attitudes to working in groups Asia 2307 3.8685 .6262 .000* 0.00
Europe 349 3.7369 .6598
2: Attitudes to (a) speaking out in Asia 2307 3.0295 .6890 .009* 0.01
class, (b) teacher’s authority Europe 349 2.9258 .7297
3: Perceptions of learning Asia 2307 2.8334 .8312 .000* 0.00
Europe 349 2.3906 .7782
4: Nature and strength of Asia 2307 3.9697 .5179 .000* 0.00
motivation Europe 349 3.8776 .4174

Students' Attitudes To Classroom English Learning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Students' Attitudes To Classroom English Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Languagehttp://ltr.sagepub.

Students' attitudes to classroom English learning: a cross-cultural study

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2001

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

Students’ attitudes to classroom

In recent years researchers have developed a range of perspectives for

© Arnold 2001 1362–1688(01)LR077.OA

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

1. First, the paper explains the background to the survey by

1 Collectivism and individualism

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

by the groups to which he or she belongs, especially so-called

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

It is usually claimed that differences in power and authority are

It goes without saying that each of the differences mentioned in

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

III Preliminary explorations and the present study

a To the extent that Asian students have a predominantly

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

• Prediction 3: They will be concerned to maintain harmony

b To the extent that Asian students have a high degree of

c To the extent that Asian students have strong, socially

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

• However, the other prediction derived from the concept of

2 The present study

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

Ed. level (%):

associations between the students’ responses and their gender,

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

this item is about attitudes to working in groups (rather than in

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

Unfortunately it is not possible to claim that the four factors

IV The students’ responses

1 Students’ attitudes to working in groups (factor 1)

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

Table 2 Students’ responses to items comprising factor 1

Item 1 Item 8 Item 12 Factor 1

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean

Brunei 3.69 0.66 4.23 0.63 3.79 0.61 3.91

Finland 3.95 0.72 4.00 0.79 4.05 0.78 4.00

East Asia 3.81 0.89 3.99 0.84 3.81 0.93 3.87

Frequency tables (which may be obtained from the author) show

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

might lead us to expect. They do not support the broad

2 Students’ attitudes to speaking out in class (factor 2a) and

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

Table 3 Students’ responses to items comprising factor 2

Item 5 Item 9 Item 6 Factor 2

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean

Brunei 2.97 0.91 3.82 0.94 3.00 1.01 3.26

Finland 2.87 1.10 3.07 1.04 2.39 0.92 2.78

East Asia 3.01 1.07 3.62 1.01 2.46 1.03 3.03

Item 5: In the open classroom, I do not like to ‘stand out’ by voicing my

The responses to item 6 give still more cause to question

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Cape Breton University Library on March 6, 2013

3 Students’ perceptions of learning (factor 3)

Table 4 Students’ responses to items comprising factor 3

Item 11 Item 3 Factor 3

Mean SD Mean SD Mean

Brunei 2.87 1.09 3.28 1.02 3.08