Word count: 7,100
A Cultural Sensitive Framework for Understanding Knowledge Workers from a
Non-Western Background
Author: Tan, Po Li (po_li.tan@kcl.ac.uk)
(Author to correspond with)
Tel : +4402078483115
Fax: +4402078483252
The Learning Institute
King’s College London
James Clerk Maxwell Building
Waterloo Campus
57, Waterloo Road
London SE1 8WA, UK
A Cultural Sensitive Framework for Understanding Knowledge Workers from a
Non-Western Background
Abstract: The significant link between learning and knowledge economy is so crucial
that the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development has reconceptualised
the term knowledge-economy to call it ‘learning economy’. One of the main challenges
of human resource development in the ‘learning economy’ is to evaluate the learning
attributes of the knowledge workers. There is an abundance of literature on learning but
many do not go beyond classroom learning. The Students Approaches to Learning
provides a relevant basis for adult learning investigation but studies have reported its lack
of consideration for cross-cultural issues. Thus, theoretical underpinnings of cultural
values were used to address the gap. Two adapted instruments which considered both etic
and emic characteristics were administered on 959 Malay and Chinese knowledge
workers to ensure conceptual equivalence. The consideration of cultural variables in the
investigation unveils indigenous learning constructs such as ‘Memorising and
Understanding’ and ‘Face’. The inclusions of ‘emic’ concepts ensure a rigorous
framework in understanding adult learners from a non-Western background.
Keywords: Human Resource Training, Knowledge Workers, Adult Learning, CrossCultural Methodology, Psychometrics Testing.
2
A Cultural Sensitive Framework for Understanding Knowledge Workers from a
Non-Western Background
(6805 words)
The global scene
The significant link between learning and knowledge economy is so crucial
that the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2001)
has reconceptualised the term knowledge-economy to call it ‘learning economy’ (Falk
and Smith 2002). Employment in the knowledge-based economy is now characterized
by the increasing demand for multi-skilled workers; independent and critical thinkers
who can use knowledge as a commodity to survive in the intensified and competitive
global scene (Drucker 1999; Robinson 2001). When working for Shell, de Geus
studied the common characteristics of the world’s most enduring corporations, and
concluded that these surviving corporations are similar to individual human beings.
Two key characteristic of knowledge workers that can have significant impact on
corporate survival are “an ability to learn and adapt”, and “an awareness of the
changing environment” (Stephenson 1999). This intense focus on the importance to
learn and adapt inevitably calls for a new demand on for the knowledge-workers to
consider learning as part of their daily work.
In light of the above, one of the main challenges for human resource
development in the 21st century is to evaluate human capital, how to measure the
3
learning attributes or learning values1 of people relevant for knowledge economy.—
whether the ‘learning values’ practised by the knowledge workers would enhance
their ‘approaches to leaning’ in order to survive the changes in the competitive global
market.
The study is set in Malaysia—a developing nation. Malaysia’s Vision 2020 is
the government’s long term plan to navigate the country to become a fully developed
country, capable of competing in the global knowledge economy. Given that Malaysia
is a multicultural country where the majority of the population is made up of the
Malays and Chinese, it is crucial to understand and appreciate the different learning
values that may exist between the two ethnic groups and how they may lean from
each other to support the Malaysian Government vision 2020.
However, studies involving learners from a non-Western culture would be
challenged as most learning models such as Jarvis learning model (Jarvis 2006),
Kolb’s theory of learning (Kolb 1976), Biggs 3P model (Biggs 1987a), and Novak’s
meaningful learning model (Novak 1998) are developed from the Western
perspective. Whilst these theories emphasised that cultural issues are critical in
understanding learning, none of these theories include the concept ‘culture’ in their
models. In fact, cross-cultural researchers such as Watkins (2000) argues that many
theories emerged from the Western perspectives may not be appropriate to nonWestern cultures and concludes that most of the major theories being described and
tested such as Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, Piaget’s theory of cognitive
1
Learning values refer to values which have direct link to enhancing the quality of learning outcomes
such as ‘being persistent’, ‘able to bear hardship’, and ‘to value the pursuit of education’. Values which
may indirectly impact on learning such as ‘kindness’, ‘patriotism’ are not considered in the current
study
4
development, Maslow’s theory of self actualisation, and Herzberg’s theory of job
satisfaction are based on the values of the Western culture in particular an
individualistic, independent conception of the person.
Underpinned by the above intent and argument is the challenge of developing
a culturally sensitive framework for the investigation. Hence, the purpose of the study
is to develop a culturally sensitive framework to investigate knowledge workers from
a non-Western background, with Malaysian adult learners as the exemplary context.
Investigation of Asian adult learners and Biggs’ 3P Model
Any attempt to study Malaysian adult learners’ approaches to learning is
confronted with two issues. Firstly, there is a lack of understanding of specific
learning theories which focus on the process of adult learning in the formal
institutions (Merriam 2001)—a preferred mode of professional development
programme in Malaysia (Tan 2006). Secondly, although adult learning theories
examine workplace culture (Billett 2001) or organizational culture (Brown, Collins,
and Duguid 1989), little is known about the influence of personal or cultural impacts
on adult learners (Merriam and Caffarella 1999). What seems to be downplayed is the
kind of values which can enhance or even inhibit learning processes. Hence,
investigation of Malaysian adult learning needs to take a rather different perspective
to that of current adult learning theories that emerged in the West.
