It has become clear that different students, especially students of different nationalities or ethnicities, perform and achieve differently academically (e.g., Flynn, 1991; Stevenson, 1993). Various explanations have been proposed. Some researchers have focused on the individuals, and investigated the effects of different personal attributes on learning practices and outcomes, such as students' educational aspirations and goals (Gibbs, Morgan, & Taylor, 1984), time in study-related activities (Chen & Stevenson, 1989; Fuligni & Stevenson, 1995), and so on. Some researchers have emphasised the contributions of the family, and examined the influences of different familial factors, such as parental expectations of their children's academic achievement (Stevenson, 1993), parental involvement in the students' studies (Stevenson, Lummis, Lee, & Stigler, 1990), and so on. However, cultural values and beliefs can be the underpinnings of these ideas and practices which lead to different performance and achievements. By looking at the characteristics of people from different cultures, researchers (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Smith & Bond, 1993; Triandis, 1988) found that there are differences between cultures in aspects like social interactions, perceptions of self and others.

With the internationalisation and globalisation of education, it is important to find out whether differences exist between students from different cultures, and whether they in fact characterise students from a certain culture. This paper reports on one aspect of a study that is exploring the learning beliefs and practices of university students from a Chinese (Hong Kong) and a Western (Australian) culture. Despite the broader focus of the study, this paper will deal with beliefs only.

Asian students from different countries can not be regarded as the same, at least not in a study about cultural differences. Therefore, this study focuses only on one of the Asian cultures - the Chinese culture, which is considered to be very different from the Western culture. For example, Triandis (1988) examined the literature on individualism and collectivism and found that Chinese people had collective tendencies while people from Australia had individualist tendencies.

One of the reasons that beliefs, rather than values or attitudes, were chosen as the focus of the present study is that beliefs are more identifiable than values and attitudes because cognition is the most salient component of beliefs - although it may not be the only component - and thus beliefs can be expressed as propositions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968). Moreover, beliefs are considered to be influential in defining and affecting behaviours, as well as in organising information and experiences (Pajares, 1992). In this paper, the propositions or statements that people have about learning are regarded as their learning beliefs, and the extent to which they agree or disagree with these propositions or statements is considered as the strength with which they hold particular beliefs.

From their own experiences of teaching and helping overseas students with English language proficiency and study skills, Ballard and Clanchy (1984, 1991, 1997) found that Asian students had expectations of teachers and students that were different from those of the Australian students. They also found that Asian students behaved differently in their learning from their Australian counterparts, and proposed that the differences were due to students being shaped by their previous educational experiences which differed because of different cultural attitudes. Ballard and Clanchy (1984, 1997) asserted that many Asian cultures emphasise much more the conservation of knowledge, whereas Australian culture emphasises the revision and extension of knowledge. Moreover, they argued that many Asian traditions have great respect for teachers, and hold teachers responsible for their students' learning. Therefore, Asian students learn diligently all the information their teachers give them, but they are reluctant to ask questions about, raise objections to, or criticise existing knowledge and their teachers. They are also not used to independent, analytical, or critical inquiry. On the other hand, Australian students are encouraged to work independently, to speculate, and be responsible for their own success and failure (Ballard & Clanchy, 1984, 1991, 1997).

The assertion that Chinese students have high respect for their teachers can also be found in the literature about Chinese culture. From early childhood, Chinese children are taught to "respect and be obedient to their superiors under all circumstances" (Liu, 1986, p. 78). Among others, parents and teachers are the most important superiors (Bond, 1991; Liu, 1986). Chinese students do not question or challenge their teachers' teachings and messages, and judgements (Bond, 1991). Liu (1986) proposed that because Chinese students had to take into account the need to respect their superiors, they were thus less fluent verbally and in developing ideas, and had fewer creative ideas than Western students.

From his review of literature on the Chinese patterns of socialisation, Ho (1986) found that Chinese parents place great emphasis on discipline, proper behaviour, impulse control, obedience, and the acceptance of social obligations, but less emphasis on expression of opinions, independence, assertiveness, and creativity. Chinese children are discouraged from independent, active, or exploratory activities (Ho, 1986).

