Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

ISSN: 1360-080X (Print) 1469-9508 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhe20

Cultural differences, learning styles and

transnational education

Troy Heffernan , Mark Morrison , Parikshit Basu & Arthur Sweeney

To cite this article: Troy Heffernan , Mark Morrison , Parikshit Basu & Arthur Sweeney (2010)
Cultural differences, learning styles and transnational education, Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 32:1, 27-39, DOI: 10.1080/13600800903440535

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600800903440535

Published online: 06 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2417

View related articles

Citing articles: 33 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjhe20

Download by: [University of Leicester] Date: 27 January 2017, At: 20:28

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Vol. 32, No. 1, February 2010, 27–39

Cultural differences, learning styles and transnational education

1469-9508
1360-080X
CJHE
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, Nov 2009: pp. 0–0

Troy Heffernana*, Mark Morrisonb, Parikshit Basub and Arthur Sweeneyc

Journal
T. Heffernan
of Higher
et al.Education Policy and Management

a
Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom; bSchool of
Marketing and Management, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia; cDepartment of
Marketing, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia

Australian universities have been active participants in the transnational education

market over the past twenty years. Many Australian universities have structured various
forms of franchising arrangements with universities and other education providers,
particularly with educational institutions in China. However, the cultural differences
between Australia and China are substantial; furthermore, research has shown that Chinese
students have unique characteristics that differentiate them from Western students.
Nevertheless, Australian universities develop and implement programs in China with
limited understanding of these differences. Consequently, to administer these programs
better academics need to understand the differences that might exist in Chinese student
cohorts. One area of possible difference is learning styles. Hence, the aim of this study
was to explore the differences in learning styles between business students in China
and Australia. The results suggest that there are substantial differences in learning
styles between the two countries. Consequently, program managers need to consider
these differences when structuring course offerings for students in China.
Keywords: China; cultural differences; learning styles; transnational education

Introduction

If it is the case that Australian universities adopt a colonial perspective about education: ‘We
have this wonderful Bachelor’s degree or whatever, and we will take it across to educate the
uneducated Asians’; then that will fail because that era has long since passed. If we adopt
education as a business and we say: ‘We are in the business of delivering educational services’,
and we go to the trouble of finding out what needs and demands there are, and then adapt our
services to satisfy those needs and demands, then I think Australia has a lot to offer. (Quote
from an expert in transnational education.)

As is illustrated in the previous quote from an expert on transnational education, to

successfully run transnational educational programs, universities should seek to identify
the needs of the markets that they are attempting to serve. A major part of this market analysis
is to develop an understanding of the student cohort, and how they learn compared with
students from the country of the home university. Consequently, this study seeks to identify
and explore differences in learning styles between business students studying transna-
tional programs in China and students studying the same program in Australia.
Learning styles are often defined as ‘characteristic cognitive, affective, and physio-
logical behaviours that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive,

*Corresponding author. Email: troy.heffernan@plymouth.ac.uk

ISSN 1360-080X print/ISSN 1469-9508 online © 2010 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the
L H Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management
DOI: 10.1080/13600800903440535
http://www.informaworld.com
28 T. Heffernan et al.

interact with, and respond to the learning environment’ (Ladd & Ruby, 1999, p. 363). The
rationale for identifying learning styles is that a ‘one size fits all’ teaching style is inherently
exclusionary and inhibits efficient and effective learning (Wynd & Bozman, 1996). Conse-
quently, with the strong cultural disparities, as well as in approaches to teaching, differences
in the learning styles of Australian and Chinese marketing students would also be expected.

Literature review
Transnational education
Researching into transnational education can be problematic because of the confusion in
the terminology used; for example, offshore, on campus at offshore and overseas tutorial.
Transnational education is the generic term that appears to be adopted to cover the afore-
mentioned examples. The Global Alliance for Transnational Education (GATE) defines
transnational education as:

Any teaching or learning activity in which the students are in a different country (the host
country) to that in which the institution providing the education is based (the home country).
This situation requires that national boundaries be crossed by information about the education,
and by staff and/or education materials (whether the information and the education, and the
materials travel by mail, computer network, radio or television broadcast or other means).
(GATE, 1997, p. 1)

Consequently, transnational education has the following characteristics:

• The program is conducted in accordance with a formal agreement between the

Australian university and an overseas institution or organisation.
• The program offered is taught partly or wholly offshore (distance education
programs are included only when there is a formal agreement that an overseas
institution/organisation participates in their delivery).
• The completed program results in a recognised higher education qualification.
• The Australian university has developed the program and has a responsibility for
overseeing academic standards (Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, 1999).

