‘Memorisation with understanding’ in approaches to studying:

cultural variant or response to assessment demands?

Christina Au and Noel Entwistle

University of Edinburgh

Abstract
This research addresses the so-called ‘paradox of the Chinese learner’, believed to learn mainly
by memorising and yet obtaining high grades in Western universities. Interviews have previously
suggested that different methods of memorising exist, some intended to develop or reinforce
understanding. An inventory was developed which included the three main approaches to
studying, but also scales derived from interviews with Chinese students. Open-ended questions
about ways of studying were added to the questionnaire, which was given to 91 students from
three different age levels in a Hong Kong secondary school. Factor analysis of the items and
qualitative analyses of the open-ended responses highlighted the distinction between
understanding and memorising, and confirmed the existence of an approach to understanding
which involved memorisation and was, to some extent, a response to perceived examination
demands. Qualitative analyses of interviews with Scottish university students had previously
identified different forms of understanding and ways of revising for examinations which
involved the sequential use of understanding and memorising. These revision strategies are
compared with those described by Chinese students to explore the extent to which the Chinese
students are also adapting to assessment demands, as well as expressing an aspect of their
cultural heritage.

Introduction
Interviews with university students have shown that contrasting approaches to learning – deep
and surface – are adopted (Marton & Säljö, 1976). The surface approach relies on the use of
rote memorisation and routine procedures, while the deep approach involves trying to extract
meaning, so as to reach a thorough understanding. Inventories developed to measure these
approaches have demonstrated a link between the intention to understand and learning processes
which relate ideas and use evidence (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). Deep and surface approaches
form almost unrelated factors in analyses of these inventories. In relation to everyday studying,
a third dimension has been identified – a strategic approach - which indicates an intention to
achieve the highest possible grades through effort and well-organised studying. Investigations
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

using such inventories have indicated that a deep strategic approach to studying at university is
likely to lead to high grades, while a surface approach combined with low scores on the strategic
dimension is associated with poor academic performance.
In western university education, accumulated anecdotal evidence has suggested that Chinese
students are prone to make extensive use of rote memorisation and are more passive and less
interactive in class than most western students (Biggs, 1996; Samuelowicz, 1987; Kember and
Gow, 1991). Their level of achievement is, however, relatively high (Garden, 1987; IEA, 1988;
Stigler and Perry, 1990). Chinese students also have higher deep and strategic inventory scores
than their western counterparts (Biggs, 1989, 1990, 1991; Kember and Gow, 1990, 1991), in
spite of their tendency to learn by rote. These apparent contradictions have been discussed in
terms of ‘the paradox of the Chinese learner’ (Watkins, Reghi & Astilla, 1991; Kember & Gow,
1991; Biggs & Watkins, 1996) and have provoked attempts to resolve that paradox.
Subsequent research has found that many Chinese students combine memorisation with
attempts to understand in ways which seemed to contradict the earlier research on student
learning among western students (Kember, 1996). The combination is seen by Chinese students
as normal because “having an understanding of something implies memory, just as (meaningful)
memory implies understanding” (Marton, Watkins and Tang, 1997, p. 32). Chinese students
tend to see memorisation and understanding as often taking place at the same time. They believe
that if they really understand the material, they will have a very strong impression that will help
them to memorise without much effort (Marton, Dell’Alba & Tse, 1996). This form of
combined understanding and remembering has been labelled ‘deep memorising’ by Tang
(1991), while Marton and his colleagues have used the phrase “memorisation with
understanding” to describe the same phenomenon (1996, p.75; 1997, p.36).
The previous research came to the conclusion that this way of studying is characteristic of
Chinese learners and may be rooted in the Confucian heritage which has its own philosophy and
practice of education quite distinct from those espoused in the west. This conclusion was,
however, based on interviews and inventory studies which did not include any scales specific to
the Chinese approaches to studying. Also, no account had been taken of research on British
university students which had reported sequential use of understanding and memorising in
preparing for examinations. The present study thus developed inventory scales designed to tap
‘Chinese’ approaches to studying, and focused on the combinations of understanding and
memorising used as students prepared for examinations.

1
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

Methods
Sample
A typical secondary school in Hong Kong, with English as the medium of instruction, was
chosen for this study. 41 students came from the second year, 37 students from the fourth year,
and 16 students from the sixth year. The small number in the final year reflects the restricted
progression from O-Level to A-Level in Hong Kong.