From their interviews with students and parents, Stevenson et al. (1990) found that Asian (Chinese and Japanese) students and mothers placed a stronger emphasis than their American counterparts on effort as the determinant of academic achievement. Hess, Chang and McDevitt (1987) found that Chinese people attributed academic failure to lack of effort, whereas Western (Caucasian-American) people were more likely to attribute failure to the lack of ability. Chinese people consider effort as a more important factor than ability in school successes and failures (Liu, 1986). Ho (1986) also found from his review that Chinese parents place great emphasis on the education and academic achievement of their children, even though the orientation is more toward achieving collective goals (by cooperative efforts) than individual competitiveness. Bond (1991) claimed that Chinese parents exert enormous pressure on their children to do well at schools.

From the literature reviewed above, it seems that Chinese students tend to emphasise effort rather than ability, to not be independent and critical learners, to preserve traditional wisdom and existing knowledge, to not be responsible for their own learning, and to regard teachers as very important in their learning. However, some of the assertions about the characteristics of Chinese people were arrived at by drawing on the traditional or classic Chinese literature. Some of the notions were constructed from anecdotes, which are susceptible to different interpretations and may represent incidental behaviours only. Some of the differences between Chinese and Western people were proposed as explanations for the differences in their behaviours. Nevertheless, these assertions have not been verified empirically. Moreover, there is not much empirical research on cultural learning beliefs or on comparisons of the beliefs that students from different cultures hold about learning.

The aim of the present paper is to investigate if Australian and Hong Kong university students hold different beliefs, and what these differences (and similarities) are, with special foci on areas regarding: the significance of effort and ability in learning; the importance of becoming/being independent and critical thinkers; the importance of preserving traditional wisdom and existing knowledge; being responsible for one's own learning, and the role of teachers in learning.

Participants in this study comprised 161 and 150 third year university undergraduate students from Australia and Hong Kong respectively. However, results from 155 and 149 questionnaires from the Australian and the Hong Kong samples respectively are presented here, because in each of the remaining questionnaires more than 10% of questions were unanswered (in Parts A and B). The students were recruited from one university in each of the two countries. The two selected universities are of comparable status, and provide similar courses within the various faculties involved.

Among the 155 Australian participants, there were 115 (74.2%) females and 40 (25.8%) males. They were aged between 18 and 49, with a mean age of 22.13 (and a standard deviation of 4.81). They were studying in the Faculties of Arts, Science, and Business and Economics.

Of the 149 Hong Kong respondents, there were 119 (79.9%) females and 30 (20.1%) males. They were aged between 19 and 30, with a mean age of 21.52 (and a standard deviation of 1.43). They were studying in the Faculties of Arts, Science, and Social Sciences.

A questionnaire and a semi-structured interview schedule were constructed and used for data collection in this study. The questionnaire comprises three parts. The first section, Part A, assesses how students behave under different learning situations and how often they exhibit certain learning behaviours under these situations. The second part, Part B, identifies the learning beliefs that students hold, and assesses how strongly (positively or negatively) they hold certain beliefs. The last section, Part C, gathers background information about the students.

In order to find out the content of the beliefs of, and measure the strength with which they are held by students from the two cultures, a list of belief statements was presented in the questionnaire, and the five-point Likert scale format was used. Respondents had to circle the option which best represented their belief. Options for these items are: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, and neutral. Instead of being placed in the middle of the scale, the neutral option is put at the end to reduce respondents' tendencies to choose the middle point in a scale without thinking about its appropriateness. The belief statements included in the questionnaire were first constructed using the information and insights gained from the review of literature on conceptions of learning, teaching, or schooling (Marton, Dall'Alba, & Beaty, 1993; Saljo, 1979; White, 1988), and the educational policies, goals, objectives, or mission statements contained in the handbooks, calendars, or world wide web pages of universities from the two targeted countries (Hong Kong and Australia). The constructed statements were then synthesised and categorised, and the resulting 81 items were randomly ordered into a single list and included in the questionnaire, which was administered to all participants.