One of the main driving forces for the rapid increase in transnational education by
Australian universities in the late 1990s was a need for revenue. Until relatively recently in
Australia, government expenditure on universities has been declining. This was highlighted by
a six per cent cut in operating grants from 1996 (Illing, 1998, as cited in Poole, 2000), and has
led to pressure for change in the university sector, as can be seen in the following quote from
Professor John Niland, Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales in 1999:

Public sector funding of Australian universities is at a crisis level. Successive Commonwealth

governments have, in the past two decades, reduced university funding to the point where
many universities now draw a significant proportion of their operating income from highly
competitive, non-traditional sources (Niland, 1999, p. 25).

This decrease in government funding to Australian universities can be seen in Table 1

and Figure 1. Furthermore, the decrease in total funding from the government, less student
contributions per planned EFTSU (equivalent full-time student load, a measure of the
number of equivalent full-time students), fell from approximately $12 500 to $11 000 per
EFTSU between 1990 and 2002.
Table 1. University revenue and expenses by main source, 1996–2004.
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
University revenue $m % $m % $m % $m % $m % $m % $m % $m % $m %
Commonwealth government grants 4566 57% 4420 54% 4191 51% 4190 48% 4219 45% 4470 44% 4734 42% 4899 41% 5307 41%
State government 110 1% 92 1% 93 1% 96 1% 144 2% 178 2% 220 2% 202 2% 315 2%
HECS 933 12% 1210 15% 1662 17% 1659 19% 1676 18% 1771 17% 1834 16% 1917 16% 1983 15%
Fees and charges 1078 13% 1227 15% 1547 16% 1545 18% 1697 18% 2021 20% 2471 22% 2882 24% 3137 24%
Other sources (a) 1364 17% 1269 15% 1240 15% 1248 14% 1592 18% 1762 17% 1965 18% 2072 17% 2282 18%
Total university revenue ($m) 8052 8217 8456 8730 9328 10 202 11 224 11 974 13 024
(a) Includes ‘donations and bequests’, ‘royalties’, ‘trademarks and licenses’ and ‘consultancy and contract research’ from 2000.
Source: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2007).
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
29
30 T. Heffernan et al.

60%

50%

40% Common wealth Government

Grants
State Government

30%
HECS

Fees and Charges

20%
Other Sources (a)

10%

0%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 1. The changing nature of university funding in Australia, 1996–2004.

(a) Includes ‘donations and bequests’, ‘royalties’, ‘trademarks and licenses’ and ‘consultancy and
contract research’ from 2000.
Source: Universities Australia (2009b).

During the 1990s and early 2000 there was strong growth in Australian transnational
educational programs, as this was seen as a way to increase revenue. As can be seen in
Figure 2, in May 2003 there were 1569 transnational programs delivered through relation-
ships set up between Australian universities and overseas education providers. However, this
number has decreased over recent years as courses have been rationalised or terminated.
Consequently, it would seem that the growth phase for the development of these programs is
over and we are entering a mature stage of the lifecycle, where competition is more intense.
The universities that will achieve in this new market environment are the ones that can tailor
there offerings to the needs of the different student cohorts they service overseas.
The Australian government has identified the quality of the transnational educational
product as an important area of concern. In a discussion paper titled A National Quality
Strategy for Australian Transnational Education and Training, the then Minister for
Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson stated:

. . . to develop a national quality strategy for transnational education and training to meet the
future needs of international students, their parents, overseas governments and potential
employers. One important aspect of the Strategy will be to enhance international and
domestic recognition of Australia as a provider of high quality education and training services.
(Nelson, 2005, Minister’s foreword, p. iii)

Consequently, considering the need for quality in transnational education, an important

starting point is to examine differences between the student cohorts that might exist due to
cultural differences.
One such country with cultural differences from Australia is China. China, excluding
Hong Kong, is the third largest country for student numbers on transnational programs
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
Year 1996 Year 1998 Year 1999 Year 2001 Year 2003 Year 2007 Year 2009

Figure 2. Growth in offshore programs since 1996.

