Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Japanese students’ perceptions of their student role at an international college Jacquest, Marni Anne 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1995-0442.pdf [ 4.2MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0054755.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054755-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054755-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054755-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054755-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054755-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054755-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

JAPANESE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR STUDENT ROLE AT AN INTERNATIONAL  COLLEGE  by Marni Anne Jacquest B.Ed.(sec), The U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a , 1983  A THESIS SUBMITTED  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (EDUCATION) in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Centre f o r the Study o f C u r r i c u l u m and I n s t r u c t i o n )  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1995 (c) Marni Anne Jacquest,  1995  In presenting this thesis degree  at the  in partial fulfilment  of the  requirements  University of British Columbia, I agree that the  for an advanced  Library shall make it  freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or  by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying  or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  11  ABSTRACT The as  to  purpose  how  America,  of  Japanese  perception  role  between  student  role  to  of  colleges  or  Ten  Japanese  of  aspects  questionnaire  no  program  at  the  interviewed  in  in  over  much  role in  c o n f l i c t  (C.I.C.)  role  l i t e r a t u r e  student  given  to  groups  has  a  studying the  were  students  in  about in  documents  of  student  setting  the  Japan,  what  happens  students  i d e n t i f i e d  as  the  at  and  last  main  come  from  to  Canadian years  reports  focus  their  were  perceptions  of  of  a  International  of  Fourth-year students their  of  written  Japanese  North  implications  aspects  been  in  America.  students  about  understanding  college  which  used  f i r s t  college.  and  in  when  role  some  various  North  and  69  the  gain  students,  students  student  of  College  to  post-secondary  universities  student-teacher  at  and  Although  v i r t u a l l y  perceptions  was  student  c o n f l i c t  teachers  Columbia.  is  their  for  B r i t i s h  study  post-secondary  perceived  this  there  this  of  four-year  also  student  role  C . I . C . Results  f i r s t -  and  from  the  f i r s t - y e a r  fourth-year  behaviors  as:  opinions,  and  students  had  reported  a  asking active the  large  student  involvement time  difference  interviews  questionnaires  questions,  hardest  student  showed  volunteering in  class  adjusting.  between  were In  student  and  the  that  such  answers,  stating  those  which  general, role  at  to  students Japanese  Ill post-secondary problems  at  reported  a  aspects  C . I . C . high  of  of  study  acquisition to  level  result  of  role  student raised  at  of  student i n  the  role the  C . I . C .  that  were  different  question  of  internalize  Canadian  expectations  student  role  Japanese.  colleges that  The  Japanese student  jeopardizing  to  are  study  students role  accept. such  as  neither  their  f u l l y  identity  and  with  from  at  allow their  role  nor  to  fellow  to  C . I . C .  in  the  which  seem were  that of  f u l l y  orient  them  their  students  North-American  ways  of  expectations  Canadian  that  ten  point  which  also  though  that  suggested  have  They  the  even  student  also  effective  expectations  with  turning  of  C . I . C .  recommended find  a  values,  It  moderate  difference.  questionnaire  academic  d i f f i c u l t  with  compliance  Canadian  international  new  a  and  of  i n i t i a l l y  of  as  student  perceptions The  institutions  teachers  students  comply students.  to  without  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Table  i i  of  Contents  i v  L i s t  of  Tables  List  of  Figures  v i i  Acknowledgement  v i i i  Chapter  Chapter  One  Two  v i  INTRODUCTION  1  Purpose of the Study Canadian International  1 2  College  The Two- and F o u r - Y e a r Programs Students at C . I . C Statement of the Problem Importance of this Research Area Outline of the Chapters  2 5 6 9 10  LITERATURE  13  REVIEW  E d u c a t i o n a s a M e a n s o f S t a t i f i c a t i o n . . . 13 "Buying a Job" 14 Is this Changing? 15 Company-Based T r a i n i n g 17 Exam H e l l 18 L e i s u r e Land 20 Conformity 23 Amae: Sweet Dependence 25  Chapter  Three  Amae i n t h e S c h o o l S y s t e m Foreign Teachers Meeting Japanese Students Summary  28 30  METHOD  32  Overview  of  the  Students  Chosen  Study as  the  32 Sample  "F-l" Students "F-4" Students Nature o f t h i s Sample Sample S i z e F i r s t Versus Fourth Students G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y The  26  34 34 34 36 36 Year 36 37  Questionnaire 38 Ten Aspects of Student Role 38 The Three Main Questionnaire Sections 40 The Remainder o f the Questionnaire..42  V The  Chapter  Chapter  Chapter  Four  Five  Six  Interview  43  Method of A n a l y s i s Questionnaire Aggregate Variables Interviews Summary  45 45 48 49 49  RESULTS Questionnaire Results Three Main Sections: Differences, Problems, and Student Behavior Student Variables Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Comments Interview Results The Ten Aspects of Student Role Summary  50 50  DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The Ten Aspects of Student Role Asking Questions, Volunteering Answers, and S t a t i n g O p i n i o n s Active Involvement, Community Involvement, and Student Leadership A t t e n d a n c e and Homework Studying, Reviewing Notes, High Marks, Exams, Paying Attention in Class, and C o p y i n g Sex o f Respondent Age of Respondent Year of Respondent  81 81 82 82  The Aggregate Summary  83 84  Variable  Graphs  CONCLUSION Changing  Student's  Role  B  72 78  85 87 Somewhere 89 91 92  English  Translation  of  the  Questionnaire Appendix  65  Within  References A  62 65  85  the  the Group A Turning Point in Maturity Not J a p a n and Not Canada but In Between Summary  Appendix  50 55 58 59 59 61  Translated Campus  Questionnaire  97 Comments  by 103  vi  LIST OF TABLES Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Questionnaire Problems, and Categories of Students)  Results: Differences, B e h a v i o r s by the Ten Student Role ( A l l 51  Questionnaire Data (All Students)  by  Questionnaire Data (All Students)  by  Questionnaire Data (All Students)  by  Sex  of  Student 55  Age  of  Student 56  Year  of  Program 57  Frequency of Responses about the Ten Categories o f S t u d e n t R o l e f o r Women, Men, and A l l F-4 Students  60  Summary Results  of  64  Rank o f Results  Questionnaire  Questionnaire  and  and  Interview  Interview 65  v i i  LIST OF FIGURES Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  1  2  3  4  S e c t i o n s and Q u e s t i o n the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  Categories  on 42  Data Analysis--Question Category Exam S e c t i o n by the F i v e Student Variables  and 47  Study S k i l l s by Measures of Differences, Problems, and Behavior (All Students) Class  P a r t i c i p a t i o n  by  Differences, Problems, (All Students)  Measures and  53  of  Behavior 53  Vlll  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S As w i t h many major undertakings,  t h i s r e s e a r c h was the  product of many people working together; some o v e r t l y and some silently  and to a l l of them I am v e r y t h a n k f u l .  I would l i k e to thank my f a m i l y , f r i e n d s , c o l l e a g u e s , and ( e s p e c i a l l y ) Kevin f o r being extremely  t o l e r a n t and s u p p o r t i v e  of me while I was u n a v a i l a b l e and/or cranky time. to  f o r long p e r i o d s of  Thanks, too, to p r o o f r e a d i n g f r i e n d s who took the time  read and d i s c u s s d r a f t s and, i f they were bored, were too  g r a c i o u s to admit i t . John Rathbun deserves a s p e c i a l for  thanks  s h o r t - n o t i c e emergency p r o o f r e a d i n g . I would e s p e c i a l l y l i k e to thank people at C.I.C. f o r  t h e i r help.  Thank you to a l l of the students who p a r t i c i p a t e d  i n the study, e s p e c i a l l y to the F-4's who took time f o r i n t e r v i e w s at the very end of t h e i r program and were very t h o u g h t f u l about the whole s u b j e c t of student r o l e .  Thank you  a l s o to my r e s e a r c h committee at C.I.C. which approved  of the  p r o j e c t and made i t p o s s i b l e f o r me to do the i n t e r v i e w s i n Vancouver.  I would a l s o l i k e to thank the C.I.C. teaching  s t a f f i n Nelson and Vancouver f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e , e s p e c i a l l y John Hodges, June Johnston,  E l i z a b e t h Kennedy, and Tamara  W i l l i a m s f o r a l l o w i n g and h e l p i n g me to do r e s e a r c h w i t h students. For p a t i e n t and thorough I would l i k e  their  i n t e r p r e t i n g and t r a n s l a t i n g  to thank Ikuko Haraguchi, R i t s u Muratake, Y o i c h i  Oshima and Takeshi  Sakakibara.  ix Many very  people  grateful.  suggestions, at  C . I . C .  Johnston I  for  I  hope  Mohan who  sound that  research  appreciate  my  to  advice  I  of  the  on  many  not  and  and  also  those  have  greatly  l i f e  advised  Thanks  help,  for  advice  and  establishing  thank  took  who  for  much  the  to  in  am  protocol  to  June  especially the  edited  Goelman  academic  at  my  research  drafts  and  C . S . C . I ,  for  occasions.  people  who  gave  s p e c i f i c a l l y  have  my  me,  designing  Dr.  and  I  reference  research  of  help  c a r e f u l l y to  which  advice.  members  time me  a  easier,  questionnaire  patiently  a l l  whom  them  for  made  who  technical  Tom G o u g e o n  Thew  like  encouragement. and  gave  excellent  U.B.C.  Dr.  to  which  truly  Berwick  patience  this  Carol  some  at  advisors:  gave  to  would  Dr.  Thanks  Nelson  committee  and  generously  not  taken  me  support  thanked their  know  help  during that  I  l i g h t l y .  1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Purpose As  a  teacher  have  found  year  is  Some the  that  being  on  paying  attention  volunteering another exam),  class,  do  one's  personal  working  at  forms  of  These  behaviors  Canadian  post-secondary  Japanese  one.  expectations into  the  Japan. Canadian  as  two-  orientation  C . I . C . early  and  that  Nonetheless, expectations  p a r t i c u l a r l y  in  their  in  best  as  the  some of  receive  students student  f i r s t  year  and  while  find  the  on  for  and  an  exams,  accepting  testing. values  about  also  from or  necessarily  interview  class,  and  studying  educated  programs  the  homework  than  not  informal  copying  operational  i n i t i a l  students  and  other  but  are  in  questions  of  members  attendance,  academically,  normal  students  during  involved  preparation  post-  faculty  and  not  to  them.  class  asking  notes  to  I  year  about  that  homework,  classroom  four-year a l l  actively  evaluation  comprise  role  consistent  class  to  foreign  meetings  lesson,  during  reviewing  in  as  handing  ( i . e . ,  regularly  noted  the  be  (C.I.C.)  from  expectations  student  being  during  to  College  challenges  might  around  things  answers,  student  s t r i v i n g and  for  Study  greatest  adjust  frequently such  the  International  which  areas  were  time  the  roles  problem  discussions  of  students  student  college  Canadian  one  helping  secondary  at  at  of  i n  the  they  are  s t i l l  adjustment  (and  especially  a  acceptance  in  quite  a  these  for  role  in  shocking, f i r s t  to  in  2 semester) It  at  was  C . I . C .  my  intention  about  how  C . I . C .  role,  and  the  expectations ten  aspects  attention,  students  of  their  regularly  reviewing  s t r i v i n g  to  do  exams).  Such  Japanese  students  post-secondary  student  non-Japanese  in  international send  were  of  who  have  students  are  between  even  a  Japan  few  who  before  C . I . C .  Two-  i n s t i t u t i o n  although  and  has  18  there  coming two  during  or  any  active exams,  exams,  importance program  of in  which  expectations  student  Japanese  Japanese  with  from  and are  two-  20 some  attended to  Four-Year  College  graduated  have  for  for  to  paying  answers,  American  to  the  respect  homework  the  International  International  students  C . I . C ,  and  exchanges,  students,  university  of  or  even  programs  abroad.  The  residential  as  catering  Canadian  Canadian  and  more  student  lateness,  studying  North  such  components  students  and  helpful  meeting  colleges  values  copying  best,  be  role  their  learn  their  volunteering  notes  personal  to  perceived  attendance, and  would  study,  p a r t i c u l a r l y with  homework,  class  study  in  which  in  one's a  role:  questions  handing  this  between  teachers,  student  asking  in  actually  relationship of  involvement,  then,  a  is and  high  years  a  College Programs post-secondary  four-year  programs  school  Japan.  old  students  when who  post-secondary  in  they are  for Most  enter  older,  and  i n s t i t u t i o n  in  Vancouver.  In  C . I . C .  campuses,  Nelson  and  North  3 the  year  year the  of  that the  Nelson  year had  during  campus  in  the  campus,  a  like  entire  for  student  the  year,  with  the  might  different a  or  l i f e ) .  often  for  special  with  than f i r s t  that  in  year)  counsellor grading  their  w i l l  principles  communication,  faculty  1995).  on  of in  medical every  the  feels in  or  and  students to  of  that is  act  a  communication  in  which  problems, for them  problems because  (Watts,  an  and  the  and  see  so  as  For  their  much  ( p a r t i c u l a r l y  expectations  practices."  as  weeks  event  also  E x p e r i e n t i a l  legal  may  Japan  room".  l i f e  two  also  as  l i f e  campus  Nelson  students,  known  acts  college as  T - l  same  is  the  community  "home  the  conducted  E x p e r i e n t i a l  with  a  who  advisor  " . . . c l a r i f y and  in  system  colleges,  T - l ' s  and  two-  program  the  F - l  advisors  C . I . C .  Canadian  who  meet  appointments  the  of  such  faculty  educational  need  areas  the  was  advisor  interaction,  circumstances.  post-secondary  teacher,  Students  special  stay  of  four-year  but  f i r s t  attended  study  class  for  their  this  classes  equivalent  problem  community  interviews  Studies,  faculty  students  joined  a l l  in  students)  the  years,  awareness  same  The  l i f e s t y l e s , academic  for  students  the  have  Although  F - l ' s  college  advisor". a l l  f i r s t - y e a r  three  that  together  f i r s t  class  "faculty hub  year  E x p e r i e n t i a l  functions  Studies  for  students  ( i . e . , " F - l "  with  c r o s s - c u l t u r a l  practica.  conducted,  " T - l " ' s ) .  existence f i r s t  was  program  along  (i.e,  blending  Studies,  study  four-year  program been  the  this  more or the  different in  academic p o l i c i e s ,  personal  their  4 Second-, Vancouver with  third-  campus  separate  general,  the  rigorous, In  f i r s t  when  Most  classes  are  in  a  r a d i c a l l y  in  a  Japanese  Japanese  C . I . C . teach  There  style  generally  lecture  by  around are,  function  more  give  classes  in  Japan  orientation  Japanese  from  more in  closely  Japan.  to  The  the  a  course,  Nelson  education  classes  are  cases  Japanese  taught  style  large,  that  to  and  expect  teacher  evaluation, class  whereas  larger. just  and sizes  classes  Teachers as  often  at  w i l l  situations,  generally  and at  model.  campus.  would  example,  are  some  proficiency.  learning  lecturing  serious,  instructors  and  but  active  notable  of  students  much  In  English,  students)  in  more  with  level  For  notes  students.  their  respect  them  two  in  requirements  resources.  along  the  with  and  of  Canadian  what  usually  cross-cultural staff  by  (15-20  conducted,  be  classes  higher  class  teacher's  however,  a  the  program.  most  taught  are  placing  the  spend  from  small  u n i v e r s i t i e s  to  two-year  English  and  post-secondary  structured  in  was  fourth-year  English  reach  academic  p r i o r i t i e s  are  the  attended  study  perceived  classes  post-secondary  students  classes  area  students  roles,  and  is  intensive  taught  sometimes  whereas  second-  than  students  this  students  different  student  in  in  that  program  content  p a r t i c u l a r l y  C . I . C .  for  year,  time  into  at  year  prestigious  instructional  educational  the  four-year  their  roles,  fourth-year  classes  and  departure  in  and  by  This  notes. C . I . C .  Students one  of  class  students  information  where  is  take  a  the conforms  would  expect  delivered  in  a  5 lecture rather and  format, than  there  Students  students  being  asked  is  l i t t l e  also  take  Broadcasting  are to  a  given  Japanese  method  is  (N.H.K.) similar  students  r e c r u i t s  see  students  C . I . C .  as  a  unprestigious  Japanese  Japanese  secondary  system  post  of  entrance  prestigious d i f f i c u l t  prestigious reach, a  few  and  wanting of  so  are  to  or  Canadian  fact,  these  seeking which  out  meet  of  their  have  clear  taught  from  a l t e r n a t i v e  to  some  colleges screen  or  the  offer  attempt  before  to  applied  English  s k i l l s  or  to  build  Teachers  at  the  category  expectations  students  exceed  often  opportunities learning  i n  the  the  have of  objectives.  to  a  the  most  academic  to  exams  for  C . I . C .  C . I . C . their  level  highly  problem  student  and  a  college  are  teachers'  classroom  by  written  come  seldom  r e l a t i v e l y  most  their  have  they  Many  enter  to  and  class.  most  choose  goals,  Japan  u n i v e r s i t i e s .  the  w i t h i n  r e c r u i t s  l a t t e r  a  The  students  p r i n c i p l e ,  i n s t i t u t i o n  this  by  Japan.  who  in  work  class.  Japan.  post-secondary  their  to  of  understanding.  students  group  C . I . C .  a l l  generally  students  no  answer  c r o s s - c u l t u r a l  t h e o r e t i c a l l y  C . I . C . ' s  an  areas  in  u n i v e r s i t i e s  also  refine  that  motivated,  andd  Students  few  i n t e r n a t i o n a l  observe  to  a  the  i n s t i t u t i o n s  exams,  is  class  teacher  at  give  class  post-secondary  post-secondary  colleges  There  v i a b l e  i n s t i t u t i o n s ,  exams.  from  to  from  to  there  language  Students C . I . C .  upon  volunteer,  homework  Corporation  i n s t r u c t i o n a l  c a l l e d  adapting  role.  In  expectations the  community  by  6 Statement Exchange programs, students  and but  education foreign  programs,  can  culture,  i n s t i t u t i o n , a  cultures  involve  single  the  cooperative  international the  of  which  situations  students  or,  as  in  culture  to  meet  from  the  university  colleges  from  of  teachers  and  deal  not  they  come.  such  many  case  Problem  as  a  only  C . I . C ,  with  International  teacher  cultures  mostly  college  going  gathering  students from  a  to  in  a  one  coming  from  foreign  culture. It  is  not  educational some  clash  culture in  For  those  any  previous I  or  do  as  had  pay  their  meet  myself  teaching  universal  regularly,  that  about who  attention  homework)  from  what  student  is  Japan,  this  my  students,  students  I  be  later  and  do.  without was  I  thought  attend  active  learned  be  should  clash  which  to  would  C . I . C .  should  open  one  there  in  class,  which  another  at  that  in  but  of  a  from  teaching  experience  example  students  began  expectations  (for  when  teachers  perception  such  dramatic. were  surprising  class  learning,  were  c u l t u r a l l y  based. In  my  from  a  copy  from  f i r s t  f i n a l  see  gave  the  "Surely  exam  for  another  disregarded exam,  semester  my him  college this  student  zero,  on  not  an  I  and  and  be  scheduled I  had  I I  in  remove  an  a  warned  removed  him  him him  later  Japanese  a  student  attempting  appointment  confronted  allowed  to  persistently  exam.  Eventually,  president.  would  C . I . C .  blatantly  warning. a  at  but  he  from  the  for  him  by  to  to  saying,  college,  would  7 it?"  but  he  genuinely from  replied,  expected  another  to  I  The  and  had  of in  at  student  bit  surprised  did  not  attend  more  remember  asking  be  weeks  of  and  look  faculty  at  at  each  process  school  year  stated  the  different  I  in  he  copied  taught  is  in  situations  (Bohnaker,  had  same  were  problem.  