Exploring the different attitudes and experiences of UK domiciled
versus International MBA students towards peer assessment
Higher Education Academy Annual Conference 2008
1 - 3rd July 2008, Harrogate International Centre, Harrogate.
st
Faruk Merali
Senior Lecturer in Organisational Behaviour
London Metropolitan University
London Metropolitan Business School
Stapleton House, 277-281 Holloway Road, London N7 8HN
E mail: f.merali@londonmet.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
This study reports a clear difference in the attitudes and experiences of
UK domiciled students compared to international students towards peer
assessment and student self-determination of assessment criteria which
was recently introduced within an MBA module. The differences in the
views of the two student groups are presented and their implications
discussed.
Introduction
There is significant literature related to exploring student attitudes and
experiences of peer assessment (Brown et al, 2003; Cheng & Warren,
1997; Hanrahan & Isaacs, 2001; Smith et al, 2002; Van den Berg et al,
2006, Pope, 2005), however this usually tends not to distinguish between
the views, attitudes and experiences of locally domiciled versus
international students. The studies that do specifically investigate any
differences in the attitudes and experiences of home versus international
students to the various assessment methods (including peer assessment)
and the pedagogic implications of any cultural differences tend to be
sparse (De Vita, 2002; Gatfield, 1999). Furthermore the existing literature
appears to focus upon peer assessment experiences mainly in relation to
undergraduate as opposed to postgraduate student experiences (Van den
Berg et al, 2006, Gatfield, 1999; Hanrahan & Isaacs, 2001; Pope, 2005;
Smith et al, 2002).
In recent years there has been an increase in the number of international
students within the UK higher education sector (De Vita, 2002). This has
led to a growing interest in the significance of literature related to culture
and cross cultural management (Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars, 1993;
Hall, 1976) and its relevance to the field of pedagogy (Gatfield, 1999;
Wu, 2002). Hofstede’s (1980) classical global oriented research based in
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
40 countries and involving a survey of 116,000 IBM employees led to the
identification of five key cultural value based dimensions (power
distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism,
masculinity/femininity and confusion dynamism) which have been found
to be useful in identifying national cultural differences. The cultural
dimension relating to power distance denotes the extent to which unequal
power distribution is acceptable within organisations and society whereas
uncertainty avoidance reflects the extent to which uncertainty and
unpredictability are tolerated. Countries that rank high on the cultural
dimension of individualism and masculinity prefer values related to
competitiveness, assertiveness and have a preoccupation with taking care
of oneself rather than values associated in relation to the welfare of the
wider collective group. The dimension labelled “confusian dynamism”
was identified later (Hofstede & Bond, 1988) and relates to the
maintenance of short-term and long-term orientation. Similarly
Trompenaars (1993) distinguished national cultural differences based on
seven dimensions (universalism versus particularism; individualism
versus collectivism, neutral versus affective relationships, specific versus
diffuse relationships, achievement versus ascription and relationship to
time). Hall (1976) on the other hand developed a High and Low Context
Cultural Framework for explaining differences in communication styles
within various national cultures. Whilst there has been some criticism that
some of these studies (such as that of Hofstede (1980)) may be dated
given the global political, economic and social changes that have taken
place over the last two decades, more recent studies (Sondergaard, 1994;
Smith et al 1996) have largely confirmed that Hofstede’s work is still
relevant to contemporary society despite the global changes that have
taken place. Collectively therefore these studies related to national
cultural differences provide an interesting framework not only for
providing an insight into differences in national cultures but are also
significant to pedagogy in relation to understanding and managing the
effective learning and teaching of both home and international students in
higher education within a multi cultural environment (Gatfield, 1999).
Through undertaking primary research this study aims to contribute to the
relative gap in the existing research by seeking to identify, compare and
discuss the similarities and differences in the views and attitudes of UK
domiciled versus international postgraduate students towards engaging in
a peer assessment process which included the determination by the
students of their own group assessment criteria.