Source: Universities Australia (2009a).

from Australia and has the fourth highest number of programs offered (Universities
Australia, 2009a). Furthermore, there has been a growth of 25.6 per cent between November
2007 and May 2009 in formal agreements between universities in Australia and China,
making China (735) second only to the USA (778) in the number of formal agreements
(Universities Australia, 2009b). Consequently, it is timely to examine some of the differ-
ences that exist between China and Australia – one such difference being learning styles.

Cultural distance between China and Australia

Researchers have introduced a number of definitions for culture. As far back as 1952,
Kroeber and Kluckholn (1952) identified 164 definitions of culture in the literature. Inherent
in almost all definitions is that culture is a pattern of thinking, feeling and acting that is
rooted in common values and conventions of particular societies (Cushman & King, 1985;
Jusdanis, 1995; Schudson, 1994; Wallace, 1970). By incorporating three definitions of
cultures, a workable definition can be achieved:

Culture is the total way of life in a society; it is the collective programming of the mind [that]
distinguishes the members of human groups from another in terms of shared beliefs, the
ideologies, and the norms that influence the organisational action taking. (Fletcher, 1979;
Hofstede, 1984)

Before considering differences in learning styles between Chinese and Australian

students, it is instructive to consider more general measures of cultural difference between
the two countries. Fletcher and Bohn (1998), based on the work of Hofstede and Bond
(1988) and Hofstede (1984; 1994), developed an index of psychic distance ratings of countries
from Australia, in terms of culture (Fletcher & Bohn, 1998). Of the countries measured,
32 T. Heffernan et al.

Table 2. Psychic distance rating of countries from Australia.

United States 0.1 Sweden 8.8 Mexico 17.6
Great Britain 0.6 Argentina 9.2 Greece 18.0
Canada 0.6 Iran 9.3 Indonesia 18.3
New Zealand 0.7 India 9.7 Singapore 19.3
Switzerland 1.5 Kenya 12.2 Korea 20.3
Germany 1.7 Zimbabwe 12.2 Taiwan 20.4
Ireland 1.7 Tanzania 12.2 Hong Kong 20.5
South Africa 2.0 Rwanda 12.2 Chile 20.7
Italy 2.2 Brazil 12.3 Portugal 21.9
Finland 4.7 Turkey 13.6 Yugoslavia 21.9
Netherlands 5.5 Japan 15.2 Peru 23.3
Belgium 6.1 Philippines 15.7 Colombia 23.5
France 6.1 Russia 16.0 Malaysia 23.6
Austria 6.3 Nigeria 16.3 Costa Rica 25.0
Israel 7.1 Ghana 16.3 Venezuela 26.2
Denmark 7.3 Uruguay 16.4 Ecuador 27.4
Norway 7.4 Thailand 16.5 China 29.2
Spain 8.6 Pakistan 17.3 Panama 31.4
Adapted from Fletcher and Bohn (1998).

China was second only to Panama as the country that had the highest psychic distance from
Australia (refer to Table 2). This indicates that there are substantial cultural differences
between Australia and China. Moreover, differences between Australia and China, as will
be shown shortly, are not limited to culture but are also found with learning styles.

Differences between Chinese and Western students

A number of studies have sought to identify differences between Chinese and Western
students, and reasons for these differences. It is apparent that the collectivist nature of the
political system and the Confucianism elements of the Chinese identity have influenced
teaching and learning styles in China. For example, Xiao and Dyson (1999) noted that the
collectivist culture in China has led to students being taught in large groups, with little
tutorial or one-on-one sessions taking place (Xiao & Dyson, 1999), which in turn has
impacted students’ ability to express their own opinions. Xiao and Dyson (1999) also
noted a strong hierarchical relationship between teacher and student, leading to a teaching-
centred learning environment. Confucianism appears to partly explain the existence of this
teaching-centred learning environment. Chan (1999) noted that the Confucian value of
modesty of behaviour has reduced the likelihood of Chinese students questioning their
teachers (Chan, 1999). Other values associated with learning in Confucian heritage coun-
tries, of which mainland China is one, include:

• Valuing theoretical education higher than more vocational education;

• Viewing learning as a moral duty;
• Hard work and effort are seen as more important than ability; and
• Respecting the teacher and seeing him/her as a model of morality and knowledge
(Biggs, 1996; Lee, 1996).

