The Learner > Learning and teaching
The learner profile
The culturally-correlated psychological characteristics that have been reviewed so far could well shape how different cultural groups approach the activity of studying. Accordingly, we find strongly-held notions of “the Chinese learner”.
It is certainly the case that research has reported cultural differences of this kind. What we should make of these claims is a different and difficult matter. Academic commentators are cautious in the stance they adopt when it comes to evaluating the differences that have been reported. On the other hand, casual opinion among instructors tends to both identify the reality of a Chinese learning approach. Moreover, it tends to regard it rather unfavourably. Samuelowicz (1987) reports this among Australian teachers who have long experience of both local and Asian visiting students. Practitioners such as Littlewood (1999) therefore alert colleagues to likely traditions and differences in culturally diverse classrooms, suggesting ways in which they may be met.
Often in the background to these discussions is an awareness of a distinction made prominent by the work of Marton and Saljo (1976): namely, the idea that learners might exercise a “deep” or “surface” approach to their study. Surface learning tends to be instrumental and pragmatic, lacking the “depth” associated with a more personal search for knowledge, a prizing of knowledge for its own sake. This distinction relates to other contrasts in the learning literature: such as that between “performance goals” and “mastery goals” (Ames,. 1992). Or it can be related to a distinction between motives to learn that are “intrinsic” versus “extrinsic” – governed by autonomous and self-generated ambitions or imposed by external constraints and structures (Deci and Ryan, 1985)
Marton and Saljo proposed that learners might adopt distinct “styles” that corresponded to the poles of these contrasts. Biggs (1987), amongst others, developed this conception by designing survey instruments that would allow it to be measured as a characteristic of individual students. However, as Tweed and Lehman (2002) comment in reviewing this research tradition, the learning style approach is fraught with difficulties if it is to be a basis for characterising cultural differences. Although there have been claims that the Chinese learner does match more the “surface” style proposed in this theory, it is admitted that there are problems to do with how these conceptions of deep and surface might be played out differently in different cultural traditions. A common instrument for assessing them might therefore be ambitious.
The simple dichotomy of deep and surface learning style has not taken hold as a force within this debate. Yet there is a literature in which attempts are made to define a Chinese learning profile. That work is somewhat piecemeal and scattered. Reflecting on the observations made above regarding Chinese psychological dispositions, there are themes there that one would expect to see reflected in any analyses of Chinese approaches to learning. In particular, learning might be shaped by a commitment to seeing objects in their contextual relationships, rather than a concern for categorising and abstracting. Similarly, a strongly developed respect for social structures and obligations is likely to influence the interpersonal dimension of learning. Together, such dispositions might, for example, shape the degree to which a learner was willing to take personal responsibility in study: interrogating learning materials and gaining a sense of personal ownership in relation to domains of knowledge.
Some of these implications for learning are difficult to detect and pursue. For instance, the contextual orientation of Asian thinking might well influence the conduct of analytic reasoning. Such reasoning is contrasted in terms of its formal versus its intuitive realisation. The former is grounded upon symbolic representations and the manipulation of their structural relations, while the latter more on statistical relations and perceived contiguities. This dual processing of reasoning is central to recent theorising of human logical cognition (Evans and Over, 1996). They express the distinction in these terms: “formal reasoning is rule based, emphasises logical inference, represents concepts by necessary and sufficient features, and overlooks sense experience when it conflicts with rules or logic. Intuitive reasoning is experience based, resists decontextualizing or separating from content, relies on sense experience and concrete instances and overlooks rules and logic when they are at odds with intuition.” (p. 678).
Both forms of reasoning are valued. We have already cited evidence that suggests a greater preference for more intuitive reasoning in Chinese research participants (Ji, Zhang and Nisbett, 2004). Yet it remains difficult to firmly identify this tendency as a feature of a Chinese learning mode. The exercise of such a reasoning disposition will be sufficiently subtle that detecting its influence in situations of learning can not be easy. This example reflects a general challenge to research that tries to profile the Chinese learner: the anticipated modes of thought can be sufficiently subtle in their realisation that they may be concealed from view in situations of formal teaching and learning. Accordingly, research attention has tended to dwell upon a small set of claims that link to more concrete or visible manifestations in learning.