Data collection
A questionnaire was developed to incorporate an inventory of approaches to studying and open-
ended questions about ways of studying. The inventory consisted of 60 items on five-point
Likert scales, ten items on each of six scales. Items on deep, surface and strategic approaches
were derived from a version of the Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) (Entwistle &
Ramsden, 1983) intended for secondary school pupils ((Entwistle, Kozeki and Balarabe, 1988).

Table 1 Inventory scales, scale meanings and indicative items

Scale Indicative items Meaning of scales

Scales from the ASI

Deep approach Intention to understand the meaning for oneself by
relating ideas and using evidence.
In trying to understand new ideas, I often try to relate them to real-life situations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface approach Intention to reproduce material relying on rote learning
and routine procedures, without engagement.
I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic approach Intention to obtain the highest possible grades through effort,
well-organised study methods, and good time-management.
I plan my working time carefully to make the most of it.
New scales based on interviews with Chinese learners
Rote memorisation Learning word for word without looking for meaning.
Forcing myself to memorise is a basic technique of studying for me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorisation with understanding Using memorisation to develop or strengthen understanding.
I can remember what I have studied longer by committing it to memory through understanding,
rather than by just rote learning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding without memorisation Grasping the whole idea through your own way of thinking.
I am confident about using my own words when answering questions.

Three new scales were produced, with items based on the interview comments reported by
Marton and his associates (Marton et al., 1996; Marton et al., 1997), and were designed to
distinguish between ‘rote memorisation’, ‘memorisation with understanding’ and ‘understanding

2
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

without memorisation’. The items were adjusted to the specific school context and translated
into Chinese.
Table 1 indicates the meaning of each of these scales and presents translated versions of
indicative items. The second part of the questionnaire included open-ended questions that
encouraged students to reflect on the meanings of ‘memorisation’ and ‘understanding’, and to
describe their ways of preparing for their end-of-year examinations.
Students were asked to fill in the questionnaire one week before the examinations to ensure
that the responses reflected their experience in that specific context.

Results

Factor analysis of the inventory

The first step in the analysis was to use maximum likelihood analysis, with delta set at zero, to
examine the rotated factor pattern of both items and inventory sub-scales, and to calculate
Cronbach alpha coefficients to indicate internal consistency. From these analyses, the scales
were refined by removing the items which contributed least effectively to scale totals without
adding anything to the definition of the scale. This procedure reduced the number of items to 46,
leaving sub-scales with Cronbach alpha coefficients lying between 0.60 and 0.75.

Table 2 Factor pattern derived from maximum likelihood analysis of inventory scales
Scales Factor
I II III

Deep approach 56 - 33
Understanding without memorisation - 31 44 - 34
Memorisation with understanding 87
Strategic approach 69
Rote memorisation 58 54
Surface approach 68
Factor intercorrelations
I – active rote learning - 02 30
II – deep approach, seeking understanding - - 24
III – passive rote, surface approach -

Decimal points and loadings below 0.3 have been omitted

Factor analysis of the refined scales produced a three factor solution (based on the eigen
value and the scree plot) which extracted 59.3% of the variance. The factor pattern matrix of
loadings are shown in Table 2. Factors I and III both show an emphasis on rote memorisation
without understanding, but Factor I suggests an active form of rote learning linked to a strategic
3
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

approach, while Factor III indicates the passive form associated with a surface approach. Factor
II has high loadings on the scales describing a deep approach, memorisation with understanding,
and understanding without memorisation. The highest loading is found on memorisation with
understanding, which presumably represents the strategy most actively used during revision.
Correlations between the factors show the expected positive relationship between Factors I
and III which are linked by rote learning, and a negative relationship between Factors II and III.
The near zero correlation between Factors I and II may be the result of a negative relationship
between deep approach and rote memorisation being counteracted by common active, though
different, approaches to studying.

Table 3 Intercorrelations between the inventory scales

Scales Deep Under Mem + Strat Rote Surface
Deep approach - .43** .35** .21* -.23* -.33**
Understanding without memorisation - .25* -.17 -.58** -.40**
Memorisation with understanding - .24* .06 .09
Strategic approach - .43** .07
Rote memorisation - .57**
Surface approach -
* indicates significance at the 0.05 level; ** significance at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Inter-correlations among the scales are shown in Table 3 and emphasise the separation
between seeking understanding (both in the deep approach and in understanding without
memorisation) and rote learning. They also show that ‘memorising with understanding’
represents a more strategic response (r = + 0.24) than ‘understanding without memorisation’ (r =
- 0. 17). Moreover, the correlations reinforce the conclusion that memorisation is correlated with
the strategic approach, while the surface approach is not. The high negative correlation between
‘understanding without memorisation’ and rote memorisation is inevitable given the definition
of the scales, as is the positive correlation between rote memorisation and the surface approach.