Another difference between Chinese and Western students was identified by Entwistle
and Tait (1994). They found that Chinese students emphasise memorisation, not as rote
learning, but as part of a deeper learning process. From an early age there is a strong
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33

emphasis on imitation, memory and repetitive practice (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). A conse-
quence of this style of learning is that Chinese students tend to perform better in science
and mathematics-related subjects than do Western students (Salili, 1996). This has led to
Chinese students being ‘not known for their creativity and original thinking’ (Salili, 1996,
p. 100). However, there has been limited research that examines the differences in learning
styles between Chinese and Australian university students.

Learning styles
As far back as ancient Greece it was noted that students have different approaches to
learning (Wratcher et al., 1997; Diaz & Cartnal, 1999). These individualistic learning
approaches are referred to as learning styles, which are often defined as ‘. . . characteristic
cognitive, affective, and physiological behaviours that serve as relatively stable indicators of
how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment’ (Ladd &
Ruby, 1999, p. 363). Recognition of students’ learning styles is regarded by many educators
as a vital part of an effective teaching strategy. Moreover, understanding students’ learning
styles has been a concern to many educators because of research findings that have
demonstrated that when teaching styles are compatible with student learning styles,
students retain information longer, apply it more effectively, have a more positive
attitude to their subjects and are greater achievers (Boles, Pillay & Raj, 1999; Charkins,
O’Toole & Wetzel, 1985; Felder & Silverman, 1988). However, it should also be noted
that not all researchers ascribe to this perspective; some assert that there is a lack of evidence
to support the view that matching teaching and learning styles is educationally significant
(Robotham, 1999), whereas others suggest that students can be trained to develop a
versatile learning style (Smith, 2001). This polarisation of views in itself is sufficient to
warrant further research, particularly given the developing phenomenon of transnational
education.
Researchers have developed various instruments to measure students’ learning styles.
However, three have received the most academic attention: the Grasha-Reichmann Learning
Style Scale (Reichmann & Grasha, 1974); the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (Kolb,
1996); and the Solomon-Felder Index of Learning Styles (Felder, 1993; Solomon &
Felder, 1999). In this research, a learning style index was needed that focused primarily on
learning styles and was comprehensive and parsimonious, so the Solomon-Felder Index
was selected. (To examine and test this instrument, please go to http://
www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html.)
The Solomon-Felder Index of Learning Styles has four dimensions made up from 44
discrete-choice questions. First, the active–reflective dimension shows how students
prefer to process information; active learners learn best by doing things. In contrast,
reflective learners think about a topic first and process information through introspection.
Second, the visual–verbal dimension refers to how sensory information is perceived most
effectively. Visual learners remember best what they see, like pictures, diagrams and flow
charts, whereas verbal learners remember best what they hear and read, like words (written
and spoken). Third, the sensing–intuitive learning dimension identifies the type of
information the student preferentially perceives. Sensing students like sight, sound and
physical sensation, and are good with detail and memorising facts. They also like connecting
to the real world, whereas intuitive students like memories, ideas and insight, and prefer
discovering possibilities and relationships. Finally, the sequential–global learning dimension
shows how the student progresses toward understanding. Sequential students gain under-
standing in linear steps and follow logical stepwise paths in finding solutions. In contrast,
34 T. Heffernan et al.

global students are holistic in their approach to learning; they suddenly ‘get it’ (Felder &
Solomon, 2000). It is important to note that no learning style is better than the other. The
aim is to understand learning styles so as to better understand the differences in student
cohorts and ways to teaching these cohorts.

