This article is based on a study which investigated whether Chinese international students at a university in Finland are more likely to rely on a Surface approach to learning and dismiss a Deep approach than are other international students in the same university educational context. In responding to a survey, students’ scores with respect to the Deep approach and Organized Studying did not significantly differ between the groups. However, the Chinese students appeared slightly to exhibit the Surface approach to a greater extent, although this result was tentative when the students’ extreme response styles were taken into account.
AkandeA (1998) Towards the multicultural validation of a Western model of student approaches to learning. Education119(1): 37–47.
2.
AndradeMS (2006) International students in English-speaking universities adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education5(2): 131–154.
3.
BaetenMKyndtEStruyvenK. (2010) Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review5(3): 243–260.
4.
BiggsJTangC (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
5.
CariniRMKuhGDKleinSP (2006) Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education47(1): 1–32.
6.
CaseJMMarshallD (2009) Approaches to learning. In: TightMMokK-HHuismanJ. (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education. London and New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 9–21.
7.
CohenJ (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin112(1): 155–159.
8.
DasariB (2009) Hong Kong students’ approaches to learning: cross-cultural comparisons. US-China Education Review6(12): 46–58.
9.
EntwistleNJMcCuneV (2004) The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review16(4): 325–345.
10.
EntwistleNJMcCuneVHounsellJ (2003) Investigating ways of enhancing university teaching-learning environments: measuring students’ approaches to studying and perceptions of teaching. In: CorteED (ed.) Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions. Amsterdam: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 89–107.
11.
FabrigarLWegenerDMacCallumR. (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods4(3): 272–299.
12.
FaulFErdfelderELangA-G. (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods39(2): 175–191.
13.
FredricksJABlumenfeldPCParisAH (2004) School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research74(1): 59–109.
14.
GieveSClarkR (2005) ‘The Chinese approach to learning’: cultural trait or situated response? The case of a self-directed learning programme. System33(2): 261–276.
15.
HarzingA-W (2006) Response styles in cross-national survey research: a 26-country study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management6(2): 243–266.
16.
HeikkiläALonkaK (2006) Studying in higher education: students’ approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education31(1): 99–117.
17.
HowiePBagnallR (2013) A critique of the deep and surface approaches to learning model. Teaching in Higher Education18(4): 389–400.
18.
JohnsonTKulesaPChoYI. (2005) The relation between culture and response styles evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology36(2): 264–277.
19.
JoinsonA (1999) Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers31(3): 433–438.
20.
KemberD (2000) Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students. Higher Education40(1): 99–121.
21.
KemberD (2009) International students from Asia. In: TightMMokK-HHuismanJ. (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education. New York: Routledge, pp. 47–60.
22.
KemberDGowL (1991) A challenge to the anecdotal stereotype of the Asian student. Studies in Higher Education16(2): 117–128.
23.
KuhGD (2009) What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development50(6): 683–706.
24.
KuhGDCruceTMShoupR. (2008) Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education79(5): 540–563.
25.
LeungDYPGinnsPKemberD (2008) Examining the cultural specificity of approaches to learning in universities in Hong Kong and Sydney. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology39(3): 251–266.
26.
LizzioAWilsonKSimonsR (2002) University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education27(1): 27–52.
27.
McCuneVEntwistleN (2000) The deep approach to learning: analytic abstraction and idiosyncratic development. In: Proceedings of the innovations in higher education conference, Helsinki, 30 August–2 September.
28.
McKayJKemberD (1997) Spoon feeding leads to regurgitation: a better diet can result in more digestible learning outcomes. Higher Education Research and Development16(1): 55–67.
29.
Malau-AduliBS (2011) Exploring the experiences and coping strategies of international medical students. BMC Medical Education11(1): 40.
30.
MertonRK (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
31.
MillerRBGreeneBAMontalvoGP. (1996) Engagement in academic work: the role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology21(4): 388–422.
32.
NilesFS (1995) Cultural differences in learning motivation and learning strategies: a comparison of overseas and Australian students at an Australian university. International Journal of Intercultural Relations19(3): 369–385.
33.
O’ConnorBP (2000) SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers32(3): 396–402.
34.
OnwuegbuzieAJLeechNL (2004) Post hoc power: a concept whose time has come. Understanding Statistics3(4): 201–230.
35.
ParpalaALindblom-YlänneS (2012) Using a research instrument for developing quality at the university. Quality in Higher Education18(3): 313–328.
36.
ParpalaALindblom-YlänneSKomulainenE. (2013) Assessing students’ experiences of teaching-learning environments and approaches to learning: validation of a questionnaire in different countries and varying contexts. Learning Environments Research16(2): 201–215.
37.
PascarellaETSeifertTABlaichC (2010) How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting important educational outcomes?Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning42(1): 16–22.
38.
RamachandranNT (2011) Enhancing international students’ experiences: an imperative agenda for universities in the UK. Journal of Research in International Education10(2): 201–220.
39.
RamburuthPMcCormickJ (2001) Learning diversity in higher education: a comparative study of Asian international and Australian students. Higher Education42(3): 333–350.
40.
RichmanWLKieslerSWeisbandS. (1999) A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology84(5): 754–775.
Sadler-SmithETsangF (1998) A comparative study of approaches to studying in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. British Journal of Educational Psychology68(1): 81–93.
43.
SakuraiY (2009) Academic experiences in a cross-national tertiary program: language immersion amid the sciences. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education21(2): 239–247.
44.
SakuraiYParpalaAPyhältöK. (2014) Engagement in learning: a comparison between Asian and European international university students. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education1–24.
45.
SchaufeliWBMartínezIMPintoAM. (2002) Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology33(5): 464–481.
46.
SunHRichardsonJE (2012) Perceptions of quality and approaches to studying in higher education: a comparative study of Chinese and British postgraduate students at six British business schools. Higher Education63(3): 299–316.
47.
SunSPanWLeigh WangL (2010) A comprehensive review of effect size reporting and interpreting practices in academic journals in education and psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology102(4): 989–1004.
48.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics (2012) Global Education Digest 2012. Montreal, QC, Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
49.
Van HerkHPoortingaYHVerhallenTMM (2004) Response styles in rating scales: evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology35(3): 346–360.
50.
ZhuCValckeMSchellensT (2008) A cross-cultural study of Chinese and Flemish university students: do they differ in learning conceptions and approaches to learning?Learning and Individual Differences18(1): 120–127.