Merriam and Caffarella (1999) have frequently appealed to researchers to
consider the complexity of the adult learning process by using a more holistic and
5
comprehensive approach. Biggs’ 3P Model 2,emerged from a focus on students’
approaches to learning, captures the strength of the whole learning system by arguing
that teaching and learning are intertwined, where student factors, teaching context, ontask approaches to learning and the learning outcome are mutually dependent and
form a dynamic system (Biggs 2001). Biggs’ model highlights the functional
relationships of what he calls the 3Ps of Presage, Process and Product Factors. The
Presage Factors include variables such as values, and past learning experiences,
variables which are pertinent for the examination of adult learners. The second factors
which he calls Process Factors include learning strategies such as problem solving,
mentoring, and project work. The final factor in Biggs’ 3P Model is the Product
Factors which consist of learning outcome variables. The three Factors form a total
system in which an educational event is located. Such a systemic approach can be
relevant for the investigation of adult learners, when considered carefully.
The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) and its limitations for adult learners
from a non-western context
Based on the theoretical underpinnings of the 3P Model, Biggs developed the
Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) (Biggs 1987b) and the Revised-Study Process
Questionnaire-Two Factor (R-SPQ-2F) (Biggs, Kember, and Leung 2001) to assess
students’ approaches to learning in the formal settings. In R-SPQ-2F, Biggs, Kember
and Leung (2001) operationalised two concepts of ‘Deep’, and ‘Surface’ to form a
motive/strategy combination. The combination of the motive/strategy index may
indicate learners’ general ‘approaches to learning’ which, according to Biggs (1987b),
are relatively stable and do not change overnight.
2
Though it is not designed specifically for adult learners
6
There are, however two issues with regard to SPQ or R-SPQ-2F used on Asian
adult learners that need to be considered. Firstly, most of the studies, which have
adopted the SPQ, have targeted full time students moving directly from secondary
schools into university undergraduates programmes. This group of students may
display different motives and possibly have less implicit knowledge in their Presage
Factor than adult learners. The exploration of the literature indicates there is little
research data on adult learners, who being adults, would have more life and work
experiences, than the typical ‘school-leaver’ full time undergraduate university
learners (Pillay, Boulton-Lewis, Wilss, and Rhodes 2003; Richardson 1995).
Secondly, approaches to learning displayed by adult learners measured by the
SPQ appear to reflect only general motives in the Presage Factors (i.e. Surface or
Deep Motives) to learn. They do not reflect explicitly how these motives may be
related to cultural variation which may influence motives in the Presage Factor. These
are critical variables in the investigation of different cultural groups in Malaysia. One
of the essentially acknowledged criticisms of the SPQ is that it has not been designed
to capture cultural variables (Kember, Wong, and Leung 1999). Since personal
dispositions such as cultural values are recognised to be a significant variable when
researching adult learning (Merriam and Caffarella 1999), and that SPQ is limited in
its capacity to deal with this, there is a need to either improve SPQ’s capacity in this
regard or use another instrument that may throw light on the values variable and
thereby complement SPQ’s findings. Hence, the current study attempts to adapt SPQ
to be sensitive to the Malaysian adult learners’ context and also to compliment a
learning value survey, with the intention of providing a holistic framework for the
investigation of Malaysian adult learners.
7
Study on values
Considering the criticism of SPQ, literature on ‘values’ was examined. A
literature search on values reveals that value studies have broadly gone in two
directions. One direction, which is taken from the social psychology or the
management perspectives, investigating more standardised and consistent universal or
organizational values (See Hofstede 1991; Schwartz and Sagie 2000). The other
direction is often taken by educational psychologists, examining for instance,
Confucian values3 and learning (See Stevenson and Lee 1990; Tweed and Lehman
2002). However, Chen, Stevenson, Hayward, and Burgess (1995) have criticised the
latter, arguing that whilst there have been attempts at investigating the relationships
between learning and specific cultural issues, investigation of cultural values and
learning on a broader perspective and with a more standardised evaluation, has not
been well documented. Interestingly, a synthesis of literature from the two
perspectives found that they both harmonize as evident in Table 1, column 1 and 2.
For instance, studies on learners from Confucian backgrounds found that they,
besides having a strong belief of effort and human malleability (Lau and Chan 2001),
place very high importance on learning or education (Li 2001). In addition, they also
practise pragmatic learning more than their Western counterparts (Volet, Renshaw,
and Tietzel 1994) and there is significant influence from the social in-groups such as
family and peer members (Sijuwade 2001). These findings complement the value
items developed by social psychologists for Asians in general. Table 1 provides
evidence that the two surveys—Culture Value Survey (CVS) (Chinese Culture
3
Confucian values are chosen in this study as they provide strong theoretical framework and they are
akin to Malaysian values (Hussin, 1997)
8
Connection 1987) and Chinese Culture Values Survey (CCVs) (Fan 2000) can be
categorised to complement with the findings from the educational psychology
discipline.