Research question
As highlighted above, transnational education is an important source of funds for Australian
universities. However, after strong growth in the number of programs established, recently
there has been a decline. This could be due to either rationalisation or the termination of
programs. Whichever is the case, it is clear that transnational education is past its rapid
growth stage, and to be successful from this point forward, Australian universities are
going to have to pay closer attention to the needs of both their partners and the student
cohorts. This research aims to identify one possible area of difference that might exist
between student cohorts in Australia and China – that of learning styles. Consequently, the
research question explored in this paper is: How do learning styles differ between Chinese
and Australian university business students?

Methodology
Two samples were gathered for this research: one from the students studying a business
program at a university in Australia and the other from students studying the Australian
university’s business program at a university in China. The sample of Australian students
consists of on-campus students studying business subjects at an Australia university situated
in New South Wales, whereas the Chinese students were studying business subjects at a
university in North Eastern China. All students were completing the same undergraduate
degree, and they were surveyed in class using a non-probabilistic sampling procedure. Busi-
ness classes were selected on the basis of the willingness of professors to allow their students
to participate. A total of 181 Australian marketing students and 235 Chinese students partic-
ipated in the research. Both samples received a response rate of above 85 per cent.
In the questionnaire, students answered the Solomon and Felder (1999) learning styles
index. As part of this index, students complete 44 discrete-choice questions that, when
calculated, determined their learning style on four continuums, as noted above. The
strength of preference that a student has for a particular learning style construct (e.g.
active–reflective, visual–verbal etc.) can be represented by their value on a 23-point scale
(−11 to +11). A value of > +4 or < −4 indicates that a student has a preference for a learning
style on one of the ends of the construct. Hence, a value of > +4 on the active–reflective
construct indicates that a student is an active learner. The initial English questionnaire was
translated into Mandarin for the Chinese students, following Usunier’s (2000) recommen-
dation regarding equivalence in cross-cultural research. Cross-tabs with chi-squared tests
and independent samples t-tests were used to identify differences in learning styles and
preference for teaching aids.

Data analysis and findings

The differences in mean values between students in Australia and China for each of the
learning style constructs are examined first. The results from independent samples t-tests for
each of the four dimensions of the Solomon-Felder Index of Learning Styles are presented in
Table 3. Note that learning styles were measured on a continuum from −11 to +11.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35

Table 3. Learning styles and student country.

Country N Mean Mean difference t Significiant (two-tailed)
Active–reflective China 235 −0.174 1.262 3.014 0.003**
Australia 181 −1.436
Sensate–intuitive China 235 −2.536 −0.497 −1.165 0.245
Australia 181 −2.038
Visual–verbal China 235 −2.753 1.423 3.468 0.001***
Australia 181 −4.176
Sequential–global China 235 0.914 1.577 4.673 0.000***
Australia 181 −0.663
*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Table 4. Learning styles cross-tabulated against country.

Learning style China Australia c2 (p value)
Action 16.6% 32.6%
Reflector 14.9% 14.4% 15.094
Neither 68.5% 53.0% 0.001***
Intuitive 3.0% 14.9%
Sensate 36.6% 37.6% 20.967
Neither 60.4% 47.5% 0.000***
Visual 43.0% 53.6%
Verbal 3.4% 3.9% 5.051
Neither 53.6% 42.7% 0.080*
Global 25.1% 16.6%
Sequential 11.1% 27.1% 18.955
Neither 63.8% 56.4% 0.000***
*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

There were significant differences between Australian and Chinese marketing students
for three of the four learning styles. Although Chinese and Australian students were both
more active than reflective, Australian students were significantly more active in their
learning. Furthermore, Australian business students were substantially more visual than
their Chinese counterparts. And although Chinese students were found to have a slightly
more global learning style (0.915), Australian business students were slightly sequential
(−0.663). No significant difference between Chinese and Australian students was found on
the sensate–intuitive learning style construct.
Next, the differences in distinct learning styles are examined, rather than mean values.
Here, the interest is not in identifying differences in averages but differences in the
proportion of students that have a clear preference for particular learning styles. Consistent
with the approach used by Morrison, Sweeney and Heffernan (2003), students were cate-
gorised as having a preference for specific learning styles if they had a value of ≥ ±4 on
each of the constructs; for example, on the active–reflective construct, students could be
classified as active learners (if value ≤ −4), reflective learners (if value ≥ 4) or neither act-
ive nor reflective (if −4 < value < 4). Cross-tabulations were conducted to examine the dif-
ferences between the two student cohorts using this approach. As can be seen in Table 4, the
differences in learning styles are much more apparent when this approach is used. There
are some striking differences in this table between Australian and Chinese students. A
much smaller percentage of students are active learners in China (16.6 per cent compared
to 32.6 per cent); there are far fewer intuitive learners in China and Chinese students have
36 T. Heffernan et al.

