Students as Partners: A New Ethos for the Transformation of Teacher and Student Identities in Chinese Higher Education

Abstract

Engaging students as partners (SaP) in teaching and learning is a growing arena of practice that shapes the mutually beneficial student-teacher relationship. Redefining student-teacher identities in pedagogical practice is one of the key implications of SaP. In the past decade, Chinese higher education institutions have paid increasing attention to student-centred pedagogies. Understanding and investigating new interpretations of student-teacher identities underpins the shift toward such pedagogical practices. In this theoretical discussion paper, based on the recent trends associated with Chinese higher education reform efforts revealed by large-scale and systematic survey results, we interrogate the concept of Chinese student-teacher identities as a learning partnership by drawing on the theorisations of SaP. Our intention is to contribute to the ongoing process of identity transformation within Chinese higher education. By calling for adapting SaP to the unique Chinese educational and cultural features, we provide a future vision for the cultivation of the teacher-student relationship.

Keywords

Identity student teacher students as partners student-staff partnership Chinese higher education

1 Introduction

Following the pace of economic globalisation, after the ‘open door’ policy in 1978, China started to establish international collaborations with other countries, especially western developed countries. In this process, higher education (HE) is positioned as one of the crucial ‘mediators’ in creating new opportunities to move people and knowledge between China and other countries. In response to the arrival of a highly competitive global knowledge economy, Chinese HE reform has been conducted since the 1980s (Cai, 2013). As one vital goal of the reform, the internationalisation of Chinese HE has brought various changes, performed by sending students and scholars overseas, establishing transnational HE programs to motivate mutual movement, and integrating international dimensions into HE teaching and learning (Dai, 2020; Dai, Matthews, & Renshaw, 2020; Dai, Matthews, & Reyes, 2020; Yang, 2016). Along with these implementations, students and academics in China have also experienced numerous changes in educational practices. For instance, the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016–2020) proposed by the Chinese government, as an official commitment to the internationalisation (Lin, 2019), suggests that HE sectors need to enhance education quality by conducting suitable curriculum and pedagogical reform, with a stress on the process of learning. In response, many scholars (e.g. Tan & Reyes, 2016; Wei, 2018; Yin, Wang, & Han, 2016) have emphasised the importance of innovative, student-centred pedagogies that focus on the cultivation of student independence and autonomy. Contributing to this scholarship, we argue that attention to the identities of learners and teachers in Chinese HE lies at core of these reform efforts and relates more broadly to everyday learner-teacher interactions.

Internationalisation of Chinese HE is the context and background in which our thinking about Chinese learner-teacher identities are situated. It is a national goal and prompted new approaches in Chinese HE. Lin (2019) discusses internationalisation as a dualism—import and export, adoption and adaptation, indicating that the development of Chinese HE benefits from the combination of Chinese and western characteristics. In the past decade, the concept of students as partners (SaP) has been paid growing attention in the western HE context. It is considered a pedagogical partnership that aims to reshape the traditional hierarchy-based relationship and identity perceptions between teachers and learners in educational practices (Matthews, 2017). Notably, one of the key concepts of SaP is to create a reasonably ‘equal’ context for teachers and learners to engage in teaching and learning practices from different perspectives rather than follow the traditional teacher-dominated model (Bovill, 2013). In this theoretical discussion paper, in the context of internationalisation, we contribute a novel perspective for Chinese HE sectors by considering the possibility of adopting SaP as an initiative to support the transformation of teacher and student identities within Chinese HE, and advocate further adaptation in Chinese pedagogical practices. This paper starts with an introduction on SaP, followed by a discussion about the concept of identity in teaching and learning. Then, based on the survey results on the expectations of Chinese university students and academics in different periods, critical discussion on the trend of identity changes of student and teacher in Chinese universities is undertaken. This leads to further understanding the intersections between the three bodies of literature (SaP, identity, Chinese HE). Finally, a discussion about the possibility of conducting SaP practices in the context of Chinese HE is critically presented.