(Insert Table 1 here)
For this study, R-SPQ-2FM (Revised-Study Process Questionnaire-2 Factors
Malaysia—the adapted version of Study Process Questionnaire and Revised-Study
Process Questionnaire-2 Factors) and LVS (Learning Values Survey—the adapted
version of Chinese Value Survey and Chinese Culture Values) when used
simultaneously provides indigenous insights into the design of a culturally sensitive
framework for the investigation of Malaysian adult learners in the professional
development programmes. The following sections report the processes and outcome
of the instruments development.
Adaptation for a culturally sensitive instrument needs to consider 1) the
etic/emic4 characteristics (Brislin 1993), and 2) the equivalence of language and
concepts (Behling and Law 2000).
Instruments development—Adaptation of R-SPQ-2FM and LVS
Firstly, suitable ‘etic’ items were initially selected from SPQ and R-SPQ-2F
based on face and content validity. Secondly, new ‘emic’ items which form the
‘Career Motive’ and ‘Understanding and Memorising’ subscales are added in the
‘Etic’-Investigate learning behaviour from a position outside the target culture, using constructs that
are identical or near identical from across a range of cultures. ‘Emic’- Investigate learning behaviour
from within the target culture, using constructs that are limited to a single culture.
4
9
instrument development process, guided by the current literature (See Dahlin and
Watkins 2000; Kember et al. 1999) and adult learning contexts in Malaysia. The 43
items are grouped into 7 subscales---Deep Strategy, Deep Motive, Understanding and
Memorising, Achieving Motive, Career Motive, Surface Strategy, and Surface Motive
(See Kember et al.1999).
Examples of items in the subscales of R-SPQ-2FM are presented in Table 2.
(Insert Table 2 here)
Similarly, ‘etic’ items are selected from CVS, and CCVs. ‘Emic’ items related
to ‘saving face’ (Fontaine, Eu, Thean Beng, and R. Vikrama 2002), ‘religious and
secular orientation’ (Abdullah and Lim 2001; Fontaine et al. 2002) are adapted in
LVS as informed by values studies in Malaysia. Items selection and development of
LVS are heavily guided by Table 1. Examples of items in LVS, emerged from the
syntheses of the two disciplines are presented in the Table 1, third column.
As this is the first attempt to operationalise values items from CVS and CCVs to
the learning context, all the 23 items in LVS are modified to suit values related to the
learning context in Malaysia with the intention of enhancing content and construct
validity. Table 3 shows examples of how the original items in CVS are modified to
suit the Malaysian learning setting.
R-SPQ-2FM (the English version) was not translated as they are direct,
behavioural information questions (Behling and Law 2000). LVS was translated into
both Chinese and Malay languages and back-translated to verify semantic and
10
conceptual equivalence, as well as normative issues (Behling and Law 2000). Many
words and idiomatic expressions were changed and adapted to local colloquialism,
with the aim of increasing familiarity (Hinkin 1998). The scoring scales in both
instruments were adapted to address cultural sensitivity and enhance clarity. For
instance, the labels for the five point Likert scales in R-SPQ-2FM were adapted to
make them meaningful to the Malaysian respondents. These modifications were made
to enhance the equivalence of language and concepts.
Validation of instruments and samples--2 stage analysis
Since the two instruments have been substantially adapted to be culturally
sensitive for Malaysian adult learners, authors like Floyd and Widaman (1995) argued
that exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to be carried out first followed by confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) for more rigorous method in developing and refinement of the
instrument. In a similar vein, Hinkin (1998) has argued that whilst EFA allows a
researcher to test the new scales for internal consistency and content validity, CFA
enables the researcher to assess the quality of the factor structure by testing the
significance of the overall model, which is not possible by EFA.
The pilot sample—which is the purposive sampling was adopted in stage 1
study. One hundred and one adult learners from the Klang Valley in Malaysia
participated in the pilot study. These were adult learners who engaged with
professional development programmes either full time or part-time in the formal
settings and hence are representative of the population of interest. They were 52.5%
Malays, 47.5% Chinese and 73% females. Participants ranged in age from 21-51 and
11
above and majority fell into the age range of 21-40. Sixty one percent participated in
full time study and 72% were studying in a Masters programme.
The main sample which has similar demographic data was involved in the
stage two analysis. They were 858 participants, which made of up 62% Malays and
38% Chinese. There were 59.1% females and 83.9% of the participants ranged in age
from 21-40. Seven-five percent of them participated in part time study and 71.4% of
them were engaging in continuous development programmes such as Diploma in
Education.
Results of exploratory factor analysis
Current EFA (performed with Varimax rotation, and factor loading of > 0.555)
shows that there are only 4 factors extracted from R-SPQ-2FM (unlike the seven
factors postulated by Kember et al.’s Model 5 (1999)). The factors were renamed as
follows: Factor 1: Deep Approach (DA), Factor 2: Career Motive/Achieve Motive
(CM/AM), Factor 3: Surface Approach (SA) and Factor 4: Understanding and
Memorising (U&M)
Table 4 shows that DA has 12 items, CM/AM has 5 items, SA has 8 items and U&M
has 4 items. The reliabilities found are respectively: DA, α = 0.84, CM/AM, α = 0.8,
SA, α = 0.75 and U&M, α = 0.74.