Table 5. Teaching aids and student country.

Teaching aid Country N Mean ± SD SEM Significant (two-tailed)
Videos/DVD China 194 1.81 1.688 0.121 0.001***
Australia 167 2.32
Case studies China 233 2.00 0.954 0.062 0.096*
Australia 178 2.15
Group work China 234 2.73 1.012 0.066 0.067*
Australia 171 2.93
Computer China 228 1.93 1.015 0.067 0.000***
practicals Australia 161 2.99
Student China 231 2.35 1.064 0.070 0.972
presentations Australia 178 2.34
Guest speakers China 230 2.41 1.081 0.071 0.007***
Australia 169 2.12
Interaction with China 227 1.65 0.994 0.066 0.000***
local businesses Australia 167 2.38
Lecture notes China 234 2.74 1.041 0.068 0.000***
Australia 177 1.66
Overheads/ China 227 2.39 1.060 0.070 0.000***
PowerPoints Australia 177 1.71
*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.
SD, standard deviation; SEM, standard error of mean.

a greater predisposition to be global learners, whereas Australian students are more likely
to be sequential learners. The chi-squared statistics indicate significant differences in the
visual–verbal style at the 10 per cent significance level, and each of the other constructs at
the 1 per cent level. These results do contrast partly with the previously reported t-test
results in Table 3. Both forms of analysis confirmed that Australian students are likely to
be more active, verbal and sequential learners than their Chinese counterparts. However,
the cross-tabulations indicate that in Australia there is a significantly larger percentage of
intuitive students (14.9 per cent compared to 3.0 per cent), while the t-tests indicated no
significant difference.
In an attempt to operationalise the findings above, we also examined the differences in
preference between Chinese and Australian students with regards to various teaching aids.
Illustrated in Table 5 are the results from an independent samples t-test for a variety of teaching
aids across the two cohorts. Students were asked to indicate their liking for a variety of
teaching aids on a five-point dichotomous scales with ‘like a lot’ and ‘don’t like’ at opposing
ends of the scale. Lower scores indicated a high preference for the particular teaching aid.
There were significant differences between the two cohorts on eight of the nine teaching aids
examined. The Chinese students have strong preferences over their Australian counterparts
for the use of videos/DVDs in class (Chinese 1.81/Australian 2.32; p < 0.001) Computer
practicals (Chinese 1.93/Australian 2.99; p < 0.000) and interaction with local business
(Chinese 1.65/Australian 2.38; p < 0.000). The Australian students had a strong preference
for receiving lecture notes (Chinese 2.74/Australian 1.66; p < 0.000) and the lecturer using
PowerPoint and overhead slides (Chinese 2.39/Australian 1.71; p < 0.000).

Implications and conclusions

The existence of differences in learning styles suggests that teaching strategies generally
used for Australian students should be modified for Chinese students. The education literature
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 37