2 The Growing Body of SaP in Teaching and Learning

The concept of teachers engaging with SaP focuses attention on the pedagogical relationships between learners and teachers (Healey, Flint, & Harrington, 2014; Matthews, Dwyer, Hines, & Turner, 2018). In practice, pedagogical partnerships between students and teachers unfolds as ‘a collaborative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same ways, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualisation, decision making, implementation, investigation, or analysis’ (Cook-Sather, Bovill, & Felten, 2014, pp. 6–7). In partnership, certain values are enacted between students and teachers that define the relationships such that SaP is a values-based practice (Matthews et al., 2018). Healey et al. (2014, pp. 14–15) named the values that underpin this relationship as ‘trust, plurality, responsibility, authenticity, honesty, inclusively, reciprocity, and empowerment’, emphasising that students and academic staff benefit from it together. For Cook-Sather et al. (2014), the values of mutual respect, reciprocity, and shared responsibility for learning and teaching were central to SaP. Cates, Madigan, and Reitenauer (2018, p. 37) reframed these three SaP values into the ‘the more explicitly feminist terms of agency, accountability, and affinity’. SaP is often discussed as a form of student engagement (Bovill & Felten, 2016; Healey et al., 2014; Matthews, 2017), yet for many, like Cates et al. (2018), SaP is a radical practice with clear roots in critical pedagogies that call into questions the role of power and agency in classrooms. This is because many SaP scholars theorise partnership practices in contrast to rigid hierarchical student-teacher interactions.

As a critical pedagogical practice, Bovill (2013, p. 99) describes some key conditions of partnership emphasising ‘that learning is meaningful; that there is freedom for students to make choices; that the student-tutor relationship is facilitatory, collaborative and based on dialogue; and that the learner is viewed as a knowledgeable and critical partner in learning’. The picture of learning in higher education draws much of its inspiration from the ‘student voice’ movement in schools (Cook-Sather, 2018). SaP practices are evident across universities in the English speaking world (Bovill, 2019a) and have been widely implemented, such as students as collaborators in course design and SoTL (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning) research at Elon University in the USA (Mihan, Long, & Felten, 2008), the students as partners program at the University of Queensland in Australia (Coombe, Huang, Russell, Sheppard, & Khosravi, 2018), students as co-designers of teaching resources at the University of Edinburgh in the UK (Harden & Fawhner, 2019), the Student Partner Program where students collaborate on SoTL projects at McMaster University in Canada (Marquis et al., 2016), and the Students as Learners and Teachers Program at Byrn Mawr College in the USA engaging students as pedagogical consultants (Cook-Sather & Abbot, 2016). SaP stretches the traditional boundaries of the curriculum where any space on campus becomes a pedagogical space where students and staff can learn together (Dwyer, 2018). In other words, SaP practices can unfold in the classroom as part of the formal university curriculum for credit or outside in the extra-curricular spaces as project-based approaches.

Partnership practices are complex (Bovill, 2019a) and SaP is a contested term and construct that describes many practices within the umbrella term of ‘students as partners’ (Cook-Sather, Matthews, Ntem, & Leathwick, 2018). Dunne (2016) collected more than 20 different terminologies used to describe partnership practices. Therefore, people should focus on the nature and values reflected in teaching and learning activities. Meantime, the complexity of SaP also leads to its diversity. For the sake of sustainability and enriching SaP as a global scholarship, partnership is discussed as a ‘complex cultural-linguistic construct’, emphasising that cultural backgrounds will affect how people interpret SaP (Green, 2019; Cook-Sather et al., 2018). As SaP practices grow, so does the body of literature researching and theorising such practices. A systematic literature review of SaP studies found over 60 empirical publications between 2010–2015 in English language outlets mainly from a handful of countries (USA, UK, Canada, Australia and some western European countries) that documented a range of beneficial outcomes for both students and staff involved in SaP practices (Matthews et al., 2019b; Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017). Analysis of theoretical frames in research on SaP found that the constructs of power and identity underpinned partnership practices as relational praxis that calls into question taken-for-granted assumptions about the role of the teachers and the students in ways that illuminate power dynamics and relational identities by giving permission to learners and teachers to reshape them (Matthews et al., 2019a). Through partnership, academics are no longer only teachers and students are no longer only learners, they define themselves as both learners and teachers (Cook-Sather & Luz, 2015) to be co-learners and co-creators of knowledge (Bovill, Cook-Sather, & Felten, 2011).