One aspect of learning that does lend itself to reliable detection and theorising is the tendency to participate in class - by speaking out. Tweed and Lehman (2002) review studies of such class participation by Chinese learners. They find mixed results. However, overall they tend to suggest that Chinese students are more silent in classes. For example, this is reported in studies by Liu and Littlewood (1997) and by Jin and Cortazzi (1996). Moreover, Li and Nesi (2004) have reviewed research that directs a similar question towards the business environment. They conclude that the tendency to limit contribution to corporate discussions is present within the Chinese business community also. Li and Nesi’s own research does illustrate a form of inquiry that is refreshingly unusual. They endeavoured to expose those more subtle aspects of thinking and reasoning that we have identified as problematic for research. They explored actual patterns of argument as these were employed by Chinese learners in group discussion. Unfortunately, their sample was small but the study did illustrate a form of research that has much promise if applied toward describing a Chinese learning profile.
Engagement in collaborative learning identifies a variant on this theme of social participation by learners. Tweed and Lehman (2002) identify this as a topic which, while very relevant, has been rather neglected in research. However, there is some evidence that Chinese learners may be more inclined to work with the peers on assignments than students from Western classrooms (Tang 1996).
Perhaps the most pervasive claim about the Chinese learner is the one that links learning autonomy to the supposed Asian preference for interdependence, along with a resistance to firm articulations of personal hypotheses and perspectives. The sensitivity of language teachers to this lack of personal autonomy is discussed at some length by Littlewood (1999). Evidence for it tends to be indirect – usually in the form of instructor claims about the lack of student voice in submitted assignments. However, Iyengar, Lepper and Ross (1999) have pursued this issue cross culturally, in the theoretical context of intrinsically and extrinsically motivated study. They find that Western students report enjoying learning more if it is self-directed, while Chinese students prefer that their learning be directed by a significant outside agent – ideally, a respected teacher.
Finally, most practitioner commentators are also keen to acknowledge that the Chinese learner is typically diligent and hardworking. Viewed negatively this is sometimes characterised as a form of pragmatism in learning – extrinsically motivated study, rather than study for its own sake. On (1996) points out that, historically, education has been seen in China as an important route to a secure job although there are more wide-ranging motives than this for studying hard. Jin (2004) asked US and Chinese students to characterise in their own words what made a good student. The Chinese answers made more prominent issues of diligence and effort, contributing to society and achieving social mobility. They also gave more significance to resolve and the endurance of hardship.
This discussion has dwelt upon learners and learning: noting aspects of what they do in educational contexts that might help identify a distinct style or profile. However, we may view these contexts from another side: research that characterises what happens in terms of teacher activities will also be valuable. We turn to this next.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 950 – 967.
Biggs, J.B. (1987) Student Approaches to Learning and Studying , Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Evans, J.St. T.B., & Over, D.E. (1996). Rationality and Reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.
Iyengar, S.S. Lepper, M.R. and Ross, L. (1999) Independence from whom? Interdependence from whom? Cultural perspectives on ingroups versus outgroups. In D.A. Prentice and D.T. Miller (Eds.) Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict. New Yorl: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ji, L.J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R.E. (2004) Is it Culture, or is it language? Examination of language effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 57-65.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 739-761.
Li, M., & Nesi, H. (2004). Exchange patterns in small-group discussions: A comparative study of Chinese and English discourse in peer group, divergent discussion task. The East Asian Learner, 1, 13-30.
Liu, N.-F., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371-384.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20, 71-94.
Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning: outcome and process, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
On, L.W. (1996) The cultural context for Chinese learners: conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In Watkins D. A., Biggs J.(Eds.), The Chinese Learner. Hong Kong and Melbourne: CERC and ACER. 25-42.
Samuelowicz, K. (1987) Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story. Higher Education Research and Development, 6, 121-134.
Tang, C. (1996) Collaborative learning: The latent dimension in Chinese students’ learning. In Watkins D. A., Biggs J.(Eds.), The Chinese Learner. Hong Kong and Melbourne: CERC and ACER.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57, 89-99.