asserts that when teaching styles are consistent with student learning styles, students have
a more positive attitude toward their subjects (Felder & Silverman, 1988). Nevertheless, it
is important to not simply cater to students’ preferred learning styles – students need to be
developed in areas of weakness (Morrison, Sweeney & Heffernan, 2003). We found that
the Chinese cohort of students were strongly visual, sensate and global learners. Two
potential areas of weakness are intuition and verbal learning skills, given the very low
percentages for these styles. In terms of what distinguishes Chinese students from Australian
students, Chinese students are much more likely to be global learners, are less active
learners and are less intuitive.
These findings raise the question of how Australian academics should modify their
teaching styles and activities for Chinese students. Some learning preferences are common
to both Australian and Chinese students, therefore no modifications are needed. Both
Australian and Chinese students are visual, so the use of visual aids (e.g. pictures,
diagrams, flowcharts, films, demonstrations etc.) should be continued. Similarly, as both
are sensate learners, providing concrete material, such as lecture notes, examples and
showing how information connects to the real world, will continue to be useful strategies.
And as there are common areas of potential weakness in terms of verbal and intuitive abilities,
presentations, oral and written explanations and readings can be used to develop verbal
skills, while explanation and application of theories or models that develop fundamental
understanding can be used to develop intuitive thinking (Felder, 1993). Nonetheless, there
are some unique aspects to the learning styles of Chinese marketing students that imply
areas in which modifications could be made. Most important is the larger proportion of
global learners. For global learners, it is important to use teaching strategies that help the
student ‘grasp the total picture’ (Felder, 1993, p. 288). Felder and Silverman (1988)
recommend ‘providing the big picture or goal of a lesson before presenting the steps,
doing as much as possible to establish the context and relevance of the subject matter and
relate it to the students’ experience. Applications and “what ifs” should be liberally
furnished.’ This is a reason why Chinese students liked the idea of immersing local business
interaction into their curriculum. Felder and Silverman (1988) also recommend allowing
global learners to devise their own solutions to problems, and the use of creativity exer-
cises whereby students generate alternative solutions to problems and try to bring in material
from other courses. Morrison, Sweeney and Heffernan (2003) report empirical evidence
that global learners prefer group work and guest speakers, which is consistent with Felder
and Silverman’s (1988) suggestions to provide global learners with opportunities for crea-
tivity, as well as contextualising learning.
The findings from this research should be considered with the knowledge of the
limitations associated with this study. First, these findings are a generalisation of a
student-specific cohort at one university in China and Australia. Educators should be
aware that not all Chinese students fall into the stereotypes identified in the literature and
the findings. Furthermore, this paper does not prescribe a ‘better’ learning style – the aim
is to identify differences in learning styles so as to equip administrators and educators
when delivering transnational education. Another limitation of this study is that it only
deals with differences in learning styles. However, educators and administrators will have
to understand a much boarder gamut of cultural issues when developing and delivering
transnational education in China.
Transnational education is a growth market for Australian universities, as it is for
many universities around the world; however, in the rush to establish relationships with
overseas education providers it is appropriate to attempt to understand the differences in
culture and learning of new student cohorts. This will allow for the development of more
38 T. Heffernan et al.

appropriate educational products, which are tailored to the needs of the students. Further-
more, by understanding these differences, academics and administrators at both institu-
tions will forge stronger and more knowledgeable relationships and thus reduce the
chance of the partnership deteriorating (Heffernan & Poole, 2004). However, culture is a
complex phenomenon that has a number of elements. This study examined one of these
elements, being the difference in learning styles between Australian and Chinese students.
Our findings suggest that there are significant differences in learning styles between
Australian and Chinese business students. Further research is needed to assess to what
degree these results can be generalised, but in the meantime, educators and administrators
should be alert to the need to consider cultural and learning differences when structuring
transnational educational programs.

References
Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (1999). Australian universities’ offshore programs
(online). Retrieved April 11, 2002, from http://www.avcc.edu.au/
Biggs, J.B. (1996). Western misconceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D.A.
Watkins & J.B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual
influences (pp. 45–67). Hong Kong: CERC and ACER.
Boles, W., Pillay, H., & Raj, L. (1999). Marching cognitive styles to computer-based instruction: An
approach for enhanced learning in electrical engineering. European Journal of Engineering
Education, 24(4), 371–383.
Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learning: A question of style. Education and Training, 41(6/7), 294–304.
Charkins, R.J., O’Toole, D.M., & Wetzel, J.N. (1985). Linking teaching and student learning styles
with student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Economic Education, 16, 111–120.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Languageclassrooms in China. In H. Coleman
(Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169–206). Melbourne: Cambridge University
Press.
Cushman, D.P., & King, S.S. (1985). National and organizational cultures in conflict resolution:
Japan, the United Sates, and Yugoslavia. In W.B. Gudycunst, L.P. Stewart & S. Ting-Toomey
(Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes (pp. 114–133). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Department of Education, Science and Training [DEST]. (2005). A national quality strategy for
Australian transnational education and training: A discussion paper. Canberra: DEST.
Diaz, D.P., & Cartnal, R.B. (1999). Students’ learning styles in two classes: Online distance learning
and equivalent on-campus. College Teaching, 47(4), 130–135.
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1994). The revised approach to studying inventory. Edinburgh: University
of Edinburgh, Centre for Research into Learning and Instruction.
Felder, R.M. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science
education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286–90.
Felder, R.M., & Silverman, L.K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education.
Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–781.
Felder, R.M., & Solomon, B. (2000). Learning styles and strategies. North Carolina State University,
Resources in Science and Engineering Education. Retrieved May 27, 2007, from http://
www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/styles.htm
Fletcher, R. (1979). Don’t let culture cripple your prospects. International Trade Forum, 17–18,
31–32.
Fletcher, R., & Bohn, J. (1998). The impact of psychic distance on the internationalisation of the
Australian firm. Journal of Global Marketing, 12(2), 47–68.
Global Alliance for Transnational Education [GATE]. (1997). Certificate manual. Washington, DC:
GATE.
Heffernan, T., & Poole, D. (2004). ‘Catch me, I’m falling’: Key factors in the deterioration of offshore
education partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(1), 75–90.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultural constraints in management theories. International Review of Strategic
Management, 5, 27–49.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 39