In the following sections, based on a general view of scholars on the formation and factors of teacher and student identities, we demonstrate the trend of identity changes within Chinese universities after the turn of the century and further explain the applicability of the partnership practice to promote the transformation of identities in Chinese HE.

3 Identity in Teaching and Learning

The concept of identity is about how individuals and society answer the question ‘Who are you?’ (Vignoles, Schwartz, & Luyckx, 2011). In this broad notion, ‘people identify their “selves” not only with their individual physical and psychological characteristics, but also with significant others, groups or social categories, material objects, and places’ (Vignoles, 2017, p. 2). Therefore, the identity of a person is shaped by the influence of personal internal factors and the external environment. At the same time, identity also influences the response of the individual to future expectations (Simon, 2004), which plays a vital role in personal development. Regarding this perception from individuals and society, Daniels and Brooker (2014, p. 69) suggested that the identity is fluid and flexible:

It depends on the individual’s ability to shape, adapt, and apply the self to the needs of a particular role; not only once, but many times throughout life. Whatever identity is being formed, therefore, this flexibility is best achieved through exposure to a range of experiences.

Thus, it may also apply to being a teacher or a student. As co-existing individuals in universities, the identity of students and teachers can be affected by external social and cultural environments and the perception of differences between different individuals. Such an ongoing and changing process will further link to their academic performance and future development (Lounsbury, Huffstetler, Leong, & Gibson, 2005). Therefore, for the two different and related identities, teacher and student, we separately discuss their formation and the possible influencing factors, providing a theoretical basis for the discussion of teacher and student identities in the context of Chinese HE and the potentials of pedagogical partnership.

3.1 Teacher Identity

Teacher identity exists in multiple and complex forms in HE (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009). Teachers may have multiple perceptions on their identities, and their perceptions will be continuously constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed along with changes in the environment (Sheridan, 2013). For example, the impact of neoliberalism on HE is both positive and negative on teachers who have different academic and professional cognitions, such as the contrary existence of self-interested individualism and the pursuits of professionalism (Ball, 2016). According to Kelchtermans (2009), this changing process is based on the teacher’s self-understanding, which involves self-image, self-esteem, task perception, job motivation and future perspective. Self-image is based on the teacher’s self-perception and also largely depended on the feedback from others (e.g. students and colleagues) (ibid). Closely related to it, self-esteem refers to the degree of satisfaction of the teacher to the work performance and it is also largely related to the feedback from others, especially from students (ibid).

Task perception constitutes the normative elements of a teacher’s self-understanding (ibid). It regulates the tasks and duties required to be a qualified teacher, further implying the choice of values and ethical considerations (Hargreaves, 1995). However, task perception may conflict with changing policy and institutional goals, which will affect the self-perceptions and moral values of teachers in terms of emotion and self-esteem (Ballet & Kelchtermans, 2008) and may change the job motivation of teachers. Originally, job motivation is seen as the motivation for people to choose to be teachers (Kelchtermans, 2009). Nevertheless, as the external environment changes (e.g. social and policy changes), the job motivation of a teacher also evolves. For example, Nevgi and Löfström (2015) found in the survey for academic staff from universities that their job motivation is mainly focused on exploring reflective teaching methods to improve teaching quality, using pedagogical skills to increase student engagement, developing teaching at the faculty level, and focusing on educational research. In addition, in the case of the reform of Chinese HE, the shift from knowledge transfer to student-centred teaching and learning also reflects the change in motivation.

Finally, future perspective represents teacher’s expectations for future work (Kelchtermans, 2009). We may understand it as one of the factors that affect job motivation, because it is dynamic and constantly changing, which is also based on the internal characteristics of the individual and external environment factors (e.g. personal growth experience, emotions, self-efficacy and the driving of external interests) (ibid). However, the expectation may cause a loss of teacher identity integrity. For example, Bolden, Gosling, and O’Brien (2014) mentioned that for teachers who have focused heavily on interacting with students, their professional identity may stagnate. On the contrary, if the teacher excessively pursues his/her future academic research development, the essence of being a teacher will disappear (Tam, Heng, & Jiang, 2009).