Methodology
As part of an action research project, a peer assessment exercise was
introduced within four separate cohorts of MBA students (two part time
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
2
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
and two full time) enrolled to study a Managing People module taught at
a Business School in London. Peer assessment was introduced in relation
to the UK domiciled student cohort who were all part time students in the
spring semesters of 2006-07 (to one cohort of 10 students) and 2007-08
(to a second cohort of 15 students). For the international students who
were all full time students this was implemented in the autumn semester
(to one cohort of 25 students) and spring semester of 2007-08 (to a
second cohort of 21 students) with some minor refinements made
following feedback and reflection from the implementation of the scheme
in the preceding year as a result of this action research project. The same
tutor facilitated the teaching of both student groups.
In the past the module had been assessed partly through group training
sessions consisting of small teams of four to five students. These sessions
were jointly marked by two tutors who also set the marking criteria. It
was decided to replace this approach with peer assessment for pedagogic
reasons so as to develop effective critical skills and encourage deeper
student learning (Falchikov, 1986, Brown et al, 2003). In order to
encourage total student ownership of the assessment process and to
facilitate deeper student learning, students were encouraged and provided
support by the tutor towards determining their own group assessment
criteria (Brown & Knight, 1994). As a result of introducing the peer
assessment scheme within the module, each student formally peer
assessed the group training sessions (except their own) which accounted
for 50% of the module assessment. The students were provided with
considerable information, advice and guidance by the module tutor
throughout the period leading up to the formal peer assessment exercise
which was conducted towards the end of each semester.
As part of the action research project the four cohorts of students were
introduced to the peer assessment exercise in 2006-07 and 2007-08 and
some minor refinements to the scheme were made in 2007-08 following
feedback from the students and reflection from the implementation of the
scheme in the preceding year. These refinements included the
introduction of mock training sessions in class during the semester which
were jointly reviewed by the students and tutor and the provision of
additional guidance on compiling assessment criteria through sharing
with the students some of the sample training session criteria forms from
the previous semester.
The UK domiciled students were all part time students (n=25) who
worked in full time supervisory or managerial related positions within
London. The international students (n=46) who were all full time students
had a minimum of two years of supervisory/managerially related
experience and came from twelve different countries (Indian
subcontinent: 23; China: 2; Middle East: 1; Sub-Saharan Africa: 8;
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
3
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
Europe 10; S.America: 1 and USA: 1). The international and UK
domiciled students had a similar mode age range of 26-30 years.
Feedback in relation to the students’ views, attitudes and perceptions of
the formal peer assessment exercise including the setting up of their own
group assessment criteria was elicited through the completion of openended questionnaires both before and soon after the peer assessment
exercise. All students were assured of confidentiality in relation to their
responses. Whilst all students returned completed pre-peer assessment
questionnaires, 19 of the 25 UK domiciled students and 37 of the 46
international students returned completed post-peer assessment
questionnaires. A few questions were occasionally left unanswered in the
questionnaires.
Findings
The peer assessment process was introduced to four different cohorts of
MBA students (two separate cohorts of UK domiciled students and two
separate cohorts of international students) but since the student numbers
are relatively small, for the purpose of this paper the findings from the
two combined international (n=46) and two combined UK domiciled
groups (n=25) are reported.
The findings below are categorised in terms of the feedback elicited from
the pre-peer assessment questionnaires and post-peer assessment
questionnaires.
Feedback from the pre-peer assessment questionnaires
The pre-peer assessment questionnaires were issued to students at the
beginning of the semester prior to the introduction of the peer assessment
exercise in order to identify whether the students had been exposed to any
previous experience of peer assessment and to elicit their views, attitudes
and feelings about the proposed peer assessment exercise. All the
students returned completed pre-peer assessment questionnaires.
In relation to having any prior experience of setting up of their own
formal assessment criteria, the feedback indicated that only one
international student had been involved in this within his previous
studies. The remainder UK domiciled and international students reported
that they had never been involved in setting their own formal assessment
criteria within their previous educational experience. A majority of these
students (i.e. 19 of the UK domiciled students and 44 of the international
students) indicated that they felt they would find the process of
determining their own formal assessment criteria a useful and valuable
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
4
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
experience. Five of the six remaining UK domiciled students indicated
that they weren’t sure whether this experience would be valuable and
ticked “don’t know” in the questionnaires whereas one indicated that she
felt that assessment criteria set by the lecturer would be more challenging.