(Insert Table 4 here)
5
For a sample size of 100, Hair et al.(1995) recommend using correlation matrix of coefficients greater
than 0.55 for significance level of .05, and a power level of 80%, what they called ‘practically
significant’
12
DA in the current study combines items of Deep Motive and Deep Strategy scales of
SPQ and R-SPQ-2F, congruent with findings on other Malaysian secondary students
when LPQ (the equivalent of SPQ for secondary school students) was administered
(Watkins and Ismail 1994). This is in contrast to other studies (See Fox, McManus,
and Winder 2001; Watkins 2001; Zeegers 2002) which found separate Deep Motive
and Deep Strategy subscales. Similar pattern is observed in SA.
CM/AM also combines items from Career Motive and Achieve Motive, unlike what
was postulated by Kember et al. (1999). However, the U&M scale which was
extracted supported Kember et al.’s (1999) proposal to include such scale in the
investigation of cultural difference in learning, in particular when Asian learners with
Confucian background are involved.
The LVS also extracted four factors. Whilst the factors are rather different
from the original CVS and CCVS (as LVS has been adapted for learning settings),
they support the literature on Confucian values and Asian learning values (see Table
1). Hence, the new scales were renamed as follows: Factor 1: Face (Face), Factor 2:
Values of Learning (VL), Factor 3: Middle Way (MY) and Factor 4: Qualities of
Learning (QL).
Face has 8 items, VL has 3 items, MY has 4 items and QL has 6 items. The
reliabilities found are respectively: Face, α = 0.84, VL, α = 0.78, MY, α = 0.76, and
QL, α = 0.75 (see Table 5).
(Insert Table 5 here)
13
The results in Table 5 indicate that 21 out of 29 items loaded above the cut of point of
>.55.
Results of confirmatory factor analysis
The testing of the model for R-SPQ-2FM was guided by insights into
approaches to learning, including arguments presented by Kember et al. (1999). For
analysis derived from maximum-likelihood (ML) and also to reduce sensitivity to
distribution, Hu and Bentler (1998) recommend using a 2-index strategy to evaluate
Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI).
This strategy has been shown to control both Type I and Type II errors (Kember,
Biggs, and Leung 2004). A good fit is indicated by CFI > 0.95 and a SRMR < 0.08.
These indexes are also used in other SPQ and LPQ studies (see Biggs et al. 2001;
Kember et al. 2004), thus making comparison feasible.
The tested higher order model with standardized paths for R-SPQ-2FM is
illustrated in Figure 1—containing two higher order latent variables, named as
Meaning Orientation and Reproduction Orientation. Each latent variable is
corresponded to the indicators (i.e. DA) which comprise the subscales or factors (their
mean values) extracted by EFA. For this model, SRMR= 0.0348, and CFI = 0.966,
which indicate quite a good fit to the data. All the paths from the constructs to the
items were significant at 5% level or better. The standardized path coefficients range
from 0.17 to 0.79, indicating that the items are good indicators of the four
constructs/scales. A low positive correlation (0.18) was observed between Meaning
14
and Reproduction latent variables, suggesting that there is consistency with the
current findings and arguments of Kember et al. (2004) and Kember et al. (1999)
studies.
(Insert Figure 1 here)
Similarly, the tested higher order model with standardized paths for LVS is illustrated
in Figure 2—with latent variables labelled as Self and Others. Each latent variable is
corresponded with its indicators (e.g., QL) which comprise the subscales or factors
extracted by EFA. The tested model displays good fit, with SRMR=0.0434 and
CFI=0.953. Additionally, all the paths from the constructs to the items are significant
at 5% level or better. The standardized path coefficients range from 0.37 to 0.99,
indicating that the items are good indicators of the four constructs. It is interesting to
note that there is a strong positive correlation between Self and Others (r (858) =.78,
p< .01). This is congruent with the literature on the concept of ‘interdependent self’ in
a collectivist society such as Malaysia (Hofstede 1991; Markus and Kitayama 1991),
explaining the ‘indivisible’ relationships of the individual self and the significant
others.
(Insert Figure 2 here)
Considering i) the rigorous two-stage testing, ii) that the reliability of the data
for the two instruments in these forms is good and iii) that the SRMR values are low,
these results can be interpreted as an indication that the two questionnaires, used in
the higher order two-factor forms with the 4 indicators, display good psychometric
properties.
15
R-SPQ-2FM—Career/Achieve Motive Scale
When questionnaires like SPQ are administered without adaptation in crosscultural studies, it has been assumed that similarities in factor structure reflect
similarities in constructs. However, the factors CM/AM and U&M extracted in RSPQ-2FM in the current study have provided insightful evidence on the importance of
considering cultural differences (the emic characteristics) in the investigation of Asian
adult learners.