The interviews served to collect information to explain and confirm or disconfirm the questionnaire responses. However, since this paper presents only the questionnaire data, no further details about the nature of the interview are included here.

After ethics approval and permission were obtained, lecturers of the targeted faculties of the universities were contacted to ask for their permission to recruit students from their classes. During the lectures, the nature and purposes of the study were briefly introduced and copies of the explanatory statement were distributed. Then consent forms and questionnaires were given to those students who had indicated that they were interested in taking part in the study to fill in during their free time. Completed questionnaires were collected at the subsequent lectures over the following two weeks of class.

Next, students from the pool of subjects who had agreed to be interviewed were grouped according to their sex, the faculties they studied in, and their study status (full-time or part-time). One student from each group was randomly selected for interviewing. A total of 14 students (seven from each country) was interviewed. All the interviews were audio-taped, and transcribed literally. The interview transcripts of the Hong Kong students were also translated because the Hong Kong students were interviewed in Chinese even though they filled in the English version of the questionnaire.

Responses to the questionnaires were converted into numerical values by assigning points to the various options: five points for "strongly agree", four points for "agree", three points for "neutral", two points for "disagree" , and one point for "strongly disagree". Means and standard deviations of each item were calculated separately for the two samples of students.

The 81 belief statements were ranked according to their means to find out the relative importance of them to the students from each country. The top and the bottom ten statements from each country were then compared to find out the similarities and differences between the two cultures. Comparisons were also made on the items related to the five aforementioned areas. Items with statistically significantly different means between the two samples of students were identified by using the t-test. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all the t-tests reported in this paper.

The ten beliefs most strongly held by the Hong Kong and the Australian students respectively, the corresponding means and standard deviations of the items, and the rank order of the statements within each sample of students are shown in Table 1.

Both groups of students held most strongly that learning occurs and continues throughout life. Moreover, of the ten beliefs most strongly held by the Hong Kong and the Australian students respectively, seven are the same. However, even though they endorsed the same belief content, they held them with different strengths.

It can be seen from the rank orders of the items that the Hong Kong students placed higher rankings than the Australian students on: things to learn from everyone; the importance of interest in learning; the development of thinking strategies; the expression of one's own views and opinions, and the development of logical, analytical, and critical thinking. On the other hand, the Australian students placed higher rankings on: asking questions of oneself, others, and commonly accepted knowledge; the acquisition of skills to learn; the importance of persisting and not give up in difficulties; all situations provide potential learning experiences; the acquisition of different skills, and learning as a process of adding facts and skills to learners' repertoires.

When the item means of the samples were compared by using the t-test, the Hong Kong students were found to hold significantly more strongly that learning involves the expression of one's own views and opinions (t = 2.222, p = 0.027). The Australian students were found to hold significantly more strongly that: learning takes place and continues throughout life (t = 2.825, p = 0.005); learning is for personal growth and improvement (t = 2.269, p = 0.024); learning involves asking questions of oneself, others, and commonly accepted knowledge (t = 3.184, p = 0.002); to learn is to acquire the skills to learn from different experiences and throughout life (t = 2.507, p = 0.013); learners should persist in the face of difficulties (t = 2.151, p = 0.032); learning is an aspect of life and all situations provide potential learning experiences (t = 5.469, p<0.0005); to learn is to acquire skills (t = 2.817, p = 0.005), and learning is a process through which new facts and skills are added to a learner's repertoire (t = 3.546, p<0.0005).

The ten least strongly held beliefs of the Hong Kong and the Australian students respectively, the corresponding means and standard deviations of the items, and the rank order of the statements within each sample are presented in Table 2.

The top two least important statements of the two samples of students are the same. The least strongly held belief for all respondents was that learning is something that teachers achieve, followed by the belief that no one can learn anything without teachers. Moreover, nine of the ten statements held by the Hong Kong and the Australian students respectively are the same. Once again, the strengths with which they held these beliefs were different although they endorsed the same belief content.