a  similar  1990;  talk  in  more  into only  interviews.  The  to  f i r s t  in  A  they  with  but  student  better helped  to  and  even  arrive As  at  a  adjustment into  two  from was  f i r s t  students  Japanese  their  can  their  greatly  Two m o n t h s  interviews  or  motivating  adjusting.  about  in  homework,  their  has  before  problem  i n  had  colleges  sleep  disbelief.  between  us  teachers  have  d i f f i c u l t y  students  c r o s s - c u l t u r a l  was  of  or  to  turn  Many  years  expectations have  went to  other  Many  groups,  shocked  recent  consecutive  perspectives.  forgot  differences  to  who  challenge  move  noticed  u n i v e r s i t i e s ,  learners.  C . I . C ,  s t i l l  individual I  to  other  about  students  in  had  behavior  have  report  students  "active"  classes  advisor,  problems  his  campus  Another  post-secondary  but  for  he  while  Nelson  schools, by  students  students  Canadian  way  who  student  regularly,  to  educate  my  that  public  students  C . I . C .  institutions  role  Canadian  orientation  other  teachers  C . I . C . ' s  habits.  gasp  the  Apparently  explanation  with  study  few  look  foreign  a  poor  case".  1990).  teachers  were  class,  some  by  One  experienced  Schoolland,  taught  to  post-secondary  what  aspects  me  student.  cross-cultural; Japanese  "Case  the  1994-95  students  who  fascinatingly a  twenty-four  8 year  old  that  he  college was  homework. lower free he  having As  level time.  was  home  a  graduate  a  to  He  spend  student  Japanese  expected  the  workload  contrast,  the  other  graduate)  chose  to  he  learn Now  time  he  less  serious  spent  residence. between should being  doing  students  as  a  i f  of  and  within  were  student  Canadianized) expectations  both  was  was  not  a  few  a  rigorous  was  (or,  a  of  to  do  so.  perceptions  (outlined  in  international  more  of  these  d e t a i l  colleges  in  such  students  thought  Chapter  two  a  of  as  C . I . C .  may  the  the  struggle  sets  of that  too  that  student  perhaps  too  l i t e r a t u r e  indicates be  of  student  complaining  ( i . e . ,  Two)  that  amount  some  of  perhaps,  and  In  that  Japanese). The  at  difference  what  complaining  enough  more  student  manner  was  more  Because  the by  the  these  f i r s t  rigorous  second  some  where  The  with  i d e n t i f i e d  having  a  post-secondary  in  expectations  at  me  school  He  annoyed  and  on  much  thought  enough.  l i t t l e  class  seemed  high  foreign  to  program  weeks  he  shock  here.  and  comfortable  college  the  a  classes  were  too  him  students  clashing.  while were  a  adapt  of  had  true  because  to  was  Canadian  be  serious  went  his  these  and  not  always  18-year-old  Canada  but i n  took  (an  had  did  outside  economics  would  he  expressed  time  he  same  he  He  four-year  it  to  he  studying  Japanese be  but  C . I . C ,  Both  much  person,  were  students  expectations l i f e  more at  a  the  come  universities  college.  so  student  Japanese could  in  Japan.  university,  conscientious  with  from  caught  that between  his  9 different  understandings  of  academic  responsibilities  students  (through  interviews) how  this  how  what  are.  they  perception  chose  perception  to  perceived matched  research  of  their  because  I  was  hard  to  explain.  that  much  had  institutions explained  role  within  behavior  and  happens  when  Japanese  Nor  there  about  their  unexamined opinions point, role of  a  student  upon  do  an  students face  what  they do  Japanese role  the  slower  Japanese  authority when  they  non-Japanese  to  failed  asking  Some  are  of  be  more  removed  authority  I  such the  Canadian than  American how  modify  program. they  felt  remain their  At  perception  of  student  some  aspects  Are  others?  conformity  that  what  students?  one?  concepts  figures?  adequately  questions  as  found  Japanese  students  their  from  in  students  and  l i t e r a t u r e  explain North  doing  change  and  a  do  change  roles  to  enter  cultural  figure)  l i t e r a t u r e  This  should  a  unusual  therein.  following:  to  found  roles  but  students  I  college  post-secondary  students  the  students'  available  expected  and  Area  Canadian  that  C . I . C .  Japanese  and  role.  a  at  about  l i t e r a t u r e  student  ever,  from  effect  any  include  of  i f  colleges  the  asked  expectations.  Japanese  behavior  reading  written  universities  was  Research  student student  role  i n s t i t u t i o n a l this  student  therefore,  student  of  students'  student  of  and  semi-structured  area  Upon  been  and  their  the  role  study,  the  seeing  and  This  questionnaires  Importance I  student  of  their What  Similarly,  amae  have  what  (dependence  upon  mother  what  Japanese  culture  precipitates  and the  10 change? and  Do  the  some  students  i n s t i t u t i o n  aspects  These  of  questions  really  perceive with  respect role  cause  are  ones  that  not  available  research  job  market  colleges  and  universities  f a i l s  cultural  to  affect  examine  phenomenon  Chapter  two,  what  Japanese  the  s t r a t i f i c a t i o n  student in  the  the  Japanese  between student  themselves role?  c o n f l i c t  available  than  Do others?  l i t e r a t u r e  demands  students  in  North at  possible  influence  of  conformity) also  can  Japanese student  of  Three, student  in  Method, role  as  a  1989)  crosssettings.  l i t e r a t u r e  in  of  have  effect  university  universities. Japanese  developed In  prior  addition about  (amae  academic  to  Japanese  l i t e r a t u r e  phenomena of  the  perceptions  to  about  respect  Japanese  American  the  factors,  with  Japan,  institutions.  cultural  in  Leclercq,  system  ease  North  perceptions  this  explores  l i k e l y  American  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  two and  are  the  Chapters  education,  in  of  students  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  education  importantly  North  the  at  of  perceptions  comparative  those  America  discussed  Chapter aspects  versus  figure  matriculation  and  demands  1989;  educational  upon  the  expected  Review,  market  academic  issues  of  of  examinations,  how  American  function  job  is  role  North  post-secondary  entrance  is  more  (Gittelsohn,  Literature  the  these  their  discusses  Outline  These  to  student  Japanese  of  c o n f l i c t  answer.  The  but  any  to to  the  and  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  chapter. provides  chosen  for  a the  rationale  for  questionnaire  the and  ten shows  11 how  both  were of  the  questionnaire  implemented  the  how t h e  were  analysed  responses  that  of  high  student  areas  of  more  the  questionnaires  three  interview  between was  C . I . C .  high,  sections  student  role  Problems  respect between  female,  or  types  male,  one  compliant  (by coding  descriptive  s t a t i s t i c a l  finds  emergent  of  etc.)  group  Behavior  student  of of  the  categories  not  mentioned  aspects  showed  to  some  some  p r o f i l e of  responses)  for  showed  ( i . e .  respect  results  the  ten  An analysis  and t a l l y i n g  post-  students  variables  had an o v e r a l l  students.  compared  by  the  students  with  Student  are  created  to  no  although  and  and Japanese  with  that  three  main  An assessment  data  about  description  and interviews.  compliance.  positive  A  quantitative  of  difference  interview  the  moderate,  role  but  reports  were  older/younger, aspects  from  Differences  level  analysis  and the  test.  interviews  interviews  outlines  s t a t i s t i c s  s t a t i s t i c a l  group  Results,  institutions  differences  also  group  included.  data  from  secondary  a  is  chapter  v i a descriptive  non-parametric  Four,  qualitative  show  This  semi-structured  Chapter  to  C . I . C .  questionnaire  Kruskal-Wallis of  at  and semi-structured  of  being  the  supports  questionnaire. i n  role  It  the also  the  questionnaire. Chapter Chapter  Five  Four  structured applicable.  with  group  is  a  discussion  qualitative interview  The discussion  of  data  comments) of  the ( i n  results the  form  mentioned  results  is  presented of  i n  semi-  where  organized  around  the  12 ten some  aspects new  Canadian  student  aspects  Chapter general  of  Six  issues  which  role  emerged  concludes linked  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  from  to  the  in  the  questionnaire  the  study  settings.  well  as  interviews).  and  matriculation  (as  focuses of  on  Japanese  several students  in  13 CHAPTER  2:  LITERATURE Teachers are  often  North  of  curious  American  several  Japanese  relevant  and  of  the  social  post-secondary of  Japanese  education  Japan, of  one  post  social  roles  obtain  with  Unlike  the  by  Canadian public about desire  the  an  examination  have  a  post-secondary  focus and  and  outlines  Japanese  also  level  Japanese  of  w i l l  which  secondary  chapter  conformity  the  school  job  government,  as  with  the  seen and  Taylor,  same  of  of on  Japanese  amae,  major  the  two  impact  key  on  purposes  level  a  attempt  job  sort  they  comparable,  be  are  Tsukada,  to  more  home  whereas or  enter  viewed  Fararo,  1987;  students  w i l l  be  to  1990).  degrees  from  Japanese within  a  hierarchy  McCormick,  1988;  often  than  not,  one  school  is  Japanese  into  able  Van Wolferen,  as  most  primary  1988;  reputable the  the  (Berman,  to  graduates,  to  to  not  undergraduate  1983;  large  of  (if  where  1988;  another,  is  diploma  private,  closest  S t r a t i f i c a t i o n  education,  system  (Costiniuk,  high  Means primary  of  are  i n s t i t u t i o n  a  on  post-secondary  public  1970;  a  the  means  universities  Nakane,  and  secondary  Canadian  prestige  as  of  their  u n i v e r s i t i e s , of  This  through  chapter  post  education.  purpose)  most  systems.  society  Education In  the  between  intersection  The  Japanese  at  differences  values  l i t e r a t u r e .  elements  students  educational  aspects  education  about  REVIEW  attend  or  prestigious  the  viewed  students,  company  1989).  i f  they  with university  14 possible This  (Matsui  access  (Kemper  is  & Onglatoo,  decided  & Makino,  1992;  through  1993;  Ohta,  Stevenson  university 1986;  & Baker,  entrance  Reischauer,  1992).  exams  1988;  Tasker,  1987). "Buying Many the  level  almost into  the  authors  of  employment  exclusively  which  comments extent  the  that  handful  with of  example,  the  use  university  and  getting  the  years,  prestige  has  remained  ago,  Nakane  the  "Going  sorting  to  accepted  a as  prime  (1988,  acceptance  by  the  whole  public  a  a  p.  of  and  a  The as  The  the  has  (1987,  p.37)  to  taken  a  it  tapping at  "buying  entering  is  university  Students or  that  attain  occur  business  job"  between fact  varying to  a  an  mere  C . I . C ,  a  a  employment of  social  summarized, education  more  by  s p e c i f i c a l l y  comments  most  day  Fararo may  comment  good  for  job"  prestigious  job.  prerequisite 176)  such  big  one of  Japan  between  central  prestigious  l i f e . " ones,  link  p . I l l )  university, the  good  function  Reischauer  one's  a  name  e l i t i s m say  review  may  recruits."  "buying  the  (1970,  the  and  relationship  Over  by  reformers  idiom  this  student  academic  for  in  entrance.  government  the  this  a  gains  universities  describe  Japan.  that  "...while the  Job"  surveyed  determined  student  worldwide,  extreme,  to  of  a  for  university  than  good  is  seen  25  years  out  that is  mobility."  as  or determining  universities of  in  university,  "Rejection  prestigious University  a  university  mobility  pointing  upward  that  and  Tokyo  (at  are the  often very  15 top  of  the  private a  l i s t  they  w i l l  (1992)  of  that  service  most The  managed  is  level  Japanese  course,  this  Tokyo  cult,  or  u n i v e r s i t i e s ,  the  that  the  a  education  often  from  which  Stevenson  departments  of  the  departments  student for  a  who  top  potential  in  many  be  top  Shoko nerve  graduate  helps  explain  functions  as  a  gas  level  thinkers to  top  Takayama  of  1995's  from  a  and  members  March  has  ranking  to  Strasser,  recruited  assumption  than  1642).  for  best  and  certain  Itoy,  blamed were  not  this  post-secondary  with  noting  subway,  Whether  e l i t e  of  that  ones  Baker  (p.  1988).  idea,  Aum S h i n r i k y o the  and  fees  Companies  only  examination  thinker  (McCormick,  the  jobs.  is  t u i t i o n  1994).  graduates  entrance  on  for  universities"  the  u n i v e r s i t i e s . best  recruit  pass  lower  being  companies  to  Asahara's  the  students  of  question  attacks  as  assumption,  a  have  (Greenlees,  "Major  only  employee  (1995)  do  prestigious  university level  usually  universities  interview  claim  c i v i l  and  universities  have  the  scale),  from how  social  s t r a t i f i e r . Is  this  Changing?  Employment that  there  was  "loosening-up" (Y.  Oshima,  Sony,  a  repute,  counsellors a  turning  personal  last  university  p o s s i b i l i t y  and  Japanese year  at  graduated  that  away  not from  from  the  the  reporting  last  companies  were  system  1994).  corporation  require on  began  Japanese  communication,  electronics did  C . I . C .  of  applicants application  They  outlined  year  above  confirmed  that  international to  l i s t  form.  the They  stated  16 that  students  college  just  hierarchy, and  jobs The  have  effects  trend, in  on  (personal Marwick  the  Japan as  who  yet  begun  working that  an  time  in  as  Head  of  Sony  does  not  name  of as  least.  applicant.  being  somewhat  Sony,  in  explains  slots  i n s t i t u t i o n  that  phenomenon frame  higher  might  of  system  employment  students  has  no  system  the  (as  in  Japanese  way has  of  were  the  might  of  or  be  of  require me  the  that  eccentric,  should  not  is  be  in taken  capture of  C . I . C . )  as  to  their  and f i t  C . I . C .  the into  comparatively  i n s t i t u t i o n a l i t ,  to  history  trying  such  C . I . C .  evaluating  evaluated  now  or  working  Investment  managing  case  colleges  framework  and  years  society."  the  Because  five  reminded  words,  prestige  managers  reference.  t r a d i t i o n a l  Mark's  how than  also  Pete,  last  Tokyo  avant-garde  Japanese  warrant  foreign  Mr.  He  of  personnel  of  that  the  bell-weather  also  the  confirms  in  point  Mark  with  the  do  this  profound  Russell  accountant  spent  examine  Japan  have  in  Section  interviews  to  in  may  future.  Japan  educational  gain  Embassy  interview  the  not  the  1994),  new  merit.  practices in  to  Canadian  at  Japanese  has  able  f a i r l y  the  Office  Mark  within  personal  mobility  Associates,  been  on  a  Columbia  "...the  their  year  place  executives  employment  viewed  comments  although  its  of  B r i t i s h  university is  their  members  the  Promotion  Sony  this  communication,  and  find  l i t e r a t u r e  social  establishing for  on  though  to  u n t i l  available  changes  C . I . C ,  beginning  largely  possible to  from  as  applicants  ranking,  yet. from  new the  Hence, C . I . C .  on  17 their the  individual  post-secondary With  to  merit  rank  the  has  reflects  not  the  use  its  of  changed  basic,  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  of  changes  university much:  on  the  many  market as  a  drive  social  secondary c r i t i c a l be  ways,  done  or  s t r a t i f i e r .  system  (Gillesohn, difference  the  between  of,  for  the  Industry the of  the  while  company, does  people  company's in  go  not  there  may  of  l i t e r a t u r e  agent  s t i l l  Japan.  of  of  the  Japanese  post-secondary drive  They  assume  the  university  This  is  North  "They  the  wish  to  four  years  they  education,  r e c r u i t e d . " . student  student at  education,  their as  often  systems.  [companies]  study  that  large  American  from  post-  very  another  higher  higher be  w i l l  job  education  the  at  must  while  however,  s t r a t i f y i n g  job  in  what  how  post-secondary  graduate  diminish  knowledge  i n  irrelevant  and in  of  toward  writes,  believe  decide  the  and  they  to  for  1989).  largely  interest  university  subject-centered  when  a  available  though.  attitude  90-91)  [students]  often  bright  p.  as  employers  than  Japanese  business's  (1991,  them  the  role  employee  Leclercq,  name  i n s t i t u t i o n s ,  demands  way,  rather  the  Training  Potential  the  company  the  the  another  of  1989;  Regarding  train  in  t r a i n i n g by  Stephens  perpetuate  to  trying  name  employment  therefore,  in  impact  Company-Based In  opposed  Japanese  h i s t o r i c a l  prestige  as  alone.  post-secondary  society's  probably  maturity  i n s t i t u t i o n  exception  foreign  Japanese  and  see but  thinks  The  lack  managed  motivation  u n i v e r s i t y - - a n  i t . . .  to  learn  to  acquire  idea  which  18 w i l l  be  discussed  When hired  Japanese  by  company  a  f i r s t  hired  university etc.)  may  comments  kind  of  society In  school the  in  for  used  such  between  a  are  they  should  system,  job  to  the  more  subject  matter  in  have  highlights educational  noted some  of  values  new  of  when  have  learned  me  they  that  are  at  (1986,  p.30)  important  questions  part  to  economics,  Ohta  the  intensive  occupy  report  most  are  recruited  f i l l  jobs.  what  middle  into  one  the  can  they  school most  of  w i l l  what  take  possible North  Hell  the the  This  to  in  of  a  arrive  to  difference systems,  Stephens,  clash  teachers  at  of  attention  key  1986;  is  high  result  education  American  students. Exam  how  Ohta,  sources  there  promising  than  American  1989;  on  u n i v e r s i t y  see  important  North  between  w i l l  strategies,  classrooms.  (Leclercq, the  w i l l  prestigious  1993),  and  newly  frequently  "...the  from  become  Japanese  period  and  l i v e . "  can  the  they  shelved:  entry  most  (Nozaki,  jobs  become,  where  for  other  students  system,  a  with  they  their  and  examinations learning  in  w i l l  lead  what  undergo  business  they  to  u n i v e r s i t y  What  persons  a  from  position  youngsters  how  graduate  students  English,  competition  best  others  company.  that  such  intense  by  be  chapter.  learn  C . I . C .  (e.g.,  this  orientation  what  a  in  commonly  know  never  questions  they  they  1989).  not  later  students  and  before  (Leclercq, do  depth  company,  training  employees  they  in  as 1991),  in and  Japanese  19 The  screening  of  entrance  of  a l l o c a t i o n  most he  exams  c r u c i a l  takes  future be  at  the  plays  central  work  a  as  in  he  flashed  age  of  entrance  roles. the  u n i v e r s i t y  if,  l i f e  for  moment  his  surprising  to  process  of  entrance  sat  down  before  f o r t y . . .  role  Tasker  l i f e  to  i n  universities  the  (1987)  a  writes  papers,  be  the  more  It  kind  or  whole  of  less  "The  comes would  the  use  system  that  male  examination. his  by  Japanese  Japanese  him...and w i l l  into  when not  of  person  be his  he  w i l l  determined"  (p.  81) . The  intensity  surrounding North  these  Americans  v i s i t e d  Japan  renowned  The  was  looking  for  the  family  cramming again  years  is  not  universities high"  and  volley  far  well from  was  Year's, wife  the  stress  experience  to  the  normally me  a  that  father  his  son  would  "I  father,  told  have  was  "and  exams."  (K.  students,  as  I  s t i l l  Goto,  a  son,  who  preparing The  that  a  whole they  possibly been  of  I  happy  their  me  most  While  home  examinations.  The  of  comprehend.  depressed,  university.  entrance  to  told  entrance  the  the  invited  deeply  that  as  were  never  use  surgeon  for  have  personal  1993) uncommon  and  f a i l  and  cram.  said  my  I  his  as  d i f f i c u l t  New  of  grammar  now,"  about  ago,  and  him  so  very  for  entered  communication, It  be  anxious  helping  he  are  years  doctor  English  nightmares  to  surgeon  very  after  twenty  as  February was  preparation  exams  two  brain  occasion.  