Comparison of year groups

The next step in the analysis involved using analysis of variance to compare the scale scores for
second-, fourth- and sixth-year students, with the expectation that rote memorisation would
decrease as the examinations became more demanding of understanding. Table 4 presents the
findings.
All but the surface approach showed significant trends from second year to sixth year, and
even on that scale there was a marked difference between second and fourth years. Students
4
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

showed increasing patterns of means with age on all three scales which involved trying to
develop their understanding, and decreasing scores on rote memorisation and strategic approach.

Table 4 Mean scores, standard deviations and F ratios by year group

S2 (N = 41) S4 (N = 37) S6 (N = 16) ANOVA
Scales Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) d.f. (2, 91)
Deep 25.8 (4.1) 26.2 (4.3) 28.9 (4.3) 3.3 < .05
Understanding without memorisation 26.2 (4.4) 27.8 (4.4) 30.8 (5.2) 6.0 < .01
Memorisation with understanding 26.1 (4.2) 27.8 (3.8) 29.7 (3.3) 5.1 < .01
Strategic 24.2 (3.8) 23.2 (4.2) 20.4 (4.7) 4.9 < .01
Rote memorisation 27.4 (4.6) 25.7 (5.5) 21.8 (5.1) 7.2 < .001
Surface 26.7 (4.3) 25.0 (4.9) 24.9 (3.5) 1.8 .NS

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions

The analysis focused on just two issues – how students distinguished between the meanings of
‘memorisation’ and ‘understanding’, and the extent to which the three year groups reported
using different forms of memorisation in preparing for their examinations. Repeated readings of
the responses produced sets of comments on each theme, which was then described, using
extracts to clarify the distinctions being made. Full details of the analysis have been reported
elsewhere (Au, 1998).

Memorisation and understanding

In responding to the question on the difference and relationship between memorisation and
understanding, almost all second-year students regarded memorisation as ‘rote memorisation’.
They explained it as remembering material without thinking and understanding, just ‘stuffing in’
all the material without ‘digesting’ it. Most of these students could also see a difference between
‘understanding’ from ‘memorisation’, but they were less clear about the nature of that
difference. Typical comments were:

‘Memorisation’ means not understanding the topics. ‘Understanding’ means memorising the material without much
effort… ‘Memorisation’ means to memorise something by ‘force’. If you understand (the material) first before
memorising, it will deepen your memory of it.

‘Memorisation’ is without analysis, putting material in the mind; ‘understanding’ is ‘digesting’ material in the mind so
that it can be remembered easily. Both of them are ways of doing revision.

For the students in fourth and sixth years, the distinction between memorisation and
understanding was more definite. They could also distinguish ‘rote memorisation’ from
‘memorisation with understanding’, believing that understanding and memorisation could
5
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

reinforce each other in both directions; that is, understanding could contribute to a better
memorisation and memorisation could enhance understanding.

Memorisation is divided into ‘rote memorisation’ and ‘memorisation with understanding’. After understanding the
content, you do not need to memorise it by rote; you can use simple sentences to answer.

‘Rote memorisation’ and ‘understanding’ are definitely different from each other. Rote memorisation is ‘stuffing’ all
the material given by the teacher into your head without analysing and ‘digesting’ it. The material will then be
forgotten within a short period of time. But ‘understanding’ is using analysis and thinking to learn the causal
relationships between topics. Therefore, ‘memorisation’ and ‘understanding’ have a sequential relationship, that is,
you have to understand the topic first to comprehend all the concepts and examples, (and) then you can memorise
them easily.

‘Understanding’ means grasping the main points and concepts of the topics, using your own words to express them
and applying them to daily experiences. Sometimes, if I do not understand, I will memorise it first, then through
continuous thinking I will understand it eventually.