From the rank orders of the items, it can be seen that the Hong Kong students placed higher rankings than the Australian students on: learners behaving as teachers direct; there is a definite path for learning; tertiary learning is for able students, and remembering and repeating knowledge. However, higher rankings here mean less endorsement, which means that the Hong Kong students held the above-mentioned statements with a lower strength than the Australian students. On the other hand, the Australian students placed higher rankings on: excelling over others; what is important is how much is learned; the necessity of resources in learning; the need for learning to be taught and evaluated in institutions, and learning as a way to a more materially rich life. Again, higher rankings mean that the Australian students held these beliefs less strongly than the Hong Kong students.

When the item means of the samples were compared by using the t-test, the Hong Kong students were found to hold significantly less strongly that there is a definite path for learning (t = 2.739, p = 0.007). The Australian students were found to hold significantly less strongly that: learning is something that teachers achieve, not something that learners do (t = 5.395, p<0.0005); learning is for excelling over others (t = 2.059, p = 0.040); what is important in learning is how much is learned (t = 2.170, p = 0.031); no one can learn anything without resources (t = 2.075, p = 0.039), and learning is for earning a higher income, and having a more materially rich life (t = 3.018, p = 0.003).

The means and standard deviations of the belief statements about effort and ability of the Hong Kong and the Australian students, and the t-test results are presented in Table 3.

Both groups of students held quite strongly that effort, perseverance and commitment are more important than ability, and did not believe strongly that tertiary education is for the able students. The means of the two samples of students were not statistically significantly different from each other in these two items. However, the Australian students believed significantly more strongly than the Hong Kong students that learners should persist when encountering difficulties, and that people can learn well if they work hard enough. The Hong Kong students held significantly more strongly that learning needs a lot of time.

The means and standard deviations of the beliefs about being independent and critical thinkers for the two groups of students, and the t-test results are shown in Table 4.

Both groups of students believed strongly that learning involves expression of opinions, is for developing creative thinking, and logical, analytical and critical thinking, is for becoming independent thinkers, and is self-directed. However, the Hong Kong students held statistically significantly more strongly than the Australian students that learning involves the expression of one's own views and opinions.

The means and standard deviations of the two samples of students of the belief statements about preserving or challenging existing knowledge, and the t-test results are presented in Table 5.

Both groups of students believed strongly in the value of asking questions, and that learning is for improving and advancing current knowledge and practices. However, the Australian students held significantly more strongly than the Hong Kong students that learning involves asking questions of oneself, others, and existing knowledge.

The Hong Kong and the Australian students did not differ significantly from each other in the strength of their belief about preserving traditional wisdom. Moreover, even though they did not hold strongly this belief, they did not disapprove of it.

The means and standard deviations of the beliefs statements about being responsible for one's own learning of the two groups of students, and the t-test results are shown in Table 6.

The Hong Kong students held statistically significantly more strongly than their Australian counterparts that learning is something that teachers achieve, not something that students do. However, they did not believe strongly in this; it is their least strongly held belief among the 81.

Both groups of students believed quite strongly that learners should have final responsibility for and control over their learning, aim at pursuing knowledge deeply, and do their best in their learning. They did not differ significantly from each other in the strengths with which they held these beliefs.

The means and standard deviations of the beliefs about the role of teachers of the Hong Kong and the Australian students, and the t-test results are presented in Table 7.

Neither the Hong Kong nor the Australian students believed that teachers are a must for learning, and that learners should behave as teachers direct. They believed quite strongly that learning results from competent, effective and quality teaching. They did not differ from each other significantly in the strengths with which they held these three beliefs. However, the Hong Kong students held significantly more strongly than the Australian students that teachers possess the appropriate content knowledge, while the Australian students believed significantly more strongly that interactions between learners and teachers are a must for learning.