3.2 Student Identity

The formation of student identity in HE is also complex (MacFarlane, 2018). Field and Morgan-Klein (2010, p. 4) defined student identity as ‘the ways in which the learner thinks of themselves as being a student, including the extent to which they develop an identity as a student’. The ways and extent are closely related with social background (Leese, 2010) and the sense of belonging and engagement (Bliuc, Ellis, Goodyear, & Hendres, 2011). For new university students, the campus is both a brand new and unknown environment (Askham, 2008) and they are beginning an important period that shapes their identity and affects their formation (e.g. thinking ability, character development, future planning) (Lairio, Puukari, & Kouvo, 2013). Lesse’s (2010) survey of new university student expectations found a diversity of expectations. For example, some students were eager to have more independent and autonomous learning opportunities supported by skilled teachers, while others expected flexibility to study and work. In the same study, most students indicated that the friendliness and kindness of teachers could dispel their fears of entering a new educational environment (ibid). The intangible factor of care that relates to the learner-teacher dynamic is evident in student expectations even before they start university.

Kuh (2009) believes that the sense of belonging and engagement of students is directly related to the time and energy invested by students. According to Trowler (2010), teacher-student relationships have a significant effect on the investment from students in teaching and learning. The formation of a positive teacher-student relationship requires meaningful teacher-student interaction as a guarantee (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). The care and help from teachers mentioned above can actually be regarded as one of the forms of teacher-student interaction, which also includes other interactive pedagogies such as dialogic feedback (Beaumont, O’Doherty, & Shannon, 2011). It reflects the respect, inclusiveness and equality from the teachers for students, which helps to form a trusting relationship between them and stimulates the interest of students in engaging in teaching and learning activities (Carless, 2013). Therefore, although student identity is affected by personal experience and self-perception, teachers and the university community play a decisive role in shaping and transforming student identities.

Extending to the context of Chinese HE, since the reform and opening up of China in 1978, Chinese HE policy has undergone tremendous changes (e.g. HE reform, modernisation, internationalisation) in the past 40 years (Lin, 2019). With the continuous adjustment of national policy and education policy, the background and personal experience of teachers and students in different periods have been continuously affected, which in turn influences the formation of their identities. At the same time, university policies and the implementations of curriculum and pedagogy have also been adjusted (e.g. university autonomy, student-centred teaching and learning) in accordance with national policies (Tan & Reyes, 2016). Thus, these changes are a factor in the formation of teacher and student identities, and how they have changed in Chinese universities. We will explore these changes through interpretation of Chinese-specific empirical research on students’ perceptions of, and engagement in, Chinese HE and relating this body of literature with SaP.

4 A Discussion about Identity Changes in the Progress of Chinese Higher Education

4.1 In the Late 20th Century

In the early stages (during the 1980s and 1990s) of the reform and opening up in China, which is also the early stage of HE reform, one of the main measures to achieve the internationalisation of HE was to select scholars and students mostly from elite universities to study and participate in research programs abroad under the strict control of the government (Wang, 2010). Therefore, to a certain extent, the partial or selected improvement did not have an immediate effect on the overall Chinese HE and the process of internationalisation. Coupled with a strong desire for the popularisation of Chinese HE, the teaching and learning of most universities still stayed in a limited perceived Confucian model. Cortazzi and Jin (1996) reflected this view in the results of their survey of students from two Chinese elite universities (Nankai University and Renmin University of China) in 1993. The survey results showed that the expectations of a good teacher from students focused on having deep knowledge. This revealed that students hoped to achieve the purpose of learning through the transfer of deep knowledge from teachers, regarding themselves mainly as receivers of knowledge. At the same time, many students took a negative attitude towards interaction (e.g. asking questions and discussing) concerned with a fear of causing embarrassment, losing face, and wasting time. Instead, they saw careful listening and strong memorisation as necessary duties that they should fulfil. These results create a general impression of Chinese students as passive learners.