The two international students who indicated that they did not think this
experience would be valuable did not provide a reason for this view.
As far as the peer assessment process was concerned, eight students
(three UK domiciled and five international students) reported that they
had been engaged in peer assessment exercises within their previous
educational experience though only six of these students (two UK
domiciled and four international students) reported that they had found
this to be a valuable experience.
Nineteen of the UK domiciled students compared to 41 of the
international students indicated that they thought a peer assessment
exercise would be a valuable experience. Except for one student the
remainder weren’t sure whether the experience would be valuable and
ticked “don’t know” in the questionnaires. One international student
reported that he did not think this would be a valuable experience as he
was concerned that his peers might engage in assessing in a political and
tactical manner.
Feedback elicited from the post-peer assessment questionnaires
All students were issued with a post-peer assessment questionnaire soon
after the completion of the peer assessment exercise. Nineteen of the 25
UK domiciled students and 37 of the international students returned
completed post-peer assessment questionnaires. A few questions were
occasionally left unanswered in the questionnaire. A summary of the
main student feedback elicited from the post-peer assessment
questionnaires is provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Post-Peer Assessment Student Feedback
Student Feedback
1. Found setting own
group assessment criteria
to be beneficial
2. Felt happy to set their
own group assessment
Aggregate: Full
Time International
MBA Students
(n=37)
32/*35 (91%)
Aggregate: Part
Time Home UK
Domiciled MBA
students (n=19)
10/19 (53%)
(* 2 students did not answer
this question)
33/37 (89%)
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
5
10/19 (53%)
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
criteria in the future
3. Preferred peer
assessment to tutor based
assessments
4. Felt positive about
peer assessing another
group’s training session
5. Felt final mark
awarded by peers was a
fair representation of the
assessed training session
performance
6. Felt they would be
happy to be peer assessed
again in the future
7. Felt positive overall
about the peer assessment
process
31/37 (84%)
7/19 (37%)
29/*35 (83%)
9/*16 (56%)
(* 2 students did not answer
this question)
(* 3 students did not answer
this question)
31/37 (84%)
14/19 (74%)
34/37 (92%)
14/19 (74%)
30/*32 (94%)
11/*14 (79%)
(* 5 students did not answer
this question)
(* 5 students did not answer
this question)
A sub-analysis of the responses of the international students exclusively
from the eastern hemisphere countries (n=25), which included countries
from the Indian subcontinent, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and
China, was also undertaken. This sub-analysis did not reveal any
significant difference to that of the international student group taken as a
whole.
The following extracts from the student feedback questionnaires convey
the key sentiments expressed by the students in relation to the summary
provided in Table 1.
With regards to the responses to the question “How did you feel about
setting your own assessment criteria? What benefits and/or
drawbacks did this have for you?”, the following two extracts
represents the generally positive sentiments expressed by the international
students:
“It was an extremely good experience because we had to meet our own criteria and
think about it, which is, in my opinion, the base for a (sic) good decision making for
every manager (if one can’t meet his/her own criteria, than (sic) it’s certainly
difficult to meet the criteria of others). Not to mention the importance of setting up the
right criteria and then meeting those!”.
International student Autumn 2007-08.
“The design of our own assessment criteria gave us an overview of what would be the
main focus on the training session”.
International student Spring 2007-08.
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
6
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
On the other hand the following two extracts from the UK domiciled
students represents the generally less favourable sentiments expressed by
this group of students:
“I think allowing groups to set their own criteria is questionable. This is because on
any course all the students should be judged on the same criteria and standards for
all modules. By allowing us to set our own criteria there is inconsistency on what we
are being measured against…my preference would have been for all study groups to
be assessed by the same criteria. If the aim is to enable interaction with setting the
assessment criteria, the entire class could discuss and come to a consensus on the
criteria during class”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2007-08.