The validation analyses show that career motivation and achieving motivation
should come as one scale rather than the two different scales as postulated by Kember
et. al.(1999). Support for this combination is manifested in the principles of adult
learning. Principles of adult learners and findings of Asian learners have asserted that
the matured learners are more concerned with the pragmatic use of knowledge, where
learning is seen as a means to an end (Kember et al. 1999; Knowles 1998; McInerney
2004). Thus, seeking professional development achievement, motivated by job related
reasons is clearly evident in the derivation of the CM/AM scale, where items like ‘I
would see myself basically as an ambitious person and want to get to the top,
whatever I do’ correlated with items like ‘I chose my present study largely because of
better job situation when I finish my study’. Tweed and Lehman (2002) advocate that
students with Confucian heritage who value high marks, and are concerned with
career prospects, may be perceived by Westerners as unmotivated in learning, but this
may not be true to Asian learners. The concern for achieving good grades in order to
secure a good job in the short or long term is also evident in studies by Cheng (2001)
and McInerney (2004). Cheng for instance conducted a study on Hong Kong adult
learners studying the Master of Business Administration (MBA) course, and
16
maintained that there is a need to provide both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards to these
part-time Hong Kong adult learners for them to effectively apply newly acquired
knowledge and skills in their job. He argued that the effectiveness of the course is
evaluated by the realistic transferability of the MBA knowledge and skills to
workplace. Furthermore, McInerney (2004) while discussing the value of future goals,
argued that there is a strong link between career motives and achievement motives,
and stressed that there is no contradiction in having a future career orientation for
performing a current task and being intrinsically motivated. Findings of this kind are
critical to the investigation of adult learners, in particular when the ‘pragmatic’ Asian
adult learners are involved.
The finding of CM/AM, coupled with the argument of pragmatic
characteristics of Asian adult learners, might throw light onto the current controversial
debate of whether extrinsic reward has a positive or negative outcome on intrinsic
motivation (Cameron 2001; Deci, Ryan, and Koestner 2001). Far from being
coincidence, there is also a call to reevaluate the dichotomous view of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation (Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000) proposed by the Western theories.
R-SPQ-2FM—Understand and Memorising scale
Whilst the U&M scale has not been included in the previous cross-cultural
studies of SPQ, the extraction of U&M is consistent with Kember et al.’s (1999)
deduction on learners with Confucian background. The validation of U&M construct
may also enlighten that the learning behaviour of Malaysian adult learners are
influenced by cultural variables and despite their age, they do adopt memorisation
17
strategies, rather than depending only on Deep and Achieving Strategies reported by
Zeegers to achieve deep learning (2001).
One possible explanation for memorising being a significant learning
approach of Malaysian adult learners is that understand and memorising approach has
been a deeply rooted strategy practiced in particular, by the Chinese learners because
of their Confucian background. Firstly, memorisation is an internalized and ingrained
strategy for many Chinese learners with Confucian heritage as evident in the Dahlin
and Watkins (2000) study. They found that Hong Kong students who were socialized
to internalize memorising skills and content from an early age would transfer these
skills and content to a later stage of learning. A parallel effect may be happening
amongst adult learners in Malaysia, particularly those who have had experienced the
Chinese educational system6. In this respects, the ‘Chinese educated’ Malaysian
Chinese would have a stronger inclination to memorise to understand; as one of the
successful means of learning the Chinese language characters is to practice repeatedly
and memorise the four-character Chinese idioms. Past studies which did not consider
the memorising approach when inaccurately maintaining adult learners to have failing
long term and working memory, have been criticized for being biased (Merriam and
Caffarella 1999). However, the current study which included the ‘emic’ interpretation
of the memorising approach found memorisation for understanding to be an
indigenous approach for the Malaysian knowledge workers who engaged with formal
learning.
‘Chinese educational system’ refers to Malaysian schools where the medium of instruction is the
Chinese language.
6
18
LVS—Face, Middle Way, Values of Learning and Qualities of Learning scales
As this is the first attempt to operationalise values items from CVS and CCVs
to the learning context, the findings of the 4 scales has provided thought provoking
insights to Asian learning behaviour. Firstly, ‘Face’ has been a widely researched
construct, in particular in the management domain (See Redding and Ng 1982), in
trying to understand organizational and managers’ behaviour. Though it is a universal
concept, the concern for face is seen to be more salient for the people with collectivist
cultural background where the influence of the significant others are important than
most other cultures (Markus and Kitayama 1991). Whilst there has been research on
the association of ‘face saving’ and participation in the classroom (See Hwang, Ang,
and Francesco 2002), there is a lack of understanding on the explicit impact of face on
the learning process, in particular its impact on learners’ learning motives, a construct
in the Presage Factor in Biggs’ 3P Model. The derivation of the ‘Face’ scale in LVS
suggests the worthiness of this construct in the Asian adult learning context.
Related to the influence of the significant others is also the ‘Middle Way’
construct. Collectivist societies like Malaysia tend to practise the social balancing
mechanism between ‘self’ and ‘others’ to achieve harmony in the community
(Markus and Kitayama 1991). Hence, the extraction of the ‘Middle Way’ scale is
valuable as there has been little research to understand whether the practice of middle
way principle can enhance or hinder learning, in particular amongst the adult learners
who have more ‘balancing acts to juggle’ in playing different social roles in the
community. The development of the ‘Values of Learning’ scale supports the findings
that people with Confucian heritage placed high value on learning. It would be both
intriguing and significant to know 1) whether there is any difference in the level of
19
importance placed on learning between the Malay and Chinese adult learners in
Malaysia, and 2) whether the ‘priority placed on learning’ is related to the face saving
behaviour or the practice of the middle way principles.
The extensive published literature on the belief of effort and malleability
among the Asian learners (Lau and Chan 2001; Salili 1995) is akin to the extraction of
the ‘Qualities of Learning’ scale. Qualities such as ‘being persistent and committed’
are related to the belief of putting in tireless effort rather than depending exclusively
on the ability to succeed in learning—a belief which is prevalent among learners with
Confucian background. This quality is aptly reflected in the Chinese saying
‘失败为成功之母’ , which literally means ‘failure is the mother of success’.
