Working Papers
in Language Education and Research
http://eliworkingpapers.org/

Deconstructing Academic Stereotypes Of
Japanese University Students
Peter Harrold
Corresponding author: harrold-p@kanda.kuis.ac.jp
Publication date: August, 2013

ISSN 2187-4972

To cite this article
Harrold, P. (2013). Deconstructing Academic Stereotypes Of Japanese
University Students. Working Papers in Language Education andResearch, 1 (2), 3-17.

Scroll down for article

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

DECONSTRUCTING ACADEMIC STEREOTYPES OF JAPANESE UNIVERSITYSTUDENTSPeter Harrold
Kanda University of International Studies
ABSTRACT
Culture plays an integral part in shaping students attitudes and approaches tolearning, and teachers may gain insight into their students learning processes
by having knowledge of their cultural and educational heritage. However,cultural preconceptions persist of Asian students who are often treated as ahomogenous group with stereotypical generalizations applied unreservedly.
This paper attempts to critically explore what can be learnt from previous
research on the impact that culture has specifically on Japanese students,
within the context of three areas of tertiary study: oral participation, criticalthinking and academic writing. It concludes with consideration of thephilosophy of culturally responsive teaching, as a method of increasing theintercultural competency of both students and teachers.

1. INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of their students’ culture undoubtedly has benefits for the teacher(Kramsch, 1998; Gao, 2006). Teachers working in Japan or teaching Japanese students
overseas can gain useful insight from learning more about their students’ backgrounds,
culture and traditions; especially in an educational context.

However, in attempting to

identify cultural distinctions, teachers often fall folly to simplistic overgeneralisations. Often
cultural stereotypes are used to explain away classroom problems, such as a silent
unresponsive class, without taking time to explore other factors. Ultimately, universal labels
are not helpful in representing individual students. But likewise, at the other end of thespectrum, ignoring the part that culture plays in students' learning is a missed opportunity togain further insight that may help the teacher to better facilitate the students' development.

3

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

Therefore, it is necessary to take a critical approach regarding how much can be learnt from a
student’s cultural background and the impact that it has on their classroom behaviour.

2. BACKGROUND

It is often claimed in the literature that Confucian heritage cultures (CHCs), such as
Japan, have common learning traits, such as they are collectivist orientated, obedient toauthority, passive in class, and less likely to have had the opportunity to study in a studentcentred environment (Kember, 2000; Wong, 2003; Durkin, 2008). It is sometimes argued, in
contrast to Western students, that CHCs put greater emphasis on avoiding confrontation, andplace greater importance on maintaining group harmony by avoiding sharing conflicting
personal opinions (Nguyen, Terlouw and Pilot, 2006). Furthermore, it may also be the casethat in their educational background there is a greater power distance between the students
and the teacher. This has led to the claim that "The western model of social constructivist
learning environment where the teacher acts as more of a guide and facilitator, of near equal
status with the students (especially at masters level), is in contrast to the view of the teacher's
guru-like role of absolute authority and knowledge in the CHC" (Durkin, 2008, p.17).
However, such assertions about Asian students may be considered excessively stereotypicaland unhelpful in labelling individual students with general characteristics. Kumaravadivelu(2003) claims the field of TESOL has persistently repeated stereotypes regarding Asianstudents that categorize a diverse and contrasting group of nearly three billion people as a
distinct homogenous group. He highlights three persistent preconceptions:
Repeated often in the professional literature, conference presentations, and personal
conversations are three common stereotypes about students from Asia: They (a) are

4

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

obedient to authority, (b) lack critical thinking skills, and (c) do not participate inclassroom interaction (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p.710).

This paper will explore these common preconceptions focusing on Japanese students
within the context of tertiary level English study. It will focus on examining the impact of
cultural stereotypes relating to three core academic skills: oral participation, critical thinking
and academic writing.

