Different and at times contradictory descriptions exist in the literature about the ways in which Asian students approach their learning. While educators with experience in teaching Asian students perceived them as passive, dependent, uncritical, and more prone to rote learning than western students, researchers who investigated empirically the learning approaches of Asian students held that these students were neither more oriented towards a surface approach nor less inclined to use a deep approach than western students. Differences in cultural characteristics and conceptions have bee proposed to account for Asian students' learning practices and to explain the discrepancies in views about Asian students. However, there is not much empirical research on comparisons of the learning behaviours of students from different cultures. This paper reports on a study that explores and compares the learning beliefs and practices of university students from a Chinese (Hong Kong) and a western (Australian) culture. Comparisons between the students were made on: the relative frequencies with which they reported using the learning behaviours; the frequencies with which they used the behaviours in different learning situations; their use of similar behaviours across various situations; and their preferences for particular types of learning behaviours. The results showed that the Australian and the Hong Kong students were similar in the relative frequencies with which they reported using the various behaviours and in what they reported to engage in most and least frequently in the various learning situations. However, they were different in the frequencies with which they reported using specific learning behaviours, particularly when spending their leisure time. These results suggest that educators should pay more attention to both similarities and subtle differences between students from different cultures or countries, rather than assuming that students from certain cultures or countries

Evaluations suggest that, within construction related professional courses, technical aspects are the most difficult to teach. This is particularly evident in the teaching of architectural students as many fail to make the link between Construction Technology and the main thrust of architectural education: the Design Studio. The teaching of Construction Technology has, until now, been very much an instructor centred, didactic exercise with little interaction among students or between students. In sharp contrast, Design Studio is dependent on the visual and graphical processes and occurs in settings where students interact informally with their peers and design tutors. If Design Studio can be managed in a student centred and hands on environment, why can't courses in Construction Technology / Tectonics be delivered in a similar atmosphere? This was the challenge faced by the project team as they undertook a project in changing practice through innovative teaching in Construction Technology at The University of Hong Kong. This paper reports on the process and progress of this project where there has been an attempt to shift the pedagogical practices in Tectonics. Changes in students' learning of Tectonics, the issues associated with collaboration between instructors and students, between instructors & instructors and across departments are discussed.
[Copyright of Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ascilite) at http://www.ascilite.org.au]

This study aimed to explore the relationship between thinking styles and emotions among university students in Hong Kong. Participants were 99 2nd-year students (23 men and 76 women) who responded to the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised (TSI-R), based on R. J. Sternberg's (1988) theory of mental self-government, and to the Iowa Managing Emotions Inventory (IMEI), based on A. Chickering's (1969) theory of psychosocial development. Results indicated not only that thinking styles were associated with emotions but also that thinking styles had predictive power for emotions beyond age. The author discusses implications of these findings for faculty members and student-development educators.
[Copyright of Journal of Psychology is the property of Heldref Publications.]