Preparing for the examinations

While most students saw memorisation as essential in preparing for examinations, different year
groups emphasised contrasting forms of memorisation. Looking first at students in fourth and
sixth years, they tended to achieve a deeper understanding without much use of rote
memorisation. In their revision for their final examination, most sixth-year students and some
fourth-years memorised only certain aspects of the work - technical terms, vocabulary and main
points. Most of them had their own notes that had been summarised from the school handouts.
They had tried to make sure of understanding the meaning before memorising them, and then
they could analyse the examination questions and answer them in their own words. Most of
these students recognised the importance of understanding in the process of learning, but they
also thought that the combination of understanding with memorising became crucial in
preparing for examinations.

Memorisation can strengthen my ability to recall the content, but understanding can deepen my impression of it. Both
of them should be emphasised because some topics require us to understand first and then memorise.

Understanding and memorisation contribute to each other. If we study only through memorisation without
understanding, we cannot analyse questions in the exams. But if we only understand (the topic), but don’t memorise it,
we cannot remember it in the exam.

The materials that I memorise are only those main points,… not the words in every paragraph. This can help me to
understand the content clearly and study them easily… If those main points are very simple and easy to understand, I
will read them once, and then memorise them once. But when I come across materials that are difficult to
remember, I will memorise every single point, and memorise them many times, or even write them down.

During my revision, I will divide the materials into two parts: the more important part and less important part. Then, I
will concentrate on those which are more important and study them deeply. I will highlight the main points, remember

6
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

the key words. After finishing one set of notes, (I) will say those key words out loud, and try to remember the content
once…

Basically I do not rely on memorisation in my studying. Memorisation needs more time and that memorised material
will be forgotten easily. I usually memorise key words only. This makes me have a deeper impression. But most
important is to understand.

Some fourth-year students memorised by rote in their revision. They memorised not only the
vocabularies and main points, but also most of the content in their notes, like characteristics,
formation and impacts, because they did not have much confidence in using their own words in
the examinations.

When doing my revision, I try to rote memorise all the material thoroughly, because I’m not confident (about
answering in my own words).

I read the notes once, then I underline the main points and key words, and memorise them. Only when I can recite all
the material and can describe the whole process, then I know I have understood.

As second-year students saw ‘understanding’ as just knowing of the meanings of words or

sentences, they relied much more on rote memorisation than the older students, because they
wanted to reproduce accurate answers in examination and were less confident about using their
own words.

I rely on memorisation in my studying because the (answers to) the question (section) in the workbook are so long that
I can’t use my own words to express (them).

If I do not understand, I cannot recite them. If I don’t memorise the material, I can’t answer the question during the
examination.

If I only have understanding, it doesn’t mean that I can answer the examination questions because I don’t know how to
express (what I know) in my own words. Therefore, revision is for understanding, then followed by memorisation (for
the examination).

I will revise it until my mind is full of ‘information’, then I know I have prepared well for the examination.

Yes, I definitely do (rely on memorisation)! Mainly on the long question section! (Because) they are sure to be asked
in the examination.

A comparison with the revision strategies of Scottish university students

The British study of undergradates, mentioned previously, had interviewed students and asked
about the ways in which they had prepared for their final examinations (Entwistle & Entwistle,
1991, 1997; Entwistle, 1998). The combination of understanding and committing that
understanding to memory for the purpose of the examinations was also found among these much
older and more experienced students. The general procedure involved a systematic, sequential
approach which most students followed, to a greater or lesser extent.
7
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

Students reported that they revised in a succession of phases. Realising that understanding was required, they started
their revision by trying to make sense their notes as a whole, reading them through several times. The process of
'concising' then began and summary notes were usually written at each stage of revision. Understandings were
rehearsed, either by talking the ideas through with other students, or by constructing explanations for themselves on
paper or out loud. Once understandings were established, students became more strategic, although to varying degrees.
They looked at previous examination papers and began to consider the amount of information needed and also to think
how best to structure typical answers. Finally, students rote learned the details necessary to support their explanations
in the exams, and the summary sheets were used to see to what extent the structure of answers and the supportive
details could be remembered. (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1997, p. 147)

There were, however, some interesting variations among the students interviewed, which
depended on the student and the nature of the examination. One medical student, for example,
relied almost exclusively on rote learning in preparing for first-year examinations that required
just facts. He said:

One thing I do is, at the beginning of every course, I read the past papers on the day I start the course, and … get
orientated towards the exams. I don't like to waste my time… Well, medicine is different, I think, from other
subjects… The facts … you just have to learn them… Sometimes, I would … get up at 5am and read a few subjects
the morning before and use (that, and pass) … But then I would forget it very quickly after the exam, which isn’t
much good for the patients in the future... (op. cit., p. 149-150)

When it came to finals, however, this same student revised quite differently, knowing that he
would have to demonstrate conceptual understanding.
Other students relied heavily on the notes they had taken in lectures, and then simply tried to
remember both the information provided and the arguments used. This produced a very
inflexible form of understanding, which could not be easily adjusted to the specific question set.

