Internation student learning styles and educational quality perceptions

8/11/2019 Internation student learning styles and educational quality perceptions

1/88

1

Report on Learning Styles, Backgrounds, and QualityPerceptions of the Students in ASBs Three English-

Language M.Sc. Programs

Part 2 of a Report on Student Perceptions of ASBs FIB, EU,and BPM Courses of Study

By Maria Anne Skaates with this assistance of Lars Andersen, AlfredoGalletti, Georgios Kolovos, and Lukasz Kugiel

This working paper is dedicated to the students of Aarhus School Business.

The author wishes to thank those FIB, EU, BPM, and EXCH students who contributedto the study by filling out the questionnaire. Additionally she wishes to thank the ASB

Departments of International Business, Finance, Information Science, and Law fortheir financial support to the research project. Finally she wishes to thank her research

assistants, Minna Sderqvist (Helsinki School and Economics/Helsinki BusinessPolytechnic), Steen Weisner of the ASB International Office, Professors/Study

Coordinators Carsten Tanggaard, Karsten Engsig Srensen and Hans Jrn Juhl, Vice-Rector Karen M. Lauridsen, and Vice-Dean for International Affairs Frank Pedersen

for their assistance and constructive criticism during the research process.


2/88

2

Report on Learning Styles, Backgrounds, and Quality Perceptions of theStudents in ASBs Three English-Language M.Sc. Programs

Part 2 of a Report on Student Perceptions of ASBs FIB, EU, and BPM Coursesof Study

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 32. Further Information about the Questionnaire and the Sample 33. An Overview of the Response Patterns of the Students 103.1 Response patterns concerning Past education experiences 113.2. Response patterns concerning Own Educational Needs 153.3 Response patterns concerning Communication with ASB prior

to commencement of M.Sc. studies at ASB 173.4 Response patterns concerning Communication within ASB andwith ASB instructors and officials during M.Sc. studiesat ASB 18

3.5 Response patterns concerning The way the student undertakesinformation selection and learning during his/her studiesat ASB 22

3.6 Remarks concerning the Outcome Variable Grades inASB courses 31

3.7 Remarks concerning the Outcome Variable Degree to whichthe student can meet real world business needsafter graduation 32

4. Summary of conclusions and suggestions for further improvementof the ASBs English-language M.Sc. programs and forfurther assessment studies of these programs 33

5. References 35

Appendix 1. Results of the Kolmogorow-Smirnov Distribution Tests 38Appendix 2. The Distribution of the Results of the Survey Instrument 40

Appendix 3. Means and Variances of Responses to Questions byCountry or Region 69

Appendix 4. Means and Variances of Responses to Questions byStudy Program 74

Appendix 5. Statistics concerning the ASB Grade Point Averages ofRespondents 77

Appendix 6. Results of the 2Test of Statistical Independence 78Appendix 7. Results of Analyses of Regression and Correlation 86


3/88

3

Report on Learning Styles, Backgrounds, and Quality Perceptions of theStudents in ASBs Three English-Language M.Sc. Programs

Part 2 of a Report on Student Perceptions of ASBs FIB, EU, and BPM Coursesof Study

By Maria Anne Skaates

1. Introduction

Since 1999, Aarhus School of Business (henceforth: ASB) has offered M.Sc. programstaught exclusively in English, namely the program in Finance and International Business(in the following: FIB, started: 1999), the program in EU Business and Law (abbreviated:EU, established: 2000), and the program in Business Performance Management (in futurereferences: BPM, commenced: 2001). As of September 2003, a total of 527 students have

been admitted to these three programs.

Students from over 35 countries have been admitted to the programs, and only a minorityof the admitted students is Danish. Therefore, in the Winter of 2003, the study coordina-tors of these three programs (Professor Carsten Tanggaard for FIB, Professor KarstenEngsig Srensen for EU, Professor Hans Jrn Juhl for BPM) met with Assistant ProfessorMaria Anne Skaates and Mr. Steen Weisner of the ASB International Office to discuss theopportunities and problems that serving such an international body of students presents aswell as, probably more importantly, to discuss ASB instructors knowledge gaps concer-ning the educational background of many of these students.

At the meeting, it was agreed that Maria Anne Skaates would develop a research question-

naire to study of this student body and their perceptions of their education. The metho-dology of the study has been presented in a previous ASB working paper by Maria AnneSkaates. Its title and publication information are as follows:

The Theoretical, Methodological, and Practical Background for Looking atInternational Students Learning Styles, Backgrounds, and Quality

Perceptions with Regard to ASBs Three English-Language M.Sc. Program,Aarhus School of Business, Working Paper 04-1 of the Department of Inter-national Business, IBBN 1396-8149.

On the basis of the theoretical foundation laid in the first working paper, this paper willpresent the empirical results of the study.

2. Further Information about the Questionnaire and the Sample

In the spring of 2003, a paper and an internet-based version of the questionnaire were pre-pared. In April of 2003, FIB course instructor Jan Bartholdy, EU course instructor CarstenEngsig Srensen and BPM course instructor Hans Jrn Juhl distributed paper versions ofthe questionnaire to second semester students during class. In order to reach those FIB,EU, and BPM students who were in their second or third year of their M.Sc. studies, aswell as any first year students who had not attended class on the day the questionnaire had

been distributed, an e-version of the questionnaire was placed on an Aarhus School ofBusiness website, and all students in their second year or above received either an e-mailor written letter requesting that they fill in the web questionnaire from Steen Weisner of


4/88

4

the International Office. To ensure the highest possible response rate, a reminder mailingwas sent to all these students one month later; however the mailings to 67 students werereturned undelivered.

As explained in the first working paper, the questionnaire was divided into three parts.The first part (questions 1 49) deals with the students learning experiences from their

Bachelor studies and with their preferred learning styles. The second part (questions 50 92) deals with the students assessment of the quality of education at ASB and with theirfuture plans. Finally, the final part of the questionnaire (questions 93 111b) deals withthe students experiences in the process of writing their Masters thesis. As the ASB Mas-ters thesis is usually first commenced in the second year of studies, this part of the ques-tionnaire was given only to those second or third year respondents who indicated that theyhad registered and received an advisor for the Masters thesis.

By the end of the summer of 2003, the data from the questionnaire website together withthe collected paper versions of the questionnaire indicated that it had been filled out 114

times. Additionally, 26 of the completed questionnaires contained data from students whowere working on their Masters theses.

On September 15, 2003, instructor Maria Anne Skaates passed a short version of the ques-tionnaire, i.e. part 1 of the questionnaire only, out to all students present in her introduc-tory course for all FIB, EU, and BPM students, International Business Strategies 1.(There were also some exchange students present who also were given the opportunity tofill in the questionnaire.) In all 114 students filled in the questionnaire this day, most ofthese were students who had arrived in Denmark two or three weeks before this date.

Starting in October 2003, the questionnaire data was tallied and treated. Of a total of 228received responses, 20 were eliminated due, e.g., (a) instances where less than 15 of thequestions had been answered, (b) duplicate answering (in this case, we used the first re-sponses from the respondent), or (c) instances of calculated answering patterns. As con-cerns the last phenomenon, the questionnaire had been answered once by a respondentwho did not indicate his or her nationality, yet answered the first option in all questions,once by the respondent answering the second option in all questions, once by the respon-dent answering the third option in all questions, once by the respondent answering thefourth option in all questions, and once by the respondent answering the fifth option in allquestions. We eliminated all five of these instances of calculated answering.

Thus the final sample was composed of 208 non-randomly generated responses, of which35 of these responses came from exchange students, who were not students of the FIB,EU, or BPM programs. If we assume that all 173 of the non-exchange student responsescame from FIB, EU, or BPM students, then 33 % of all students admitted in the ASBsEnglish-language M.Sc. programs since 1999 actually took the time to fill out the ques-tionnaire.

However, we cannot be 100% sure that this assumption holds, as there were 27 further re-spondents who provided neither any information about their major nor provided us withany personal data (i.e. study number) through which we could identify their major. How-

ever, data on the major of study and the nationality of the respondents who were identi-fiable with regard to these categories is included in Table 1 on the next page. Table 1 alsoindicates these figures classified according to the three parts of the questionnaire.