of  attempt  the  exams  for to the  write f i r s t  they  entrance time.  apply  exams, They  to  may,  to "shoot in  fact,  too  20 write  exams  for  consecutive university Much  has  exams  with  Juku  Mama"  who  to  now  F e i l e r ,  the  pass  as  different actually  the  used  to  education  entrance  (Baker & 1983;  character  and/or  White,  that  are  the  and  depth  of  can  begin  as  Mama, coerces  race  1991).  of  competition  Kyoikyu  the  the  (Feiler,  system  this  build  nags,  much in  in  Japan  happens the  into  or  "Education  her  c h i l d r e n  (Christopher,  One  of  the  and  North  the  student  most  American passes  documented  North Very  1983;  university  is  (Kemper  1983;  in  the  North  significant  America,  university,  is  is  a  what  w i l l  be  Land differences  the  examinations.  entrance  the  l i t e r a t u r e ,  read  expected & Makino, 1993).  about of  it  in  between  l i e s  Tsuda,  so  which  universities  in  i n s t i t u t i o n  section.  A m e r i c a n s who l i t t l e  post-secondary  than  within  next  a  Leisure  Taylor,  of  of  competition  cram-school  and  drags,  entrance  process  addressed  to  prestige exam  three  1991).  Just  freely  the the  or  Christopher,  spin-off's  Japanese  two  extreme  1987;  school)  encourages, in  to  after-school  elementary  succeed  match  for  educational  Beauchamp,  an  to  the  the  h i s t o r i c a l l y  but  as  about  interesting  (once,  early  a b i l i t y  drives  1992;  Two  thought  their  it  institutions  attempting  written  how  Stevenson, 1987).  years,  been  and  different  although for  students  1993;  what  the once  Nozaki,  Berwick  and  is  expected This  is  somewhat f i r s t they  1993;  Ross  Japanese once  very shocking  time. enter  Tasker,  (1989,  p.  the 1987; 206)  21 state  that  very  "Once  l i t t l e  appears  in  survivor  with  his  for  spent  take  drive  their  expects p.28),  work  to  sports,  the  and  and  of the  requirements,  recreational  the  post  the  student  student  on  during  his  this,  the  actual  among  the  least  a  career  than  examinations  students  after  learns  p.197)  graduate  of  is  exam-worn  (1988,  for  the  have  time  entrance  exams.  motivated  a  as  Japanese  1988,  pursuits,  today  than  of  to  students jobs,  academic  the  which  also  (1993,  college,  he  or  are  writes  largely  clubs,  that  "...given  inclinations,  to  she  Further  formal  seem  from  Nozaki  p.199).  p.324)  suspension  rather  to  part-time  (1993,  universities  i t s e l f ,  University  personal  general  disengage  According  enters  Tsuda  to  structure  (Reischauer,  centers  what  there  university."  performance  light  encouraged  a c t i v i t i e s  such  at  influence  the  students.  view,  for  so  timid,  p a r t i c u l a r l y  graduate."  such  this  be  over,  seriously.  student  to  hobbies  precedence  interests  a  to  of  purpose  less  university  its  kind  that  years)  further  the  of  pursue  reflecting  has  study,  seem  work  is  sure  clear  In  to  a  Reischauer  government."  by  "...once  or  too  are  motivation,  l i t t l e  1991).  (sometimes  l i t t l e  usually  care  and  course  of  as  examinations  them  student  kind  academic  days  themselves  academic  free  or  studying  The  a l l  university  to  Students  to  (Stephens, is  examinations  classrooms  seem  "It  business  this  apparent  entrance  l i t t l e  is  no  also  that  student's do  sustain  university  writes  university  freshman  Employers, in  to  the  academic  have  and work  become  institutions."  One  22 idiom  used  to  (Gittlesohn, Although of  describe 1989,  p.45;  some  writers  university  document able  to  degree  being  cases hold  in  for  full-time For  him  a  large  clubs  are  involving balance  a  require  members.  Some  Conversation  main  role  of  and  two  others years  completing says  years  it  were  their  was  not  students  to  kind  academic  of  l i f e .  university that  student Ogino  (personal  graduate  about  10%  club  and of  these  clubs--usually  sports-related  d i s c i p l i n e  commitment--while  on  an  upcoming  job  clubs  and  but  l i t t l e  area  L i t e r a t u r e  of  which  but  is  work  1994).  estimates  focus  university  to  two  1988),  fourth-year  some  Japanese  f i r s t  f i n a l  instance,  commitment  French an  for  their  of  time  clubs  for  addition  students,  C . I . C ,  level a  or  preparation  a  the  their  communication,  of  of  in  training"  high  mention  in  Land"  p.28).  students  third-  at  1993,  "Leisure  (Reischauer,  to  hire  is  slackest  Mark,  1995),  "hard  make  1983).  part  liason  phenomenon  Nozaki,  jobs  university  communication, cultural  time  (personal  many  becomes  the  which  f u l l  (Taylor,  unusual  this  study might  Ogino  to  hard  meet  work  such be  seen  suggests the  as  and  from  the  English as  that  students'  the  the social  needs. Clearly, most  students  1993). (1993, in  academic  A  at  Japanese  Japanese  p.31),  studying  is  student,  interested  regards  not  the  universities  university  " . . . i s  and  learning  college  chief  (Kemper  p r i o r i t y and  according  in  receiving  as  a  place  to  a  Makino,  to  Nozaki  diploma get  of  a  but  not  23 q u a l i f i c a t i o n North  ( i . e . ,  American  degree),  teachers  students  must  homework  (Christopher,  talking 1990) More  during  may  not  the  end  Some between  place  the  to  and  exams  to  in  necessary  Japanese  concludes  in  that  university Japan" it  (p. is  and  students  not  (Schooland,  and  clash  completing  1993)  exams  them  learning."  university  (Tsuda,  on  possible  the  of  their  students.  values  between  w i l l  be  presented  helps  to  of  important  as  that  "...the  individuals  (1983,  simply  Whether  entrance  p.  being  92, a  not  they  their  Japanese  students'  behavior  North  American  standards  alone  North  and  as  not  dismiss  the to them  one's Tsuda and  to as  rest,  do a  and  Tsuda  (1993)  "holiday",  social  American  understand so  it  useless and  letdown  time  free  97).  psychological or  only  are  duty,  into  1983).  describes  "temporary  maintain  psychological  (Taylor,  Christopher  army  "Instead  306).  where  it  U.S.  and  important  university  while  likens  four-year  university  society  anything"  recreation"  or  classes  between  the  and  describes  and  a  for  chapter.  entrance  324)  college  cheating  Japanese  that  is  place  studying,  values  argue  p.  agree,  not  relevant  a  attending  1983),  shared  teachers  "liberation"  in  that  or  as  Japanese  writers  v i r t u a l l y  the  be  of  occupation (1993,  aware  class,  discussion  non-Japanese at  be  of  not  health  teachers  background measure as  them  being  to by  merely  lazy. Conformity One  often-examined  area  of  difference  between  Japanese  and  24 North the  American  issue  of  societies  i n d i v i d u a l i t y  Japanese  society  the  that  n a i l  Nozaki, that might  is  question  tolerance, value p.  in  471)  both  it  comments  "Japan's  in  authors  that  argue  or  in  as  opinion  for  roots  the  or  adhering (Wray, conform school  showing  to  one's  1991). well system  volunteer  when who  he  o r i g i n a l  instructors.  Among  describes students  answers--are  to  the  classmates,  fostered (1991,  viewed  in  aspects  of  excellence  explains to  that  the Numerous  tends  to  suppress  reasoning  volunteering (Young,  1993),  w i l l  the  the  of  i n i t i a t e of  however,  the  or an or  group  pressure  within  delight  for  Wray  and  366)  system  the  one  necessarily  spontaneous  against  a  was  exceptional."  1989),  model  not  catering  i n i t i a t i v e  to  a  Even  not p.  school  " . . . w i l l i n g  their  are  concludes  system.  c r e a t i v i t y  the  as  (1993)  refers  are  school  is  1993;  Although  is  individualism  (VanWolferen,  Anderson  example,  of  that  (Anderson,  society  against  Japanese  individual  down  is  students  proverb  standouts."  (1986-7,  argue  p r i n c i p l e s  Japanese  for  systems  Many  selfishness."  encouraging  oneself  its  applaud  Ohanian  school  individualism  i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c behaviors  thinking  for  o r i g i n a l i t y , might  Japan.  that  92),  American  that  Japan  as  against  p.  place  North  the  pounded  " I n i t i a l l y ,  and  such  be  their  conformity.  with  (1983,  society  Confucian  individual,  w i l l  apparent  Americans  encouraged  versus  dangerous  China  North  up  whether is  individualism,  such  a  hence,  familiar  Taylor  Japanese  modern  which  are  sticks  1993).  "Japan  and,  to  Japanese  discussion  and  Western they  are  often  25 regarded  as  Obara schools  group  (1993,  to  explains  social  make  it  over  in  for  deep  to  root  does be  the  not  of  argue  learning  to  grasp by  Doi  (1988,  was,  that  p.106)  Japanese  teamwork It  understand  some,  must  be  cautions  and  may  this  While  excellence  (1993,  of  society.  among  amae  of  stated  be  to  us  his/her  the  large  and  such  as  recognized  that peers  and  be  foreign  reminds  and  teachers a  student  in  order  to  or  57)  leading  described  another  fashioned  the  Sometimes childishness,  believed  way,  Japanese viewed  amae  relationship.  of  basic  be  that  concept"  loved  care  amae of  or  of  thousand  Western  the  of  (1988,  to world  (1981).  White  amae  being  "...the  as  of  the  Japanese  society  as  or,  urge  y e a r s . . . "  eyes  Western  expression  emotional  manifests  Westerners  unconditionally".  Japanese  for  Reischauer  the  was  basic  i n i t i a l l y  for  Dependence  "...the two  for  d e f i n i t i o n  taken  through  one  a r t i c u l a t e d  passively to  Dependence  d i f f i c u l t  Anatomy  Doi's  dependent, p.  a  best  The  be  Sweet  is  perhaps,  22)  wish  child  to  conspicuous  p.  ideology...  in  be  book,  (1981,  value  and  his  desire  Doi  the  of  "de-individualization"  ethnocentrism"  in  "...the to  as  tendency  effectively.  concept  and  this  conformity.  Amae: The  of  teachers  Anderson  have  to  mindedness  idea  "Western  103).  conform  context  Western  (1991),  (p.  refers  students  the  celebrated, against  p.69)  individual  d i f f i c u l t  Tonegawa  misfits"  that  (p.  has  82-3).  co-dependance  i t s e l f  in  the  p.144)  describes  or  mother-  amae  in  26 this  relationship  understanding of  as  relationships as  the  Amae  creates  a  authority  figure  to  the of  is  the  Japanese  goal  company,  a  authority  this  teacher, Amae  school p.83) mama  toward  exam  that,  when  student  results  for a  rearranging  an  appointment  might  student the  (1992, that  is  group  of  of  describes  "Teachers  and bosses  and a  course,  seen  is  or  a  the  concern  looking  who d i d n o t student the  teacher  of a  the  (or  i n  well  benevolence  be  form  of  scaling or his/her  indulging amae)  the  from  described  return. when  the  other  who s k i p p e d  might  loyalty  relationship  Japanese  study,  teacher  the (1983,  on a n exam,  self-indulgence  student's  offer  of  ultimately  late,  as  into  Christopher  boundless  for a  relationship  superior."  extends  society.  homework  Such  this  dependent  i t  System  students  his/her  the  for a  students  be  perspective.  that  homework  time  possibly  states  almost  copying  gives  relationship,  permissiveness  for his  interview  and worthy p.22)  the  the  p.411),  of  of  of  (1991,  School  the  Accepting  and t o l e r a t i n g  Japanese  "sweet"  "Like  schoolteacher  a  parts  her babies,  j u j i t s u . "  the  expectation,  subordinate  benefactor,  concept,  and other  comments  social way  psycho-social  system  Japanese  i n  acceptance  Wray  search a  of  other  tolerance  figure.  two-way  " . . . t o  the  to  an  two way  extends  while  expectation  but also  society.  discussion  This  mother  out  h i s  a  which  the  " . . . a n  spreads  in  with  from  self-indulgence  loyalty  forming  then  i n  subordinate's his/her  child  indulgence  her a u t h o r i t y . . . "  however,  the  he  and care  Kato writes  to  their  as  27 students  and  subordinates  possible  not  only  to  take  w i l l  part  be  in  Although completely  amae.  of  a  or  as  importance referring player, for,  to  amae the  writes  to  is  his  p.  the  in  a  by  assignments  with  of  C . I . C . ' s  frequently responded  and by  that  that that  he  love  and  so  a  such  forth,  in  l i e  works  relationsip,  23-4)  of  who,  famous  fired  human  which  however,  through  and  success  aspects  i l l u s t r a t i o n  Oh,  was  this  positive  before  is  of  understand  This,  (1988,  it  institutions  "Man n e e d s  An  Sadaharu  to  the  and  weaknesses..."  of  amae  college  so  many  Japanese  my  as  that  the  in  baseball  being  to  or  cared  work  hard  "...the  Japan  is  a  c r u c i a l  day  when  idea  in of  is I  not was  turning  hastily  turned  teacher-student  C . I . C .  counsellors  the  the  students  notes  unabashedly  explaining  upon  On a  of  apology  is  such  l i t e r a t u r e .  exasperated  one  of  is  chapter.  argue  p r i n c i p l e  It  22).  effect  available  the  White  entire Examples  Westerners  says  by  nurtured  one."  relationship  given  "Oh s a y s  between  the  of  interdependance.  relationship  What  1983).  justice."  of  obedience."  for  acceptance,  values  that  overcome  (1988,  33)  than  memoirs  and  for  for  also  authors  p.  dimension  indulged,  enough  few  depth,  before  of  a  (1988,  Western  independance  section  d i f f i c u l t  warmth,  the  last  accept,  different  against  is  but  (Christopher,  the  Mizuno  elements in  it  exchange  teachers  amae  in  given  for  in  written  why late  amae  my  made  in  late  on  them,  students  me  in  p a r t i c u l a r l y  homework. to  clear  and  I  asked  so She  concluded  28 that  when  meant,  my  students  "Marni  (Muratake,  w i l l  do  personal  consistantly  this  between  students  not  discusses  and,  such  "Marni things  is as  communication,  p r i n c i p l e  i n s t i t u t i o n is  said,  might  Canadian  something indeed,  sweet," accept  1992). be  at  teachers  that  forms  the  the  my  work  of  late."  how  in  a  their  available  r e a l l y  homework  Just  and  basis  they  non-Japanese  Japanese  l i t e r a t u r e  the  basis  of  this  study. Foreign In have  the  body  reviewed  what  to  One  colleges  and  last  years  not  ten the  come  to  case. this  they  is  one  happens would  that In  Meeting  l i t e r a t u r e  its  between  encounter  that  I  conspicuously  void  of  students  the  when  explosion  to  Japanese  should  be  much  is  perhaps  that  Western each  is  education  geared  absence,  l i t e r a t u r e  which  with  Students  Japanese  Japanese  think,  there  Japanese  about  area  to  universities  expectations when  of  there  analysis: study?  Teachers  which  teachers  other  in  of  and  Japanese  but  closest  describes  go  abroad  foreign  students  written  the  they  in this  that  the  Japanese  the is  one  clash  can  in  students  post-secondary  i n s t i t u t i o n s . Becker running study and  (1990),  outlines  cooperative  focuses  North  programs  mostly  American  the  on  the  systems  information  as  the  arrangement  of  classroom  issue  with  involved  Japanese  differences ranging  differences  from  between  furniture  to  in  u n i v e r s i t i e s .  between such school  such  teaching  the  or The  Japanese  mundane calendar  important  years  or  29 information  about  volunteering  answers,  underpinnings important Japanese "The  student  for  these  section  at  students  Japanese  or  ryuugaku  (study  guise  studenthood)"  of  international Japanese  may  find  those  who  r e a l l y  those  who  just  and (p.  an  an  his  a  443).  philosophical also  insight  d i s t i n c t i o n  (playing  programs  students  international  in  this  whose  that  under  the  means  that  clients  their  less  an  between  abroad  are  classes:  education  experience--the  has  discusses  the  Presumably,  exchange of  that  offers  clever  the  (1990)  paper  He  questions,  and  Becker  yuugaku  kinds  want  of  asking  opinions  abroad.  and  two  want  end  makes  abroad)  schools  not  behaviors.  go  language  as  stating  the  who  role  experience  academic  and  the  better. Schooland Japanese who  play  u n i v e r s i t y rather  professor, most  study  summarizes  do  which  drove  to  cheated sheets  on or  Students  teach.  They  exams  by  w r i t i n g  blatantly, i t . "  i n s t i t u i o n a l  He  were  the  amae  even  operating  absent  from  each and  they that  states  a  non-Japanese  he  found  after  games his  did  of  "Even  week  was They  using these  would to  one  he  papers,  though, that  only  while  a l l  i n i t i a l l y (including  classes.  nothing  a  students  u n i v e r s i t y  others'  alarmed, and  As  quit  played  at  Japanese  things  almost  c e r t a i n  more  the  behaviors  a l l  Japanese  or  desks  " . . . q u i t e was  a  at  not  abroad.  of  to  talked  looking  on  so  at  him  student  that  many  things job).  about  show  teaching  trying  about  that  about  the  very  he  than  writes  jarring  those on  (1990),  find  be a  after  crib things  done kind the  of  30 final  grades  pressure  were  from  anyone"  (p.  students,  12).  assignments times  or  i n one  case,  tests  with  to  different  be  model  of  to  comment  here."  are not  r e a l i t i e s  of  foreigners  need  to  p.  that  three  Japanese  be  he  the  extroardinary  not  to  f a i l  give  test,  110)  refers taking  make-up  up  Bohnaker's (1990) them  to  to  h i s  their  "The n o t i o n  of  be  three  pass.  while  Schooland  and a l l  teaching  to  Although  Japan-bashing,  writings  repeat  them  answers  to  suggested  to  (1990,  seemed  and parents  teachers  allow  trading  the mild  there  students  Bohnaker  openly  out,  faculty,  Fellow  allow  Similarly, students  handed  of  f i f t y  midterm  cheating  book  is  c l e a r l y  and Becker's  a  (1990)  a r e commenting  post-secondary  seems  on  students  the  of  which  aware. Summary  Although students learned Japanese  agent the  about  they  and  post-secondary student  school  post-secondary Japanese  prestigious i n  an attempt  through  a  rigorous  "Examination Hell".  company  entrance  exams,  system  work  to  very  enter  Japanese  much  by examining role  four  serves  as  c a n be the  of  a  s t r a t i f y i n g  who d e s i r e hard  from  the most  entrance  Between the  programs,  and the  Students  companies  about  society.  education society.  written  role  system  a n d amae i n J a p a n e s e  u n i v e r s i t i e s as  l i t e r a t u r e  post-secondary  a r e young  known  l i t t l e  post-secondary  within  most  is  i n non-Japanese  conformity The  there  jobs the  university of  time  prestigious  examination  years  with  system  entrance  u n i v e r s i t y  exams are  a  31 r e l a t i v e l y  slack  r e l a t i v e l y  l i t t l e  Sony) in yet  may  be  choosing  for  time  relying  most  students  studying.  less  employees,  upon  but  A  the  few  where  they  companies  applicants'  whether  this  is  a  may  spend  (such  as  u n i v e r s i t y  general  name  trend  is  unclear. Accounts  secondary Japanese student  written  role  such  stating  attendance,  choice  next of  and  questionnaire  chapter  and  their  and  on of  exams,  outlines the  and  are  and  structure  lack  of  study's and  as  Japanese  to  post-  between  aspects  of  volunteering  academic  examined  the  semi-structured  of  at  expectations  teachers  questions  pursuit  which  teachers  d i f f e r i n g  foreign  asking  opinions,  most  sample  non-Japanese describe  as:  cheating  i n i t i a t i v e , The  by  institutions students  answers,  or  time  excellence,  student in  this  method,  analysis  interview.  of  motivation study. including the  the  CHAPTER  3:  METHOD This  chapter  Following brief  overall  p r o f i l e  followed their  an  by  outlines  of  a  the  sketch  students  section  rationale,  method  of  who  the  used  study  in is  participated  the a  study.  description  and  in  the  study  and  interviews--  about  the  questionnaire  structure,  and  implementation  and  interpretation. Overview Sixty-nine International research. (on  the  their  College  The  49  Nelson  roles  Vancouver given  students  were  students  campus  as  of  students  campus  students  each.  as  English  the  from  to  the  C . I . C . )  were  was  interviews  in  f i r s t - y e a r  of  given as  lower, would  not  been  Canadian  this the  program  questionnaire the  of  20  two  given  that  have  at  students  groups  so  a  were  Vancouver  students  program part  A)  in  level  take  were  (Appendix The  Study  four-year  interviews  Nelson  semi-structured  the  chosen  students.  