3. DISCUSSION

3.1 Oral participation
In Western tertiary education active participation in classroom discussion and debate
is considered an essential skill to develop for involvement in tutorials and seminars. Students
are expected to develop skills at critically evaluating others arguments and offering well
supported counter-arguments. Therefore, the common stereotypes of Japanese obedience toauthority and passivity in class (Anderson, 1993) are often viewed negatively as a hurdle toeffective study. It is often argued that Japanese students do not feel it necessary to voice
opinions or challenge lecturers and therefore find it difficult adapting to group discussion
style learning environments (Littlewood, 2000). In the context of Japan, "Foreign instructors
often complain that their efforts to spark lively communication in the English classroom are
frustrated by the persistence of Japan’s “silent classrooms.” Some instructors concede that it
is unfair to blame students for their reticence because it merely reflects their “Japaneseculture”" (Bailey, 2002, p173). The importance of this learning trait is supported by Harumi(1999) who agrees that Japanese students are often silent in class, but suggests Japanese usesilence in the classroom for different reasons, such as for social discretion to maintain group5

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

harmony (wa) or as a form of wordless communication requiring mutual intuitive
understanding (haragei).

Therefore, the role of silence in the classroom may often be

misinterpreted by the Western teacher.
Central to this common explanation of Japanese student behaviour is the notion of
avoiding conflict in an effort to maintain group harmony and avoid losing face. Loss of face
may be caused by making mistakes and appearing unintelligent, or potentially offending
others (Durkin, 2008). Furthermore, seeking help from the teacher may lead to loss of face
due to shame in acknowledging weakness. Therefore, the risk of speaking out is usuallycarefully evaluated before the student decides to contribute (Cocroft & Tim-Tooney, 1994).
In addition, Hammond (2007) identifies other elements that may contribute to student
passivity in class. He argues that the lack of clarification questions students ask in class may
also be due to cultural expectations of communication, as in Japan the responsibility is withthe listener to comprehend the speaker. In addition, students may prefer not to volunteer ananswer based on either fear of getting it wrong or fear or appearing boastful. As a result,answers are often shared and checked for consensus with those nearby in order to increase thechance it is correct and to distribute the risk by giving a group response. Finally, Hammond(2007) suggests the way students interact in class may be linked to the traditional
conversation style in Japan being different to the West, with clear turn taking and patient
listening more important than open debate.
In exploring the educational context further, Hammond (2007) claims that Japanese
high-school learners are taught language almost exclusively using an approach thatemphasises accuracy and grammar, which may inhibit learners who become afraid to makemistakes. This could result in students considering English as a set of rules to be learnt andmastered rather than a means of communication.

Etherington (2006) supports thishypothesis, based on interviews conducted over many years with a Japanese student

6

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

progressing through an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program, then bothundergraduate and postgraduate education in English. The researcher noticed a developmentin the student from an initial perspective of seeing English only in terms of a subject to bestudied, to later, developing an active interest in the wider communicative potential oflearning a new language.
Although some students may fit this common profile of passivity in class, it is a
simplistic generalisation. Lack of involvement in discussions may not only be a cultural
construct but may be due to a variety of factors such as English proficiency, level ofconfidence, anxiety and fear of making a mistake, motivation, and familiarity with the subject(Kumaradivelu, 2003). Undoubtedly, speaking in a second language can cause a great dealof anxiety for a student and problems with language or content may possibly have a greater
impact on the students’ choice of whether or not to actively contribute in the classroom.
Therefore, university lecturers need to acknowledge Japanese students may have a culturaltendency to be less vocal in class, but not use it as an excuse to engage and involve them lessin an effort to be culturally sensitive. Littlewood (2000) found that in general, Asian students
do not want to adopt the role of obedient listener, and this may be more a consequence of
their educational contexts than personal disposition.

As Bailey (2002, p.178) claims "Notonly can the cultural argument be both presumptuous and ethnocentric, but it is also
equivocal because it allows both foreign instructors and Japanese students to avoid feeling
any responsibility for the failure to develop language skills in the classroom.” In essence, thepassivity stereotype may negatively reinforce a position both teacher and student do notprefer, but is often used as a scapegoat for language and classroom problems.

7Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

3.2. Critical thinking
Another key area in university level study that frequently evokes preconceptions
regarding Japanese students, is their ability and willingness to express critical thought. As
previously discussed, Japanese students are often considered to be less vocal in class in
expressing arguments in discussions and debate. However, in Western tertiary education
involvement in discussion and debate is considered a fundamental process for fostering
critical thought. But despite its central importance, critical thinking in itself is a concept
difficult to clearly define, which makes any efforts to measure it or make cultural distinctions
questionable (Paton, 2011). Furthermore, the meaning of critical thinking might also be
misunderstood by students themselves, who may have misconceptions about the concept andview its application purely in negative terms i.e. seeking to find fault. Therefore, somestudents may hold doubts about what may be viewed as Western critique as being overly
cynical and unnecessarily offensive (Durkin, 2008). Therefore, the emphasis placed on
critical thought in Western education may seem at odds with the values of other cultures.
In regards to critical thinking, "Those taking a universalist stance claim that certain
groups of learners, specifically non-Western or Asian, are deficient in critical thinking
abilities because they have been raised under social practices where group harmony andconformity are stressed" (Stapleton, 2001, p.508). Egege and Kutieleh (2004) argue criticalthinking is not universal but is rooted in Western academic traditions. Others have gone so
far as to argue that critical thinking may be culturally incompatible and not necessarily
beneficial to international students. For example, Fox (1994) claims that critical thinking is
an inherent part of US culture and not a teachable set of behaviours. This claim reflects
common Western preconceptions, that may be considered cultural chauvinism (Paton, 2011),
or native-speakerist culturism (Holliday, 2003) that make exaggerated favourable
comparisons of superiority in this area over Asian learners. Therefore, it is important not to8Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

take a deficit approach that positions Western students and learning styles above their Easterncounterparts. Misconceptions of Asian styles of learning and their incompatibility with
Western study contradict the high levels of achievement of Asian students (Kember, 2000).
Furthermore, critical thinking differs greatly in individuals from the same country so culture
cannot be isolated as a variable (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). This desire to label the 'other' as acollective and not a group of individuals is overly simplistic, as Kumaravadivelu (2003, p.
716) claims "We may be stereotyping our learners partly because it helps us reduce anunmanageable reality to a manageable label".
Therefore, traditional preconceptions of Japanese students as lacking critical thinking
skills needs to be re-examined. Stapleton (2002) found that in contrast to conventional
preconceptions, Japanese students where not hesitant to voice opinions, possessed criticalthinking skills and furthermore, there may be the emergence of a new generation of Japaneselearners with greater individual voice. However, the evidence provided for this last assertion
may be considered anecdotal and aspirational, as it was limited to students having theopportunity to voice opinions on course feedback surveys, and a shift in some exams formats.
Stapleton (2001) also argues that familiarity with the topic had the biggest impact on thequality of critical thought in the writing of Japanese students. Therefore, it may be suggested
that Japanese students do in fact possess and value critical thinking skills, but it is the
responsibility of the teacher to place greater importance on creating context, and building onprior knowledge, in order to maximise performance in this area.
In evaluating critical thinking in a cross section of Asian learners Lun, Fischer andWard (2010) found that Asian students relied more on dialectical thinking to solve criticalthinking problems than those from Western countries. As they claimed, "Asians, comparedwith Westerners, tend to perceive more changes are more tolerant to contradictions, andperceive things as more interrelated" (Lun, Fischer and Ward, 2010, p. 605). However, they9Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