5/88


6/88

6

Notes to Table 1 continued:7As China is taken separately, this category includes the Philippines (1 response), Indonesia (2 responses), MongoliaSingapore (1 response).8

As Denmark is taken separately, this category includes Norway (2 responses) and Iceland (7 responses) and Finland 9This category includes the USA(2 responses), Canada (1 response), New Zealand (2 responses), and the UK (2 resp10 This category includes France (3 responses), Germany (4 responses), Italy (1 response) and Spain (1 response)11 As Poland has been taken separately, this category includes Lithuania (4 responses), Estonia (1 response), Romania12 This category includes Kuwait (1 response), Philippines (1 response), China(2 responses), Indonesia (2 responses)responses).13This category includes France (1 response), Iceland (2 responses), and Norway (1 response).14This category includes Poland (3 responses), Lithuania (1 response), Kuwait(1 response) and Philippines (1 respon

Table 2. Regional distribution and Study Program Distribution of Respondents by Questionnaire Sect

In the table below, students who did not provide information about their country of origin and/or their study

calculations.

Questionnaire Section Part 1 Part 2 Par

Regional distribution:

Nordic countries (including Denmark) 34% 35% DK alone 52%Other Western countries 23% 18% Other Western Countries 19%Eastern European countries 26% 36% Rest of world 29%Rest of world 17% 11%

Study Program Distribution:

Exchange Students 19% 3% Exchange Students 0M.Sc. in Finance and Internat. Busi. 34% 30% M.Sc. in Finance and Internat. Busi. 38%M.Sc. in EU Business and Law 27% 33% M.Sc. in EU Business and Law 29%M.Sc. in Busi. Perform. Management 20% 34% M.Sc. in Busi. Perform. Management 33%


7/88

7

Table 1 indicates that students from 44 different countries answered the questionnaire.Moreover, of the 195 students that provided us with nationality information, 19% of therespondents were from Denmark, 15% were from the other Nordic countries, 6% werefrom English-speaking countries, 17% were from non-English speaking Western Euro-

pean countries, 26% were from Eastern European countries, 4% were from Latin or SouthAmerica or Africa, 3% were from the Middle East, and 10% were from the Far East.

However, the regional distribution of the respondents varied somewhat between the vari-ous sections of the questionnaire, as is indicated in Table 2. (Table 2 also depicts the dis-tribution of respondents according to study program.)

As for the distribution of respondents responses around a symmetrical scale (such as thescales we used for questions 7-91 and 93-111a), many researchers and statisticians assumethat responses to such survey questions can be approximated to normal distribution, be-cause they presume that the survey question answers from a certain human populationwould be symmetrical around a mean (see Fleming and Nellis 2000), as is the case formany phenomena in the natural world (i.e. the height of a certain specie of plant or the

weight of a certain female bird). However, the assumption that survey answers from awhole population are always symmetrically distributed has also been challenged inempirical research from the fields of linguistics and anthropology (see Usunier 2000).This research indicates that because in certain human cultures answering negatively ismore taboo than answering positively, the survey answers that certain human populations

provide are not symmetrical around the mean.

Normal distribution is a continuous distribution, yet it is also used to approximate manydiscrete probability functions (Malhotra and Birks 1999). Moreover, normal distributionis a relatively convenient type of distribution to encounter in quantitative social research,as it in connection with random sampling allows for more simple analyses of variance(e.g. ANOVA) and the calculation of confidence intervals, which requires the implicit useof the Central Limit Theorem (Dewhurst, 2002).

However, due to the above-mentioned culture-related empirical evidence as well as thecultural heterogeneity of our sample, we knew that we could not determine a prioriwhe-ther the answers either the entire population of all FIB, EU and BPM students or our sam-

ple of these students would be normally distributed. We therefore decided it was best touse goodness-of-fit tests to discover whether the responses of the sample to each questioncould be considered normally distributed.

Goodness-of-fit tests include the Chi-square (2) test and the Kolmogorow-Smirnov-Test.The 2test is gives more reliable results, as the Kolmogorow-Smirnow test may suggest acertain distribution is present when the 2test would reject the presence of this distribution(Treiber 2002). However 2test is more complicated and the conditions under which it can

be used are more stringent than is the case with the Kolmogorow-Smirnov test. In order touse the 2test in tests of goodness-of-fit, the following conditions must be met (Flemingand Nellis 2000; Treiber 2002):

1. None of the expected frequencies for a certain value presupposing a certain distributionshould be less than 5.

2. One must have a sufficient number of degrees of freedom (df), estimated as follows:

df = number of classes 1 number of estimated parameters


8/88

8

The number of estimated parameters varies from distribution to distribution. In the normaldistribution it is 2, which for the survey questions that had five possible answers (ques-tions 7-91 and 93-111a) would have given us a total of 2 degrees of freedom.

However, as there were only 26 respondents who answered the questions concerning theMasters thesis (questions 93-111a), a very cursory glance at our data told us that we

would not be able to fulfill the 2tests criteria 1 with regard to these questions. Addition-ally, with only at most 101 respondents answering questions 50 92, we could also not becertain beforehand that this criterion would be fulfilled for these questions. Therefore wedecided to initially test the goodness-of-fit of the distribution of the responses to all of thesurveys scaled questions using the Kolmogorow-Smirnov test.

It is relatively simple to use the Kolmogorow-Smirnov test to test for distributions such asnormal distribution, Poisson distribution, binomial distribution, and exponential distribu-tion (Treiber 2002). However, we could quickly eliminate binomial distribution, as ourscaled survey questions had more than two mutually exclusive outcomes. As regards Pois-

son and exponential distribution, exponential distribution, which is a continuous distri-bution, is inversely related to Poisson distribution, which is a discrete distribution. As ourscales were discrete, we decided to test only for Poisson distribution.

As for underlying theory, we knew of no good theoretical reason to expect to find Poissondistributions in our survey research. Poisson and exponential distributions are generally to

be anticipated in situations in which there are a few extraordinary events against a contin-uous background of ordinary events (Dewhurst 2002). In an educational context, onemight thus expect to find the Poisson distribution if one were measuring the number of in-cidents of students or faculty members committing plagiarism per year or the number ofstudents or faculty members arriving at the library service desk per five minutes (see, e.g.,Andersen et al. 1990). In these situations, one would also expect to be able to find expo-nential distribution in measurements of the amount of time between instances of plagiar-ism or library service encounters (Dewhurst 2002).

When using the Kolmogorow-Smirnov test to test for normal and Poisson distributions,we used the following hypotheses:

For normal distribution:

H0= the frequency distribution of answers to the survey question does not follow anormal distribution

H1= the frequency distribution of answers to the survey question follows a normaldistribution

For Poisson distribution:

H0= the frequency distribution of answers to the survey question does not follow aPoisson distribution

H1= the frequency distribution of answers to the survey question follows a Poissondistribution

The results of the Kolmogorow-Smirnov test are listed in Appendix 1 of this working

paper. They indicate that only the distributions of following questions could be regardedas following normal distribution at a confidence level of 95%: Questions 69, 95, 98-111a.As concerns the Poisson distribution, the results showed that the distributions of the


9/88

9

responses to the following questions as following Poisson distribution at a confidencelevel of 95%: 13, 15, 18, 20-22, 25-27, 30-34, 38, 53, 54, 57-60, 63-68, 70, 73, 75-80, 82-87, 89-91, and 93-111a. These results show the relative imprecision of the Kolmogorow-Smirnow test, as the results of this test suggest that questions 95 and 98 111a are bothnormally and Poisson distributed!

Due to the aforementioned problem that the Kolmogorow-Smirnow test may suggest acertain distribution is present when the 2 test would reject the presence of this distri-

bution, we decided to also seek to perform the 2test on those questions in which the Kol-mogorow-Smirnow had indicated were either normally or Poisson distributed. Thus wesubsequently sought to subject question 69 to a 2test of normal distribution and questions13, 15, 18, 20-22, 25-27, 30-34, 38, 53, 54, 57-60, 63-68, 70, 73, 75-80, 82-87, 89-91 to a

2 test of Poisson distribution. However we soon abandoned this prospect, when wediscovered that it was not possible for most of these questions to guarantee that theexpected frequencies for all of the possible answer categories were 5 or more (theaforementioned first precondition for the use of the 2test of goodness-of-fit), whilst at the

same time fulfilling the degrees-of-freedom criteria (the aforementioned second precon-dition for the use of the 2test of goodness-of-fit).