semi-structured  their  from  of  on  fourth-year were  and  the  also three  interviews  communication d i f f i c u l t  in  without  translation. F i r s t - y e a r context  of  developed research  a  students  unit  their  they  own  projects.  were were  on  questionnaire research  questionnaires  and  On  questionnaire  the  day  I  met  with  a l l  of  f i r s t  year  of  ( i . e . ,  the  studying  administered, F - l  given  the  three the  actually  E x p e r i e n t i a l  four-year  in  in  the  which  conducted  they mini-  was Studies  program)  classes  students  33 during had in  their  asked my  this  me  (and  the  aloud  E x p e r i e n t i a l  to  to  in a  and  research and  a  aloud  involvement  i n  it  withdraw  were  have  from  comments,  ask  to  problem  make with  response the  the  Homestay  witness's  participate  The the  and  their  announced  was  in the  the  to  campus  read the  were  a  the  in  English with  way  were as  and  room  a for  were  was of  (in  a  missing  in  class, case  question.  Japanese the  copy  student's or  were  a  this  missing  make A l l  Students  number  given  to  arose.  case  party  could  invited  there  one  the  their compulsory  they  p a r t i c i p a t i o n  Students  summary  Students  case  third  f i l l e d  the  Japanese  no  questionnaire  to  procedure  numbered.  in  In  and  desired  marks. and  students  them.  in  concerns  number  indicate  study.  was  an  consent  research  procedure  Vancouver  given  informed  signature  and  was  involved Following  policy)  from  time  but  the  went  Coordinator)  of  any  questionnaire.  involved  student  letter  letter  their  of  I  read  their  raise  anonymous  note  student  Each  a  a  teachers  and  the  were  it  teachers  process  purpose  researcher  on  at  or  to  that  affect  questions,  questionnaires asked  but  research  the  The  questions.  Japanese.  the  the  research  questions  that  study  about  of  present  invite  any  the  was  told  the  and  class.  student  summary  English  and  for  C . I . C . ' s  written  in  Studies  students  time  with  translator  Students  would  the  leave  keeping  simple  translation  nor  talk  research  received of  regular  of and  declining  copies  of  to  the  summary.  similar with  the  for  the  addition  fourth-year of  students  modifications  to  on the  34 summary  and  letter  research  was  students  were  experience society.  doing  and  and  A l l  include  scheduled  to  to  help  Again,  optional  to  the  researcher  f i r s t - y e a r  and  fourth-year  the  the  total,  33  in  male  completed  a  secondary  student  the  ages  of  years  old.  month  of  when  they  beginning  were  were  16  20;  F - l  A l l  group  given  the  chosen  student the  end  students  (referred  to  questionnaire  as as  in  the  "F-4" the  21  f i r s t  and role  of  the  p a r t i c i p a t i o n  marks at  in  any  C . I . C .  was  way.  chose  to  Sample  four-year to  as  and  except  program  (49  " F - l " students)  perception  of  two  post-  were  the  other  one  were  in  their  second  year  on  the  because might than  their  "F-4" A l l  Japanese  between  was  Nelson  22 to  last  Campus  questionnaire.  program  nearing  of  students  was  the  of  about  the  their  members  were  their  year  about  one  in  as  female--referred  students  perceptions  into  that  students  that  Students  f i r s t  roles.  instruction  These  who  the  and  and  The  unit  Canadian  re-entry  student's  Chosen  questionnaire  18  their  This  study.  "F-l" students  to  stressed  affect  process.  reflective  for  not  in  a  closure  prepare  Students  in  in  would  participate  A l l  interview  happen  bring  them  the  were  possibly their  program  have  "F-4" of  close  to  the  different  counterparts  study.  Students  fourth-year  students) "F-l"'s  they  but  of  the  completed were  also  four-year the  program  same  given  a  semi-  35 structured female, and  7  25.  their  group were  male  These  program  interview. and  a l l  students and,  in  Of  20  students  were  most  the  within  cases,  students,  13  were  ranged  in  ages  month  of  graduating  a  joining  the  between  Japanese  21  from  work  force. This  was  a  highly  history  of  year  operation.  As  many  start-up  of  through its  college.  of  the  year.  Many  pedagogy,  seemed  to  Canadian  teachers  ideas  what  by  f i r s t  the  unique  of  the  majority  Students students)  were  piloted  new  policies,  one  month  now  view  f i r s t I  of  of  the  in  curriculae,  in  to  in new  of  do  the  two-  re-immersion  their  role  as  lived  college  in  in  policy  student  as  their  root.  that  their  learned  necessarily  college's  or  shared  to  the  charter  four-year  educational  sense. and  administrators  being  from  the  philosophies,  and  away  f i r s t  whether  not  the  educational  of  its  students  beset  quickly  every  teachers  in  the  students.  the  almost  ways  that  were  ( i . e . ,  from  these  problems,  role  within  C . I . C .  expect,  wrinkles  should  group  students  joined  college's  this  broke  might  of  administrators  the  pioneers  a l l  those  transferred  and  broken  one  student  from  who  program  being  a  They  have  and  group  to  as  students).  Japanese  students?  Had  interested  in  that  (as  college well  How,  culture,  changed  They  did  since  as  then, they their  year? was  because  p a r t i c u l a r l y  they  beginning.  were If  pioneers  challenge  and  breeds  had  this  seen  group  the  reflection,  of  college perhaps  F-4  students  from these  its  36 students as  would  students  through  have  and,  i n  Hence,  study  for  and  four  years  it  the  seemed  college,  than  to  say  about  their  experience  working  they  be  the  would  average  role  more  Japanese  an  important  opportunity  to  interview  this  of  this  group  in of  this students,  particular.  Sample  were  from  invited f i r s t -  overall chose  to  and  use  the  f i r s t  and  p a r t i c i p a t e fourth-year  sample  to  size  the  was  in  the  small  (49  d i s t r i b u t i o n cannot  normal  Castellan,  Another  Fourth-Year  potential  students  from  the  academic  design  rather  discussed  how  conducted, their  the  than the  were  history the  the the  for  F-4  that the  students), of  small  assumed  result Because  analysis  designed be  20  program  I  variance  sample  (Siegel  sizes  &  1988).  Versus  same  with  and  one-way  where  of  volunteered.  F - l  test,  a  measure  years  study,  students  Kruskal-Wallis a  fourth  non-parametric  F i r s t -  Sample  Size  Students  that  of  perhaps  opinions  Nature  a l l  important  differences,  their  student.  in  having  cultural  forthcoming  something  F-4  an  with  problem  f i r s t year a  Students  and  with  fourth  ( i . e . ,  the  longitudinal  F-4  students  in  interesting the  students  this  sample  years  of  study  was  one).  I  the  and  college. i n  the  year  notable  We c a n n o t  study  have  was  the a  it  program  used during  cross-sectional  have the  that  already study  group  because  conclude,  exactly  was  the  of  therefore, same  37 perceptions this  study  about w i l l  have  although  it  would  s i m i l a r .  be  recruited  is  in  educational  when  on  styles  years  is  are  l i k e l y and  to  that  thus  the  come  the  C . I . C , the  useful  for  their  year  same  basis,  to  s i m i l a r same  are  in  year,  perceptions year  have  are similar  socio-economic  curriculum  groups the  students  fourth  that  and  two  F - l  from  from  to  the  their  surmize  roughly  at  as  reach  students  exposed  while  role  they  Since  backgrounds,  teaching  equivalent  student  reasonable  Japan  circumstances,  it  their  in  rationale  Canada  would  purposes  be of  for  and  four  approximately this  study.  G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y The l i k e l y North  students s i m i l a r  American  Japanese. which number  Japanese of  offer  (as  by  (and,  probably  f a i r l y  rationnale,  have  Japanese  to  the  such  colleges  are  begun  over  high  As  income  similar  students  enter  middle-  therefore  four-year  program are at  the  exactly the  school and a  four-year  students  college l i k e  last  most  are  programs  C . I . C ,  decade  graduates  a l l  quite  which,  an  a  like  international  general  preparatation  for  four-year  international  college  and  upper-class  level),  C . I . C . ' s  students  to  students  as  the  communities  other  whose  international  training  family  Factors or  to  a l l  employment.  students  colleges.  not  students  oriented  defined  ways  international  English  white-collar  C . I . C . ' s  many  programs  experience,  is  in  Although  C . I . C . ' s ,  which  from  chosen  at  teaching which  other staff,  surround  Japanese  students  four-year as  the  sample)  are  comparable curriculum the  college's  two  38 campuses  might  make  colleges  which  Japanese  some  measure  based  on  of  the  C . I . C .  students  caution  results  should  of  this  who  attend  international  a l l  things  considered,  the  results  similar  of  this  background  Ten The  of  paying  volunteering  answers, for  one's  personal  best)  these  ten  aspects  frequently aspects at  our  brought  were  also  college to  opened  1988,  time  in  attending  aspects policies attempt  of  to  in  the  However,  inferences  students  with  from a  situations.  were  those  ones  about  the  most  Japanese and  behavior. created, these  of  of  which  I  I  my  that  arise  changed, problems.  and  ( i . e . , I  Since have  the  teachers of college  spent  regarding  much  these  strategies  changed  most These  other terms  doing  chose  students.  in  Institutional  reviewing  perceived  heard  frequently students.  marks  exams.  which  or  and  copying,  good  with  categories active  questions  administrators  problems  ten  lateness,  importance  the  mitigate  students  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  homework,  c o n f l i c t  been  that  generalizing,  Japanese  i d e n t i f i e d  asking  into  student  have  A)  me  the  so  Role  importance  they  teachers to  in  educational  attendance,  handing  and  teaching  a l l  international however,  reasonable  Student  (Appendix  comment  adjusting  of  exams,  as  to  Japanese  similar  attention,  notes/studying  attend,  exercised  make  about  role:  involvement,  be  study,  can  in  Aspects  student  might  other  Questionnaire  questionnaire  aspects  we  and  from  post-secondary  study  The  different  again  ten  and in  an  39 In for  1994,  new  C . I . C . also  C . I . C .  students was  to  in  intended  model  and  notes,  preparing  for  worksheet  and  attention,  informal  to  in  presentations and  These into  are the  and  skits)  was  on  and  in  answers, and  taking  homework  aspects  of  and  student  questionnaire.  orientation  worksheet  class  doing  a l l  (and  the  c a r e f u l l y  and  video  class  volunteering  listening  The  at  which  given  to  A Day  at  students  C . I . C . by  the  Thirteen  of  the  questions  on  attendance,  asking  fifteen  lateness,  questions  the  that  I  most  problems  at  with.  who  were  with  aspects of  chose,  C . I . C .  deal  survey  them.  but  expectations  to  ten  for  college,  and  active  the  involvement,  volunteering  answers,  homework.  administrators  these  the  at  C . I . C . ' s  aspects  teachers  A Day  introducing  The  cause  a  Canada.  of  in  to  same  to  orientation  coming  studying  way  to  the  way  addressed  attention  that  as  by  at  learning  by  time.  their  the  handing  seemed and  role.  ten  class  true/false  Academics  student  paying  at  work,  class  as:  in  questions  on  found  things  involved  the  homework  Similarly,  of  such  asking in  of  coming  group  attention  Dean  to  doing  paying  a  prior  behaviors  pair  shown,  Japan  actively  that  shown  student  community,  was  be  expected  being  behavior  to  students  time),  submitting  video  welcome  students  (including  a  to  showed  the  made  nine  An the were  and  then, and  were  college  p o l l  in  its  the  most  with  C . I . C .  faculty  teachers  time  year  An  which  for  some  f i r s t  research-worthy.  current  ones  f r u s t r a t i o n  require  informal  the  of  and the  suggested  additional  members  also  40 supported the of  the  student  ten  in  aspects  of  student  supporting  Japan.  also  (before students  by  Becker, piloted  the to  ten  to  them.  Three  aspects  college  students  the  ten  in  three  and  that  have  taught  in  1990). form  with  t r a n s l a t i o n  in  helpful,  English  students  at  examines  students  three  understandable  without  the  others.  Schooland,  the  to  at  administrators  who  its  aspects  questionnaire,  p a r t i c u l a r l y  in  of  Main  of  Questionnaire role  questionnaire.  The  "Is  there  expects the  categories the  over  translation)  student  question,  checked  the  pertained  student  1990;  easily  l i s t  in  expectations  l i t e r a t u r e  are  used  and  had  were  and  able  felt  it  to to  important.  with  its  A l l  97  teachers  to  to  post-secondary  questionnaire  questionnaire  and  the  Bohnaker,  i t  asked  teachers  upon  role  teachers'  available  was  of  Japanese  1990; the  were  aspects  u n i v e r s i t i e s  that  sections the  the  check  The The  i n  in  these  Canadian  student  answers,  used  went  the  relevant  of  104  questionnaire  relevance  understand  Of  non-Japanese and  of  students'and  expectations  colleges  (e.g., I  and  Studies  Japanese  of  aspects Teachers  role  use  reinforced  behavior  here  the  experiences are  ten  which  c o n f l i c t .  C . I . C .  be  role in  The  some  the  were  thus  the  of  questionnaire.  student  C . I . C .  use  of  a  student  appropriate  number  framed  in  three  f i r s t  section  was  difference  between  what  students  following of  were  Sections  and  areas?" role on  where  l i s t e d a  what  C . I . C .  those  above.  six-point  main  preceded a  expects  areas  were  Students  (Likert-type)  of  41 Semantic and  six  D i f f e r e n t i a l was  hereafter The  role  l i s t e d  as  a  referred  to  as  second  problems  that  differences  same an  main  i n  create  section  of  of  asked  from  problem scale,  six  the  This  the  i n  students  differences  between the  difference"  section  is  that  there  questionnaire  is  the  students  about  same  ten  student  a  that  and teachers  areas?".  one meant was  think  "Do y o u b e l i e v e  following of  to  i n  question,  an answer  meant  "no  Differences.  and asked  a  one meant  "big difference".  expectations  six-point  answer  on which  section  resulted  categories  C . I . C .  scale  Using  the  "no p r o b l e m "  "big problem".  subsequently  at  while This  referred  to  as  asked  report  Problems. In their "I  the  main  own b e h a v i o r .  attend  where  final  section, Students  a l l  classes  at  one was  "agree"  and s i x  student  role  categories  of  A  of  the  question  from  the  Behaviors  attendance as  as  using  was  were  referred  were  responded  C . I . C . "  hereafter  sample  to  students  to the  statements six  "disagree".  present.  to  This  such  point  scale  Again,  a l l  section  as,  ten  is  Behaviors. format  and answer  section  of  the  scale  for  questionnaire  is  follows: I  attend agree  a l l  classes. disagree  42 Figure which  1  shows  students  questionnaire  the  were  ten  asked  categories in  (Differences,  the  three  Problems,  Differences  student  sections and  behavior of  about  the  Behaviors).  Problems  Behaviors I always comply w i t h this expectation. 1=agree 6=di s a g r e e  Does t h i s c r e a t e a problem? 1=no p r o b . 6=big p r o b .  Is t h e r e a di f f e r e n c e ? 1=no d i f f . 6=big d i f f .  C a t e g o r i es  of  Attendance Lateness Active  Involv.  Paying A t t e n t i o n Asking Volun.  Questions Answers  Homework Copying Rev.  and Study  Good M a r k s / D o i n g One's B e s t Imp. o f Exams  Figure  1.  Sections  and q u e s t i o n  The The asked  questionnaire  students  performance,  for  and  c a t e g o r i e s on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  Remainder was  prefaced  information  how  many  of  the by  about  Questionnaire a  brief  their  post-secondary  section  age,  sex,  institutions  which academic they  had  43 applied  to  before  After were and  asked  there  most  the  of  one  of  three  the  are  members  on the  where  the  ends  translated  most  me t o  the  clarify  end o f  students  were  their of  two t o  four  and  completed  The  to of  students the  in  Japanese  the  final the  list  counseling  questionnaire. of  and  Differences A translated  Although  questions,  a l l  translation  and,  meanings  the  groups  with  the  questionnaire. a c c o r d i n g to other  in  of  i n order  return  one  to  were  three  to  Japan  interviewed  days  after  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Students  their  chose  own s c h e d u l e s  at  they  study  their  own  and  degree  students.  i n t e r v i e w s were  unstructured)  for  their  Students  students,  provided informed consent  comfort  "Are  i n t e r v i e w e d on the Vancouver  academic program.  had  interview  asked,  Interview  Campus a p p r o x i m a t e l y one m o n t h b e f o r e  groups  section  questions.  Fourth-year  in  students  difference?"  were  The J a p a n e s e the  checked  The  the  of  A similar  i n Japanese.  translated  checked with  areas  students  was p r e s e n t e d  team  questionnaire  other  respond.  i n Appendix B.  Nelson  the  a problem?".  made a t  counselors  some c a s e s ,  to  were w r i t t e n  appears  C.I.C.  different  them  that  comments  comments  section of "Are there  questionnaire  sections  at  for  C.I.C.  Problems s e c t i o n , areas  the  Problems  staff  question,  left  the  other  As  Differences  the  room was  followed  of  the  entering  to  semi-structured increase  their  (rather  than  reliability  and  used  of  the  following When  1.  you  about 2.  questions: f i r s t  what  came  to  students  Did  you  ever  dif  ferences?  Did  you  see  have  any  C . I . C .  were  a  what  expected  problem  situations  things to  because  where  do  in  of  other  surprised  you  college?  these  students  had  problems? 3.  If  you  about Did  4.  had the  your  your  choice,  student's role  as  what  role  would  at  student  you  l i k e  to  change  C . I . C ?  change  when  you  came  to  Vancouver? 5.  Have  you  student 6.  Has  The  ( i . e . ,  students that  English).  Some  had  often  in  their  interviews for  changed  students  English-only  were  I  i n  role  of  could  the  four  interviewed  interviews  fourth-year  the  the  a  years?  role  the  about  r e l i a b l y  with  and be  years?  was  no  t r a n s l a t i o n  their  teachers  conducted  eight  interview  me  a  high  groups  in were  taped  transcribed. of  the  teacher  contact  much  for  of  opinion  four  student  Interviews  later  your  last  level  allow  indicated  the  own  English to  S k i l l s  in  your  enough  and  changed  about  students in  with  their  knew f i r s t  me  before.  Japanese  society  responded  by  as  year I  explaining  but  chose  during  Computer  a  the  things  to  many  and  English  students  posture  of  not  interviews  and  me  about  had  not  knowing students  Japanese  45 society  and  post-secondary  intentionally to  explain  accorded  their  with  Students the  to  their  and  l i t e r a t u r e  seemed and  in  I  genuinely  reflect  expressed  interest  chances  perceptions  the  interview  students  increase  expectations.  their  that to  had  the  see  their  the  of  those  would  want  perceptions  and  eager  experiences.  final  Method  this  students  i f  interested  on  did  read.  encouragement  seeing  I  to  the  to  attend  Many  of  the  interviewer  and  research.  Analysis  Questionnaire Response  data  analyzed  using  chose  as  it  a  and  etc.) was  more  between  Castellan,  1988)  errors  is  between  less  variables  of  where  size  seemed  parametric Castellan). results,  tests, When  to  Chi-Square  association  as  find  as  a  a  and  (e.g.,  is  tests  less  The  sex,  I  produced v i r t u a l l y more  year,  lateness, because (Seigel  prone  to  it &  type  number  small  of  sample  over  other  non-  (Popham,  1967;  Seigel  Kruskal-Wallis  the  A  relationship  large  r e l a t i v e l y  against  the  age,  significant  Chi-Square  Kruskal-Wallis,  was  Variance.  attendance,  Kruskal-Wallis  check  of  students  appropriate  exists).  