Meanwhile, the findings of Cortazzi and Jin (1996) also revealed the expectations of a ‘good student’ from surveyed teachers. Among the responses from teachers, they generally discussed that a good student was hard working. Active engagement in teaching and learning activities, independent learning abilities, and teacher-student interaction were rarely mentioned. Based on Kelchtermans’ (2009) self-understanding of teacher mentioned earlier, the respect from students and their high degree of recognition of the knowledge of teachers may have led to the expansion of teachers’ authority and the satisfaction of their work performance gained from students. A particular formation of a ‘teacher identity’ positions a teacher as an authoritative knowledge holder who expects the respect and obedience of their students in a process of one-way knowledge transfer. As pointed out by Cheng (1990), teachers usually emphasised that students can achieve the same expected standards through hard work (e.g. repetitive exercises and memorising). The relational learner-teacher dynamic means that such a teacher identity in turn reduces the sense of belonging and engagement of students, which exacerbates the passive learning attitudes of students. Therefore, in the early stages of the reform of Chinese HE, the formation of teacher and student identities was still largely constrained by the limited perceived Confucian model (Corrtazzi & Jin, 1996). Teachers and students mainly played the role of knowledge holder and receiver transferring information in a one-way interaction in university classrooms.

4.2 Stepping into the 21st Century

Motivated by promoting economic growth and enhancing global knowledge competitiveness (Li, 2019), in the process of continuous advancement of internationalisation, some western educational philosophies were introduced into Chinese HE as more academics and students were being ‘imported and exported’ internationally (Lin, 2019). In this process, supplemented by decentralisation and greater university autonomy in Chinese HE (Tian & Liu, 2019), new generations of Chinese students enjoyed more freedom and more access to foreign things (e.g. culture and ideology) than their parents who experienced the period before the reform and opening up (Tam et al., 2009). In addition, the implementation of the one-child policy in China provided a more relaxed family environment and support for the new generation that fostered the development of their self-awareness (Tam et al., 2009). With these changes, the expectations and perceptions of Chinese HE students also changed. Tam et al. (2009) surveyed students from two Chinese universities and found that students’ favourite teachers were active, responsible, knowledgeable, innovative, and able to enact a variety of teaching and assessment strategies fostering student engagement and teacher-student interactions. In contrast to the findings of Corrtazzi and Jin (1996) just a decade earlier, students signalled a desire for more engagement, interaction and understanding from teachers in teaching and learning processes. In other words, there is an evident shift in students’ perceptions of themselves as active participations in their own learning. Similarly, the survey by Kim and Olson (2016) of the students from three Chinese universities also showed that the teachers most preferred by students were relational, focused on what interested students, and possessed professional skills. There is a shift in students’ identities from the 1990s to the 2010s in Chinese HE.

As mentioned above, teacher identity will be continuously constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed along with changes in the environment (Sheridan, 2013). With the internationalisation policies of Chinese HE, the Chinese Ministry of Education has advocated for curriculum reform since 2001 (Lin, 2019). Student-centred teaching and learning is one of the applications reflected in these curriculum reforms (Tan & Reyes, 2016). The meaning of student-centred teaching and learning can be defined as a teacher who can recognise students and give them opportunities to have input on the teaching-learning activities (Tsegay, 2015). Yin, Han, and Lu (2017) mentioned that student-centred teaching and learning has played a positive role in improving the quality of teaching and student engagement in East Asian HE systems. Underlying the notion of student-centred is the identity of the teacher. Jia (2011) explored the self-perception and self-representation of 15 Chinese university teachers who worked or studied overseas. Alice, as one of the interviewed teachers, mentioned that ‘my overseas study enables me to realise that the main role of a teacher is not only transmitting knowledge, but also developing their (students’) abilities in independent learning and critical learning’ (Jia, 2011, p. 170). Another interviewed teacher argued that students needed more autonomy and an equal teacher-student relationship is more conducive to student engagement, signalling a general view that teachers should ‘guide, enlighten and broaden students’ academic development’ including the moral character of students (Jia, 2011, p. 165). Teachers believe that the premise for achieving this goal is that they should first cultivate their moral characters and strive to be an upright person before they are able to take responsibility for teaching students (ibid). Jia’s (2011) research demonstrates a shift in the identity of teachers that was prompted by overseas experiences that affected their self-understanding in self-image, task perception and job motivation. More recent research into students’ expectations shows that a large number of Chinese students are dissatisfied with the authoritarian, teacher-centred approaches that assume students are passive learners (Li & Du, 2015; Yin et al., 2016).