On this basis, we can conclude that for most questions the response patterns are notnormally distributed. Therefore and also due to the non-random method of sampling, theresults of some of our subsequent statistical inferences (e.g. the statements made based onour ANOVA tests of whether the answers of different populations differ, which are foundin Appendices 3-5) are methodically speaking less sure than they would have been, hadwe found normal distribution and had we used random sampling. These problems areespecially large concerning the responses to part three of the questionnaire (questions 93 111b), as we in relation to this part of the questionnaire only had a total of 26 respondents.Thus we did not perform many of the more sophisticated statistical calculations (e.g.ANOVA) on this part of the questionnaire.

As for the problem of non-response bias in survey research, i.e. that the non-respondentswould have answered the questions of the questionnaire in a manner different than therespondents, the standard way of testing for such bias is to compare the results of the re-spondents who answered the questionnaire immediately with those who answered verylate, based on the assumption that the late respondents are more likely to resemble thenon-respondents. However in this piece of research we did not perform such a test for thefollowing reasons:

We had used different data collection techniques on the different groups of stu-dents, in that the 1st year students and the newly-arrived students received thequestionnaire in class as well as class time to fill out the questionnaire, whereas thesecond and third year students received multiple mailings concerning the question-naire. These differences, which also resulted in a non-randomly generated sample,rendered the use of an early-late response test impossible.

Even if we had used the same data collection techniques on all groups of students,the sample is very culturally heterogeneous, and substantial research exists sugges-

ting that persons from different cultures might interpret our statements about thetime frame of the study and many of the other factors included in the questionnairedifferently (see e.g. Usunier 2000). Thus, due to this high level of cultural hetero-


10/88

10

geneity, it would be problematic to assume relative similarity between late respon-dents and non-respondents and to assume relative dissimilarity between early andlate respondents.

It is also worth mentioning that late response could in many circumstances simplyhave been due to the student in question being temporarily abroad on, e.g., a

student exchange or a trip to gather empirical data for his or her Masters thesis.

3. An Overview of the Response Patterns of the Students

With the methodological reservations of the previous section in mind, we now turn to thesurvey instrument itself and to the students response patterns. In Appendix 2, the ques-tions of the survey instrument are found in their exact wording, in addition to certaindescriptive statistics for each question. These descriptive statistics include (a) the numberof students who answered the question, (b) the absolute number of particular answers to

the question and the percentage distribution among those who answered the question, and,for scaled questions, (c) the mean, (d) the median, (e) the mode, and (f) the variance. Asthe variance is always positive, as point (g), we also indicate in Appendix 2 whether anyskewing is positive or negative. Thereafter, in Appendices 3 and 4, means and variancesare specified according to the countries or regions to which the various students have thestrongest ties and according to the study majors for questions 7-91. In Appendixes 3 and4, the results of a statistical analysis to determine which of the differences between themeans from various subcategories of students are significant at a 95% level of confidenceare also presented. In relation to this analysis, there were two obvious methodologicalchoices: (a) one-way analysis of variance (henceforth: ANOVA) or (b) a 2 test ofstatistical independence between two variables.

In our research team, we agree to initially seek to perform ANOVA for the questions forwhich we had sufficient data to do so, as this test is more sophisticated and would poten-tially also allow for tests encompassing multiple means, e.g. a test of whether the answersof all subgroups are equal. However, we did not perform such a test of multiple subgroupsourselves. Instead our ANOVA analysis was performed based on the following pair ofhypotheses:

H0= the answers of a certain subpopulation of students do not differ from the answers ofthe rest of the students

H1= the answers of a certain subpopulation of students differs from the answers of therest of the students

As indicated in Figure 3 and on pp. 8-9 of this research projects first working paper(Skaates 2004), the questionnaires questions can be categorized in relation an input-output learning model. We therefore also ought to test for (inter)dependence of thequestionnaires various measures of items in the input-output learning model by develop-ing the 801 hypotheses of Appendix 3 of the first working paper (Skaates 2004). We hadoriginally planned to test these 801 hypotheses using 2 tests of statistical independenceand thereafter in cases where (inter)dependence was found, to model this dependence or

interdependence using regression or correlation analysis. However, further reading aboutBiggs study process questionnaire lead us to believe it would be best to omit all of thehypotheses we had developed concerning the single items of this questionnaire (i.e.


11/88

11

questions 30 49 in our survey instrument). After this omission, we conducted 2tests ofstatistical independence on the remaining hypotheses. Our testing hypotheses were asfollows:

H0= the answers to the two questions being examined are independentH1= the answers to the two questions being examined are (inter)dependent

The results of these 2tests of statistical independence are found in Appendix 6. However,we were aware that the 2test of statistical independence may produce rather conservativeresults (see Bura and Cook 2001). This was an issue for us in the light of the fact that thescales we have given to the respondents via our survey instrument are not merelycategorical, but rather also ordinal. In the case of purely categorical scales, the 2test ofstatistical independence is the equivocally best way of making assessments about (inter)-dependence, whereas in the case of ordinal data we can also use regression/correlationanalysis.

As should also be evident from Appendix 6, the manner in which we undertook the 2

testof statistical independence was also more controversial. Due to our not having a hugenumber of responses, we had to combine various cells of the original 5 x 5 matrices inorder to be able to carry out the tests. However, even after doing so, the criterion that allmatrix cells must have expected frequencies of at least 5 (see, e.g., Fleming and Nellis2000; Reed 2004; Treiber 2002; Wyllys 2003), which many statistics practitioners adhereto, was not fulfilled. However, because some statisticians will also in certaincircumstances accept a minimum frequency of 1 in tests of (inter)dependence (Reed 2004;Wyllys 2003), we carried out 2 tests of statistical independence also in circumstanceswhere our expected cell frequency was less than 5.

Concerning regression/correlation analysis, contrary to our original stated plans, for thepotential relationships describe in Appendix 3 of the first working paper (Skaates 2004),we upheld the aforementioned exception in that we did not examine any relationshipsconcerning the questions from Biggs learning styles (i.e. questions 30-49 of the surveyinstrument). However, for the rest of the hypothesized relationships, we calculated re-gression coefficients, using either simple regression analysis (if we had a theoreticalreason to presuppose a certain direction of causality) or simple correlation analysis (if wehad a theoretical reason to presuppose bi- or multi-directional covariation or if we had notheoretical justification for making causality judgments), and also calculated whether anyrelationships found were significant at the level of 95% confidence. The results of these

regression/correlation analyses are found in Appendix 7.

In the following subsections, remarks concerning the questions will be made based on thisclassification of the variables from the input-output learning model depicted in Figure 3and discussed on pp. 8-9 of this research projects first working paper (Skaates 2004).

3.1 Response patterns concerning the input variable past educational experiences

Many of the students have learned in English during their Bachelors studies. 29%

studied in a program in which most or all learning took place in English, whereas 58%studied in a program in which at least some learning took place in English (question 4).As concerns foreign exchanges, 25% of the students participated in an exchange during


12/88

12

their Bachelors studies (question 5) and as for foreign languages, the average studentbelieves that he or she speaks at total 2.6 languages, including English, fluently (question6). Here, however, students who have English as their mother tongue speak significantlyfewer languages fluently than other students, namely on average only 1.5 languages.

Regarding differences between past educational experiences and what is perceived by

the authors to be typical of educational practice at Aarhus School of Business, the authorbelieves that the use of multiple choice examinationis not widespread at Aarhus Schoolof Business as the main mode of examination. However, around 14% of the respondentsagreed or partially agreed with the statement that they had been subjected to exams mainlycomposed of multiple choice questions during their Bachelors studies (question 9),whereas around 8 % neither agreed or disagreed with this statement. Here, students fromother Eastern European countries, Poland and China tended significantly more towardagreeing with the statement that they had been mainly subjected to multiple choice exami-nation, whereas there were no significant differences between the answers of students inthe three ASB M.Sc. programs FIB, EU, and BPM.