variables  including run  seemed  it  a l l  s i g n i f i c a n t  (e.g.,  that  to  support  show  non-parametric  sense  none  from  Analysis  variables  test  other  l i k e l y  independent  to  behavior  the  unrelated also  student  than in  One-Way  test  non-parametric  powerful  (it  questionnaires  Kruskal-Wallis  categories  This  the  s t a t i s t i c a l  relationships etc.)  from  same  powerful  patterns test.  of  &  46 By sex,  v a r i a b l e  academic  failed  classes),  active  to  (or aspects)  volunteering  student  s t r i v i n g  exams)  i n  the  to  three  do  f a i l e d  before were  one's  analyzed  variables.  of  the  to  copying,  the  three were  2  shows  ten  and  review and of  Differences,  how t h e  questionnaire tested  of  lateness,  and importance of  more  one o r  questions  sections  Figure  and Behavior)  versus  asking  best  o l d ) ,  one o r  (attendance,  i n homework,  academic  years  versus  according  role  attention,  >20  F 4 ) , a n d number  (none  questionnaire  i n each  five  classes  C.I.C.  Behavior.  Problem,  versus  ( F l versus  student  handing  (Difference, student  (<19  program  of  main  and Student  categories  (no  paying  answers,  study,  student  of  responses  involvement,  Problems,  of  year  applied  student  categories  age  performance  institutions more),  of  ten  sections  f o r each  of  the  47  Student Age *< 19 *> 20  C a t e g o r i es  D  p  B  Variables  Sex  Year  *F *M  *F-1 *F-4  D  P  8  D  P  Academic Success  # Instit's Applied to.  *no f a i T s *on1y CIC *>1 f a i l ' s * o t h e r s D  B  D|P|B  B  p  I  i  Attendance Lateness Active  Inv.  Paying  Attention  Asking Questions V o l u n . Answers Homework Copyi ng Review and Study Good Marks/ Doing One's Best Import, o f Exams F i g u r e 2. Q u e s t i o n C a t e g o r y  and Exam S e c t i o n by t h e F i v e  Student  Vari ables. Using I  was  interested  between  groups  younger, five as  i t  f i r s t  student  this  of  attendance  i n whether students  year  or  i n  the  for section  there  were  (e.g.,  fourth  v a r i a b l e s ) .  appeared  sections. in  f o r example,  second  way f o r s i g n i f i c a n t  was  (Problems)  A l l ten categories  of  or  and so  Attendance  (Differences)  significant  males  year,  one  differences  females, on  f o r each  tested  i n  and third  student  relationships  behavior with  older  the  of  or the  same  way  (Behavior) were  each  of  tested the  five  48 student  variables  Aggregate Two  aggregate from  Study  the  ten  Skills,  questionnaire were  student Class  reflected  what  attendance,  with  the  single  age,  year  sex,  institutions Figures  3  students  of  and 4  i n  a l l  answers,  three  and Behavior. the  aggregate  variable,  variables  which  which  involvement,  Differences  to  the  to  were:  paying  again,  4  student  tested  find  Study  attention,  by  and  Difference,  behavior,  against  success,  the  show  the  S k i l l s  mean  (Figure  two  variables  a n d number  significant  the  of  of  relationships.  results 3)  and  for a l l Class  4). questionnaire  and Problems, "Are there  areas  of  academic  to,  (Figure  end o f  questions, other  study,  also  i n Chapter  according  the  compiled  the  f i r s t  copying,  how s e r i o u s l y  class,  categories  were  applied  P a r t i c i p a t i o n  there  of  The  best  Problems,  were  and Behavior.  categories  the  active  role.  academic  The second  d i d i n  categories)  homework,  reflected  composed  student  aggregate  At  which  was  lateness,  i n  Differences,  questions/volunteering  As  example).  student  one's  studying.  the  of  handing  and doing  aspects  approached  Problem,  for  aggregate  categories  sections:  a l l  (or  included  participation,  asking  females,  variables  reviewing/studying,  These  vs.  Variables  composed one,  (males  that  and translated  students other  are a into  sections were  areas  of  problem?". English  regarding  given  space  to  difference?" These  answer and"Are  comments  (Appendix B ) .  were  49 Interviews The  eight  recorded, speaker or  small-group  transcribed  was  male  category  referring.  student  If  the  Students which  were  emergent  remark  student  role  found  in and  attempted in  student's  and  f i n a l l y  Japan, own  to  which  pertained or  can  other the  to  to  of  number  be  found  coded  explain  causality  academic  were  to  the  whether  coded  as  of  the  student of  Table  were  it  was  responses  role,  These  student  growth  ten  5.  student  about  aspect  was  role  accordingly.  of  the  student  ten.  more  to  interviewee  in  of  o r i g i n a l  interviews  any  of  aspects  were  as  the  aspects  summary  total)  categories which  the  A  mentioned  not  remarks  or  and  coded  role  categories  female,  tape,  female,  accordingly.  (male,  from  of  aforementioned coded  or  semi-structured  however,  became Student  post-secondary  behavior  also  coded  at  C . I . C .  and  noted.  Summary This it  was  chapter  chapter  has  implemented, w i l l  report  semi-structured  focused  on  and  the  the  results  interviews.  the  method of  structure of the  of  analysis.  the The  questionnaire  study, next and  the  how  50 CHAPTER  4  Results This and  chapter  interview  in  aggregate  with  respect  the in  with  variables  is  also  provided to  the  discussion  results  Chapter data  also  that  ten  Main  aspects  n=69)  a l l were  ten  higher  questionnaire This a  would  Canada,  they  teachers mean the  f i r s t  to  indicate  in  the  college  do  not  report  that  responses three  the  (Differences)  seem  difference  in  arise of  from  a l l  and  of  graphs of  showing  interview  student  role  are  responses  addressed  w i l l  be  in  included  7.  Results Problems  and  Behavior mean main  responses section  in  that  although  the  student's great  those  Two  comments  Chapter  questionnaire  descriptive  table  student  than  students  questionnaire  A  Differences,  the  the  questionnaire  frequency of  in  Sections:  categories  the  interview  Student In  Both  provided.  results  from  descriptions.  Questionnaire Three  3.  from  shows  Actual of  the  brief  are  questionnaire. the  in  s t a t i s t i c a l  tables  data  report  described  non-parametric reported  w i l l  role  differences.  sections.  a l l  of  second  problems  for  (all  students,  the (Problems).  students between between Table  categories  acknowledge Japan  and  students 1 in  shows each  and the of  51  Table 1 Questionnaire Results:  Differences, Problems, and Behaviors  by the Ten Categories of Student Role (All Students)  Category of  Problems  Behavior  Mean S D.  Mean S. D.  Mean S D.  Attendance  4 93 1 45  3.68  1 9.1  2 00 1 53  Lateness  4 62 1 53  3.49  1 8.0  1 99 1 30  Active Involvement  4 96 1 34  4.04  1 83 .  1 53  87  Paying Attention  4 83 1 64  3.81  1 89 .  1 84  90  Asking Questions/ Volunteering Answers 5 01 1 54  3.88  1 9.1  2 38 1 20  Handing in Homework  3 59 1 78  3.12  1 79 .  1 55  88  Copyi ng  3 43 1 9  2.77  1 9.0  1 43  88  Review/Study  3 45 1 89  2.71  1 67 .  3 36 1 41  Good Marks/ Doing One's Best  3 10 1 74  2.62  1 60 .  2 35 1 75  Importance of Exams  3 51 1 98  o L U U C I I  i  r\u  i  Differences c  In the category of student  2.97  1.64 2 42 1 51  attendance,  students reported a f a i r l y l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e Japanese c o l l e g e expects of i t s  however,  that  this  problems between teachers Similarly,  Likert  between what a  scale).  C.I.C. Students  generates only a moderate amount of and students at C . I . C .  the t h i r d q u e s t i o n n a i r e  i n a l l but one case,  example,  students and what  expects (mean=4.93 on a s i x - p o i n t report,  for  section  (mean=3.68).  (Behavior)  a lower mean than the corresponding  has,  52 category case,  i n  section  means  a  higher  expected  student  again,  score  a  response  1.0  level  of  would  attendance  creates  moderate  is  a  mean  f r i c t i o n  between  students  example  perfect was  point  score,  compliance  the  however,  large  A lower  student  Using  students,  student  teachers,  (Problems).  behavior.  of  for a l l  Canadian  two  of  with  of  attendance T h e mean  Evidently,  cultural  Japanese  this the  attendance. 2.0.  nonetheless  i n  difference,  students  report  though  a  and  and  high  level  of  compliance. A Skills and  Visual  a n d Class  F-3's)  trend  Representation  of  moderate  to  sharply.  to  low l e v e l  Participation  two a g g r e g a t e  Participation)  reporting  moderate  of  shown high of  aggregate  i n  with Figures  difference, student  variable  a l l 3  variables  students and 4  moderate  this  ( i . e . ,  indicate  with  effect  F - l  a  problem,  non-compliance, showing  (Study  similar and a  the more  Class  53  M  3  6  J  w  2.8 •  \  r >•'  26  L  2.4-  HHHHHH  H B H H B H  * - — » — ~ **j  i^yt.-'-'-^j  ',* Jj Ii "  *  * '  9  C  2.2I i  2.0 j  |  i « i J  C,-"*Lu,  Differences  Figure and  3.  Study  Behaviour  S k i l l s  ( A l l  4.  Problems,  Class and  Measures  I  *  ,  I  Behaviour  of  Differences,  Problems,  Students).  Differences  Figure  i -3  Problems  by  '  :—--»*—«•»*  Problems  Participation  Behaviour  ( A l l  by  Behaviour  Measures  Students).  of  Differences,  54 It they  is  are  important stating  questionnaire differences behavior  to  their  data  it  On b o t h  who  from  up  questionnaire Japan.  I  to  Interestingly had  the  same  interested Japanese have  no  concern  in  of  the  working  really be  what  This  student  I  college  college  students  in  Japan  the  study, role.  student then,  two  or  that of  staff  i n  at  C . I . C .  the  what  I  was  happens  C . I . C . most  watching  in  a  students have Japanese  home. student's  the  to  students  happens  what  of  the  coming  as  college."  from  they  of  the  what  from  r e a l l y  reports  one  during  affects  than  perceive  experience,  teacher,  are  C . I . C .  translating  mail  what  i f  categories  know  there,  and  jobs  ten  majority  is  time  the  responded  the  The  there  at  perceptions  facts;  not  counselling  were  stating  or  Japanese  happens  friends,  One  not  questionnaire.  were  don't  role  part  academic  true.  about  at  cases  Japanese  with  a  they  Although  about  not  when  in  there  Japanese  students'  student  or  in  the  a l l  Canadian  his/her  Whether and  was  firsthand  talking  To  In  college.  perceptions T . V . ,  studied  the  students  I  are  whether  Section  "...But  enough,  questionnaire.  what  writing  on  Canada  campuses,  say,  haven't  show  and  show  differences. looked  not  Japan  does  students  perceptions  does  between  but  remember  classroom.  spend do  more  going  Canada  C . I . C .  perception  to  time  class  believes  students  playing is it  to  perceptions  55 Student V a r i a b l e s When t h e f i v e Program,  Academic  to were t e s t e d of  be  Success,  (p<.05).  found A  Differences reported  of  Year  Institutions  a few s i g n i f i c a n t  A summary o f t h e s e  i n Tables  student's  and Number  Sex,  role  relationships  significant  of Applied  against the t e n aspects o f student  the three sections,  found  o f Age,  student v a r i a b l e s  i n each were  differences can  2, 3, and 4.  s e x was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  section  studying i n the  o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , such  a significantly  bigger difference  that  between  males Japanese  Table 2 Questionnaire Data by Sex of Student ( A l l Students)  F  Quest. Section  Aspect of Stud. Role  Di fferences  Studyi ng  5.79  .0189  3.90 2.82  Behaviors  Rev. Notes  6.79  .0113  II  High Marks  2.92  Exams  9.96  -  II  colleges Behaviors  Prob.  Mean  S D.  # of Res s  Sex  1 70 1 98  40 29  M F  3.72 2.86  1 41 1 27  40 29  M F  .0485  2.70 1 .86  1 96 1 27  40 29  M F  .0026  2.87 1 .79  1 58 1 41  40 29  M F  1  and C.I.C. t h a n d i d f e m a l e s .  Similarly,  i n the  s e c t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , sex o f t h e respondent  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  associated with  three aspects of student  56 role:  reviewing  exams,  where  notes,  males  reported  conscientious  than  Table  indicates  3  s i g n i f i c a n t l y Differences Table  the  that  of  as  and  studying  being  for  less  with  variable paying  of  age  was  attention  questionnaire;  in  older  the  students  3 D a t a by Age o f  Student  Quest. Section  Aspect  F  Di f f e r e n c e s  Pay A t t e n .  4.59  Behavi o r s  Attendance  High  Marks  there  was  Stud.  II  reported  that  Canadian  section  of  Two  S D.  .0356  5.22 4.39  1 42 1 78  36 33  <19 >20  5.96  .0173  1 .58 2.45  1 20 1 73.  36 33  <19 >20  9.97  .0024  1 .75 3.00  1 27 1 96  36 33  <19 >20  a  and  student  role  from  the  high  themselves  to  with  fourth-year  section,  marks,  of  where  aspects  of  four-year  students  with  younger  more  of  Age  Japanese  Behavior  age  were  students  reported  conscientious.  student  program year  the  f i r s t - y e a r  aspects  associated  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  the  between younger  and  associated  difference than  attendance  many  # of Res' s  universities  questionnaire  were  Prob.  bigger  the  There  Students)  Mean  of  be  (All  Role  colleges  respondents.  or  marks  respondents.  the  the  high  themselves  female  associated  section  Questionnaire  and  achieving  role  the  student  program).  reported  a  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  In  bigger  ( i . e . ,  the  f i r s t -  Differences  difference  57  Table 4 Questionnaire data by Year of Program (All Students)  Quest. Section  Aspect of Stud. Role  F  Di fferences  Pay Atten.  7.81  .0067  Problems  Ask. Ques.  4.12  Behavi ors  Attendance  Behavi ors  Copyi ng  S D.  # of Res' s  Year  5.16 4.00  1 43 1 86  49 20  F-1 F-4  .0463  3.59 4.60  1 99 1 50  49 20  F-1 F-4  5.38  .0234  1 .73 2.65  1 31 1 84  49 20  F-1 F-4  4.24  .0432  1 .57 1 00 1.10 0 30  49 20  F-1 F-4  Prob. Mean  between  Japanese  and Canadian  area  students  being  In  of  the  questionnaire  reported  a  teachers  at  ask  questions  section reported less on  of  the  homework  the  section  i n  or  one  areas  and to  questionnaire, as  about  exams  student  with  academic  being  the  variable the  pay attention  problem of  between  more  by  was  not  ten categories  performance  of  the  before  the  the  class.  students and to  f i n a l students  attenders without  but  copying  students. s i g n i f i c a n t l y of  student  student.  C . I . C .  the  expected  first-year  themselves  fourth-year that  In  conscientious  i n  students  being  class.  Behaviors,  i n  fourth-year  students  attend  working  than  any of  to  and u n i v e r s i t i e s  on Problems,  bigger  the  class  themselves  associated was  i n  conscientious  The  required  s i g n i f i c a n t l y C . I . C .  colleges  of  institutions  applied  to  only  of  significance  (asking  questions/volunteering  behavior  S i m i l a r l y ,  number  showed  area  answers  one i n  the  58 Problems  section  applied  only  to  of  the  questionnaire)  C . I . C .  reported  students  and  teachers  at  C . I . C .  to  institutions  as  well  other  a  larger did  to  C . I . C .  as  addition  invited  to  sections  to  make  comments  ( i . e . ,  not  be  a l l  cases,  examined  Differences  and  Problems).  echoed  which  students  students  spend  and  time  as  clubs  students  and  leadership, change. well.  comments  made  Japanese  perspective  in  They  asleep  in  a l l  areas  F - l  A  post-secondary of  few  of  system  what  they  were  Canada.  A complete  l i s t  of  Appendix  B.  in  interview  i n in  the For  that  doing  Japanese homework  a c t i v i t i e s  mentioned  w i l l  v i r t u a l l y  section.  and  other  such  cheating,  asking  questions,  student  having  a  curriculum  mentioned  were  found next  were  comments  because,  the  also  discovery  students  schools.  and  applied  p=.0319).  two  These  studying  jobs.  growth,  had  students  questionnaire  time  noteworthy  by  in  engaging  class,  who  f i r s t  trends  the  class,  the  chapter  and  were  only  post-secondary the  time  on  of  and  examined  commented  character  These The  be  "playing"  f a l l i n g  this  comments  w i l l  less  part  in  had  between  (F=4.80,  questions,  end  d e t a i l  who  Comments  the  example,  more  the  those  at  in  they  interviews,  completing  students  problem  than  Questionnaire In  where  voice  i n  was  the  that  interviews, most  explanations the but  expected  translated  F-4  more  do,  as  comments  of  Japanese  were  were  about  from  students, can  be  as  the  about  comments  many to  in  the in  found  i n  59 Interview The A the  t a l l y  ten  rough  idea  broken  times  aspects  of  student  aspects  down  into  responses  by  women,  from  the  three  opinions,  Table  emergent  actually  6.  appears  A in  men,  next  and  this  discussion chapter.  also  role  of  were  students  student  table of  a  on  in  Table  5  and  about  the  Total  numbers  appear  responses  role  a n d student  us  most  comments  include  mentioned  offers  summarized  F-4  and of  interviewees  interviewees.  a l l  column  aspects  on  is  female  Role  role  frequency  involvement,  shown  further the  by  appropriate  community  not  and  that  student  information  male  the  of  This  by  of  Student  of  what  minds.  of  number  made  bottom  are  of  further  aspects of  the  different  students' is  of  Ten Aspects  Results  and  ten  the  made  (stating  leadership)  which to  but  can  be  referred  number  and  nature  of  in  comments  60  Table 5 Frequency o f Responses about t h e Ten C a t e g o r i e s o f Student Role f o r Women, Men, and A l l F-4 S t u d e n t s Category o f Student Role  Women Res's  Attendance  Men  % of Total  All % of Total  Res' s  % of Total  Res' s  20.00  8.60  11.00  15.40  31 00  10 23  9.00  3.87  0  0  9 00  2 97  Active Involv.  53.00  22.79  20.00  28.00  73 00  24 09  Paying A t t e n t i o n  13.00  5.59  2.00  2.80  15 00  4 95  Asking Questions/  46.00  19.78  11 .00  15.40  57 00  18 81  14.00  6.02  1 .00  1 .40  15 00  4 95  0  0  1 .00  1 .40  1 00  33  Revi ew/Study  5.00  2.15  5 00  1 65  Good M a r k s / Doing One's Best  4.00  1 .72  1 .00  1 .40  5 00  1 65  Import,  3.00  1 .29  4.00  5.60  7 00  2 31  Lateness  V o l u n . Answers Handing i n Hmwk. Copying  o f Exams  0  /233  The  number  student  attendance,  of  Table  on  the  5.  i n  attendance.  total  of  72  /72  interview  of  the  a  total  attendance.  for a  11  percentage  is of  related  recorded 20  (of  Therefore,  semi-structured M e n made  /305  responses  f o r example,  Women made  subject  responses of  of  0  of  15.4.  i n  233  the the  total  8.6% o f  interviews  responses  to  about  were  topic f i r s t  line  comments)  a l l  female  on the  attendance  T h e All  of  column  topic from  shows  a  61 results  for a l l F-4 students--male  Thirty-one  of  attendance  for a  shows of  the  a  total  305  percentage  breakdown  student  of  of  and female  responses of  were  10.23.  responses  for  combined.  made  about  The remainder the  other  of  nine  Table  5  categories  role. Summary  Means of  the  be  moderate  or  to  categories between  large,  and teachers  themselves students  to  i n  variables  be  each  of  at  responses  of  student  Japanese only  moderate  C . I . C .  Students  highly  compliant  of  ten categories.  Class  the  Participation  role,  and  C . I . C . between  reported expectations  Two  a n d Study  each  students  problems  also  C . I . C . ' s  for  that  i n s t i t u t i o n s  causing  to  showed,  of  aggregate  Skills  showed  this  trend. Three  tables  questionnaire few  questionnaire  Differences  students  same  student  ten aspects  reported to  of  responses  significant  student signal  any one  behaviors)  but  group  or  by  the sex,  relationships  variables  expectations  there of  Kruskal-Wallis age,  were  and  year  found  no  sweeping  students  as  being  or  being  less  of  of  trends  more  of  program.  for each  were  problems,  analysis  the A  these that  aware  would  of  conscientious  ( i . e . ,  .  Interview categories  of  questionnaire Chapter  summarized  5.  data  was  summarized  student  role  data,  discussion  a  to  i n  make of  a  i t  table easily  which  by  the  ten  comparable  takes  place  i n  to  the  62 CHAPTER DISCUSSION This  chapter  Chapter  4  by  results  from  interviews  w i l l  expand  discussing the  and  the  OF  upon  RESULTS the  results  parametric  questionnaires  by  5:  integrating  and  and  in  non-parametric  group  relevent  presented  semi-structured  comments  from  the  by  groups  interviews. The the  chapter  aspects  of  (attendance, asking  w i l l  student  reviewing  doing  one's  three  new  aspects  involvement, student  mentioned mean  aspect of  variable  graphs f i r s t  importance from  considering  in  the ( F - l  paying  of  of  (a)  interviews  in  good  (see  as  the  frequently Table  (see  Table  6),  the  other  aspects.  