Some questions are basically asking you to discuss (a topic), and if that comes up, it’s just remembering my lecture
notes and putting down what they said. Sometimes I was lucky, when the question said (in) effect “Re-write your mind
map in prose”, (as) the mind maps were, to a large extent, based on past exam questions… But other times I had to
make connections which weren't there in the first place, by extending them (as I went)… By and large, those were
worse essays than … I would have written, had the question been more favourable. (op. cit., p. 149-150)

Students adopting a deep, strategic approach tried to develop a different form of

understanding, one which would allow them to respond flexibly to whatever questions were
asked.

I like to do (my revision) more by a process of understanding and seeing how things fit together. Because, if I can't,
then I find it very difficult to get to grips with the topic. Then, it would be a matter of reading through the notes that I
had made and seeing how everything fitted together, both in chronological terms and facts, and changes. I would just
make myself write out a pattern, just trying to remember figures and names and dates. (Finally), I would look through
my notes and almost mark it, and in doing so I would remember the things that I hadn't put in… This (way of revising)
gives you quite a broad base from which to answer any question that comes up on that topic. So you are used to being
flexible in the way that you answer the question: it allows you to adapt to different ways in which the question could
8
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

be worded, and it also organises in your mind the relationships between different aspects of, and approaches to, a
question. (from the transcript)

Discussion
In the analyses of responses by the Hong Kong students, the distinction between ‘rote
memorisation’ and ‘understanding’ emerged clearly from both the factor analysis and the open-
ended comments. The quantitative analysis also confirmed that, among Chinese students, the
attempt to seek understanding through the deep approach was related to ‘memorising with
understanding’: it showed the highest loading on that factor. The idea of ‘deep memorising’ or
‘memorising with understanding’ was also spontaneously mentioned by several of the older
students in their comments. Memorisation with understanding was, however, a more strategic
response than understanding without memorisation. Both the sixth-year Chinese students and
British university students recognise that ‘remembering and committing to memory’, based on a
prior understanding, will create a much firmer basis for revision than either initial understanding
(which has not been reinforced) or memorising.

Linguistic comparisons
One of the problems in making these distinctions clear from the comments of the Chinese
students’ is the equivalence, or otherwise, of the words in the two languages. The ideograms
indicating ‘understanding’, ‘rote memorising’, and ‘remembering’ in the Chinese language have,
not just meanings, but connotations that may create nuances beyond what is captured in direct
translation. The underlying meanings of the ideograms need to be explored before interpreting
the findings.
It is the Chinese term ‘ming bai’ which is usually translated as ‘understanding’. The first
character ‘ming’ is composed of two smaller parts - ‘sun’ and ‘moon’, and refers to something
that is bright and light. The second character - ‘bai’ - refers to a ‘white’ colour. Both of these
words thus refer to something that is bright and clear. So, if one uses ‘ming bai’ to describe how
much one knows about something, it means that the whole thing has become clear to oneself. It
also implies a sense that one has ‘seen through’ the matter. Generally speaking, when applying
the term ‘ming bai’ to Chinese student learning, it implies that students have grasped the whole
idea clearly, that they know the meaning and can see relationships with other parts of the
learning materials.
The Chinese word ‘bei’ is most frequently used to indicate ‘memorising’. Its origins lie in
‘bei song’, which is similar to the English term ‘recitation’, but ‘bei’ has other meanings. In
Ancient China, the term referred to two actions - ‘turning your back on something’ and ‘reading
9
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