As concerns open book examinations (question 11), practices concerning this type ofexam vary from course of study to course of study at Aarhus School of Business. Simi-larly there is a relatively large variance among the respondents as to their experiences withopen book exams during their Bachelors studies. 39% of the respondents totally agreethat there were few open book exams in their bachelors studies, whereas 19% totallydisagree to this statement. Students from Finland and Sweden, other Western countries,Africa and Latin America were on average in most agreement that there were few open

book exams, whereas students from France, other Asian countries, and Denmark indicatedmost disagreement. However only the mean for the French respondents tested to be signi-ficantly different at the 5% level (see Appendixes 3 and 5). As for the courses of study,students in the EU program were to the greatest extent in disagreement with the statementabout few open book exams. However this is to be expected, as it is reasonable to expectthat law students are relatively often subjected to open book exams.

As concerns writing papers during ones bachelors studies, which is an important ele-ment in almost all courses of study at Aarhus School of Business, 26% of the respondentswere in partial or total disagreement with the statement that they had been required towrite case analysis papers (question 12). The average level of disagreement was especiallystrong among the students from Germany, France, Canada, and the Middle East andamong the exchange students; however only the national averages for Germany and

France and the exchange student average were significantly different at the 95% con-fidence level. Overall 27% also disagreed either partially or totally with a statement thatthey had been required to independently assess the strengths and weaknesses of theoriesand academic contributions (question 13), and here the level of disagreement was espe-cially strong for students from Canada, France, Germany, and other Western countries andwell as among the exchange students. All of these regional averages were significantlydifferent at a confidence level of 95%. In relation to question 12, the answers of re-spondents from the FIB, EU, and BPM courses of study did not vary measurably. How-ever, the data suggests that BPM students had been slightly more exposed and the FIBstudents slightly less exposed to independent analysis of academic theories and contribu-

tions in papers, although these differences are not significant at a 95% confidence level.


13/88

13

A Bachelors thesis is commonly written in Denmark. However 29% of the studentseither partially or totally disagree that there was such a thesis requirement in their coursesof study (question 14). The areas of the world where this disagreement was significantlystronger include Canada, other English-speaking countries, Austria, France, and Germany.Additionally FIB students were most strongly in agreement with this statement, followed

by EU, BPM, and EXCH students; here the ANOVA analysis indicated that the responses

of FIB and EXCH students were significantly different.

As concerns differences of opinion between teachers and students, 19% of the studentspartially or totally disagreed with the statement that their teachers would have acceptedstudent disagreement founded on scientific argument and/or examples from firms prac-tice (question 15). Here students from Canada and other Eastern European countries onaverage indicated less acceptance of such differences of opinion; however these differ-ences in means did not test as significant at the 95% confidence level.

Regarding group work (question 16), 41% of the responses suggest Bachelors studies

marked by little or no group work or group assignments, whereas 57% of the responsessuggested the opposite. Here the students least familiar with group work seemed to comefrom the following regions: China, Poland, Germany, other English-speaking countries,and other Eastern European countries. However the results were only significant for thefirst three of these five regional categories.

Reading academic articles (question 17) was either not a part of the Bachelors studyexperience or only a very minor part of this experience for 29% of the students. Here, onaverage, students from France and Russia had had the least experience with this potentialelement of a course of study. However the result was only significant for France anddifferences between the courses of study were not very large.

42% of the students were in agreement or partial agreement with a statement thatmemorization was more important than independent analysisin their Bachelors studies(question 18). On average, students from the Middle East, Germany, and Russia weremost in agreement with this statement; however, here, only the results for Germany weresignificant. In contrast, only 6% of the students indicated that they had not learned thatthere were multiple, competing theories or modelsof economic, finance, legal or busi-ness administration thought (question 19) in their Bachelors studies. Here the French,Lithuanians, and EU majors seemed to have learned to a lesser extent than BPM and FIBmajors about multiple, competing theories or models of thought. The ANOVA analysis

however only indicates significant differences for the French, the EU majors, and the FIBmajors.

As for acquiring knowledge of how to write academic papers(question 20), 58% of thestudents indicated that this had been a part of their Bachelors studies, and 29% indicatedthat this was not the case. Only the students from other Western countries had a signi-ficantly higher level of answers indicating that this had not been the case for them,whereas students from China and other Asian countries as well as BPM students hadsignificantly more experience with this from their Bachelors studies. However care must

be taken in interpreting the results of this question for at least two reasons. Firstly in some

national education systems, students are taught these skills before entering a university orbusiness school, i.e. already in high school or gymnasium. Secondly, even if the studenthas learned these skills either before or during his or her Bachelors studies, it must be


14/88

14

remembered that the following elements of academic written communication vary fromlanguage to language (see, e.g., Reuter et al. 1993):

Thematic elements (e.g. how the main points in the text are introduced andconcluded, the topics treated and their order, the structure of the general content and ofthe logic presented)

Stylistic and rhetorical elements (e.g. forms of address, modality of verbs, use ofsynonyms and language variation, use of metaphoric versus literal language, the extentof the use of precise definitions, argument types, citation conventions)

In relation to the above textual elements, the following can be said of the standardizedEnglish-language tests that many applicants to the ASBs English-language programs arerequired to take: These tests (e.g. the TOEFL or the Cambridge Certificate of English)mainly concern themselves with assessing the potential students knowledge of grammar,English-language vocabulary, and semantics, and his or her listening and reading compre-hension skills. These tests do not however encompass any measurement of the students

knowledge of English-language academic writing conventions or of the students abilityto writing academic papers in English.

Thus it may be that some students who have learned to write academic papers following,e.g., German, French, Russian, Chinese or Japanese academic conventions will have tolearn to abstract from some their native languages academic writing conventions in orderto attain skills in English-language academic paper writing. For the case of academicwriting in the Scandinavian languages, it is such that most Scandinavian researchers in thefield of business administration write both in, e.g., Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian, and inEnglish (see e.g. Brock-Utne 2001). This has led to greater convergence in academic

argumentation styles across these languages than is necessarily found between other majoracademic languages, which have their own business administration literatures (e.g., Ger-man, French, Russian, Chinese or Japanese).

As concerns methods, 24% of the students disagreed with the statement that they hadlearned quantitative methods in their Bachelors studies, and 27% of the students disa-greed with a statement that they have learned qualitative methods in their Bachelorsstudies (questions 21 and 22). Students from the Middle East, Austria and the otherEnglish-speaking countries were those who indicated not having learned quantitativemethods most; however none of these averages tested as significantly different at the 95%confidence level. On the other hand, students from Africa and Mexico indicated a signifi-cantly higher level of having learned both qualitative and quantitative methods. As for thequalitative methods, students from Canada, other English-speaking countries, and Ger-many as well as those students who had not indicated their country indicated the leastextent of learning these methods during their bachelors studies, and all of these differ-ences were significant expect for the Canadian means. It is also noteworthy that thestudents in the EU program indicated less familiarity with both qualitative and quanti-tative methods than the students in the FIB and BPM programs; however this result wasonly significant at the 95% confidence level regarding the quantitative methods.

Finally, as concerns the method of doing a literature review (question 23), 27% of the stu-

dents indicate that they did not learn about reviewing literature during their Bachelorsstudies. Here students from Canada, France, and other Western countries indicated thatthey had learned the least about this during their Bachelors studies; however only the


15/88

15

Canadian mean tested as significantly different. Here it was the FIB majors who indicatedthe least familiarity with this aspect, although this result was not significant. In contrast,the BPM students indicated that they had had significantly more learning in this area.

Student learning styles (questions 30 49) are both input variables and study process vari-ables. They will therefore be commented on in subsection 3.5. Similarly the other ques-

tions which concern both (a) past educational experiences and (b) process or outcomesvariables will be covered in later subsections of this paper.

3.2 Response patterns concerning the input variable own educational needs

Many of the factors covered below are also closely related to the output variable degreeto which students can meet real world business needs after graduation, which will becovered in the coming subsection 3.7.

Students were generally slightly positive about the relevance of what they had learnedin their Bachelors studies to the current and future real business world(questions7). Here, students from Canada and other English-speaking countries, Austria, andLithuania as well as the students who had forgotten to provide country-of-strongest-tiesdata were the least positive, whereas the most positive responses came from students fromAfrica/Latin America, Asian countries except for China, Finland and Sweden, and theMiddle Eastern countries. However only the means for the students who came from Africaand Mexico or who had forgotten to provide country information tested as significantlydifferent at the 95% confidence level. Students were also slightly positive about therelevance of the exam questions in their Bachelors studies to the real business world(question 8).