Through discussions on the changes in the identities of Chinese university students and teachers since the beginning of reform and opening up until recent years, it is evident that there is a general shift in the identities of learners and teachers toward more egalitarian teaching and learning environments. This is a move toward more participatory and relational pedagogies that value the contributions of students in the learning and teaching process. As reform policies continue in the context of internationalisation, we expect that more Chinese university students and teachers will have a new understanding of their identities through the expansion of their horizons and experiences in the global HE context.

In the transition toward student-centred teaching and learning, Yin et al. (2017) mentioned that the quality of teacher engagement is one of the important influencing factors. Thus, the investment of both student and teacher are vital factors in such a transformation. For involving both student engagement and teacher engagement, the new type of teacher-student relationship, Students as Partners (SaP), that we introduced earlier can be considered as a possible way forward. Before reaching further discussion, we examine whether the identity reflected by SaP is consistent with the changing trend of teacher and student identities in Chinese universities.

5 Identity Perception in Pedagogical Partnership

Vignoles et al. (2011) discussed that the perception of identity is shaped by both individuals and society. In the context of SaP, Cook-Sather (2015, p. 2) defined the notion of identity as ‘how individuals define and experience themselves and are defined by others—how an individual/personal sense of sociocultural location and character intersects with how that individual is constructed in many different ways within any given culture and society’. Therefore, identity in partnership is about how teachers and students treat themselves as teacher, student, and partners, and how they perceive each other (Matthews et al., 2019b). As one of the important factors of pedagogical partnership, Cook-Sather (2015) pointed out that the identities of students and teachers influence and are influenced by partnership. Thus, identity is discussed as fluid and changeable, and it is shaped and also shapes partnership as a process of relational identity formation between learners and teachers. For this reason, Bovill (2019a) argued that the teacher-student relationship is the basis for achieving meaningful partnership. The centrality of shifting identity, which is always entangled in the student-teacher educational power dynamics, is further evident in Matthews’ (2017, p. 6) essay on genuine partnership where ‘practitioners of SaP are first and foremost transforming their own realities’.

As mentioned earlier, a positive teacher-student relationship, the relational identity between students and teachers, can enhance the sense of belonging and engagement of students in teaching and learning, and creates a positive learning experience (Kuh, 2009). Therefore, in partnership, it requires teachers to recognise the value of students in the process of forming their identities. In this way, both students and teachers could gain valuable experiences in a mutual and reciprocal way (Bovill, 2019a). Linked to Kelchtermans’s (2009) understanding of teacher identity, teachers shaped by partnership, who see themselves as both learners and teachers, are committed to maintaining a less hierarchical relationship with students. Rather than possessing a self-image and the self-esteem that enjoys the superiority of authority, their task perception is driven by partnership values (e.g. respect, reciprocity, shared responsibility) that motivates teachers to constantly seek meaningful co-creation and collaboration with students. At the same time, in this reciprocal relationship, the expectation of exploring and creating together with students manifesting in a relational identity also largely avoids unbalanced development of teachers in future work, such as teachers heavily focusing attention on one aspect of education and research that we mentioned earlier. From another angle, Bovill (2019b) mentioned that positive teacher-student relationships are usually the result of partnership. Thus, the sense of belonging and engagement of both students and teachers is enhanced due to the transformed boundaries between them (Matthews et al., 2019b).

Circling back to our previous discussion, the shift of student and teacher identities reflected by SaP scholars resonates with the marked changing trend in Chinese HE over the past two decades. We posit that SaP is a more developed form of this trend while acknowledging that Chinese HE comprises a large, diverse and complex array of institutions where western pedagogies have to be adapted with criticality. This diversity in the Chinese sector warrants consideration before discussing the potential of SaP in Chinese universities.