Interestingly, these four scales in LVS are linked to the broader scale, ‘Confucian
Work Dynamism’, extracted in Bond’s study (Chinese Culture Connection 1987).
Bond has argued that value items such as ‘having a sense of shame’, ‘protecting your
face’, ‘filial piety’, found in the Confucian Work Dynamism scale, appeared to
distinctively characterise people from the Confucian backgrounds such as Hong
Kong, Taiwan and Japan. He reported that these values were also found to correlate
positively with Gross National Product (GNP), suggesting that perhaps these are the
fundamental Confucian values which may be responsible for the outstanding
economic development of the Five Economic Dragons with Confucian heritages
(CCC, 1987). Similarly, it is plausible that the four scales extracted from the LVS
may be related to the outstanding academic performance of many Asian learners (See
Bempechat and Drago-Severson 1999).
20
Limitation and Implication
As this is the first time a value instrument has been adapted into learning
settings from existing values surveys. It must be acknowledged as a limitation,
although the translated and back-translated versions did not appear to have been
substantially difference in terms of factor structure. Nevertheless, it needs further
validation and it would be an interesting addition to studying learning in diverse
cultures.
Currently, due to the increasing demands of globalised and liberalised economic
environment, there has been an increase in the study of culture as an explanatory
variable in many cross-cultural studies in the human resource discipline (Aycan et al.
2000). However, Vijver and Leung (2000) have cautioned that one of the main issues
of such studies is the concern of Western bias which is reflected in the method used or
the theoretical orientations adopted. The current cross-cultural study is a humble
attempt to address such issues.
The study attempts to cross-fertilise knowledge from the current adult learning study
with the recent emerging issues in the development of cross-cultural psychology,
educational psychology and social psychology. The attempt to develop an indigenous
framework provide valuable data as it displays both ‘etic’ and ‘emic’ constructs,
unlike some of the cross-cultural studies which produce inconsistent findings as a
result of imposed ‘etic’ methods. It is hoped that the current study has laid out some
fundamental ideas for future cross-cultural research; or that these future studies would
take a similar stand—to be culturally sensitive and consider robust methodology to
21
explain possible cultural differences and not to blindly import measures without
adaptations. The rigorous instrument-developing on a large scale sample comparing
Malay and Chinese adult learners engaging with professional development, may
suggest some crucial theoretical and methodological aspects of a framework for future
researchers from the human resource disciplines who are keen to investigate crosscultural issues in a learning economy.
22
References
Abdullah, A., and Lim, L. 2001. Cultural dimensions of Anglos, Australians and
Malaysians. Malaysian Management Review 36(2): 9-17.
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J and Stahl, G., 2000.
Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country
comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1): 192-221.
Behling, O., and Law, K. S. 2000. Translating questionnaires and other research
instruments:Problems and solutions. Papers Series on Qualitative Applications
in Social Sciences, 07-131.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bempechat, J., and Drago-Severson, E. 1999. Cross-cultural differences in academic
achievement: Beyond etic conceptions of children's understanding. Review of
Educational Research, 69(3): 287-314.
Biggs, J. 1987a. Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne, Australia:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. 1987b. Study process questionnaires manual. Melbourne: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
23
Biggs, J. 2001. Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In Perspectives on
thinking, learning, and cognitive styles, eds R. J. Sternberg and L. F. Zhang,
73-102. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., and Leung, D. Y. P. 2001. The revised two-factor Study
Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
71: 133-149.
Billett, S. 2001. Learning in the workplace. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Brislin, R. 1993. Understanding cultures' influence on behavior: Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1): 32-42.
Buchanan, J., and Others. 2001. Beyond flexibility: Skills and work in the future.
Paper presented at the Future of work, working, learning and prospering:
The challenge of the emerging economy, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia.
Cameron, J. 2001. Negative effects of reward on intrinsic motivation-A limited
phenomenon: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan. Review of
Educational Research, 71(1): 29-42.
24
Chen, C. S., Stevenson, H. W., Hayward, C., and Burgess, S. 1995. Culture and
academic achievement: Ethnic and cross-national differences. In Advances
in motivation and achievement: Culture, motivation and achievement, eds
Maehr and R. Pintrich, 119-151. London: JAI Press Inc.
Chinese Culture Connection. 1987. Chinese values and the search for cultural-free
dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2): 143164.
Dahlin, B., and Watkins, D. 2000. The role of repetition in the processes of
memorising and understanding: A comparison of the views of German and
Chinese secondary school students in Hong Kong. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70: 65-84.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., and Koestner, R. 2001. The pervasive negative effects of
rewards on intrinsic motivation: Response to Cameron 2001. Review of
Educational Research, 71(1): 43-51.
Drucker, P. F. 1999. Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge.
California Management Review, 41(2): 79-94.
Falk, I., and Smith, T. 2002. Leadership in vocational educational and training.
Adelaide, Australia: National centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd.
25
Fan, Y. 2000. A classification of Chinese culture. Cross-Cultural Management-An
International Journal, 7: 3-10.
Floyd, F. J., and Widaman, K. F. 1995. Factor analysis in the development and
refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment,
7(3): 286-299.