Here, however, it is very interested to note that students generally were more stronglypositive about the extent to which what they were learning from their ASB studies andexaminations were relevant to the real business world (questions 67 and 68). In fact, avast majority of the students, 86%, of the students agreed or partially agreed with therelevance of what is learned at ASB to the business world. Here it is also very relevant tomention that the differences between the FIB, EU, and BPM courses of study wererelatively minor and also not significant at the 95% level of confidence.

As concerns the Bachelors course of studys degree of internationalization, 31% of the

students did not find their Bachelors course of study sufficiently international when jud-ged by the needs of workplace market (question 24) and 33% of the students did not findtheir Bachelors course of study sufficiently international when judge by their own careergoals (question 25). In relation to these aspects it was especially the students from France,Germany, other English-speaking countries, and Canada who found their Bachelors cour-ses of study to be insufficiently international; significantly different means were found forthe first three of these regional groups. However, as concerns these issues, once againASB scored better on this respect: Only 9% of the respondents were in partially disagree-ment when the degree of internationalization was judged by the needs of the workplacemarket and not a single student was in total disagreement (question 90)! Here, however,

the regression analysis showed that students with lower GPAs were significantly more in-clined to believe ASBs courses of education to be sufficiently international (correlationcoefficient of 0.2246, accounting for 6.57% of variation).


16/88

16

When the ASBs degree of internationalization was compared to the individual studentsown career goals, only 7% disagreed that with the statement that ASB is sufficientlyinternational. Yet 16 students (i.e. 15.8% of the respondents) mentioned that they felt thatthere were areas of the world that were insufficiently covered in their ASB education (seethe excerpts of responses to question 91 in Appendix 2).

In relation to the question of the degree of internationalization, it should also be men-tioned that 47% of the students plan to study or work in another countrythan Denmarkduring the third semester of their English-language M.Sc. program at ASB, whereas 47%do not plan to do this (question 50). Here it is the students from Poland and the EU majorsthat are significantly more interested in working or studying away from Denmark duringthe 3rdsemester at the 95% confidence level. Also 67% of the students agree or partiallyagree that they plan to apply for jobs in countries other than the country where they havespent the most years of their lives (question 53). Here the non-Polish Eastern Europeanstudents and students from non-Nordic non-English speaking countries are most stronglyin agreement, whereas when compared across study majors, the EU students are most

strongly in agreement. However the differences are only significant at a 95% confidencelevel for the Eastern Europeans and the EU students.

Regarding working in Denmark after graduation (question 54), not surprisingly theDanish students are most interested in this, followed by the students from other Westerncountries and from the English-speaking countries. However, here only the response ofthe Danish students is significantly more positive toward this than the average response. Itis also interesting to note that the test of correlation found a positive relationship betweenthis question and question 5a, such that students who were exchange students during theirBachelors studies are also more interested in working in Denmark after graduation. Thecoefficient of regression was 0.0673, yet only 1.11% of the variation was explained.

As concerns language skills, 81% of the respondents judge their English-language skillsto be sufficient in relation to future job responsibilities, yet only 50% judge their masteryof (other) foreign languages to be sufficient in relation to future job responsibilities(questions 26 and 27). The French and Chinese students were significantly more self-critical of their English-language skills than the other national groups, whereas the Cana-dian, other English-speaking, French, Norwegian, and Chinese students were most criticalof their skills at (other) foreign languages, with the results for the Canadians and Chinesehere also being significant. The exchange students are significantly less confident of theirEnglish-language language skills, whereas the EU students are significantly more confi-

dent of their ability to speak other foreign languages. This result concerning the EUstudents is also reflected in their answer to question 6, as they also indicate that they onaverage speak more languages fluently than the other student major groups.

As concerns foreign cultural skills, 10% of the respondents believe that they have some-what insufficient skills in interacting with foreigners in commercial situations, and 17% ofrespondents perceive some or many deficiencies in assessing foreign business systems,cultures, and customs (questions 28 and 29). Here once again, the French and the Chineseas well as the exchange students were significantly more self-critical, whereas the EU stu-dents were significantly more confident in the abilities to assess foreign business systems.

A substantial proportion of the students perceive a need for more than one Masters de-gree. 23% agree or partially agree to the statement that they are or will be participating in


17/88

17

a Double Degree Masters program, and 33% agree or partially agree that they plan toget two Masters degrees (questions 51 and 52). Here it is the students from Poland andthe geographical catch-all category Rest of World who are most interested in havingtwo Masters degrees, whereas, as concerns study major, students of the EU program aresignificantly more and the students of the FIB program significantly less interested ingetting two Masters degrees.

As concerns the Ph.D. degree, 26% have plans to get a Ph.D. and 19% are interested inPh.D. studies at the Aarhus School of Business (questions 55 and 56). Here it isinteresting to note that the exact same geographical and major-related patterns are ineffect with regard to these questions as was the case concerning the questions of twoMasters degrees. Furthermore, there is relationship between the perceived need for morea Double Masters degree and a Ph.D. degree, as both 2-tests and analyses of correlationindicated that students more interested in a Double Masters degree (question 51) are bothmore interested in Ph.D. studies (question 55) and in Ph.D. studies at ASB (question 56).In fact the correlation coefficient of 0.3577 for the relationship between questions 51 and

56 explains 8.36% of the variation, whereas the correlation coefficient of 0.4077 for therelations between questions 51 and 55 explains 13,18% of the variation. The 2-test andthe correlation analysis are equivocally suggest a relationship between the answers toquestion 52 on one hand and to questions 55 on the other; here, the coefficient ofregression is 0,3648 and it explains 10.12% of the variation.

However, in contrast, there is no relationship between the students grade point averagesand their interest in either Ph.D. degrees in general or Ph.D. studies at Aarhus School ofBusiness. This result should probably be interpreted as being less positive.

3.3 Response patterns concerning the input variable Communication with ASBprior to commencement of M.Sc. studies at ASB

This point was not evaluated in depth in the questionnaire, due to the number of otheritems covered and the resultant long length of the questionnaire. However, as argued on

pp. 10 12 of Skaates (2004), this point is still very important, as ASB through its pre-study communication is potentially able to influence coming student expectations and in-form about the rules, learning, and administrative procedures at ASB as well as about thekey features of everyday student life in Denmark. Well-planned communication can, e.g.,ensure that implicit and unclear student expectations are made explicit and clear and that

unrealistic expectations are moderated to realistic ones, so that the student in question isaware of his or her possibilities for learning and of his or her rights and responsibilities atASB.

The two questions that address communicative issues are 57 and 58. In relation to thesequestions, 72% of the students are in partial or total agreement that there is need for fur-ther or better integration of foreign students with regard to matters pertaining to ASB andalso 72% of the students believe either partially or totally that there is a need for further or

better integration of foreign students with regard to Danish culture and rights and respon-sibilities in relation to Danish institutions and authorities. Here the EU program students

perceive the greatest need, and also students from the geographical categories Poland andRest of World perceive the greatest need; however these differences are only significantfor the students from the Rest of World.


18/88

18

However, as these questions are not very specific as to the wide variety of ASB mattersthat might be perceived as either difficult or easy to understand for foreigners or to thevarious aspects of Danish culture, institutions, and authorities, it is suggested that a sup-

plementary evaluation of all pre-study-communication be undertaken, e.g. via a shortquestionnaire which is distributed at the end of each English language M.Sc. programsintroduction week to provide further information on this matter to the ASB Admissions

Office and the study coordinators.

3.4 Response patterns concerning the process variables Communication within ASBand with ASB instructors and officials during M.Sc. studies at ASB

Questions 57 and 58 have been covered in the previous subsection, as they also both tocommunication prior to arrival at ASB and to communication after arrival and during thefirst months of study. Here, once again, a supplementary evaluation of all initialcommunication and initial integration efforts might be fruitfully undertaken, e.g. via a

short questionnaire at the end of the 1st

semester or 1st

year of M.Sc. studies, as the sur-veys questions 57 and 58 were so general that they do not provide good hints for im-provements.

