once believed to engage in rote learning, not to learn for understanding, but
for high examination grades. However, scholars have pointed out the impos-
sibility of rote learning leading to high achievement among Asian learners,
which is a fundamental paradox begging for explanation (Watkins & Biggs,
1996, 2001). Recent research indicates that Chinese learners aim at deeper
understanding despite their memorization (Marton, Dall’Alba, & Kun, 1996;
Volet & Renshaw, 1996). It appears that memorization is used as a strategy,
instead of the end of learning, to lay a factual foundation for understanding
of the creative aspects of an original work, for example, (e.g. a poem or an es-
say). After this initial step, learners move on to seek connections and deeper
meanings of the work (Li, 1997; Marton et al., 1996; Pratt, Kelly, & Wong,
1999).
The role of verbal expression is of central importance to Western learners.
First, as discussed earlier, verbal ability constitutes one of the two key dimen-
sions of the Western conception of intelligence (logical-mathematical intelli-
gence is the other). Second, verbal skills, ranging from reading, speaking,
writing, and other literacy skills, are significant achievements to be marked in
formal education, as well as in people’s careers. Third, verbal skills are neces-
sary tools for communication at all levels in society. Therefore, Western
learners engage intensely in learning how to read, talk, and write from early
on (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). As a related but a more demanding proc-
ess of learning in the Western intellectual tradition, learners are frequently
encouraged to participate in discussions and debates whereby they question
and challenge not only each other but authorities as well (Barnes, 1965;
Gardner, 1999; Hunt, 1993; Miller, 1981; Nisbett, 2003; Tweed & Lehman,
2002).
Asian learners have been observed to be less verbal in learning. Even
though they are attentive and work hard, they tend to be quiet in class
(Duncan & Paulhus, 1998; Kim & Markus, 2002; Winner, 1989). This ten-
dency has often been interpreted as a sign of obedience, docility, and lack of
inquisitiveness, creativity, and imagination. This passivity is believed due to
Asian cultures’ emphasis on deference toward authority (Ouyang, 2000;
Tweed & Lehman, 2002). Whereas some Asian educational observers concur
with the previous characterization, others are reluctant to embrace such in-
terpretations. For example, Kim (2002) in experimental studies found Euro-
Americans more likely to think verbally and to believe that talking is con-
ducive to thinking; however, Asian-Americans did not due to their cultural
belief that talking may interfere with their thinking. Furthermore, Inagaki,
Hatano, and Morita (1998) studied Japanese school children’s participation
in scientific inquiry and found that even though many children were overtly
quiet, they were just as actively engaged as their verbal peers. Counter-
intuitively, these children did many of the inquisitive activities, such as ques-
tioning, disagreeing, and taking sides covertly, for example, in journals or es-
392 LI AND FISCHER