Fontaine, R., Eu, G., Thean Beng, T., and R. Vikrama, O. K. A. P. 2002. The values
of young Malaysians. Paper presented at the Academy of International
Business South East Asia Region (AIBSEAR), Shanghai, China.
Fox, R. A., McManus, I. C., and Winder, B. C. 2001. The shortened Study Process
Questionnaire: An investigation of its structure and longitudinal stability
using confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71: 511-530.
Hai, H. 2004. Educating Singaporeans on cultural intelligence: Enhancing the
competitive edge. Paper presented at the Educational Research Association
of Singapore- Innovation and Enterprise: Education for the New Economy,
Institute of Education, Singapore.
Hair, J. F. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. 1995. Multivariate
data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
26
Hidi, S., and Harackiewicz, J. M. 2000. Motivating the academically unmotivated: A
critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2):
151-170.
Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1): 104-121.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Management in a multicultural society. Malaysian Management
Review, 26(1): 3-12.
Hussin, H. 1997. Personal values and identity structure of entrepreneurs: A
comparitive study of Malay and Chinese entrepreneurs in Malaysia. In
Entrepreneurship and SME research: On its way to the next millennium, eds
R. Donckels and A. Miettinen, 33-45. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing
Ltd.
Hwang, A., Ang, S., and Francesco, A. M. 2002. The silent Chinese: The influence of
face and Kiasuism on student feedback-seeking behaviour. Journal of
Management Education, 26(1): 70-98.
Jarvis, P. 2006. Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning: Lifelong
learning and the learning society. London: Routledge.
Kember, D., Biggs, J., and Leung, Y. P. 2004. Examining the multidimensionality of
approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the
27
Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
74: 261-279.
Kember, D., Wong, A., and Leung, D. Y. P. 1999. Reconsidering the dimensions of
approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69: 323343.
Knowles, M. (1998). The adult learner. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.
Kolb, D.A. 1976. The Learning Style Inventory: Technical manual. Boston: McBer
and Company.
Lau, K.-L., and Chan, D. W. 2001. Motivational characteristics of under-achievers in
Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 21(4): 417-430.
Li, J. 2001. Chinese conceptualization of learning. Ethos, 29(2): 111-124.
Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2): 224-253.
Mayo, A. 2003. Human capital: How to measure the value of our people? Retrieved
(November 17),
http://www.hrforumeurope.com/conference/2002session.asp?ref=a6
28
McInerney, D. M. 2004. A discussion of future time perspective. Educational
Psychology Review, 16(2): 141-151.
Merriam, S. B. 2001. Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning
theory. In The new update on adult learning theory, ed S.B. Merriam (Ed.),
4-13. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Merriam, S. B., and Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive
guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Novak, J. D. 1998. Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as
facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New Jersey, US: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associaties, Inc., Publishers.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.2001. Cities and regions
in the new learning economy; Education and skills. Paris: OECD.
Orpen, C. 2003. Teaching students to manage cross culturally. Cross-Cultural
Management, 10(2): 80-86.
Pillay, H., Boulton-Lewis, G., Wilss, L., and Rhodes, S. 2003. Conceptions of work
and learning at work: A challenge to emerging practices. Journal of
Education and Work, 16(4): 427-445.
29
Redding, G. S., and Ng, M. 1982. The role of 'Face' in the organizational perceptions
of Chinese managers. Organization Studies, 3(3): 201-219.
Richardson, J. T. E. 1995. Mature students in higher education: An investigation of
approaches to studying and academic performance. Studies in Higher
Education, 20(1): 5-14.
Robinson, C. 2001. The implications of globalisation and aging population on skills
formation in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: National Centre for
Vocational Education and Research.
Rosen, R. T., Digh, P., Singer, M., and Phillips, C. 2000. Global literacies: Lessons
on business leadership and national cultures. A landmark study of CEOs
from 28 countries. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Salili, F. 1995. Explaining Chinese students' motivation and achievement: A socialcultural analysis. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 9: 73-118.
Schwartz, S. H., and Sagie, G. 2000. Value consensus and importance: A crosscultural study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4): 465-497.
Sijuwade, P. O. 2001. A comparative study of family characteristics of AngloAmerican high achievers. International Educational Journal, 2(3): 161-167.
30
Stephenson, J. 1999. Corporate capability: Implications for the style and direction of
work-based learning. Sydney, Australia: Research Centre for Vocational
Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney.
Stevenson, H. W., and Lee, S.-Y. 1990. Context of achievement: A study of
American, Chinese, and Japanese children. Monographs of Society for
Research in Child Development, 55(1-2): 1-120.
Tan, P. L. 2006. Approaches to learning and learning values: An investigation of
adult learners in Malaysia., Unpublished doctoral thesis, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Tweed, R. G., and Lehman, D. R. 2002. Learning considered within a cultural
context: Confucian and Socratic Approaches. American Psychologist, 57(2):
89-99.
Vijver, V. D.,and Leung, K. 2000. Methodological issues in psychological research
on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(1): 33-51.
Volet, S. E., Renshaw, P. D., and Tietzel, K. 1994. A short-term longitudinal
investigation of cross-cultural differences in study approaches using Biggs'
SPQ questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64: 301-318.
Watkins, D. 2001. Correlates of approaches to learning: A cross-cultural metaanalysis. In Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles, eds R. J.