A number of supplementary questions have also been asked, most of which both concerninterpersonal communication during studies and the students learning styles, which arethe subject of the next subsection. Question 59 examines the extent to which students per-ceive that they have learned a lot about foreign business systems and cultures throughinteraction with fellow students from other countries. 74% of the respondents agree or

partially agree that they have learned about these elements through such interaction,whereas 16% disagree or partially disagree. Here it is quite interesting to note that theDanish students perceive that they learn the least from such interaction. This difference isalso significant at the 95% confidence level, and here one might imagine that the reasonfor this might be that the Danish students spend less time and energy on interacting withthe non-Danish students, as they, in contrast to the international students who for the most

part have arrived in rhus rather recently, already have extensive social networks inrhus.

Additionally it is interesting to note that the 2-tests indicate a significant relationshipbetween the answer to the above question and the answer to question 29, which deals withthe students ability to assess foreign business systems, cultures, and customs. The

correlation analysis did not result in a significant relationship. However its correlationcoefficient suggests that the relationship is positive, such that one could imagine thatstudents who perceive they learn from their fellow students also have confidence in theirability to assess foreign business aspects.

Conversely, 58% of the respondents agree or partially agree that sometimes interactionwith persons from those countries that are most heavily represented in the ASBsEnglish-language M.Sc. programs is problematic because these students tend to be moreoriented towards their countrymen, whereas 21% do not see this as a problem (question60). Here students from English-speaking countries and from the rest of the world

perceive this problem most strongly; however these differences are not significant at the95% confidence level. It is also the case that there is a positive correlation with acoefficient of 0.1418 between the answers to question 60 and to question 28, such that


19/88

19

students who perceive their own skills in interacting with foreigners as sufficient are morelikely to be critical of those of their peers who are mainly oriented toward their countrymen. This correlation accounts for 4.15% of the variation.

As concerns communication in English, which is a non-mother tongue lingua francaformost students, 87% of the respondents assess that their ASB instructors and advisors have

sufficient or nearly sufficient command of written English to undertake theirresponsibilities, and 72% assess that these persons have sufficient or nearly sufficientcommand of spoken English to undertake their work-related tasks (questions 63 and 64).Concerning their fellow students, respondents are slightly less favorable, in that only 62%

judge their fellow students to have sufficient or nearly sufficient command of writtenEnglish to participate in their ASB study program and 70% judge their fellow students tohave sufficient command of spoken English (questions 65 and 66). Here students from the

Nordic and English-speaking countries are more critical of their instructors and peerscommand of the English language, and, as concerns study programs, students in the FIB

program are most critical of their instructors and peers English, whereas students in the

EU program are less critical. Here the differences for questions 64-66 are significant forthe EU program students, whereas the difference for question 64 is also significant for theFIB program students. It is also relevant to mention that the correlation analysis showsthat students with high GPAs are generally more critical of their peers abilities to writeand speak English (questions 65 and 66). Here, the correlation coefficients are 0.3211 and0.2616, respectively, with the corresponding levels of explained variation at 9.66% and6.73%.

In connection with these results, it is also interesting to note that correlation and 2-testsindicated a relationship between students who were exchange students in their Bachelorsstudies (question 5a, an input variable) and assessment of fellow students command ofspoken English (question 66) at the 95% level of confidence. Students who were notexchange students in their Bachelor students are most likely to assess their fellowstudents command of spoken English more positively. Here the correlation coefficient is-0.1309 and the relationship explains 7.15% of the variation. Furthermore, the results ofthe correlation analysis alone suggest that there is a relationship between student ex-changes during Bachelors students (question 5a) and the assessment of fellow studentscommand of written English (question 65). Here the correlation coefficient is -0.0986 andit accounts for 3.85% of the variation. Finally, the correlation analysis alone also suggestsa statistically significant relationship between plans to get a double degree and the assess-ment of fellow students command of English. Here the correlation coefficient is 0.3648,

explaining 6.92% of the variation.

Regarding ASB instructors knowledge of business in various countries, 60% agree orpartially agree that their instructors know enough about this issue, whereas 18% disagreeor partially disagree (question 89). Here it is also interesting to note that the students fromthe Nordic countries, including especially the Danish students, are the most critical oftheir instructors knowledge of business in various countries; however this result is notsignificant at the 95% confidence level.

As concerns general communication of course requirements, 40% agree or partially

agree that it is difficult to determine what instructors require, whereas only 33% disagreeor partially disagree with this statement (question 70). In relation to this question, studentsfrom Nordic and English speaking countries seem to have slightly more difficulty in


20/88

20

determining what instructors require and FIB students seem to have slightly moredifficulty than EU and BPM students. Yet these differences are not significant. The 2-tests indicate that there is a relationship between this aspect and whether the student

perceives that there were more assignments during his or her Bachelors studies than is thecase in his or her ASB Masters studies (question 69). However the results of the cor-relation analysis do not show a significant relationship, yet they would suggest that the

relationship would be positive, such that students who more strongly feel there are fewerassignments in their ASB Masters studies also more strongly feel it is difficult to deter-mine what ASB instructors require.

Additionally 39% perceive quite a bit of conflict or discrepancybetween what they havelearned in their Bachelors studies and what they have learned at ASB, whereas another40% perceive the opposite (question 83). Here it is students from other Western countries,Poland, and the rest of the world as well as students in the EU program who perceive thegreatest level of conflict, with the results of the Polish and EU students also beingsignificant at the 95% confidence level. Conversely the BPM students perceive signi-

ficantly less discrepancy.

It is the opinion of the authors that study coordinators and instructors of the ASB pro-grams should take measures to address this issue, as the regression analysis indicates asignificant inverse relationship (coefficient of correlation: -0,2705) between the amount of

perceived discrepancy and the GPA which accounts for 4.08% of the variation. There is,e.g., probably a need for many instructors, especially in the EU program, to communicatemore consciously and clearly about these issues, perhaps through the use of explicitly sta-ted learning objectives, as required by, e.g., the North American business school accre-ditation agency AACSB (see Graeff 1998).

A small majority of 52% students perceive that there are variations in the extent to whichthey learn when the method of instruction changes(question 73). As for the interactivemethods of learning (questions 74-77), 80% agree or partially agree that they learn a lotfrom lecture sessions, whereas 71%, 66%, and 54% agree or partially agree that they learna lot from group work assignments to be handed in, class discussion session, and groupwork assignments which do not have to be handed in. The comparatively low score forgroup work assignments that do not have to be handed in might be caused by students pri-oritizing this type of assignment less. However these questions are measures not only ofsatisfaction of communicative interaction but also of student learning styles, which will bein focus in the next subsection of this paper.

In relation to national and regional differences, the Danish students are most critical onaverage in all categories, whereas the students from Eastern Europe, Poland, and the restof the world tend to be more positive. As concerns the class discussion sessions alone, thestudents from other Western countries are about as equally positive as the students fromEastern Europe, Poland and the rest of the world. Here the results are significant at the95% of confidence for the Danes concerning questions 74-76, for the Eastern Europeansconcerning question 75 and for the rest of the world concerning question 76. Finally theBPM students are significantly more positive about lecture sessions (question 74) thanstudents from other majors.

Concerning group work, students from the rest of the world assess group assignments thatdo not have to be handed in significantly more positively (question 76), whereas students


21/88

21

from the rest of the world and Eastern Europe are most positive about group assignmentsfor credit (question 77), although the differences here are not significant. As concernsstudy majors, FIB students are more critical than average of learning from lectures, classdiscussion sessions, and not-for-credit group work, whereas EU students are more criticalthan average of learning from for-credit group assignments. However, here the differencesare not significant.

Regarding own communicative skills, 80% of students assess that they are well-preparedfor writing the Masters thesis in terms of own English-language academic writing skills(question 85). Here the group from the rest of the world is most self-critical whereas thegroup from the English-speaking countries is the most self-confident, yet none of thedifferences are significantly different at a 95% level of confidence. However, after com-mencement of the Masters thesis, some 77% of the students find the process more diffi-cult than originally imagined (question 94).

In relation to question 85, it is also interesting to note that both the 2-test and the corre-

lation analysis found a connection between the answers to question 85 and the studentsassessment of their English language skills (question 26). Here the correlation coefficientwas 0.4455; it explains 6.31% of the variation.

Finding a Masters thesis advisor (question 93) seems to have been relatively easy for68% of the small sample of 26 students who answered the questions concerning the

process of writing the Masters thesis (questions 93 111). Here, it is interesting to notethat there is significantly positive correlation between the ease of this process and thestudents GPA. (Here the correlation coefficient is 0.5516, explaining 18.59 of thevariation.) As for matters relating to communication with the Masters thesis advisor,80% either agree or partially agree that their advisor knows enough about the subject theyare writing about to assist in the advising process (question 96) and 72% either totally or

partially agree that the amount of response that they receive from the advisor is not aproblem.