go on to acknowledge that differences in performance of critical thinking skills found in theirstudy could partly be explained by language proficiency, as verbal reasoning and argument
analysis require a certain level of language ability. Ultimately, Lun, Fisher and Ward (2010,
p.613) concluded "the difference in critical thinking appears to be more of a linguistic issue
rather than a cultural issue". Therefore, although culture may play a part in the amount ofprevious experience students have had at writing critically, language ability may offer agreater barrier to successfully adopting a critical approach. In summary, the ability to thinkcritically should not be considered an exclusively Western trait, and Japanese students should
not be labelled as deficient in critical thinking as an attribute. However, they are from acultural and educational background that does not prioritise or value it to the same degree asin the culture and conventions of Western tertiary education. Therefore, the challenge for theteacher is to help activate and foster a mindset in students that values a critical approach toacademic work.
3.3 Academic writing
The final academic skill to consider regarding Japanese learners is academic writing.
The writing style of Japanese students has also been attributed certain stereotypicalconventions.

Stapleton (2002, p.250) asserts that "Japanese have a preference for an

inductive style of writing in which the reader has more responsibility in deriving meaning".
Suzuki (2010) also concluded that Japanese people are more likely to use indirect andsuccinct forms of arguments in their writing.

Consequently, presenting a strong voice inacademic writing is not necessarily considered as important as in Western cultures. Japanesewriting is often claimed to be influenced by a format known as 'ki-sho-ten-ketsu' that favours
an inductive style, with greater reader responsibility in making connections between
arguments and also may contain sudden topic shifts (Kubota, 1997). This can make it
difficult to follow for the Western trained reader use to a deductive style. However, it has

10Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

been argued that this is an overgeneralization that does not appreciate the dynamics of culture
and language as fluid concepts, and the historical impact and exchange of English between
the West and Japan (Kubota, 1997). Although L1 writing style and ability may impact on L2
writing style and ability, Kubota (1997, p.474) concludes "the widely accepted stereotype ofJapanese texts overemphasises differences from English and constructs a fixed and exotic
label for Japanese cultural uniqueness".

Similarly to English rhetoric, written prose inJapanese cannot be reduced to a single formulaic form.
Another consideration in teaching academic writing to Japanese students is that theteacher needs to be aware of the impact of directions and comments that may influence
students to attempt to meet their expectations. In the context of teaching Japanese students,"the importance of thinking critically about teachers’ comments and opinions should beemphasized, especially in a cultural context where students are not used to the idea ofchallenging their instructors" (Asaoka & Usui, 2003, p.164). Therefore, expectations must be
communicated clearly so that the students appreciate the lecturer’s position of welcoming
challenge or opposing viewpoints.
A final consideration in regards to academic writing involves students’ attitudes
towards plagiarism. It is often claimed that Japanese students do not consider plagiarism
negative, as in a Confucian heritage culture they believe that knowledge is shared by societyrather than having individual ownership (Sowden, 2005). As a result, learners may believethat as long as sources are acknowledged in the reference list, the essay may be a patchworkof others ideas’ written as if their own (Norris, 2007). This may be partly due to theeducational heritage, as Japanese students may have little opportunity to draw from outside
sources in secondary education, and even when studying at the tertiary level in their first
language (L1), they do not receive systematic training in how to cite sources. Furthermore,
there may be no strict policies or penalties to consistently enforce the rules (Norris, 2007).

11

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

Therefore, differences in expectations, or confusion over the exact rules, may result in
students unwittingly plagiarising. However, Wheeler (2009) argues that foreign teachers inJapan too readily accept explanations that Japanese students engage in plagiarism as they do
not consider it a moral transgression. Based on a survey of Japanese students, he reached theconclusion "that it is a lack of understanding of the act, rather than cultural values, that is theroot cause of plagiarism committed by students" (Wheeler, 2009, p.17). Therefore, lecturers
ought perhaps to be careful to establish clear expectations for their students' writing, andoutline the reasoning and purpose of citing sources, to ensure students do not inadvertently
plagiarise.