something out’. Therefore, when Chinese students of today use ‘bei’ or ‘bei song’ to describe
their studying, it means that they can recite the material without looking at it, which probably
implies that they are learning by rote. In some colloquial sayings, and in some student responses
in this study, Chinese students describe this kind of memorisation as ‘stuffing’ the material,
word for word, into their minds without ‘digesting’ it: some also see this as studying by ‘force’.
Through these terms, we can see the effort which many Chinese students use to commit material
to memory.
The different usage of the terms ‘remembering’ and ‘memorising’ may originate in the
written ideogram for the word ‘remember’ - ‘ji’. Apart from meaning ‘not to forget’, this
character also means ‘to record’. It is composed of two small individual characters which, taken
separately, mean ‘word(s)’ (yan) and ‘one’s own self’ (ji). Combining these two single
characters implies that words become a part of oneself. In an old Chinese Dictionary, ‘ji’ also
means ‘knowing’ and ‘knowledge’, so there is an indication that - ji -‘remembering’ entails
being able to explain what you know in your own words.
One of the Chinese sixth-years commented that, in studying, rote memorisation is only used
to show one’s memorising ability and diligence, but does not lead to understanding. In contrast,
‘memorisation with understanding’ enables students not only to ‘see through’ the related
materials, but also to remember them more easily, and for longer, than learning by rote. But
‘memorisation with understanding’ is also seen as essential when it comes to preparing for
examinations, so to what extent is this apparently distinctive ‘Chinese’ approach to studying a
product of the Confucian heritage or of a particular assessment demand.

Influences of assessment procedures and cultural heritage

The examinations taken by students in secondary schools in Hong Kong change in their
demands from second year to sixth year. The questions set for the younger students are
straightforward and factual, while those produced for the older students are more complex and
demand at least some conceptual understanding. In addition, the questions are presented and
have to be answered in English. The second-years had much less confidence in their linguistic
ability in a second language than did the sixth-formers, which increased their need to use rote
memorisation (see, also, Gow, Kember and Chow, 1991). In responding to the open-ended
questions, many of the second-year students said that, since they did not know how to answer in
English in their own words, they would study all the material by rote and reproduce it word for
word in the examination. By doing so, they would feel more secure and confident.

10
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

Although most of the younger students relied heavily on rote memorisation in their
studying, they still believed that understanding was important, because it led to easier, and more
effective, memorisation, which in turn could help them to achieve better grades in the
examination. What they intended to understand, however, were not the main ideas, because that
would “waste” much time in their revision. Instead, they saw ‘understanding’ as knowing the
meanings of words that would help them to memorise by rote more easily. Their approach to
revision seemed best summarised in the factor analysis by Factor I – an active strategic use of
rote memorisation. Actually, most of these students could also see the interweaving relationship
between ‘understanding’ and ‘memorisation’, but had not yet developed the notion of
‘memorisation with understanding’. They seemed to think that ‘understanding’ and ‘rote-
memorisation’ led to the same outcome, namely verbatim recall. As Schmeck (1988, p.319)
comments, if teachers keep “rewarding the parroting of words from textbooks and lectures,
students will memorise those words literally through repetition and recitation”. And several
studies at university level have shown how the form of assessment affects the approach to
studying, with fact-oriented questions encouraging a surface approach (see Entwistle, 2000).
Sixth-year students, and fourth-years who were also more proficient in English, seldom
relied solely on rote memorisation. They set out to understand the material first, then memorise
the main points, and finally elaborate them in their own words, although some of the students
saw memorising and understanding taking place simultaneously. They only rote memorised
some technical terms and complicated sentences for later analysis. Most of them distinguished
clearly in their comments between ‘memorisation with understanding’ and ‘rote memorisation’.
For them, the main differences between these two kinds of memorisation were whether they had
achieved personal understanding, and whether they could express the learning material in their
own words, or not. However, the strength of ‘memorisation with understanding’ in the factor
analysis (Factor II), together with the correlations between scales, suggest that this is a more
strategic response to examinations than is ‘understanding without memorisation’. In other words
it is, at least in part, a response to assessment demands.
We thus see that both second years and sixth years are adopting a form of memorisation
which suits the requirements of the examinations. The same type of response was also found in
the analysis of comments from British university students. There, however, an additional
complication was noted. The responses differed between individuals as well as between
different forms of assessment. The same student might revise by rote learning, or by committing
an understanding to memory, depending on how the assessment demands were perceived. Yet,
the same examination could be perceived quite differently by individual students, some of

11
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

whom were content to reproduce their lecture notes, while others sought to develop their own
interpretations of the what they had learned. And among the deep strategic students, their ways
of studying were very similar to some of the older Chinese secondary students.
Reactions to assessment demands must thus play a part in the approaches to studying
generally adopted by students. ‘Rote memorisation’ is recognised, and used, by both Chinese
and British students to cope with assessment which encourages limited factual responses. And
the revision strategies of the two groups of students seem remarkably similar. Are there, then,
any remaining cultural differences in approaches to learning? A flavour of one possible
difference may come from students’ reactions when understanding proves difficult. The first
comment comes from a British student; the second from a sixth-year student in Hong Kong.