Concerning specific question types posed to advisors, 76% are in either partial or totalagreement that the answers to the types of questions their advisors provide to theoreticalquestions are unproblematic. For questions concerning methods in collecting and treatingempirical data (question 101), English-language academic language conventions (question102), and thesis argumentation structure (question 103) the corresponding figures of

partial or total content are 78%, 80%, and 81%, respectively. (In relation to these ques-

tions, students were requested to only answer if they had in fact asked these types ofquestions of their advisor). In connection with question 102, it is interesting to note thatthere was a significant positive correlation (coefficient = 0.4455) between students levelof content with the answers given by their advisor concerning the English academic lan-guage and the students own assessment of their English language skills. This correlationaccounted for 37.62% of the variation. Concerning the total amount of response from theadvisor (question 99), 72% indicate that it is acceptable. Here there is however aninteresting significant negative correlation with whether the student has had to write anacademic Bachelors thesis or paper (question 13), such that students who have had towrite a Bachelors thesis or paper are less inclined to find the amount of response from

their Masters thesis advisor acceptable. Here the correlation coefficient is -0.2904,accounting for 16.3% of the variation.


22/88

22

Concerning communication and cooperation with the fellow student with whom acertain respondent is writing the thesis, 9 of the 26 respondents to the thesis section indi-cated that they were writing with another student (question 104). Of these 5 found thecooperation either partially or totally unproblematic, 3 were neutral about this issue, and 1found the cooperation very problematic. The results concerning cooperating with the or-ganization in focus in the thesis, which were answered by 15 of the 26 respondents, were

less positive: 23% found this cooperation partially or totally problematic whereas 53 %found this cooperation partially or totally unproblematic. Also gathering primary empi-rical data (question 108) was perceived as being relatively problematic: 38% of the 16respondents found this aspect partially or totally problematic whereas only 44 % foundthis cooperation partially or totally unproblematic.

Finally, some aspects of communication and cooperation with the ASB Libraryduringthe thesis process were investigated through questions 110 and 111. 16 of the 26 respond-ents had ordered materials in English or a Scandinavian language from the interlibraryloan. 56% found this partially or totally unproblematic whereas 31% found this partially

or totally unproblematic. Furthermore, 7 of the 26 respondents had ordered books fromASB library in other languages (yet only one language was specified: Italian). Here therewere no respondents who found this process problematic. Instead five respondents were

partially or totally positive about the process, and two respondents were neutral. Thisresult is somewhat surprising to the first author of this paper, as it is her experience that itusually takes much longer to receive books in German and French via the ASB Inter-library Loan.

3.5 Response patterns concerning the process variables The way the student under-takes information selection and learning during her/his studies at ASB

As mentioned in the previous subsection, many of the questionnaires process-relatedquestions which concern communication among students or between students and ASBstaff also implicitly relate to the students own patterns of information selection and learn-ing during the course of his or her studies. However, these attitudinal, motivational, and

behavioral characteristics of learning that are not specifically covered by these questionsthat overlap.

Therefore, at the suggestion of Professor Hans Jrn Juhl, 20 questions from various ver-sions of John Biggs Study Process Questionnaire (see, e.g., Biggs 1995a and b, 1992,

1988, 1987, 1979, 1978a and b, 1976), which Hans Jrn Juhl had used in a seminar at theASB Department of Information Science, were posed to students as questions 30 49 ofthe questionnaire. In the following treatment of these questions, the Study ProcessQuestionnaire questions that deal with attitudes to studying will be covered first. There-after, the questions that deal with motivations will be dealt with. As a third point thequestions that deal with actual behavior will be treated. In the coverage, we will not dealwith comparisons in country-specific differences in learning styles, as this topic has beendealt with in a number of much more extensive studies, which also looked at cultural andinstitutional features of the country in question. These studies are listed on pp. 24 and 25of Skaates (2004). For the same reason we have chosen not to present the results of either

correlation or 2

-tests of (inter)dependence to other items on our student questionnaire.


23/88

23

We have still provided region- and course-of-study-specific averages and an indication ofthe found statistically significant differences in appendices 3 and 4. In the following, wewill however only remark on differences related to courses-of-study.

The first attitudinal questionis whether the student in question aims to pass his or hercourses by doing as little work as possible (question 32). Here 8% of the students agree or

partially agree that this corresponds to their behavior, whereas 79% disagree or partiallydisagree with this statement, and there are only minor differences in the response averagesof the three English-language M.Sc. programs at ASB. Here, however, the exchange stu-dents are significantly more prone to seek to pass courses by doing as little work as

possible.

The second attitudinal question is whether the student believes that any topic can behighly interesting (question 34). Here 23% of the students do not believe this at all or

partially disbelieve this, whereas 58% of the students believe this either totally or par-tially. Here the FIB students are the ones most in disagreement, whereas the EU students

are the ones most in agreement. The difference in results for the EU students is also sta-tistically significant.

The third attitudinal question(question 38) is somewhat difficult to interpret, as it com-pares studying academic topics to the excitement of a good novel or movie. Here itshould not be overlooked that students who are fans of literature or the cinema might setthe comparison standard differently than students who pursue other hobbies such sports ormusic and perhaps even dislike books and movies. However, with this reservation inmind, 28% of the students partially or totally disagree with the statement, whereas 51% ofthe students agree or totally agree. Of the three M.Sc. programs, the FIB students are theones most in disagreement, whereas the BPM students are the ones most in agreement;however these differences are not significant. In contrast, the exchange students are signi-ficantly less prone to agree that studying can be as exciting as novels or movies.

The fourth attitudinal questiondeals with whether students restrict their studies to whatis specifically set due to their perception that it is unnecessary to do anything extra (ques-tion 41). Here 16% of the students agree or partially agree, whereas 54% of the studentsdisagree either partially or totally. Here the FIB students are the ones most in agreement,whereas the EU and EXCH students are the ones most in disagreement, yet none of thedifferences are significant.

The fifth attitudinal questiondeals with whether students find it confusing and a wasteof time to study topics in depth (question 44). In relation to this issue, 13% of the studentsagree or partially agree, whereas 70% disagree either partially or totally. Here the EUstudents are the ones most in agreement, whereas the BPM students are the ones most indisagreement, yet none of the differences are significant

The sixth attitudinal questiondeals with whether the student is of the opinion that lec-turers shouldnt expect students to spend time studying material that will not be on theexam (question 45). Here, 31% of the students agree either partially or totally that lectur-ers shouldnt expect this, whereas 44% of the students disagree either partially or totally.

Here the EU and EXCH students are to a greater extent in agreement with the statementthan the FIB and BPM students, yet the differences are not significant.


24/88

24

The seventh and final attitudinal questiondeals with the students personal views onstudying material that will not likely be on the examination (question 48). 21% of the stu-dents personally see no or little point in studying such material, whereas 51% express ei-ther strong or weak viewpoints to the contrary. Here the EU students on average see theleast point in studying such material, whereas the BPM students on average see the most

point in this, yet the differences are not significant.

As concerns motivation, only 9% of the students partially or totally disagree with thestatement that at times studying gives me a feeling of deep personal satisfaction(question 30). In contrast, 73% of the students agree or partially agree with this statement.Here the EU students on average are most in agreement with this statement, whereas, ofthe three study programs, the FIB students on average are comparatively the least inagreement with it, yet the EXCH students disagree even more than the FIB students. Herethe results for the EU and EXCH students are significantly different.

The second motivational question links finding most new topics interesting to often

spending extra time trying to obtain more information about them (question 35). Here27% of the students partially or totally agree with the statement, whereas 40% of the stu-dents partially or totally agree. Here once again the EU students on average are most inagreement with this statement, whereas the FIB and EXCH students on average arecomparatively the least in agreement with it, yet none of the differences are significant atthe 95% confidence level.

The third motivational question (question 36) links the students interest in his or hercourses to his or her propensity to study. Here 7% of the students indicate that they either

partially or totally seek to keep their level of work to a minimum due to a lack of personalinterest. In contrast, 77% of the students partially or totally disagree that this characterizestheir motivation-behavior relationship. Here the EU and FIB students are strongly in dis-agreement, whereas the BPM students and the EXCH students are more weakly in dis-agreement, and these differences are significant at the 95% level for the EU and FIBstudents.