It can be seen from the most and the least strongly held beliefs that the Australian and the Hong Kong students were more similar to than different from each other with respect to the content of what they believed in. However, they held these beliefs with different strengths, and accorded them different relative importance.

The Hong Kong students believed more strongly than the Australian students that learning involves the expression of their own views and opinions, and held less strongly that there is a definite path for learning. The Australian students, on the other hand, were more concerned with the acquisition of facts and different kinds of skills. However, they were less concerned with how much is learned, and believed more strongly that learning is a life-long process and can occur in all situations. They held less strongly than the Hong Kong students that learning is something that teachers achieve, and less strongly that resources are essential for learning. They also believed less strongly that learning is for excelling over others, and for having a more materially rich life. Nevertheless, these differences are only relative. The beliefs that the Australian students held more strongly were also held strongly by the Hong Kong students, although not as strongly as their Australian counterparts in some items, and vice versa. Similarly, the beliefs that the Australian students held less strongly were also not held strongly by the Hong Kong students despite the differences in strengths in some items, and vice versa.

With respect to the significance of effort and ability in learning, the results show that both the Chinese and the Australian students believed that effort, perseverance and commitment are more important than ability in learning. However, the Australian students emphasised persistence in the face of difficulties and working hard, whereas the Hong Kong students emphasised putting in more time. The Australian students did have a higher mean than that of the Hong Kong students regarding their belief that tertiary education is for able students although the difference in means is not statistically significant. The findings of this study do not show any differences in the students' belief about effort, whereas previous studies had. This may be because previous studies had focused only on comparing Chinese and Western students on a polarised continuum running between effort and ability, but this study also compared the relative importance students within a culture placed on effort and ability. It may also be that the Australian and the Chinese students included different things under the rubric 'effort'.

Both the Australian and the Hong Kong students held strongly that learning is for becoming and being independent, analytical and critical thinkers. Moreover, in contrary to what is commonly held, the Hong Kong students believed more strongly than the Australian students in the expression of their own views and opinions in learning. However, the Australian students also held this belief very strongly.

About the importance of preserving traditional wisdom, both samples of students believed strongly in the advancement and improvement of current knowledge and practices, but were neither strongly for nor against the preservation of traditional knowledge. Nevertheless, the Australian students believed more strongly in the importance for learning of asking questions of oneself, others and commonly accepted knowledge although the Hong Kong students also believed very strongly in this.

About being responsible for one's own learning, the results show that both the Australian and the Hong Kong students believed that learners themselves should have final responsibility for and control over their learning. However, although the Hong Kong students held least strongly that learning is something that teachers achieve, they believed significantly more strongly in this than the Australian students.

Regarding the role of teachers, both groups of students believed that teachers are crucial, though not necessarily essential, in learning. However, their reasons for holding this belief were different. The Australian students emphasised the interactions between teachers and learners, whereas the Hong Kong students emphasised the possession of appropriate content knowledge of teachers.

Simply speaking, the findings of this study show that the Australian and the Chinese students are similar to, but also different from, each other. They believed most and least strongly in about the same beliefs, but held them with different strengths. Instead of being dichotomously different from each other on a single continuum with different qualities on each end (e.g., the continuum effort to ability), they occupy different positions along a number of different continua that represent single qualities (e.g., effort).

However, the results reported in this paper only present what the students believed in. They do not indicate what the students do due to the beliefs they hold, or whether they practise what they preach. Results from Part A of the questionnaire, the part on how students behave in different situations, need to be included in this study's final consideration of the findings.

Findings from this study so far are not in accord with the commonly held views and previous findings about differences between Western and Chinese students. It might be that the respondents gave the socially desirable responses rather than what they actually believed in. However, based on the consistency in the trends of the responses to different items, even if the students answered according to what they thought was desirable, the responses would still show the differences in the belief content and strengths of people from the two cultures. Findings might also be due to the fact that the participants of this study are third year university students. Due to the similarities in the structure of universities and courses provided in different universities, university students, even across cultures, might be more similar than different. Future research could investigate and compare the beliefs held by school students from the two cultures.