If I can't (understand), then … it would be a matter of reading through the notes that I had made and seeing how
everything fitted together.

But when I come across materials that are difficult to remember, I will memorise every single point, and memorise them
many times, or even write them down.

It does seem that memorising is more immediately associated with understanding in the Chinese
mind than in the western one.
Although Hong Kong is a modern society substantially affected by western views, it is still
influenced by traditional Chinese values. There is no formal Confucian teaching in schools, and
yet traditional beliefs still prevail in child-rearing practices. The Confucian heritage emphasises
the virtue of effort and ‘filial piety’, which includes respect for teachers as purveying
authoritative knowledge. The belief that academic success comes from effort, and that
knowledge is presented for students to learn, puts a premium on memorisation in learning, even
when personal understanding is sought.
From a very young age, students in Hong Kong are expected to adopt rote memorisation as a
routine way of learning. At primary school, youngsters are taught to remember Chinese
characters through repeated copying. They are also encouraged to rote memorise standard
Chinese compositions and multiplication tables. Moreover, educational achievement is highly
valued within Chinese society, and its teaching emphasises “a product, not a process” (Biggs,
1996, p. 55). Thus, memorisation becomes a well-established and overt way for Chinese
students to show their effort and their respect for a teacher’s knowledge, and to achieve
academic success, where the assessment requires only the reproduction of what has been taught.
Also, as memorisation is considered as a common and acceptable way of studying in most
Chinese societies, students are able to include forms of memorisation in their studying even

12
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

when conceptual understanding is required (Marton, Wen & Nagle, 1995). By the end of
secondary school, memorisation and understanding seem to have become part of a single
process of learning, at least when preparing for examinations.
The two small-scale studies used here to explore the phenomenon of ‘memorisation with
understanding’ or, in terms of the British experience, ‘committing an understanding to memory’,
have suggested further complications in its interpretation and origins. The Chinese approach to
studying seems to make memorisation an accepted part of understanding, rooted in the
Confucian heritage. And yet in both Hong Kong and Britain, the students are also phasing their
revision, sequencing understanding and memorising for specific purposes in preparing for the
perceived requirements of the examination. Further research will be required to clarify the
intriguing issues thrown up by these, and earlier, findings.

References
Au, C. (1998). Memorisation and understanding: a study in approaches to learning in a Hong
Kong secondary school. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, Faculty of Education, University
of Edinburgh.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: a cognitive view.
(2nd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Students’ approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne:: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to learning in two cultures. In V. Bickley (Ed.), Language
teaching and styles within and across cultures (pp. 421-436). Hong Kong: Institute of
Language in Education.
Biggs, J. B. (1990). Effects of language medium of instruction on approaches to learning.
Educational Research Journal, 5, 18-28.
Biggs, J. B. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong:
Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6, 27-39.
Biggs, J. B. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D. A.
Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: cultural, psychological and contextual
influences (pp. 46-67). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and The
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. & Watkins, D. (1996). The Chinese learner in retrospect. In D. A. Watkins & J. B.
Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp.

13
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

269-285). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and The Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Entwistle, N. J. (1998). Approaches to learning and forms of understanding. In B. Dart & G.
Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 72-101).
Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Entwistle, N. J. (2000). Approaches to studying and levels of understanding: the influences of
teaching and assessment. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: handbook of theory and
research (Vol. XV) (pp. 156-218) . New York: Agathon Press.
Entwistle, N. J. & Entwistle, A. C. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree
examinations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22, 205-227.
Entwistle, N. J. & Entwistle, A. C. (1997). Revision and the experience of understanding. In F.
Marton, D. J. Hounsell & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (2nd ed.) (pp.
145-158). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Entwistle, N. J., Kozeki, B. & Balarabe, M. (1988). Motivation, attributions, and approaches to
learning in British and Hungarian secondary schools. Paper for AERA Annual Meeting in
New Orleans, April, 1988.
Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (1988). Science
achievement in seventeen countries. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Garden, R. A. (1987). The second IEA mathematics study. Comparative Education Review, 31,
47-68.
Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to
learning. Higher Education, 31, 341-354.
Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1990). Cultural specificity of approaches to study. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 60, 356-363.
Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1991). A challenge to the anecdotal stereotype of the Asian student.
Studies in Higher Education, 16, 117-128.
Kember, D., Gow, L. & Chow, R. (1991). The effects of Englaish language ability on
approaches to learning. R. E. L. C. Journal, 22, 49-68.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G. & Tse, L. K. (1996). Memorizing and understanding: The keys to the
paradox? In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.) The Chinese learner: cultural,
psychological and contextual influences (pp. 69-83). Hong Kong: Comparative Education
Research Centre and The Australian Council for Educational Research.