Hofstede G., & Bond, M.H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic
growth source. Organizational Dynamics, 16(Spring), 4–21.
Jusdanis, G. (1995). Beyond national culture? Boundary, 22, 23–59.
Kolb, D.A. (1996). Learning-styles inventory: Self-scoring test and interpretation booklet. Boston,
MA: Hat/McBer Training Resources Group.
Kroeber, A.L., & Kluckholn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions.
Anthropological Paper No. 4. Cambridge MA: Peabody Museum.
Ladd, P.D., & Ruby, R. (1999). Learning style and adjustment issues of international students. Journal
of Education for Business, 74(6) (July/August), 363–367.
Lee, W.O. (1996). The cultural context for the Asian learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian
tradition. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and
contextual influences (pp. 25–41). Hong Kong: CERC and Melbourne: ACER.
Morrison, M., Sweeney, A., & Heffernan, T. (2003). Learning styles of on-campus and off-campus
students: The challenge for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 208–218.
Niland, J. (1999, March 25). The crisis in our unis. The Age, p. 25.
Poole, D. (2000). Strategic management of international entrepreneurial activities at Australian
universities. PhD thesis, University of Technology, Sydney.
Reichmann, S., & Grasha, A.F. (1974). A rational approach to developing and assessing the
construct validity of a student learning scale instrument. Journal of Psychology, 87, 213–223.
Robotham, D. (1999). The application of learning style theory in higher education teaching.
Retrieved September 7, 2001, from http://www.chelt.ac.uk/el/philg/gdn/discuss/kolb2.htm
Salili, F. (1996). Accepting personal responsibility for learning. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.),
The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 85–106). Hong
Kong: CERC and Melbourne: ACER.
Schudson, M. (1994). Culture and the integration of national societies. International Social Science
Journal, 46, 63–81.
Smith, P.J. (2001). Technology student learning preferences and the design of flexible learning
programs. Instructional Science, 29, 237–254.
Solomon, B.A., & Felder, R.M. (1999). Index of learning styles. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html
Universities Australia. (2009a). Offshore programs of Australian universities. Canberra: Universities
Australia.
Universities Australia. (2009b). International links of Australian universities: Formal links between
Australian universities and overseas institutions. Canberra: Universities Australia.
Usunier, J.C. (2000). Marketing across cultures (3rd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Ltd.
Wallace, A.F. (1970). Culture and personality. New York: Random House.
Wratcher, M.A., Morrison, E.E., Riley, V.L., & Scheirton, L.S. (1997). Curriculum and program
planning: A study guide for the core seminar. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova Southeastern University,
Programs for higher education.
Wynd, W.R., & Bozman, C.S. (1996). Student learning style: A segmentation strategy for higher
education. Journal of Education for Business, 71(4) (March/April), 232–235.
Xiao, Z., & Dyson, J.R. (1999). Chinese students’ perceptions of good accounting teaching.
Accounting Education, 8(4), 341–361.