At  discusses  the  introduced  grouping asking  opinions.  of  section in  Asking  Chapter  aspects  questions  which  and  of  the  three  (c)  how  the  the  end  aggregate  4. student  behavior  volunteering  questions  the  and  groups  (b)  questionnaire  a  on  6),  students  also  the  students  F-4)  is  in  as  community  and  to  and  well  comments  organized  how  homework,  marks  exams)  opinions, I  attention,  handing  frequent  leadership).  of  questionnaire  importance  by  a l l  the  answers,  (stating  thematically  chapter  incorporates stating  of  the  and  emerged  student  item  related  this  The  of  best,  in  involvement,  studying,  which  aspects  response  sections  and  interviews  and  the  active  thematically  used  volunteering  personal  semi-structured  of  and  proceed  behavior  lateness,  questions  copying,  mostly  and  answers  volunteering  and answers  63 was  l i s t e d  the  biggest  according area  institutions C . I . C .  between  the second  and students,  (where  compliance  to  of  role  a  higher  Japanese  biggest  and the third  number  the expected  on the questionnaire  indicates  behavior).  It  discussed  interviews.  Stating  opinions  was a n a s p e c t  that  from  emerged  was grouped  because  similar  o f  Table  aspects  6  shows  o f  and the three Mean  of  responses f o r each  item  i n the  both  student  the  aspect  group  of  student  on the  items role  under  non-  behavior  interviews.  and volunteering  7  answers  together.  were  The  grouped  of  emergent  aspects  from  the  f o r each  of  i n a  issue  that  interview  and Behaviors) responses  and interview  o r negatively. role  the three  i n Table to  It  Chapter the  the ten o r i g i n a l  as  students  as  thirteen  i n Table  data. 7 does  sections  well  f o r a l l  the information  responses  important  student  from  summarizes  the interview  i n  role  of  of  introduced  student  interview  the questionnaire  p o s i t i v e l y  information  Problems,  student  Table  t h e most  aspect  about  the ten aspects  Differences,  aspects.  was  talked  highest  comments  questions  summarize  a r e l i s t e d  percentage  under  often  6 and 7  interviews.  ranking  asking  t h e t e n aspects  questionnaire  ( i . e . ,  student  between  fashion.  Tables 4.  with  students  remainder  frequent  problem  was a l s o  was most  as  post-secondary  higher  that  It  student  responses  difference  and C . I . C ,  teachers  behavior  of  t o mean  6 by  A rank  o f "1"  n o t mean  that  or that  simply  means  that  students  chose  to  they i t  talk  i t  viewed  was t h e about  most  i t  when  asked  role  listed  Table  6  Summary o f  to  respond  in  to  Chapter  Questionnaire  the  3  and  general  questions  (Method).  Interview  Results  Questionnaire Means o f Aspect  about  All  Interview  Responses  % of  Al1  of  Student  Role  Difference  Problem  Behavior  Attendance  4.93  3.68  2.00  10.23  Lateness  4.62  3.49  1.99  2.97  Active  Involvement  4.96  4.04  1.53  24.09  Paying  Attention  4.83  3.81  1.84  4.95  Asking Questions & V o l u n . Answers  5.01  3.88  2.38  18.81  Handing  3.59  3.12  1.55  4.95  Copying  3.43  2.77  1.43  .33  Review/Study  3.45  2.71  3.36  1.65  3.1  2.62  2.35  1.65  3.51  2.97  2.42  2.31  in  Hmwk.  Good M a r k s / Doing One's  Best  Importance  Exams  of  Emergent Aspect  of  Student  Role  S t a t i ng Opinions  8.5  Community Student  Involvement  Leadership  6.2 14.0  Res's  student  65 Table 7 Rank of Questionnaire and Interview Results Questionnaire  Interview  Ranking of Mean Res's Aspect of Student Role  Di fference  Attendance Lateness Active Involvement Paying Attention Asking Questions & Volun. Answers Handing in Hmwk. Copying Revi ew/Study Good Marks/ Doing One's Best Importance of Exams  Ranking of Response %'s  Problem Behavi or  3 5 2 4 1  4 5 1 3 2  6 5 2 4 8  4 8 1 7 2  6 9 8 10  6 8 9 10  3 1 10 7  7 11 10 10  7  7  9  9  Emergent Aspect of Student Role Stating Opinions Community Involvement Student Leadership Significant w i l l  also  aspects  be  of  5 6 3  differences  discussed  student The Asking  presented  in  this  answers, the  Table  6  Ten  Aspects  Questions,  indicates,  according  biggest  area  of  chapter  Chapter  in  4  relation  (Results) to  the  role.  to  the  of  Student  Volunteering  Stating As  in  Answers,  and  Opinions  asking  questions  questionnaire  difference  Role  in  and  data,  student  role  volunteering was and  considered was  the  66 second the  biggest  small  about  group  this  and  area  between  interviews,  subject.  frequently emergent  problem  Stating  w i l l  category  18.81%  be  and  teachers.  of  a l l  student  opinions  was  also  introduced  related  students  later  to  asking  i n  the  in  comments  were  discussed  this  questions  In  section  and  as  an  volunteering  answers. Fourth shock One  at  year  learning  student One  students, that  mentioned  confusing  expected the  us  and  that was  think  this  thing  to  lecture.  know  teachers  So  that  in  that  and  was  f i r s t .  One  very  upset.  And he  ignore  interrupting.  He  me?"  Similarly,  students  system wants  of an  students student  asking answer sit  who  Students conformity asking might  then  she Then  as  being  the  or  one  her  ( i . e . , .  teacher  was  students.  would he  me,  It  took  to  me  If  f i r s t  ask  she  would  or  and  I  a a  year.  didn't to  me  "Why d o  you  actually,  questions...  news.  questions.  during  l i s t e n i n g ,  explained  of  f i r s t  talked  asking  wanted  ask  teachers)  questions  was  mentioned of  the  and  even  the  peer  greatest  volunteering  answer  a  to  their  not  or  courage.  the  Japanese  Japanese question  have  to  teacher and  point  the to  one  answer.  frequently  questions know  or  quietly. w i l l  that  questions he  day  a c t u a l l y  So  many  ask  We w e r e  interruptions.  from  they  mentioned  them  uncomfortable  at  they  expected  experience  was  break  interviews,  an  want  obstacles  answer. to  expectation in  Although  volunteer  i t ,  of  the  way  of  they they  were  67 afraid  to look conspicuous i n the eyes o f t h e i r  classmates.  One group of women made the f o l l o w i n g remarks. 51  -I l i k e d  the idea but to do i t . . . t h e other  "ahhh you...". 52  I didn't  -I got r e a l l y nervous. was watching other  53  -What the other biggest  52  students...  like i t .  Even i f I wanted to say...  I  people...  students think about you, that was the  t h i n g , so i t took me a long time to break i t .  - U s u a l l y I'd t r y to make eye contact  w i t h the teacher  so that they'd p o i n t me out... "Ask me!  Ask me!"...  w i t h the b r i g h t eyes. 53  -Also  there  i s a Japanese saying  that the n a i l  that  s t i c k s out w i l l . . . 51  -(student  one pounds on the t a b l e to complete the  proverb that the n a i l that s t i c k s up w i l l be pounded down) 52  -...that's  the f e a r that the students and I a l s o had  at C.I.C.  They (C.I.C.) expected me to show the  leadership,  start  show the others  things and say my o p i n i o n s and  some l e a d e r s h i p but there  i s a fear  that I might be pushed down. Many students mentioned that t h e i r opinions  diminished  students'  the f u r t h e r they went i n the four-year  program, p a r t i c u l a r l y explained  f e a r of other  i n the t h i r d - and f o u r t h - y e a r .  They  that t h i s was because c l a s s e s were s m a l l e r and they  68 had  a  better  resistance  relationship  from  encouragement "...people  other  because  who  wanted  with  their  students, their to  they  peers  stay  peers.  at  felt  were,  Instead  and  as  C . I . C .  feeling  gave  one  and  of  to  student  said,  improve  their  English." One in  the  student  fourth-year  teachers  in  volunteer An  do  emergent  same  was  students  the  total  being  Students  in  mentioned  that  when  f i r s t  opinion  because  so,  while  facts Five  out  opinion of  by  the  saying,  a  big  like  become  expect  each  a  that  was  that  the  "...the  other  out  of  were  to  to  not  students  Canadian  speak  loss  Japan,  up  and  have  of  subjects  made  them  role "In  debate  i n  or  a  express  difference,  a  they  I  One  his  think."  did  asked  being  student can or  Another  of  p a r t i c u l a r l y  not  being  because  opinion  (8.5%  6).  English  that  student  answers  mentioned  were  in  interviewed  teacher  they  mentioned  good  Table  respond,  uncomfortable  Japan  in  enough  that  Japan.  opinions  students  good  stated  groups  to  mentioned  volunteering  groups  when  Some  cases  their  eight  simply the  and  responses  a  subject.  most  state  the  at  from  did  in  questions  interview  eight  student  necessarily That's  many  simply  their  well  of  of  came  they  had  required  they  on  comment  asking  six  others  about  We  i n s i g h t f u l  things."  as  number  was  class  category  breath  they  the  Nelson.  and  the  their  made  it  them  for  that  s k i l l s know  to  about.  asked  for  not  summarized memorize  do  enough  asked  was  this  but  an  part this can't  impression. student  commented  69 that  "In  the  Japanese  us  the  information.  gives brain.  That's  a l l .  discussion." that  cohort  One that  mentioned  them  for  an  the  they  thought  the  than  someone  below  This  assumption often  getting  them  speaking asking  he/she may  this or  the  and  care  for  what  on  to  did  not  see  student  seems  sign  as  most  a  sharpen  in  no  a  teacher  of  respect ( i . e . ,  not  matter).  Canadian  teachers  did  as  a  their  is  several  the  the  is  of  public  closes  asking  means  teacher,  the  gap  teacher  as  matter.  he/she  that  opinion  rather  opinion  from  easier.  equal  l i k e l y ,  the  with  an  Canadian way  than  study  result  an  opinions  the  of  when  as  the  reported  opinions  opinions  To  where  groups  give  a  them  about  long The  as teacher  opinion  of  seeking of  the  students  d i s t i n c t i o n .  responses,  opinion  as  him/her  student's  matter  this  it  and  More  thought  It  that  state  d i f f e r e n t l y a  was  into  have  area  to  surprise  opinion  the  eight  asked  whose  to  stating  treating  student.  e n t i r e l y  his/her  to  was  an  interviewed  for  closer  confidence.  advice.  student  took  c r i t i c a l l y  and  by  they  probably  careful  experts  make  just  information  major  students  students  and  the  being  teacher  information  Judging  of  teacher  opportunity of  to  the  that  specific  few  felt  think  student  exhibits  view  friends  to  even  a  teacher  their  teacher  not  by  and  less  helped  aspect  would  a b i l i t y  the  between does  ask  a  system,  cram  three  opinion,  from  who  teacher  in in  had  interesting  was  asked  time  group  Just  We h a v e  Students  concentrated  small  educational  may  the  teacher  actually  be  asking  creating  the some  role  a  70 confusion. is  asking  Japanese root  The me  student  my  may  opinion,  teacher  be  he/she  does."  This  just  the  stating  of  commented  that  the  role  the  correct  student  is  teacher  and  above  the  opinions  information to  be  student  the  opinions  the  The  and,  the  were,  teacher  opinions  as  one  at  perception  about  who  discussing  being  asked  to  they  Japan the  said,  and  by  deeper  to of  transmit a  good  distance to  be  asked  then  between high  teachers  or  true." their  modified  One  a  groups  That's  were  students.  opinions  is  than  "Any s u g g e s t i o n s  right. and  a  the  role a  teacher  equal  has  of  considered  just  as  Most  the  an  probably  in  shocked,  were  for  is  Canada  f i r s t ,  as  creates  student  i t ' s  came  more  and  This  teacher  teacher  students  they  and  me  "Because  opinions.  receptor.  student.  from  When  of  sees  confusion  than  the  thinking,  their  student, in  in  Canada,  commented: Teachers we  feel  and  and the  saying,  students teachers "I'm  equal--same As  well  commented the of  as  in  i n s t i t u t i o n a l these  expressed  This  the  same  standing you  went  for  about  may  be  four-year  policy  their  asked  times  the  students  at  way  this."  level.  In  higher  than  us  we  feel  But  here  Japan  level.  several  students  are  t e l l i n g  being  curriculum.  are  were  opinions being  appreciation  asked  because  they  program  so  being  through  in  shaped  their for  four being  class, for  for  opinions  were  that  the  years.  about  f i r s t  curriculum  the  given  students  f i r s t  group and  time  as  Students a  voice  in  the  71 shaping their  of  curriculum  student  Taking  the  volunteering ( i . e . ,  the  thought and  role  at  answers  on  created  students  than  did  year  college).  of  the  before  they  experience students teacher  come and  now  to  the  questionnaire  for  this  aspect  C . I . C .  of  had  be  applied  the  year  age,  the  case  also  of  (.F=4.12,  students' ( i . e . ,  of  improved.  have  teachers  orientation level  (with  the  of  f i r s t  students  c r o s s - c u l t u r a l  Also,  bi-weekly  helped  students  interviewed)  students  year,  and  between  program  teacher  found  no  f i r s t - y e a r student-  students  significant  campus,  behavior.  between  or  and  teachers  This  number  test  of  Students  students  to and  be  in  institutions  in to  did  find  the  a applied  Problems  had  only  applied  bigger  area  of  teachers  than  addition  no  interview  data  explain  since  interview  responses  could  on  performance  institutions  who a  differences  academic  answers  questions  other is  part  gap.  sex,  student  C . I . C .  There  a  Vancouver  Vancouver  of  have  may  analysis  asking  to  being  questions  problem  of  that  and  questionnaire.  between  as  were  Nelson  groups  which  who  questions/volunteering  the  (p=.0319). would  of  reported  c o n f l i c t  year  Since  relationship  a n d asking  section  f i r s t  by  this  asking  greater  c r o s s - c u l t u r a l  the  of  because  advisee  Kruskal-Wallis  significant  be  Canada  interviews)  bridge  a  understanding  have  see  questionnaire,  f i r s t  could their  to  fourth-year  this  in  who  the  in  experiences  to  category  that  This  seemed  C . I . C .  overall  students  p=.0463).  to  and  did to why only  to  students  C . I . C . this be  coded  72 by  whether  the  interview  Active  respondent  Involvement,  Community  Student The one.  category  of  active  Questionnaire  largest  area  of  data  data  shows  more  than  any of  were  also  two e m e r g e n t  the  community  involvement  discussed  later  In  the  students answers students the  i n  and state s i t  Under  mentioned  do  they  found  presentations,  During year,  a l l of  began  a  the trip  trip  the  happened,  of  of  several  asked as  to  second  of  problem.  this  category  a l l comments).  There  frequently: which  other  oral  w i l l  be  of  active  seriously  practice,  enough,  m i l l . . . " . just  that  could  by  work,  asked  t r i p s ,  role  dialogues. i n  their  laughter  as  one  the  see  to  skits,  trips  In year not  were  f i e l d  and  f i e l d  with  good  transmitted  they  group  discussions,  with  that  involvement,  doing  of  volunteer  was  information  things  exploded  described  perception  the  discussion  students  I  ask questions,  their  singing,  students  important  the  about  chapter  disconcerting:  lumber  an  area  mentioned  this  category  response,  the  remark, to  the  one group's  being  leadership,  and receive  games,  choral  be  opinions  students  playing,  to  quietly  and  section.  section  shocked  teacher.  which  this  as  talked  (24.09%  categories  was a l s o  largest  students  a n d student  previous  as  i t  and the  others  female.  Leadership  reported  that  or  Involvement,  involvement  difference  Interview  was male  phrase, one, the  "I  when point  f i r s t student  remember  the  f i e l d  behind  an  73 experiential m i l l  seemed  viewed Many  teacher  to  in  a l l  they  were  singing In  Some  one  students  weren't active  learning  that  their  were  frustrated  in  Japan  them  the  learning  but same  doing.  saw  was  things  of  their  fourth-year  i t ,  their  a l l  over  and  on  " . . . v e r y  had  again.  fellow students  and  sing  along.  bringing  was  the  why  things  as  Because  entertainment." that  they  they  quickly  teachers  stating  they  did  were  not  for  were  they as  They  six  years  teaching  found with  their  active  asking  opinions,  opinion  of  see  worried  enough.  English  Also,  s i l l y ,  feared  classmates. said  my  sing  c h i l d i s h , to  embarrassing and,  answers,  to  such  the  p r a c t i s i n g  understand  as  learning,  Canadian  where  students  panicked  studied  one  study.  close  felt  not.  as  students  Surely  progressing  they  have  a c t i v i t i e s  serious  for  expected  serious  they  Canada  couldn't  information.  not  felt  not  these  that  being  volunteering  r i d i c u l e Most  were  uncomfortable  questions, the  they  did  such  Chants)  effect  they  students  i n  lumber Teachers  r e m e m b e r e d me  to  time  because  they  he  the  time.  reaction,  were  The  to  class but  (Jazz  students  were  t r i p  class  the  enough  English  tape  songs.  stated  as  f i r s t  f i r s t  expressed  learning  same  year,  they  student  the  his  t r i p s  a  seriously  that  at  of  spending  mentioned  what  taking  year  and  idea  of  his  music  practice  doing  one  in  cases;  and  of  a  student  pronunciation  way  created  phrases  class,  the  learning  playing  another  as  ludicrous  description  English  same  that  anecdotes  was  guitar  or  so  experiential  student's  Yet  a  other  basic  trip,  active  74 learning  exercises,  changed  now  They  now  been  aware  active in  that  they  believed of  more.  express  and  that  the  they  were  able  would  to  have  learned  in  the  desired  grasp  in  too  the  in  their  year-one Japan  had  their  f i r s t  l a t t e r  d i f f i c u l t  so  low  a b i l i t y  in  to  reflected (that  the  attempt  the  use  and  of  had  annoying  courses  part  to  that  them  year  their  program.  and  make  had  probably  found  to  on  i n  year-one,  of  in  commented  they  been  i n  necessary  English  content  end  students  and  students  understand  now  had  used  the  teachers  that  important  deeper  program)  their  students  Many  those  nearing  exercises  were  English  were  that  what  learning  year-one  p a r t i c u l a r l y  four-year English  i n  year-one. There of but  active a l l  viewed  were  a  few  learning  students active  products  such  students  s t i l l  who  as  make  raised  learning  who them  the  that  c e r t a i n  uncomfortable  subject  p o s i t i v e l y  increased  reported  and  said  that  recognized  competence  and  or  forms  embarrassed  they its  now  by-  confidence  in  English. Greater  interest  understanding between  and  students,  relationship students  in  positive  between  classroom and  encouraging  in  "active  only  v i r t u a l l y  a l l  aspects  of  f i r s t  area,  English,  as  not  the  in  students  learning,  in  subject  confidence  mentioned  Teachers  the  higher smaller  atmosphere,  teacher  were  them  engage  to  learning"  level  of  classes, and  a l l  greater  good  factors  a c t i v e l y  a c t i v i t i e s ,  but  in  study. year  of  the  college's  trust  operation  that in  75 r e c a l l  students  strategies. room  and  trip  to  the  In  begin the  same  being  highly  resistant  fact,  i f  were  an  anecdote  lumber  reaction  one  described  above.  students  could  see  learned from  or  in  the  not  connect  the  the  it  would  teachers  students  learning,  with  m i l l . . . " from  classroom.  It  f i r s t  program,  should  be  able  to  learning  exercises  four  years  or  did  of  them.  teachers  learning? be  more  stayed  open for  One I  Is  this to  a l l  just  learning  this  noticed  through  different  forms  from  here  somewhere  and  the  class  Canada  and  were  being  the  students  four-year  those more on  active positive their  I  think  active  who  were  l i k e l y  the  ones  who  to  the  sit  do  Japanese  something.  students  are  and  is  r e a l l y  the  the  i t .  college  that's  in  there  about  this  because  actually  learn  talk  of  own  of  comment:  policy  expected  then  purpose  that  was  the  conclusion  jarring  to  in  the  very  expected  but  that  a  of  study?  not  then...  what  of  with  serious  in  have  learning  school  are  as  to  students  Japanese  students  to  the  a  Japanese  back  this  experience.  