14
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. I. Outcome and process..
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46 , 4-11.
Marton, F., Watkins, D. & Tang, C. (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of
learning: An interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learning and
Instruction, 7, 21-48.
Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story. Higher
Education Research and Development, 6, 121-132.
Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Strategies and styles of learning: An integration of varied perspectives.
In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and Learning styles (pp. 317-347). New York:
Plenum.
Stigler, J. W. and Perry, M. (1990). Mathematics learning in Japanese, Chinese, and American
Classrooms. In J. M. Stigler, R. A. Shweder and G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology:
essays on comparative human development (pp. 328-353). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tang, K. C. C. (1991). Effects of different assessment methods on tertiary students’ approaches
to studying. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hong Kong
Watkins, D., Reghi, M. & Astilla, E. (1991). The-Asian-learner-as-a-rote-learner stereotype:
Myth or reality? Educational Psychology, 11, 21-33.

15
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

Table 1 Inventory scales, scale meanings and indicative items

Scale Indicative items Meaning of scales

Scales from the ASI

Deep approach Intention to understand the meaning for oneself by
relating ideas and using evidence.
In trying to understand new ideas, I often try to relate them to real-life situations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface approach Intention to reproduce material relying on rote learning
and routine procedures, without engagement.
I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic approach Intention to obtain the highest possible grades through effort,
well-organised study methods, and good time-management.
I plan my working time carefully to make the most of it.
New scales based on interviews with Chinese learners
Rote memorisation Learning word for word without looking for meaning.
Forcing myself to memorise is a basic technique of studying for me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorisation with understanding Using memorisation to develop or strengthen understanding.
I can remember what I have studied longer by committing it to memory through understanding,
rather than by just rote learning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding without memorisation Grasping the whole idea through your own way of thinking.
I am confident about using my own words when answering questions.

16
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

Table 2 Factor pattern derived from maximum likelihood analysis of inventory scales
Scales Factor
I II III

Deep approach 56 - 33
Understanding without memorisation - 31 44 - 34
Memorisation with understanding 87
Strategic approach 69
Rote memorisation 58 54
Surface approach 68
Factor intercorrelations
I – active rote learning - 02 30
II – deep approach, seeking understanding - - 24
III – passive rote, surface approach -

Decimal points and loadings below 0.3 have been omitted

17
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

Table 3 Intercorrelations between the inventory scales

Scales Deep Under Mem + Strat Rote Surface
Deep approach - .43** .35** .21* -.23* -.33**
Understanding without memorisation - .25* -.17 -.58** -.40**
Memorisation with understanding - .24* .06 .09
Strategic approach - .43** .07
Rote memorisation - .57**
Surface approach -
* indicates significance at the 0.05 level; ** significance at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

18
 Unpublished article based on research by the lead author

Table 4 Mean scores, standard deviations and F ratios by year group

S2 (N = 41) S4 (N = 37) S6 (N = 16) ANOVA
Scales Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) d.f. (2, 91)
Deep 25.8 (4.1) 26.2 (4.3) 28.9 (4.3) 3.3 < .05
Understanding without memorisation 26.2 (4.4) 27.8 (4.4) 30.8 (5.2) 6.0 < .01
Memorisation with understanding 26.1 (4.2) 27.8 (3.8) 29.7 (3.3) 5.1 < .01
Strategic 24.2 (3.8) 23.2 (4.2) 20.4 (4.7) 4.9 < .01
Rote memorisation 27.4 (4.6) 25.7 (5.5) 21.8 (5.1) 7.2 < .001
Surface 26.7 (4.3) 25.0 (4.9) 24.9 (3.5) 1.8 .NS

19