Reflection on "Beliefs about Self-learning..."

The article is one based on research conducted in the field of personal epistemology, research that "examines students' beliefs about the nature of knowing and knowledge." The vague individualistic nature of this field has allowed for a slew of off shoots to arise. It is suggested that readers, particularly students, can over come learning and understanding problems if they know the proper way to approach the problem.
The section on "Beliefs about learning and text comprehension" claimed information came from sources such as phenomenographic studies, and self-reporting questionnaires. Ultimately these different methods lead to the conclusion that students beliefs about what learning actually was, forming new connections between concepts or being able to reproduce the concepts one is taught, impacted the self-regulated learning. Accordingly students that believed in the constructive learning reason were "more likely to succeed in transforming new information and integrating it with their own knowledge."
At this point I would simply like to point out that the study appears to be biased. Students who focus on learning one way are going to "succeed" if they are tested on concepts in a similar manner to the way they learned them while the students who learned through and alternative method would clearly have a reason for not "succeeding" as well as the other students. I wonder how this success is being measure (raises similar debate as modern IQ tests do).
This particular study is answering a question raised after reading the article on change over the next 20 years in East Asian classrooms: what if any is the difference between the students approach to learning in the classroom. It was conducted over roughly 850 students in the 5th and 6th grades of Chinese schools. These students were asked to fill out "the implicit learning questionnaire" adapted specifically for this study from the Canadian version.
Part of the data collect was broken down into a table showing Constructivist beliefs and Reproductivist beliefs on topics chosen by the researchers.
This particular way of categorizing seems very pro-thesis oriented. The data is not being allow to simply lie within the study but is being presented in the data portion in such a way that it could only support the hypothesis. Ultimately, however the study showed "zero correlations for beliefs about learning, self-regulated learning strategies and inferential comprehension." (14) Despite these finding the researchers claim the evidence supports the hypothesis The study showed that many eastern students carry similar beliefs and approaches to learning as western students who have been tested but that these students can often be broken down into the categories of the constructive and reproductive learner.
The study, while it raised valid points about the personal views of students impacting the way the retain and learn knowledge (which is an interesting concept to explore about the approach people take to reading things over the internet) was in my opinion to black and white to be thorough study. Also I personally am not a fan of the survey method (which was used to collect some of the data) as it has been proven to be around 20% inaccurate. As far as I can tell the hypothesis could not have been proven wrong with the methods used, thus making the study invalid. It is encouraging however to see to articles with such high correlation (how East Asian classrooms will be changing over the next 20 years and this).