are  go  and  the  of  f i e l d  purpose  later  group  work  the  received  the  learning  continued  the  be  frustrated  interesting  see  that  students  to  were  in  is who  of  was  faculty  remember  probably  it  learning  the  "I  the  reach  to  into  in  because  years  made  as  see  they  only  four  year  them  other  student  have  Did help  walk  experiential  learning  active  phrase,  Teachers  college's  opinion  to  to  chair  expected  then  That's  and  a  bring very  it  to  76 different This C . I . C .  thing.  student  when  he  was  made  thoughtful  student,  conclusion  about  do  to  assist  sooner not  or  is  these  students  so  to  questions,  in  related  to  leadership  (14%  a l l  the  Students  community  has  been  year  students.  taking They  classmates  mentioned leaders  e a r l i e r  of  example, profits  organizing to  leading to  the  a  of  not  what  after  having  i t . generated  These  responses)  and  area  leadership, ways  i n  students  at  and  the  were  two  new  student  involvement  (such making  campus,  of  as  their  by  which  they  (some also  English  of  are  which  how  they  Leading  of  four-  were are by  marathons  helping some  as  encourage  presentations, or  student  p a r t i c u l a r l y  college.  discussions,  Vancouver  do  (or  having  study  interviews  chapter)  students  student  of  learning  discover  responses  learning,  changing  better  c h a r i t y ) ,  only  picture  involvement.  reported  events  active  can  (6.2%).  that  this  a  years  group  student  be  in  younger  going  students  to  can  this  teachers  of  interview  active  interview  that  at  a  reaching  purpose  against  the  now  paint  years  obviously  students  four  active  expressed  role  clubs,  of  the  only  for  four  anything  The  about  of  was  only  that  biases  categories  he  there  they  benefits  responses  He  realize  themselves?  i n t i t i a l  their  Is  by  some  in  was  something  its  students  why  concluded  semester  comment.  C . I . C ?  experienced  Student  last  this  have  strong  his  this  students  discover)  answer  in  to the  with  starting orient ways  new  that  77 students  described  Student happened When  leadership in  the  I  in  f i r s t  was  was  make  Canadian  play  with the  third  give  major  l i k e  and  Students other  to  confidence, that  were In  student under  polarized about  such  by  we  taking  themselves empathy  the from  rather  look  a l l  together.  that  in  doing  with  I  was  at  in  That  different  what  there  and  campus  can  to  I  contributing  were  Personal  people  C . I . C .  them.  addition  i t .  at  that  community...  Vancouver  leadership,  in  l i f e  l e a d e r s h i p . . .  do  something  speaking  into  in  as  thing  something  take  mentioned  and  also  to  positive  growth,  leadership  were  a  few  mentioned. to  taking  community  on  students things  this  of  as  these  issue.  expressed  the  of  a  placement  so  a  they  have  students and  to  have  should  responses felt  very  about  have.  power  of  been  quoted  were  somewhat  p o s i t i v e l y  puzzlement taking  placements.  more  also  aspect  already  expressed  enthusiastic  experiential  desire  students  significant  Student  Some  be  community  students  as  involvement  not  leadership,  comments  categories.  community would  student  involvement  Some  previous  their  kind  to  major  get  I'd  also  role.  the  years  academic  English  Here  can  addition  mentioned  learn  thing.  how  my  leaders.  described  the  and  what  students  benefits  year  friends  student  often  improve  fourth  as  student's  them...  and  things  a l l  to  role  was  later  thinking  was  their  in  Interest  that  part  in  Other determining in  the  type  78 of  placement  Canadians  and  were  experiential In  the  opportunity  expressed  of  made  number  institutions  would  have  Nelson  to  be  students. in  the  by  would  academic  desired  and  interact  with  characteristics  the  previously  stated, f i r s t  the  there  questionnaire  of  different  age,  sex,  academic  that  students  in  their  have  reported  the  than be so  the  because that  Canadian the  year  more  in  classroom.  result  which  of  are  f i r s t  year  It  systems  designed  and  could  to  the  problems  surveyed  something  in  on  I  fourth-year  were  made  the  performance.  experienced  had  no  campus,  differences  students  they  were  between  or  year  to  involvement,  applied  could  adjustment  students'  English  to  larger  This  on  students  expected  campus  created  being  active  differences  responses of  speak  placements.  category  significant  as  to  of  also  place help  later an  be,  in  as  the  them  make  the  adjustment.  Attendance Attendance difference, popular  was  fourth  category  responses).  and  reported largest  discussed  in  4  (F=5.38,  p=.0234),  (F=5.96,  p=.0173).  older  younger  the  the  On q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , to  with  as  problem  themselves students  Homework  be  students  more  given  category and  conscientious  the  the  interview  F - l  as  was  did  This  students class  third third  (10.23%  are  most of  total  than  students  probably  questionnaire  largest  reported  attenders  younger is  of  a l l  F-  compared  because in  the  their  the f i r s t  78 of  placement  Canadians  and  were  experiential In  the  opportunity  expressed  of  made  number  institutions  would  have  Nelson  to  students. in  the  by  be  would  academic  desired  and  interact  with  characteristics  the  previously  stated, f i r s t  the of  there  questionnaire different  applied  age,  sex,  that  students  in  their  have  reported  the  than be so  the  because that  Canadian the  year  more  in  classroom.  result  which  of  are  f i r s t  were  made It  systems  designed  the  performance.  experienced  had  year  I the  problems  fourth-year surveyed  could  to  on  and  something  in  no  campus,  differences  students  they  were  between  academic  year  to  involvement,  or  could  adjustment  students'  English  to  larger  This  on  students  expected  campus  created  being  active  differences  responses of  as  speak  placements.  category  significant  to  of  also  place help  later an  be,  in  as  the  them  make  the  adjustment. Attendance Attendance difference, popular  was  fourth  category  responses).  and  reported largest  discussed  in  4  (F=5.38,  p=.0234),  (F=5.96,  p=.0173).  older  younger  the  the  On q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , to  with  as  problem  themselves students  Homework  be  students  more  given  category and  conscientious  the  the  interview  F - l  as  was  did  This  students class  third third  (10.23%  are  most of  total  than  students  probably  questionnaire  largest  reported  attenders  younger is  of  a l l  F -  compared  because in  the  their  the f i r s t  79 year. That  F-4  students  conscientious their  than  comments  described than  in  fourth they  in  the  simply  with  a  by  students  Nelson  possible students,  behavior  against  Vancouver Canadian  students  expectation students  harshly.  This  program,  whose  circumstances,  year  her of  i f  the  college's saying  understand Other  the the  teachers  attitude  records  and  supported showed  thought  of  four-year talked  behavior  of  be  of  it  was  program's to  stated  students  class. own  head  class  have She  that as  they  behavior the  more  F-4  a l l  the  by  time.  the  confirmed to  I  fourth  internalized  they  the  extreme  that  and  where  Hence,  of  carefully  goals  that  their  against  possible  very  be  themselves  attendance. worked  may  standards  the  driven  English.  barring  might  students  Japanese  by  year  content,  feeling  measuring  their  of  in  Several or  in  attend  that,  that  demanding  class  view  fourth  was  discrepancy  attended  students  teachers  I  may  evaluating  students  expectation  this  students  be  was  most  for  in  their  given  improving  less  students  classes.  the  measuring  that  program,  that  behind  be  puzzling  in  more  miss  Japan,  be  may  idea  she  to  to  Many  and  perception  may  bit  classes  explanation  their  a  reason  them  from  is  primary  f a l l i n g  new  ones  conscientious  afford  around  themselves  interviews.  more  The  of  Vancouver  asked  as  not  mentioned seeing  fear  year  smaller  could  report  group  f i r s t .  year,  One  f i r s t  themselves  their  would  the  this  help  by  students  expectations. notice  progress  a  change  through  in the  80 third more  and in  the  Many shock  it  is  based  f i r s t from  do  on  year  their to  not  the  my  i n  one  o.k.  because  Many  and  important  i n s t i t u t i o n s . unconcerned that had  they been  One  friends  said  were in  mentioned  academic  of  doing  age,  on  this  of  because and  most  of  the  happens  in  then  of  attended Japan  information and  system  where large  evaluation  only  he  their  expectations  teachers  that  one  but  for  is  he's  that  studied  in  his  examination. mentioned  also  in  for  the  the  exam  Japanese  explain  homework.  and  the  commented:  friends  also  Japanese  student  the  the  the  that  why  now same  most  students  most  about  the  post-secondary  some  Again,  as  groups  homework  reasons  seem  as  reported than  they  they  attendance.  sex,  analysis year,  performance  completing  attendence  conscientious  year-one,  for  C . I . C . ' s  evaluation may  more  Kruskal-Wallis between  his  passed  This  about  in  That  collected  students  feature  comment  interviews  attendance  from  w i l l  the  classes  exam.  then  other  explained  miss  he  I  chapter.  semester.  examination  program.  understanding  final  of  the  regarding  take  week  house  of  students  possible  classes  year  concluding  F-4  i n  stemmed  fourth  homework).  and  found  number this  of  no  s i g n i f i c a n t  institutions  aspect  of  student  relationships  applied role  to  or  ( i . e . ,  81  The  Studying,  Reviewing  Notes,  Paying  Attention  i n Class  remaining  students  d i d not  or  fewer  of  of  paying  the  aspects speak  interview  these  also  i n s t i t u t i o n s ,  conflict  between  teachers  compliance  found  the  the  greatest  variables and  (age,  academic  significant presented  Sex  of  than  sex,  of  year,  performance) relationships  the  that  interviews With  the  that  between  lowest  (4.95%  exception were  C . I . C .  areas  and  of  and students,  and the  areas  Interestingly  enough,  they  role  number which  ones  aspects  with  relationships  that  the  differences  student  Exams,  which  Kruskal-Wallis  with  student  of  i n s t i t u t i o n s  were  s i g n i f i c a n t .  were  found  w i l l  of  applied  to,  The  be  b r i e f l y  variable.  Respondent thought  Japanese  there  (F=6.79,  to  be  (F=5.79, less  p=.0113),  (F=2.92,  was  u n i v e r s i t i e s  d i d females  themselves  best  of  number  by student  Males and  of  by students.  aspects  i n  the  post-secondary C . I . C .  were  responses).  Japanese  also  areas  much  as  were  lowest  were  role  reported  highest  the  very  Marks,  and Copying  student  about  total  attention  of  High  than  getting  d i d the  surprise  me b e c a u s e  I  bigger  difference  and colleges p=.0189).  conscienctious  p=.0485),  p=.0026)  a  high  marks  a n d studying  female  i n  the  They  or for  exams  my f e m a l e  This  of  C . I . C . studying  reported  reviewing  doing  respondents.  experience  area  also  about  between  notes  one's  personal  (F=9.96, d i d not  students,  generally,  82 to  have  a more  toward there  Age  their were  of  consciencious  academic  only  these  four  students  difference  between  institutions  i n  the area  than  reported  themselves  ( i . e . ,  d i d older  obtain  students  I f  my m a l e  anything,  i t  students  surprises  relationships  of  thought  was a  me  students be more marks  have  attention (>20).  l i k e l y they  to  do  thinking  f o r student  with  d i d older  f i r s t - y e a r  attentivenes where  to  and  year-one  Japanese  behavior.  to  the  response  students  for older  reported  that  versus  there  younger  was a  students,  bigger  difference  between  C . I . C .  and Japanese  post-secondary  institutions  area  paying  attention  class  p=.0067)  fourth-year versus  reported  of  Respondent  Similar  of  best  perhaps  classroom  reference  also  personal  the expectations  one c a n academically  are s t i l l  (F=4.59,  students  their than  the best  students  class  attendance,  internalized regard  in  Younger  could)  As with  bigger  post-secondary  with  to  older  that  significance.  teachers  s t r i v i n g  of  do  paying  p=.0024).  students  Canadian  standards  to  there  and Japanese of  the highest  (F=9.97,  fourth-year  (<19)  C . I . C .  p=.0356)  Year  work.  than  Respondent  Younger  their  outlook  students), younger  themselves  in  presumably  students. to  be more  (F=7.81,  f o r t h e same  F i r s t - y e a r l i k e l y  to  copy  than d i d  reasons  students  i n the  as d i d  also  on homework a n d  83 on  exams  than  f i r s t - y e a r 1.10  respectively) In  described having  the  clearer  more  active  just  to  than  interview as  goals  fourth-year  they  test  students  or  The were  4  P a r t i c i p a t i o n ) . please large the  refer  to  response  Problems  f u l l  Chapter  3.  the  section.  Variable  variable  Both  the  student  though  students  C . I . C .  and Japanese  experience comply  with  detailed  i n  many the  role).  identify  problems  from  expectation.  Chapter  Two,  copy  sense  or  on  data  that  exams  indicates.  a  i n  exam  than  the  From  what  that  role  even  between  students and they  do not tend  l i t e r a t u r e ,  student  score  expected  means  difference  for  the  low aggregate  that  about  the  student  the  4--Class  comparatively  of  with this  i n  composition,  a  of  and u n i v e r s i t i e s ,  us  that  to  presented  show  report  compliance  t e l l s  make  their  section  differences  colleges  of  section  Presumably,  learning)  l i k e l y  and Figure  figures  of  ( i . e . ,  Graphs  S k i l l s  third  by a l l  assume  homework  graphs  discussion  (1.57 and  their we  questionnaire  the  high  of  If  as  (which aspects  i n  would  copy  low  learners  less  i t  for  compliance  to  students  level  are  means  generally  involved  then  Behaviors,  a  of  year-one.  questionnaire, means  level  intentional  Differences In  very  l i k e l y  3--Study  For a  for  i n  Aggregate  Figure  are both  learners  two a g g r e g a t e  ( i . e . ,  the  students  more  assignment  students,  although  high  more  were  a r e more  fourth-year  Chapter  being  and being  than  a  a  groups,  and i n t e n t i o n a l  pass  There  students  indicating  themselves  year-one  students,  and fourth-year  students.  in  fourth-year  role  i n  to  84 Japanese C . I . C .  post-secondary  students  expectations  report  of  experience  students  i n  cultural  problems)  this  at  odds  also  data  behavior,  each  other  comes  administrators expectations  with  to  students  who do  not  know  several  price,  students.  college-wide  from  a  is  teaching  student-at-risk  know  i t  soon,  moderately  of  student  good.  C . I . C .  This and  has  a  very  designed  with i t  the  reteaching  system  know  aware  ( i . e . ,  are  teachers  and  to  cross-  sections  aspects  as  comply  talking  corroborates  f a i r l y  In year-one,  or  again  ten  however,  understand  i t ,  the  My  are very  and students  students  are constantly  thorough  expectations  by  i n  about  students  and t h i r d  regarding  that  and Canada.  skits  experience  second  sense  journals,  that  Teachers  and compliance  compliance  (reading  confirms  a n d Behaviors). with  Japan  student  the  makes  difference  watching  Teaching for  i t  large  between  C . I . C .  interviews,  questionnaire  f a i r l y role  at  difference.  Problems  a  student  teaching  of  institutions,  the  so  that  college's  repeatedly,  and  sources. Summary  This this  chapter  chapter  Parametric, interviews thematic this  data  began  into  with  groupings  non-parametric,  a of  w i l l  be  from  the  discussed  the  for  were  ten i n  organizing of  data  integrated  aspects. the  the  ten aspects  and q u a l i t a t i v e  and questionnaires  groupings  rationale  student from  under  role.  the  these  The implications  concluding  of  chapter.  of  85 CHAPTER  6:  CONCLUSION This  chapter  results  w i l l  for  those  who  in  North  America.  students that  North  with  consideration  his/her their  American  social  American  between  colleagues greatest  add  two  broad  them  as  my  student's  students  categories of  be  gave  ten. from  the  within  the  on  in  a  of  that  group  must the  students  in  a  student  into  the  (and  to  North role  student  that  role,  areas  is  and  the  perhaps  my  the  categories  l i k e  to  l i f t  identify  Japanese even  sabbotage  it) . We  know  Ohanian that peers  c l e a r l y  (1986),  Japanese and  that  from  Taylor  students i f  they  Anderson  (1993),  Christopher  (1983),  (1983),  Wray  (1992),  and  Young  (1993)  fear  look  conspicuous  among  their  to  choose  to  play  the  a  of  During  would  l i s t  change  respect  emergent I  of  Group  the  more  tempered  values.  the  of  be  points:  context  with  retrospect, rest  u n i v e r s i t y  three  students.  few  study's  mature  aspects  with  me  is  Within  s t r i k i n g  role  and  academic  Role  ten  In  student  identity  maintain  awkwardness  o r i g i n a l  aspects  to  do  Canadian  the  the  expectations  student  Student's  seemed  focus  Japanese  to  of  college  to  students  and  and  the  role  that  selected  or  want  the  have  the  c o n f l i c t  to  and  f i r s t  interviews, to  who  Japanese  I  I  that  may  Changing I  for  implications  Japanese  student  role,  colleges  When  teach  group,  student  hybrid  discuss  educational  game  the  86 way  their  Canadian  teachers  questions,  volunteering  risk  ostracized  being  by  their  in  well.  expecting  students  to  the  teachers, group.  Is  not  be  can  show  change  this  better  a  to  Five  fair try  i n i t i a t i v e  them  answers,  presented By  Chapter  want  of  and  to  look  to and  for  find  creative  ways  without  with  they  Interview  conspicuous  teacher  excellence  opinions)  corroborates  identity a  asking  students.  study  student's  ( i . e . ,  stating  fellow  this  thing  to  we  this,  as  attempt,  respect  to  expect?  i n  which  having  data  to  as the  Would  it  students  to  be  conspicuous? In  the  students of  in  a  behaviors  shy in  last  to  show  variety  their  Studies,  of  some  of  ten  other  lines  students  formatting  have  i n  Clearly,  this  make  student  slips  the the  is  an  is  a  lab  or  have  for  their  no  fear  a  w i l l and  under can  and  extra  where  found  submit  to  my  ask  do  in  only  or  done  before  the  office me  help  students  a  in  in  five  door,  without to  Computer  minimum i n  Computer  of  feel  they  class. a  way  I  as a  see  one-on-one  being  with  what  Once  only  too  understand  pages  after such  are  my  the  class.  question  seem  to  a p p l i c a t i o n  themselves but  so  juxtaposition who  assignment  four  ingenious  one  i n a b i l i t y  turn  college  Students  project  taught  student  environment  have  or  w i l l  conspicuous  get  I  Japanese  fascinating.  "hot-dogging"  assignment  Similarly, computer  class  teaching  courses  students  experimental learned  of  excellence  classroom  Where  requirement  years  consistently  my R e a d i n g  class.  seven  to  not  student i t . in  the  conspicuous.  It  quite  be  safe  to  87 above  and  below  Students to  appear  wonder  are  i f  answers  for  student  name,  think  about  state  to  whether  way our  expectations  accordingly.  their some  of  whether  the  interviews time  absent  in  from  homework.  in  classroom  the  answers, between everyone When they  or  English  and  leaders  and  among  stating  seemed  l i s t e d  or  learning  so  opinions  to  or  of  be  Point  in  changed  be  became were  peers  working what  such  external  factors  a  closer  the the  had  it  to  upon  We n e e d  a  to  are our  students idea  of  mentioned student  decided  accepted  w i l l i n g  to  than  role be  became  conspicuous  volunteering  feeling  caught of  teachers,  d i r e c t i o n .  smaller  relationship  they  be  expectations same  to  i n  about and  questions,  happened as  r e a l l y  c a l l  adjust  They  Rather  in  does  Rather  Maturity  more  and  I  questions,  example).  