“Setting my own assessment criteria wasn’t a great learning experience but it did
help you to focus more on structuring and compiling your presentation in a certain
way”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
With regards to the question: “Would you be happy to be involved in
setting up your own/your group’s assessment criteria in the future?
Why?”, the following three extracts from the questionnaires completed by
the international students reflects the views of the majority of their peers:
“Yes I would. It is the most effective way to start and plan what the training session is
going to contain”.
International student Autumn 2007-08.
“Yes, it helps my individual development”.
International student Spring 2007-08.
“Yes as I thought this was very good experience and it made you think harder about
the assessment process and also in the training session made you concentrate harder
on what other groups were doning (sic)”.
International student Spring 2007-08.
The following two extracts relating to the UK domiciled students
represents the general concerns expressed by their peers:
“Not really, too much (sic) issues and stress”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
“No because I don’t see the point of peer assessment”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
In connection to the question: “How did you feel about having your peers
assess your group training session rather than the tutor?”, the following
three extracts reflected the majority view by the international students
who mainly reported preferring peer assessment to tutor based
assessment:
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
7
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
“I can get different opinions and perspective from peers”
International student Autumn 2007-08.
“To be honest, I felt more comfortable. “The distress syndrome of being assessed by
the Tutor” was not there. This allowed us to act more relaxed”.
International student Spring 2007-08.
“I felt great as the training session was delivered to our peers not the tutor”.
International student Spring 2007-08.
On the other hand the following extract represents the reservations
expressed towards peer assessment by many of the UK domiciled
students:
“I didn’t feel very comfortable. After reading some of the comments I realised that
peers’ assessment was quite biased and subjective in some cases. I would think the
tutor’s mark would be much fairer and more objective”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
In relation to the question: “How did you feel about peer assessing
another group’s training session? What benefits and/or drawbacks did
this have for you?”, the majority of the international students expressed a
positive experience. These views are represented by the two extracts
below:
“I felt good assessing others work because I got an idea of what are the possible
mistakes we can make and I also felt that when I assess others work I tend to listen
more carefully into(sic) the task”.
International student Autumn 2007-08.
“I think it’s a good, challenging and interesting way to learn”.
International student Spring 2007-08.
On the other hand the following two extracts represent the concerns
expressed by the UK domiciled students towards their experiences of peer
assessment:
“Again I did not like doing this. I feel that I did not come away learning anything
from the presentation that I had to mark. However, I felt that I had to give a higher
mark than what I actually gave because if I put what I really felt, it would drive the
groups mark down by quite a lot...I can’t see any benefits in peer assessment. I think
criteria setting and marking should be left to a neutral party, the teacher”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
“Did not enjoy this task”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
With regards to the question: “Do you think the final mark awarded to
you by your peers was a fair representation off your assessed training
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
8
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
session performance? Why?”, the positive response rate was generally
similar from both groups of students. The following five extracts
represent their sentiments:
“Yes, it was fair because what we deserved we get (sic)”.
International student Autumn 2007-08.
“Yes. Because I personally don’t think we did the an excellent job (sic). As well as we
were one of the lowest scored marks in the whole class which I feel was fair”.
International student Autumn 2007-08.
“I think it was fair enough. It could have been better. There were few aspects in our
training session which were not covered wheich (sic) will be taken care of in future”.
International student Spring 2007-08.
“I thought we did a very professional training session and this was reflected in the
mark”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
“Yes. I understood the reasons behind both positive and negative comments
throughout the assessment and would probably have come to a similar mark”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2007-08.
A minority of the students from both the groups felt that their final mark
was not fair and this is represented by the two extracts below:
“Final mark we got from peers was below my expectations, I expected even more.
Why? - our team tried our best! We provided real questionnaire that could be found
at many interviews with big international companies”.
International student Autumn 2007-08.