The fourth motivation question(question 42) asks the contrary: Does the student workhard at his or her students because he or she finds the material interesting? Here 12% indi-cates that this is absolutely or partially not the case, whereas 60% are in partial or totalagreement with the statement. Here the results for all three courses of study are approxi-mately equal, yet the results for the EXCH student indicate significantly less agreement.

The following of the above questions dealing with attitudes or motivation also seek todistinguish students who are highly intrinsically motivated to be very thorough learners(see Biggs 1979: 382-3 or Skaates 2004: 13-14): Questions 30, 34, 35, and 38. In relationto these questions, it is in the authors opinion an open question whether it is desirable forAarhus School of Business to seek to admit as many as possible of such students. Thereason for this is some empirical work suggesting that individuals who are cognitivelystrong due to e.g. such intrinsic motivation are not necessarily the best on acting as a busi-ness leader, as their main personal interest may be on cognition for its own sake (see, e.g.,Gertsen 1990). As the aim of Aarhus School of Business is produce both business profes-

sionals as well as business scholars, it is probably perfectly acceptable that many studentsare not extremely intrinsically motivated. However, with this reservation in mind, it is alsonoteworthy that the students of the EU program score on average the most favorably


25/88

25

toward intrinsic motivation, in that their averages are lowest on three of the four ques-tions and second-lowest on the fourth question. Conversely, the FIB students seem to bethe least intrinsically motivated group in that they score the least strongly on averagetoward intrinsic motivation.

The first of the behavioral questions(question 31) exams the behavioral consequences of

intrinsic motivation, in that it asks students whether they, in order to satisfy themselves,have to do enough work on a topic so that they can form own conclusions. Here only 5%of the students partially or totally disagree, whereas 80% of the students partially or to-tally agree with this statement. Here, of the three English-language M.Sc. programs, it isthe BPM students who indicate this behavioral pattern to the greatest extent and the FIBstudents who indicate it to the least extent, yet the EXCH students indicate is to an evenlesser extent. Here the differences in response of the FIB and EXCH students are signi-ficant at the 95% level of confidence.

The second behavioral question deals with whether the students only study seriously

what is given out in class or in the course outlines (question 33). 30% of the students indi-cate that they are partially or totally marked by such a behavioral pattern, whereas 41% ofthe students state that they are partially or total at odds with such behavior. Here thedifferences between the three English-language M.Sc. courses of study at ASB and theexchange students are not very large.

The third behavioral question(question 37) deals with whether students memorize cer-tain aspects of the educational curriculum without understanding them. Here 18% of thestudents indicate partial or total agreement that this is the case, whereas 68% indicate

partial or total disagreement. Here the students of EU and EXCH are more prone tomemorize without understanding than the FIB and BPM students, yet the differences arenot significant.

The fourth behavioral question(question 39) looks at whether students test themselveson important topics until they have achieved total comprehension. Here 18% disagree or

partially disagree that this characterizes them, whereas 55% agree partially or totally thatthey are marked by this behavioral pattern. Here the differences between the three Eng-lish-language M.Sc. courses of study at ASB are not very large, yet the EXCH studentsseem to do this to a measurably lesser extent. Here, however, the averages of the FIB andEXCH students both test as being different at the 95% level of confidence.

The fifth behavioral question(question 40) goes on to see whether the students use thememorization-without-comprehension of question three because it enables them to passcourses. Here 20% of the students indicate partial or total agreement that this is the case,whereas 59% indicate partial or total disagreement. In the comparison of the answers toquestions 37 and 40, we as the authors of this working paper find some cause for concern,as it seems from the comparison of these answers that the students courses of study eitherin their Bachelors or Masters students at ASB may have induced them to pursue such amemorization-without-comprehension strategy which they otherwise would not have cho-sen to follow. Additionally it should be noted that EXCH and FIB students indicate thatthey are more prone to attempt such a learning strategy and that BPM students are least

likely to do so. Here, however, the differences are significant for both the EXCH and theBPM students.


26/88

26

The sixth behavioral question(question 43) deals with the extent to which students use asubstantial amount of their free time to find out more about interesting topics from clas-ses; this question is also a question related to intrinsic comprehension motives. Here 42%of the students partially or totally disagree that this is the case, whereas 34% of the stu-dents agree or partially agree that this characterizes them. Here the BPM and EU studentsindicate that they on average are more prone to using their free time for this than the FIB

students and EXCH. However the EXCH group is the only group that tests as significantlydifferent at the 95% level.

The seventh behavioral question(question 46) deals with whether students come to classwith questions in mind that they want answering. A positive answer to this questionusually also indicates that the students have prepared themselves for the class session inquestion; however a negative answer does not necessarily indicate a lack of such pre-

paration. Here 36% disagree or partially disagree that this is the case, whereas 32% agreeor partially agree, and it is the BPM students who are most prone to do this and the FIBand EXCH students who are least prone. However there are no significant differences in

responses at the 95% level of confidence.

The eighth behavioral question(question 47) was taken directly from the Biggs StudyProcess Questionnaire, as it had been used by Hans Jrn Juhl in an ASB seminar. How-ever it is somewhat difficult to interpret in the Danish context, as it has been formulated

by Biggs in the following way: I make a point of looking at most of the suggestedreadings that go with the lectures. Here the word suggested may be especially

problematic, because the Danish university system is rather unique in the sense that thestudy regulations (in Danish:studieordninger) for the offered courses of study (e.g. StudyGuide for M.Sc. FIB, EU or BPM, seehttp://www.asb.dk/studinfo/study/studieordninger/erhvervs-oko/kandidat/default_da.htm)usually specify that students have the right to be told exactly which texts from a coursewill potentially be covered by the exam. (This is due to the formulation in 24 of theDanish ministerial regulation on exams in higher education, Bekendtgrelse om eksamenved visse videregende uddannelser under Undervisningsministeriet og Ministeriet for

Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling, bekendtgrelse nr. 1021 af 20. November 2000, medrettelser i henhold til bekendtgrelse nr 537 af 28. juni 2002.).

In several instances of student complaints about Danish university exams, exam com-plaints boards have accepted the argumentation of the students based on the fact that theissue covered in an exam question was not covered by the texts that had been announced

as the obligatory course literature that could potentially be covered by the exam. Due tothis Danish rule and its interpretation by Danish exam complaints boards, the materialfrom a course which is announced to potentially be covered by the exam is veryobligatory and exam-relevant more so in fact that the lectures themselves, with theexception of ASB seminar courses, which are the only courses in the ASB M.Sc. pro-grams where student attendance is obligatory (see, e.g., International Office 2003:24).

However, with this reservation in mind, 13% of the responding students were in total orpartially disagreement with the questions formulation, whereas 62% were in total orpartial agreement with it. Here it is the BPM students who are most prone to disagree with

the statement and the FIB and especially the EXCH students who are least prone. Here,however, only the difference in response of the EXCH students tested as significant.


27/88

27

The final and ninth behavioral question from the Biggs Study Process Questionnairedeals with whether the student has experienced that the best way to pass examinations isto try to remember answers to likely questions (question 49). A positive answer to thisquestion would also suggest that topical questions which require the memorization andreproduction of a specific method or piece of knowledge are the main type of examinationthat the student has experienced. Here 20% of the students are in partial or total agreement

with the statement, whereas 59% are in partial or total disagreement. Here the FIB andEXCH students are more likely to try to remember answers to likely questions than theEU and BPM students, yet none of the differences are significant.

However, as the results from question 70 (as previously discussed in subsection 3.4) indi-cate that at least some students have difficulties in determining what ASB instructorsrequire and as it is the authors opinion that the memorization and reproduction of specificmethods or pieces of knowledge do not compose the main elements of examination atAarhus School of Business (although they sometimes are required in exam situations), theauthors deem that it is relevant for ASB instructors to communicate very directly about (a)

which points should be learned in detail by heart for exams and (b) which points need tobe only reproduced in their main points in connection with e.g. an analytical examquestion.

Turning now to the other questions that deal with students learnin

Internation student learning styles and educational quality perceptions

Documents

Transcript of Internation student learning styles and educational quality perceptions