conscientious  (asking  way,  conspicuous  students  their  more  afraid  same  ask  do?  and  year.  more  to  badly  fourth-year  students  and  of  are  the  for  teachers  fair  asked  s k i l l  less  so  are  fourth  In  answer,  objectives  peers  of  in  an  They  afraid  journals,  opinions).  expectations  I  they  less  Active  student  be  they  groups  third  class  better  would  Turning  that  the  public.  expectations  and  Several  in  Japanese  ethnocentric  A  excellent.  volunteer  educational the  be  or  interviews  someone  our  to  peers  r e a l l y or  (in  compromise by  afraid to  students  circumstances ask  not  excellent  volunteer  than  average.  with  to  cause  classes, the  the  change  improved  teachers  and  88 the  rest  careful  of and  teachers These  the  a l l  seemingly  in  self-motivated the  system?  fact,  or  certain  a  a  in  foreign new  the  If  change  the is  moving  this  a l l  reach  it?  by  moment  Does  in  something  a  time  at  two-year  program ever  reach  a  how  live  do  finances,  the  teachers  and  are  or  l i f e : and  suggests  u n l i k e l y  to  being  led  place,  being?  Does  this  to  they  that  display  of  point  reach Do  go  i t .  learning any  When  of  year?  do  children,  in  Do  they  depend  submerged  i n i t i a l l y .  way  on  in  their  the  intentional  Anecdotal  of  year?  students  gradually  happen  through  second  it  being  get  spouse,  students it  of  simply  reach  or  a  expectations  there  maturity?  they  at  fourth  f i r s t  thought?  company, never  the  is  through  only  students or  and  external  educational  third  takes  self-directed  takes  which of  family,  simply  that  moment  depth  of  more  that  time.  by  external,  maturity  and  expectations  of  influenced  the  the  factors  student  someone  their  maturity  l i f e  a  university  personal  they  and  period  each  by  self-motivated/self-directed  such  the  to  hypothesized  explanation.  though,  becomes  change  Canadian  of  reach  possible  when  than  teacher  expectations  long  t r u l y  adapting  to  a  a  human  somewhere  caused  students  moment  do  change  really  rather  maturing  or  and  a  of  factors,  moment  simply  students  culture,  same  being  over  learning  this  circumstances,  to  a  learner  Is  age  as  students  his/her  fourth-year  communication  students  changed  of  A  environmental  there,  charge  students.  thorough  to  are  Is  the  about  the  extended evidence  develop  E l i z a b e t h  from  maturity Kennedy  89 (personal worked  communication,  very  teachers second point  do  to  of  the  do  advise to  and  Canadian  doing. in  It  A p r i l  those  new  an  when  finishing  f i r s t  t i l l i n g ,  watering  a  Sometimes, efforts students  of  l i t e r a t u r e at  to  one  f i r s t - y e a r  mature,  be  pushed  findings and  This  each  them of  what and  a  begin  to need  anew  be  and It  year  those is  l i k e  and  fruit. whether  know  range  prod,  every  campus.  to  program  should  arrive  doubt  and  adjustment  c u l t i v a t i n g ,  teachers  the  the  the  bear  that  walk,  student  recruits  f e r t i l i z i n g ,  of  and  begins  is  particular  year  year  Vancouver  within  of  through  see  not  is  f i r s t  never  but  though.  responsible  the  teachers  turning  more  w i l l  These  a  become  new  the  ahead,  that  their  study  Japan  of  commented  this  year. in  who  of  process  batch  move  that  do  that  was  threaten  planting,  wasted.  Not  roles  next  are  first-year  One  plant  skeptical  She  expectations  year  weeding,  from  from  exhausting  the  students  teach  cases  college is  in  fourth  students  some  change  minds  who  teacher  students,  important  the  fourth-year of  could  their  by  a  group  year.  maturity  change  in  this  noticeable  most  for  receive  with  fourth  learners  importance who  a  student  students mature  see  their  in  One  closely  1994),  of  their  that  many  sight  of  their  teachers. Japan the  and  biggest  review  C . I . C .  post-secondary  Not  and  l i e s  Canada  but  revelations conducting  somewhere  stereotypes  Somewhere for  this  between  about  them.  me  in  study  In  doing was  Japanese The  Between  that and  the student Canadian  l i t e r a t u r e  available  about  what  neither  describes  best  offers  it  Japanese  nor  explains  points  of  students  may  Canadian  teachers.  Japanese  post-secondary  classes 1987; to  or  do,  pay  Tsuda,  attend  resist  this  from  and  but,  college's  advisors) about  things  not  class  not  to  as  ultimately,  most  students  not  seem  describe  can  offer  natural  what  the  an  to  i n  to  1990;  to  attend Tasker,  many  expected students  and methods  offending their  to  students faculty  comply.  Literature  Japanese  post-  explanation  C . I . C .  C . I . C .  cases  many  attend  contacting  attention  in  Some  the  or  their  lesson. do  At  s t a r t l e  are  resort  placing  do.  students  most  l i s t  paying  that  do  Japanese  expected  the  risk"  and  might  however,  attention  (such  what  (Schooland,  teachers  institutions  might  are  year-one,  "at  attendance  secondary  does  but,  in  students  example,  speaking,  happens  the  for  students  about  that  generally  see on  C . I . C .  time,  C . I . C ,  pay  In  this  to  students  At  participate. that  time  We k n o w ,  1993).  what  enlightenment  attention  class  post-secondary  for  students  student's  role  why  but  such  it  but  it  ultimately  becomes. Students orientation  at to  colleges the  such  expectations  i n s t i t u t i o n ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y  Teachers  administrators  factors  and which  may  affect  that  can  be  Anything role  from  the  time  as  done  the  at  how to  C . I . C . of  the need  their  to  be  of  aware  students  eliminate  effective  teachers  beginning  their  student  need  and  their of  the  programs.  cultural  view  their  role.  confusion  about  student  considers  applying  to  the  91 i n s t i t u t i o n role  is  modeling  their same  also by  helpful  older  interviews). study  again,  orientation happened  It with  process  since  clear  students  such  would  interesting  the  and  this  (including  be  three  as  years  study  was  f i r s t  students  of  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  orientation  to  and  mentioned  conduct  this  improvements  strategies  i n  to  that  our  have  undertaken.  Summary The  study  Japanese  expected to  should guide  to be  be  of  do  aware  students  conform  students in  with be  is  of  year  not  and  simple.  An  of  roles  student  do  comparatively  but  long  best  also  to the  possible.  which  periods  international  students  keeping  wherever  but  are leaves  their  while  influences roles  non-  students  Japanese  and  intact  external  an  in  important  teachers  peers  of  students  university  student  expected over  is  differences  his/her  f i r s t  Japanese  and  Canadian  aware  to  of  helpful  expected  change  the  college  cultural  into  place  role  universities  Japan  of  should  just  what  explained.  Teachers  not  and  in  students  student's  that  student  colleges  understanding  much  of  may  help  remember of  program.  time,  92 References Anderson,  F .  nails  (1993).  that  Handbook  The enigma  of  the  stick  In  Paul  don't  for  teaching  Universities  (pp.  up.  E n g l i s h  101-110).  at  college  classroom:  Wadden(Ed.),  Japanese  New Y o r k :  A  colleges  Oxford  and  University  Press. Baker,  D . ,  & Stevenson,  D.  a l l o c a t i o n  i n  in  American  Japan.  Beauchamp,  E .  policy,  formal  (1987).  (1992).  Shadow  schooling: Journal  of  T r a n s i t i o n Sociology,  The development  1945-85.  History  of  education  of  to 97  university (6),  Japanese  Education  and  1639-57.  educational  Quarterly,  27  (3),  299-324. Becker,  C.  (1990).  Higher  education  implications.  International  Relations.  425-447.  Benedict,  R.  (1946).  Charles Berman,  D.  14.  E .  The  Tuttle  (1990).  Research  Social  are  R.  Japanese  hell? Bohnaker,  & Ross,  JALT W.  Shocks). Christopher,  Chiba  S.  (1989).  Journal  of  and  the  Facts  and  Intercultural  the  of  18  English  11(2) .  sword.  Tokyo:  Japan. (4),  s t i l l  school Theory  entrance and  387-404. after  matriculation:  alive  after  exam  193-210. doll  Ballantine The  high  Motivation  The hollow  (1983).  of  Education,  New Y o r k : R.  study  prefecture,  learners  (1990).  Journal  chrysanthemum  A case  i n  Berwick,  Japan:  and Company.  examination i n  i n  Japanese  (a  l i t t l e  box  of  Japanese  Books. mind.  New Y o r k :  Linden  Press. Costiniuk,  B.  Science Costiniuk,  (1988). Teacher.  B.  23(4),  (1988).  uniformity. Desjardins,  Education  C ,  Perspectives  on  H.  TQM.  History  educational  Studies  & Obara,  Japan.  and  Social  148-50.  Japan's  Social  in  Teacher,  (1993).  9(3),  From  Educational  system:  Emphasis  on  6-7.  Quebec  to  Leadership,  Tokyo: 51  (1),  68-  69. Doi,  T.  (1981).  Kodansha Fararo,  K.  Chronicle  of  Gittelsohn,  J .  taking  a  c r i s i s  of  Kato,  H.  J .  Japanese Kempner,  K , .  York:  45,  The  S.,  doomsday  Ticknor  and  Hell".  analysts  now  say.  teacher  in  a  F i e l d s .  Japan's  p o l i t i c s ,  universities, face  their  Chronicle  of  own Higher  48. 7).  Higher  Recession  Educational  & Takayama, guru.  H.  Understanding  business  world. M.  New  (1993).  paves  and  p.  way  Supplement,  (1995,  Newsweek,  (1992).  & Makino,  "Exam  An American  20).  national  January  Times  and  reformers  37-38.  bow:  York:  complacency, pp.  to  September  from  (1994,  the  & J .  New  higher-education  laxness,  Education,  New  (1989,  Strasser,  grabs  dependence.  Japanese  Learning  cue  reform. K . ,  of  academic  school.  Education,  I toy,  20).  Higher  (1991).  Japanese  Greenlees,  May  elitism,  B.  anatomy  International.  (1987,  weigh  F e i l e r ,  The  May  29).  for p.  8.  Tokyo  48.  working  with  the  Jersey:  P r e n t i c e - H a l l .  Cultural  influences  on  the  94 construction  of  Comparative Leclercq,  J .  Journal T . ,  Education.  (1989).  education  Matsui,  and  of  a  to  McCormick,  K.  J .  Moral C.  (1988).  (1970).  N.  education.  European  Career  orientedness  among  Journal  Japanese  of  high  Vocational  of school  Behavior,  In at  York: S.  The  Oxford  the  Japanese  Education,  at  Reitaku  24  (1),  37-51.  University.  33-37.  Society.  Wadden  Berkeley:  Notes Phi  (ed.),  on  Delta and  Comparative  New  York:  The  and  University  the  A Handbook  and  of  foreign for  Universities  Teaching (pp.  Press. Japan  from  Kappan,  68,  perspectives  Education,  Educational  (1988).  student  Colleges  Problems  (1967).  E .  13(2),  University  Interpretation. Reishcauer,  education  Japanese  Japanese  (1986-7).  education.  and  Comparative  Forum,  Paul  (1986).  W.  Vocationalism  Press.  schoolteacher.  Popham,  (1992).  Japanese  (1993).  English  T.  School-based  183-96.  university  Human  Education  teacher.  Ohta,  M.  system.  C a l i f o r n i a  Ohanian,  model:  24(2),  education.  185-199.  vocational  analysis.  (1988).  educational  New  (2),  higher  351-363.  40,  Nozaki,  Japanese  Japanese  enter  path  in  29  firm-based  & Onglatco,  g i r l s :  Nakane,  The  Education,  motivation  Mizuno,  knowledge  Japanese  American  360-367. in  22(1),  S t a t i s t i c s : Harper  an  and  today:  Use  Japanese 27-30. and  Row. Change  and  28-31).  continuity. Schoolland,  K.  Japanese Siegel,  S.  For  Cambridge, (1990).  Shogun's  education.  & Castellan,  the  Massachusetts:  New N . J .  Behavioral  ghost:  York:  Sciences  The  Bergin  (1988).  Belknap dark &  Press.  side  of  Garvey.  Nonparametric  (2nd  ed.).  s t a t i s t i c s  Montreal:  McGraw-  H i l l . Stephens,  M.  (1991).  Martin's Tasker,  P.  Japan  and  education.  New  York:  St.  Press.  (1987).  The  Japanese.  (1983).  Shadows  New  York:  Truman  Talley  Books. Taylor,  J .  Of  the  Tonegawa,  "Japanese  K.  Tsuda,  T.  The  The  Japanese  in  M.  The  Comparative van  Wolferen, York:  White,  M.  H.  educational  Yobiko  Quest  for  a  c r i t i c a l  Q u i l l . i n d i v i d u a l i t y  48(6),  functions  experience.  view  27-29.  of  The  and  l i m i n a l i t y :  Journal  of  305-330.  and  Ronin  24  The  (3), enigma  supplementary  student  education  adaptations.  285-303. of  Japanese  power.  New  Knopf.  The  to  York:  Institutionalised  A.  (1987).  (1991).  (3),  sun:  New  psychosocial  (1989).  Alfred  r i s i n g  Administrator,  Education,  K.  Commitment Wray,  20  (1988).  Japan:  Japan:  university  Psychohistory, Tsukada,  In  School  (1993).  the  Miracle".  (1991).  f l e x i b i l i t y .  of  Japanese  c h i l d r e n . Change  history:  and  educational  New  York:  continuity  A l l i e d  challenge:  The in  Free  modern  occupational  A  Press. Japanese  reforms  forty  96 years Young,  M.  Phi  later. (1993).  Delta  Comparative The dark  Kappan,  75  Education Review,  underside  (2),  of  130-132.  Japanese  3.5(3),  447-75.  education.  APPENDIX A: ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Japanese Students' Expectations of their Academic Role Section 1: 1.  Information about the Student.  My age is: _ _ _ _ years old.  2.  I am: a) a male student b) a female student  3.  During my four years at C.I.C I have:  4.  a) b) c) d) Before I a) b) c) d)  Section 2:  passed all of my classes failed one class failed two classes failed three or more classes came to C.I.C. I: had applied had applied had applied had applied  to to to to  no other colleges or universities. one other college or university. two other colleges or universities. several other colleges or universities.  Differences in the college student's role between Japan and Canada.  Is there a difference between what a Japanese college expects of students and what C.I.C. expects of its students in the following areas? 1.  Class attendance  no difference  1  2  3  4  5  6  big difference  2.  Lateness  no difference  3.  big di f f e r e n c e  1  Paying a t t e n t i o n during the lesson ( i . e . t a l k i n g / f a l l i n g  no difference  5.  big di f f e r e n c e  1  page 2 Being a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n the c l a s s ( i . e . doing classroom exercises)  no difference  4.  for class  big di f f e r e n c e  1  A s k i n g q u e s t i o n s and v o l u n t e e r i n g answers.  no difference  big di f f e r e n c e  1  6. Handing i n homework. no difference  1  6  big difference  6  big difference  7. C o p y i n g homework o r c o p y i n g on exams. no difference  8.  1  R e v i e w i n g c l a s s n o t e s and s t u d y i n g f o r exams,  no difference  1  big di f f e r e n c e  asleep)  9.  I m p o r t a n c e o f g e t t i n g good  ma  (i.e.higher  no  than  a passing  big 1  difference  10.  2  3  Importance of  no difference  1  4  5  6  difference  6  big difference  exams.  2  3  4  5  page Are  there other  areas  3  of d i f f e r e n c e ?  2.  S e c t i o n 3:  Problems between s t u d e n t s s t u d e n t ' s r o l e a t C.I.C.  and  teachers  regarding  the  Do you b e l i e v e t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x p e c t a t i o n s b e t w e e n s t u d e n t s t e a c h e r s a t C.I.C. c r e a t e a p r o b l e m i n t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e a s ? 1.  Class  no problem  2. no problem  attendance.  1  2  Lateness  1  2  3  for  4  5  6  big problem  6  big problem  class.  3  4  5  and  grade).  3.  Being actively involved in the class.  no problem  1  big problem  4. Paying attention during the lesson. no problem  1  big problem  5. Asking questions and volunteering answers, no problem  1  6. Handing in homework. no problem  1  big problem page 4 big problem  7. Copying homework or on exams. no problem  8.  big problem  Reviewing class notes and studying for exams,  no problem  9.  1  1  big problem  Getting good marks (i.e. higher than a passing grade).  no problem  1  big problem  10.  Importance of exams.  no problem  1  2  3  4  5  big problem  6  Are t h e r e o t h e r areas t h a t are a problem? 1.  .  2.  S e c t i o n 4: 1.  My r o l e as a s t u d e n t at  I a t t e n d a l l c l a s s e s at  C.I.C.  C.I.C.  agree  disagree 1  2  3  4  5  6 page 5  2.  I am seldom l a t e f o r c l a s s e s at t h i s c o l l e g e .  agree  disagree 1  3.  2  3  4  5  6  I u s u a l l y do my homework and t u r n i t i n . agree  disagree 1  2  3  4  5  6 page 6  4.  I u s u a l l y take part i n classroom a c t i v i t i e s . agree  disagree 1  5.  2  3  4  5  6  5  6  I u s u a l l y pay a t t e n t i o n i n c l a s s . agree  disagree 1  2  3  4  6.  102  I ask questions and volunteer answers. agree  disagree 1  7.  2  3  4  5  6  I do all my homework and exams myself without copying work from other students. agree  disagree 1  8.  2  3  4  5  6  I regularly review my notes. agree  disagree 1  9.  2  3  4  5  6  I believe that high marks (not just passing marks) are important, agree  disagree 1  2  3  4  5  6  10. I study very seriously for exams. agree  — 1  2  3  disagree 4  5  6  103  APPENDIX B: TRANSLATED QUESTIONNAIRE COMMENTS BY CAMPUS N e i s o n  S  t  u  d  e  n  t  s  Section Two N1  2-1  Nothing special  N11  2-1  Participation in club activities.  N13 2-1 students.  For example, club, students' play, also teacher's attitude for  N14  2-1  It's no problem if we took a good mark at last.  N20  2-1  After school activity.  N25 2-1 The value of existance of the university (Canadians have more choice not to go to college). In Japan people tend to think young people should go to university or college. N26 2-1 There is a difference in attitude between J. students who go to J. universities and those who go to CIC. N33  2-1 2-2  For Japanese students a part time job is part of their life. Student activity is limited at CIC.  N34  2-1  The size of classroom (Japan bigger).  N39  2-1 Purpose of going to school. 2-2 Priority is playing and/or part time job.  N40 2-1 Students do not think deeply about the purpose of going to school or college. Part time jobs are the centre of their, life. I cannot say everyone but play is more important and they only study a little before the examination or sometimes cheating. N42  "It's not 'area'.  Everything is different from the foundation.  2-1 If you attend the classes you can graduate from J. university. J. university students play all of the time. They just want to have "name" (i.e. which university they graduated from). N45  2-1 nothing 2-2 nothing  Section 3  \  N1  3-1 nothing special  N14  3-1  104  Some teachers don't understand our character.  N26 3-1 At CIC all students are Japanese and all teachers are Canadian. That makes a big difference in expectations both ways (from student to teacher and teacher to student). (Students have more expectations to the school than the school has to the student). N33 3-1 We have to attend boring classes. N39  3-1 There aren't many communication opportunities with Canadians.  N45  3-1 nothing 3-2 nothing  N49  3-1  Many homework. In Japan don't have homework.  Section 2 V2 2-1 The size of class. Japanese universities have large classrooms so that students can easily sleep. V4  "pupil" (until end of high school) "student" (university) 2-1 J. universities stick to/care about where the p u p i l work and CIC doesn't.  V5 2-1 In J. universities not only work for their academics but doing some extra-curricular activity is more accepted and expected from J. soci ety. V6 2-1 Entering into high level university has become a purpose in J. and pupil does not concentrate on the classes. V13 2-1 There are discrepancies between what the student expects to receive from the college and what the college is offering the student. CIC's academics (classes?) are mostly required (i.e. no choice) and are easier than the students' academic level. V18  2-1 There is more emphasis on leadership 2-2 Personal character as globalist  Section 3 V2 3-1 Most important one: cultural differences. Teachers expect students to ask more questions but Japanese usually hesitate. V6 3-1 I don't think there are so many problems for the student who graduated from high school but I think there are many problems for the pupil  who has experience in colleges.  105  3-2 Basically CIC students have understanding about N. American way of classes. V8 3-1 Teacher expect students speaking in English all the time. Students tend to speak in Japanese. V18 3-4 (re: sleeping in classes) Those are a problem in every school--not only at CIC. 3-1 Pupil's English ability and English ability that the teacher expects from pupi1. V20 3-1 Even in the same course, different teachers gave different evaluation (marks). 3-2 Sometimes there are frustrations because teachers and students do not communicate enough about class content and how to conduct a class.  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items