“I felt the content of my teams presentation was a lot better than the other group’s but
the result didn’t reflect that”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
In relation to the question: “Would you be happy to be peer assessed
again? Why?”, the majority of the students in both groups expressed a
positive response (though the positive responses from the international
students was higher compared to the UK domiciled students). The
following extracts represent the positive views from both groups of
students along with some of the reservations that were expressed:
“Yes, it is an opportunity for self improvement”.
International student Autumn 2007-08.
“Yes. The benefits I’ve described before are quite significant to justify this type of
assessment”.
International student Spring 2007-08.
“Yes, overall good experience”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
9
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
“Most definitely. There are (sic) some sense of value when your peers give you
feedback”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2007-08.
“No, I’d like the tutor to mark. Tutors have special training qualification and
experience and thus I would trust their marks as much more objective and fair”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
“No, don’t think its entirely fair, don’t see the point, think this should be left to the
teacher”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
In relation to the last question in the questionnaire: “Any overall
comments including your overall feelings about the peer assessment
process ?”, both groups of students mainly reported a positive overall
experience (though once again the positive response rate was higher
amongst the international students compared to the UK domiciled student
cohort). The following extracts represent the views of both the groups:
“I am happy with the entire process which we have gone through in the whole peer
assessment period. It was a good way to know how people see us not how we see us.
And thanks to our tutor to give us such a wonderful opportunity in entire whole
module”.
International student Autumn 2007-08.
“Good keep it up for other MBA’s”.
International student Spring 2007-08.
“Not much happy (sic) because of few peers being irresponsible throughout the
process”. International student Autumn 2007-08.
“It was a very bold move to introduce this method at an MBA level module final
assessment. Going by the results, it has definitely paid off in terms of a good and
acceptable outcome (grades). More importantly, it forced peers into a position of
serious responsibility, accountability and control, whereby they have had to park
their personal biases aside and be fair in their judgement”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07.
“It was a new and novel way of learning – I enjoyed it”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2007-08.
“It can be more nerve racking than being assessed by your tutor”.
UK domiciled student Spring 2006-07
Overall the findings demonstrate a difference in the attitudes and
experiences of UK domiciled students compared to international students
towards the peer assessment exercise and student self-determination of
assessment criteria especially in relation to the statements numbered 1-5
in Table 1. The international students were significantly more positive
about the student self-determination of the assessment criteria and
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
10
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
generally about the peer assessment process than their part time UK
domiciled peers. As far as statements 5-7 in Table 1 are concerned, a
difference is still evident between the views and attitudes of the two
cohorts of students with the international students demonstrating more
positive sentiments compared to their UK domiciled peers although the
difference is not as marked.
Discussion
Although the student numbers involved in this study are relatively small,
this research provides a qualitative based insight into the peer assessment
based learning experiences of UK domiciled and international students. In
this study the overall differences in attitudes and views towards the peer
assessment process and the determination of assessment criteria by the
UK domiciled students compared to the international students is notable
and worthy of further analysis and consideration. A previous studies by
Gatfield, (1999: pg 372) had reported a “substantive positive difference in
the perceptions of international students in comparison with Australian
(home) students…” however the paper did not provide an in-depth
discussion of thee possible reasons underpinning these differences.
The literature related to culture and cross cultural management (Hofstede,
1980; Trompenaars, 1993; Hall, 1976) may provide a useful basis to
analyse and discuss the differences in the views and attitudes expressed
by the two cohorts of students in relation to the peer assessment exercise.
With this in mind since a large number (n=25) of the full time
international students involved in this research are from mainly from the
eastern hemisphere (countries of the Indian subcontinent, Sub-Saharan
Africa, Middle East and China) an understanding of their national
cultures is warranted. The Indian subcontinent appears to be classified as
having a “large power distance and collectivist” dimension according to
Hofstede’s model (1980) whilst China’s national culture is similarly
categorised by Hofstede (1993) and Trompenaars (1993). It was therefore
considered that the students from these countries (which collectively form
the majority group within this study) maybe more likely to favour the
peer assessment process which facilitated the group work through
determining their group assessment criteria and assessing each other’s
group training sessions in line with the collectivist cultural dimension.