3.4 Culturally responsive teaching
If we accept there are cultural differences in the learning approaches of Japanese andWestern students, it is necessary to consider how teachers and students should respond tothem. Durkin (2008) argues that students often respond to the contrasts in Western andEastern approaches by plotting 'the middle way' which selects favourable elements of both.
This approach is more conciliatory and indirect than traditional Western approaches todebate, as "one of the top priorities is to maintain relationships and preserve the dignity andintegrity of all participants" (Durkin, 2008, p.23). This approach allows students to build anawareness of, and integrate practice with, Western approaches, without feeling forced todiscard or disregard their own educational heritage. Likewise, lecturers should also challenge
their own academic assumptions and be prepared to ‘meet in the middle’ in consolidating
their expectations in respect for both cultural backgrounds. For lecturers, this could involvebalancing the importance of constructive conciliatory dialogue and empathetic listening withmore confrontational debate. In essence, welcoming challenge and a diversity of opinions,that allows students to be open and honest, while maintaining sensitivity to others feelings.

12

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

This might allow Japanese students to accommodate new approaches into their existing
cultural norms and values and as Durkin (2008, p.24) states "This need not result in reducing
the rigour of academic critical thinking; one could argue that it would enhance it by making it
more humane, caring and holistic."
The future labour force is required to have intercultural competence that is receptive
to new ways of thinking and appreciates differences in perspectives (Durkin, 2008).
Therefore, exposure to new approaches and ways of thinking might actually be a factor instudents’ decision to study in a second language, and be a key benefit of their education.
Likewise, lecturers also need to acquire intercultural competency that appreciates andnurtures students from different background rather than holding stubbornly to the belief that
their educational approach is the best (Durkin, 2008). The suggestion is, that having a clear
understanding of cross-cultural differences can allow for international students to be bettersupported in adapting to, and absorbing, new academic norms and conventions.
However, the situation may be different for Japanese students studying in English in
Japan. Brown and Adamson (2011) argue that courses that focus on English for academic
purposes should not be solely focused on preparing students for academic study overseas inWestern universities. An increasing amount of Japanese students are studying courses basedon the concept of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). These CLIL programs
offer the students the chance to study content in English, whilst remaining in Japan. These
content based courses are usually taught by Japanese lecturers.

Therefore they argue, "iflearners are preparing for study domestically in Japan, the medium of instruction may be
English, but the academic community, the learning context and, importantly, the expectationsof faculty members will be grounded in the Japanese academic context" (Brown & Adamson,
2011, p.8). Likewise, Nguyen, Terlouw and Pilot (2006) call for more consideration of thecultural heritage of the host country when importing Western concepts of learning. They

13

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17argue that due to the pressures of globalisation, a 'false universalism' exists, where Westernmethods have been exported without full consideration of their compatibility with the hostculture, and whether the pedagogy is culturally appropriate. This may result in Westernmethods being ineffective in certain areas of study, such as in group learning situations.
Consequently, Western methods should not be applied exclusively and unreservedly.
Hammond (2007) suggests following a philosophy of culturally responsive teaching, where
lessons and activities should be adapted to be responsive to Japanese culture and the legacies
that affect their attitudes to learning. This would require greater reflection from teachers andstudents on the impact of the cultures of both parties, and how the invisible aspects of culture
may manifest themselves in the classroom. It is often asserted that English is becoming aninternational academic lingua franca (Paton, 2011), but this does not mean the language has
to be rooted exclusively in English speaking academic traditions and conventions.

4. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, certain stereotypical preconceptions persist regarding Japanese
students; such as they are passive in class, obedient to authority, and lack critical thinking
skills in discussion and writing.

Although there may be an element of truth to theseassertions, due to the students’ cultural and educational heritage, they are arguably simplistic
overgeneralisations that neglect the diversity of Japanese students and culture, and portray
culture as static and uniform.

It has been suggested that the differences between the Eastand West are often overemphasised, and do not accurately reflect the students’ own
preferences and abilities. Therefore, this paper has argued that although much can be learnt
from cultural background, it should not be restrictive or applied unreservedly to all students.
However, awareness of various cultural perspectives can help increase the intercultural

14

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17competence of both students and teachers, and assist them in finding what Durkin (2008)
calls 'the middle-way', based on mutual respect, awareness and inclusion of multiple cultural
perspectives. This would lead to more culturally responsive teaching that appreciates thecultural and educational heritage students bring with them to class.