31
Sternberg and L. F. Zhang, 165-195. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Watkins, D.,and Ismail, M. 1994. Brief research report: Is the Asian learner a rote
learner? A Malaysian perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
19: 483-488.
Zeegers, P. 2001. Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71:115-132.
Zeegers, P. 2002. A revision of the Biggs' Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ).
Higher Education Research and Development, 21(1): 73-92.
32
Tables and Figures
Table 1: Consistency between literatures on cultural values presented by educational
psychologists and value items developed by social psychologists
______________________________________________________________________________
Summary of literature in chapter 2
on Confucian values and learning
Values items related to learning
found in both CVS and CCVS
(Presented by educational
Psychologists)
(presented by social psychologists)
* Values studies on Malaysians from
the management discipline
Examples of
items in LVS
______________________________________________________________________________________
Importance of education
Knowledge /Education,
Having a degree*
Belief of effort and human
Persistence, Perseverance*
To value the
pursuit of
Education
(item 9)
Being
persistent
Malleability
when I learn
(item 2)
Pragmatic learning
Adaptability,
Resourcefulness
Having the value
of wisdom/
resourcefulness
when I learn
(item 12)
Influence of social groups
(parents andpeers)
face when
Conformity/Group orientation,
obligation to one’s family,
Having to save
family
Care for face*
I learn
(item 16)
______________________________________________________________________________________
33
Table 2: Examples of items in the subscales of R-SPQ-2FM
Deep Approach
Subscales
Deep Motive
Understanding
and Memorising
I find that at times studying gives me a feeling of deep personal satisfaction
(Item 4)
I repeat many times so that I can understand (Item 30)
Deep Strategy
I make a point to read up most of the references/books suggested by the
lecturers (Item 25)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Deep or Surface Continuum
Subscales
Achieve Motive
One of the most important considerations in choosing a course is whether or
not I will be able to get top marks/grades in it. (Item 11)
Career Motive
I am at university mainly because I feel that I will be able to obtain a better
job if I have a higher academic qualification (Item 1)
Surface Approach
Subscales
Surface Motive
Surface Strategy
I do not find my study very interesting so I keep my effort to the minimum
(Item 10)
I find the best way to pass the examinations is to spot questions (Item 33)
34
Table 3: Examples of how the original items in CVS are modified to learning situation
Original items from CVS
(How important is this item to me personally?)
Adapted items of LVS
(How important is this item to me…)
Persistence
Being persistent when I learn
Knowledge/Education
To value the pursuit of education
35
Table 4: Summary of Scales and Items for R-SPQ-2FM (N=101)
_____________________________________________________________________
Cronbach’s
Total Variance
Alpha Values (%)
___________________________________________________________________________
1
Deep Approach
12
.84
13.90
(DA)
Factor Name of Factor
Number of Items
2
Career/Achieve
Motives
(CM/AM)
5
.80
9.89
3
Surface Approach
(SA)
8
.75
9.81
4
Understand and
4
.74
7.77
Memorising
(U&M)
___________________________________________________________________________
Total
29
41.37
___________________________________________________________________________
36
Table 5: Summary of Scales and Items for LVS (N=101)
_____________________________________________________________________
Cronbach’s
Total Variance
Alpha Values (%)
___________________________________________________________________________
1
Face
8
.84
13.03
Factor Name of Factor
Number of Items
2
Values of Learning
(VL)
3
.78
12.56
3
Middle Way
(MY)
4
.76
11.95
4
Qualities of Learning 6
.75
7.77
(QL)
___________________________________________________________________________
Total
21
45.31
___________________________________________________________________________
37
.79
ME
e1
CMAM
e2
UM
e3
SA
e4
.48
.45
.18
DA
.54
RE
.17
.58
Figure 1: Latent structure of R-SPQ-2FM at scales level
Note: i) Observed Variables:
DA=Deep Approach
CM/AM= Career Motive/Achieve Motive
UM=Understand and Memorising
SA=Surface Approach
ii) Latent Variables:
ME = Meaning Orientation
RE = Reproductive Orientation
iii) Measurement
Errors
e1 to e4
Note: i) Single headed arrows represent regression paths and are notated with standardized
path coefficients; double arrows represent co-variances and notated with correlation
coefficients; rectangular boxes represent observed variables and ellipses represent
unobserved or latent variables.
38
QL
e1
VL
e2
.55
.99
Self
.78
.57
Others
FACE
e3
MY
e4
.37
Figure 2: Higher order latent structure of LVS at scales level
Note:
i) Observed Variables: QL=Qualities of learning
VL=Values of learning
MY=Middle way
FACE= Face
ii) Latent Variables:
Self
Others
iii) Measurement
Errors
e1 to e4
Note: i) Single headed arrows represent regression paths and are notated with standardized
path coefficients; double arrows represent covariances and notated with correlation
coefficients; rectangular boxes represent observed variables and ellipses represent
unobserved or latent variables.
39
Biographical Note
Dr Po Li, Tan is a lecturer in Higher Education at The Learning Institute,
King’s College London. Her main research interest includes cross-cultural
issues and adult learning, cross-cultural coaching, cross-cultural
methodology, intercultural sensitivity development and
internationalisation of higher education. Her current project involves
supporting international teachers at higher education using cross-cultural
coaching. She can be contacted by email: po_li.tan@kcl.ac.uk
40