Furthermore these students may also be responding positively to the
tutor’s suggestion and encouragement to adopt the peer assessment
process since the tutor is seen as a respected individual who should not be
challenged in line with the large power distance dimension. However in
this study a sub-analysis of the international students exclusively from the
eastern hemisphere countries (i.e. the countries of the Indian
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
11
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
subcontinent, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and China) did not reveal
any significant difference from that of the international student group as a
whole. This may be attributed to the small numbers of students involved
in this study but would be an interesting area for further research within a
larger international student cohort.
As far as UK cultural dimensions are concerned, the UK is classified by
Hofstede (1980) to be located within the contrasting dimension of small
power distance and individualist. It could therefore be argued that UK
based students are likely to prefer non-team based approaches in line with
the individualist dimension and could therefore likely to be more
apprehensive with the peer assessment process which may explain their
responses in this study.
This relatively limited study highlights the potential importance for
higher education practitioners to develop an understanding of the cultural
background of their students and the implications of any differences when
developing effective approaches and strategies for teaching, learning and
assessment within a multi-cultural environment. For example a study by
Cheng & Warren (1997) identified the need to be sensitive to cultural
influences among Chinese students during the assessment process. The
authors of this study found that not exposing mistakes publicly and not
criticising directly was important for a homogenous group of Hong Kong
Chinese students, however they did not compare their findings with
students from different cultural backgrounds.
Further research is needed to develop a deeper insight into the
implications of international cultural differences for effective student
teaching, learning and assessment. In-depth qualitative interviews with
individual international and home students or with appropriate focus
groups representing a large and diverse range of students from different
cultural backgrounds is likely to generate a richer insight into these key
issues.
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
12
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
References:
Berg, I. van den, Admiraal, W and Pilot, A (2006). Design principles and
outcomes of peer assessment in higher education, Studies in Higher
Education, 31(3), 341-356.
Brown, S and Knight, P (1994). Assessing Learners in Higher Education,
London: Kogan Page.
Brown, G; Bull, J and Pendlebury M (2003). Assessing Student Learning
in Higher Education, London and New York: Routledge.
Cheng, W and Warren, M (1997). Having Second Thoughts: student
perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise, Studies in Higher
Education, 22(2). 233-239.
De Vita, G (2002). Cultural Equivalence in the Assessment of Home and
International Business Management Students: a UK exploratory study,
Studies in Higher Education, 27(2). 221-231.
Falchikov, N (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of
collaborative peer group and self assessments, Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 11. 146-166.
Gatfield, T (1999). Examining Student Satisfaction with Group Projects
and Peer Assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
24(4). 365-377.
Hall, ET (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Hanrahan, SJ and Isaacs, G (2001). Assessing Self- and Peer-assessment:
the students’ views, Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1).
53-70.
Hofstede, G (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values, London: Sage.
Hofstede, G and Bond, MH (1988). The Confucius connection: From
cultural roots to economic growth”, Organizational Dynamics, 16. 4-21.
Hofstede, G (1993). Cultural Constraints in Management Theories,
Academy of Management Executive, 7. 81-94.
Pope, N (2005). The impact of stress in self and peer assessment,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1). 51-63.
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
13
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008
Smith, H., Cooper, A and Lancaster, L (2002). Improving the Quality of
Undergraduate Peer Assessment: A Case for Student and Staff
Development, Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
39(1), 71-81.
Smith, PB; Dugan, S and Trompenaars F (1996). National culture and the
values of organizational employees: a dimensional analysis across 43
nations, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 27. 231-264.
Sondergaard, M (1994). Research note: Hofstede’s Consequences: a
study of reviews, citations and replications, Organizational Studies, 15(3).
447-456.
Trompenaars, F (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture. London: Nicholas
Brealey.
Wu, S (2002). Filling the Pot or Lighting the Fire? Cultural Variations in
Conceptions of Pedagogy, Teaching in Higher Education, 7(4). 387-395.
HE Academy Annual Conference July 2008
14
Paper presented: 3rd July 2008