Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
. 2
1.0
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
2.0 Literature
Review…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
3.0
Method*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€
¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦….7
3.1 Participants
…………………………………………………………………………………..*€¦………………..7
3.2 Research instruments
*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦.*€¦*€¦.7
3.3
Procedure*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦
*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦.9
3.4 Limitations
*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦.*€¦*€¦
*€¦*€¦.*€¦9
4.0
Findings*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*
€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦.*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦….11
4.1 Preferred mode of learning
*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦11
4.2 Class room Interaction and study material
*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦.*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦15
4.3 Interest and Understanding in the subject matter
*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦…*€¦*€¦.*€¦.*€¦*€¦.*€¦.17
4.4 Educational goal
*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦.*€¦.*€¦
.19
5.0
Discussion*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*
€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦.*€¦.20
6.0 Conclusion
*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*
€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦24
7.0 Reflection
*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*
€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦..25
References
*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*
€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦*€¦..27
Appendix A *€¦.. Questionnaire
Appendix B*€¦… Original Literature Review
Abstract
This research report attempted to find out the differences between the Educational styles
and goals of students from the Middle East studying in Australia and Australian students.
This study also explored whether difference in cultural assimilation as well as the number
of years spent in Australia and lead to different goals and preference for different
educational styles in students from the Middle East. A questionnaire was prepared and
given to twenty three students (seventeen from the Middle East and six from Australia).
There were significant differences in the attitude towards educational goals and styles
between Middle Eastern and Australian respondents. The former were motivated by an
increased job prospect, and preferred more passive learning methods like a class lecture or
textbooks. They also showed a lesser classroom interaction and active interest in the
subject, in contrast to the Australians. Increased cultural assimilation was not found to
have an effect on the primary educational goal but resulted in preference of educational
methods like Group projects along with the traditional methods. The number of years spent
in the host country also did not seem to have a large effect in determining the educational
goals and styles. The reasons behind such differences have also been discussed, with
differences in the motivation behind higher education suggested as a determining factor
along with other cultural factors.
1.0 Introduction
Australia and NZ are ranked in the top ten countries as places to study by
international students (Ma & Abbott, 2006). Western universities have seized the
importance of admitting international students as a result of reduced government
spending on tertiary education (Ma & Abbott, 2006). Countries such as NZ and
Australia view education as a business (Ma & Abbott, 2006). Ma and Abbott (2006)
write that the rapid growth in global economies and incomes has lead to the rise in
international students heading to Oceania universities.
However, Asian students may find it difficult to adjust to the Australian educational
style. Their attitude towards the educational style followed in the Australian
Universities may differ markedly from Australians. They may also have different
educational goals compared to their Australian counterparts. Due to insufficient
fluency in the language, as well as low assimilation, they may find it difficult to follow
the course work. However, the difficulties faced by Asian students in higher
Education in Australia has not been well studied, with a few studies published only
for selected Asian students like the Chinese students.
There are no studies detailing the differences in the Educational goals as well as the
attitude of Immigrant Middle-East and Australian students towards different educational
styles. Therefore, this study is an initial exploration into finding differences in the attitude
and perceptions of Middle-Eastern and Australian students towards the different
educational styles, as well as the dissimilarities in their Educational Goals. The effect of
cultural assimilation and duration of stay in the host country in shaping these differences
was also studied. To this end, a survey was conducted on Middle-Eastern and Australian
students by means of a questionnaire.
2.0 Literature Review
International students believe that a degree from an English speaking University will
give them better standing in business and family status back in their home countries
(Selvarajah, 2006). Selvarajah (2006) asserts that Asian students have had limited
academic success as they assimilate into the university population due to different
educational styles and reasons for studying when compared with their native English
speaking counterparts.
The majority of Asian students come from a Confucian Heritage Culture where the
teacher is generally respected as a mentor or guide who dictates the learning
experience for students (Levinsohn, 2007). This is contrast with the constructivist
approach favoured by western educational theorists who propose that students learn
by building their own knowledge trees with the teacher acting as a facilitator
(Levinsohn, 2007). Levinsohn (2007) states that research by conducted on schools in
Hong Kong that introduced Target Oriented Curriculum met with limited success in
students and teachers.
A study of Chinese students was found to be more likely to rely on rote learning
(resulting in surface learning) compared with their western counterparts who try and
link learning with their experiences (Levinsohn, 2007) In some cases this has lead to
problems in universities as there is a clash between learning styles as Chinese
students tend to sit back and rely heavily on material in text books and lectures and
not ask questions or take ownership of their learning (Levinsohn, 2007). Asian
students usually rely heavily on repetition (rote learning) for surface learning with
little memory retention of material, whereas NZ European students will try and link
their learning to knowledge they possess and or their surrounding environment
(Levinsohn, 2007).
Levinsohn (2007) writes that Chinese students rely on more external regulation of their
learning processes and results as teachers or lecturers strictly controls the learning
environment and context. Selvarajah (2006) found that American teachers were more
likely to stereotype students of Asian and Pacific Islander descent as quiet, hardworking
and docile which tends to reinforce conformity and stifle creativity. In contrast students
born in their home countries are encouraged to be self-reliant and self-confident