5. REFERENCES

Anderson, F. (1993). 'The enigma of the college classroom: Nails that don’t stick up'. in
P.Wadden (Ed.) A Handbook for teaching English at Japanese colleges anduniversities. New York: OUP.
Asaoka, C. and Usui, Y. (2003). Students’ Perceived Problems in an EAP Writing Course.
JALT Journal, 25(2), 143-172.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL, TESOL Quarterly.
31(1), 71-94.
Brown, H. and Adamson, J. (2011). Re-envisioning EAP: The View from Kimo Semi.
Journal of the IATEFL ESP SIG, 38, 7-11.
Cocroft, B. and Tim-Toogey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States.
International Journal Intercultural Relations, 18 (4), 469-506.
Durkin, K. (2008). The adaption of East Asian masters students to western norms of criticalthinking and augmentation in the UK. Intercultural Education, 19(1), pp. 15-27.
Egege, S. and Kutieleh, S. (2004). Critical Thinking: Teaching Foreign Notions to Foreign
Students. International Education Journal 4(4), 75-84.
Etherington, S. (2006). Becoming a different kind of learner: a case study of a Japanese EAPlearner. The East Asian Learner, 2(2), 1-10.

15Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the World: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Gao, F (2006). Language is Culture – On Intercultural Communication. Journal of Language
and Lingusitics, 5(1), 58-67.
Hammond, C. (2007). Culturally Responsive Teaching in the Japanese Classroom: A
Comparative Analysis of Cultural Teaching and Learning Styles in Japan and theUnited States. Journal of the Faculty of Economics, KGU, 17, 41-50.
Harumi, S. (2011). Classroom Silence: Voices from Japanese EFL Learners. ELT Journal,
65(3) 260-269.
Holliday, A. (2003). Social Autonomy: Addressing the Dangers of Culturism in TESOL.
In: Palfreyman, D. and Smith, R. (eds.) Learner Autonomy Across Cultures.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study
practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40, 99–121.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: OUP.
Kubota, R. (1997). A Reevaluation of the Uniqueness of Japanese Written Discourse:
Implications for Contrastive Rhetoric. Written Communication 17, 460-480.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Problematising Cultural Stereotypes in TESOL. TESOL
Quarterly, 37(4), 709-719.
Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal,
54(1), 31-36.
Lun, V; Fisher, R. and Ward, C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: isit about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learning and Individual
Differences 20, 604-616.

16

Working Papers in Language Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 2. August 2013, 3 - 17

Norris, R. (2007). Dealing with plagiarism at a Japanese university: a foreign teacher's
perspective. The East Asian Learner, 3(1), pp. 1-20.
Nguyen, P; Terlouw, C. and Pilot, A. (2006). Culturally appropriate pedagogy: the case ofgroup learning in a Confucian Heritage Culture context. Intercultural Education,
17(1), 1–19.
Paton, M. (2011). Asian Students, Critical Thinking and English as an Academic Lingua
Franca, Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 32, (1)27-39.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing Critical Thinking in the Writing of Japanese University
Students: Insights about Assumptions and Content Familiarity. Written
Communication 18(4), 506-548.
Stapleton, P. (2002). Critical thinking in Japanese L2 writing: rethinking tired constructs.
ELT Journal 56(3), 250 - 257.
Sowden, C. (2005). Plagiarism and the culture of multilingual students in higher
education abroad. ELT Journal 59(3), 226-232.
Suzuki, S. (2010). Forms of written arguments: A comparison between Japan and the UnitedStates. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 651–660.
Wheeler, G. (2009). Plagiarism in the Japanese universities: Truly a cultural matter? Journalof Second Language Writing 18, 17–29.
Wong, J. (2003). Are the Learning Styles of Asian International Students Culturally orContextually Based? International Education Journal, 4(4), 154-165.

17