6 Adapting to the New Era of Chinese Higher Education

At this point in our paper, we have to pause and recognise that the SaP literature and theorisations of identity arising from SaP practices come from western scholars. SaP is a western-centric practice. Our intention is not to argue for a rigid translation of SaP into Chinese HE. As Matthews (2018, p. 9) has argued in this journal, the idea of SaP creates space for all HE researchers ‘to reflect upon our own beliefs about the role of students in our research and practice’ to advance the impact of our research into educational practices. Also mentioned by Green (2019) and Cook-Sather et al. (2018), as a ‘complex cultural-linguistic construct’, its interpretation in the specific cultural context will be different. Yet, in doing so, our cultural backgrounds and contexts will influence how we reflect upon our beliefs about what a learner-teacher relationship should be—our identities. Thus, uncritical adaption of (the currently western-centric) SaP into China is highly problematic because it diminishes opportunities to formulate new insights, theorisations, and practices about learner-teacher relationships as a partnership in Chinese HE. In other words, the ethos of partnership has to guide practices—a diversity of practices and approaches. The current ethos of partnership is framed within a western-centric, Judaeo-Christian value system and rooted in student engagement (Healey et al., 2014), student voice (Cook-Sather, 2018) and the response to the commitments on democracy (Bovill et al., 2013), and these practices, not without challenges, have proven impactful in western-centric universities. What values should guide the partnership ethos in China? This is a line of conceptual and empirical research we are currently conducting that draws on the voice of Chinese students and academics at Chinese universities and theorisations of Confucian values intersecting with values espoused in western-centric SaP literature (Liang & Matthews, 2020). These explorations also conform to the trend of integrating Chinese cultural characteristics with international educational philosophies (Wu, 2011).

The development of China in the new era also puts forward new requirements for the reform of Chinese HE. As we mentioned at the beginning of this paper, in addition to the continuous implementation of curriculum reform, new pedagogies also should be introduced to enhance personal responsibility and foster mutually beneficial teacher-student interactions (Tan, 2017). Recalling the view of Yin et al. (2017), the quality of teacher engagement is one of the important factors influencing student-centred teaching and learning. Thus, they have shown that Chinese HE is working towards the common development of both teachers and students in the teaching and learning process. This trend has actually transcended the nature of unilateral student-centred teaching and learning, providing the opportunity for the adoption of SaP in Chinese HE that focuses attention on the relational identity between learners and teachers as equally important people in realising enhanced educational quality. The recent research (Liang & Matthews, 2020) has strongly shown, with the establishment of more Sino-foreign universities and the continuous broadening of horizons, SaP practices are growing in Chinese universities. Although most of them were conducted in Sino-foreign universities, this is the beginning of the budding of SaP ethos in Chinese HE. We believe more SaP practices—practices that reflect the ethos and similar values—are already unfolding in Chinese HE yet they have not been named SaP or discussed as a relational pedagogy or pedagogical partnership. Through a program of research into SaP in Chinese HE, we are exploring this belief and further investigating how student-teacher relational identities are being constructed and disrupted through educational reform efforts. This is also a line of research where many more scholars are welcomed and encouraged to explore and investigate.

7 Conclusion

This article critically discussed the concepts of identity in the Chinese HE context by connecting with the western idea, SaP, attempting to provide a possible way for further identity change of the participants in Chinese HE. Based on the comparison of survey results over a decade spanning the century, the perception changes of teachers and students on their identities in Chinese universities indicate a trend of inclusive and respectful teacher-student relationships and more mutually beneficial teacher-student interactions in teaching and learning—resonates with the relational identity reflected by SaP. Meanwhile, the cultural-depended characteristic of SaP and the gradual opening of national policies and initiatives as the scaffold of each other, providing a positive environment. For further adapting SaP into Chinese HE, we recommend two following implications.

We have seen that the identities of teachers and students in Chinese universities are undergoing a change and participants are gradually starting to practice relational pedagogies such as SaP to improve the existing teacher-student relationship. However, according to Liang and Matthews’s (2020) scoping review of SaP in Asia, SaP practices implemented in China are mainly in Sino-foreign universities and universities from Hong Kong, and they were mainly led by western scholars who borrowed from their western experiences. Thus, at an institutional level, we call for more local research to be conducted in a wider range of Chinese universities, within the environment of greater university autonomy, to examine the unique values of SaP in the Chinese context that creatively enact pedagogical partnership approaches by adapting to Chinese cultural features. At the relational level of student and teacher interactions, like our ongoing research, we encourage other scholars to further explore and investigate how student-teacher identities are being constructed and disrupted in the context of contemporary Chinese HE to better understand the potential influencing factors, stimulating both student and teacher engagement and cultivating their self-awareness and the sense of shared responsibility in teaching and learning. Besides, within the time of global pandemic, COVID-19 has brought challenges and uncertainties to the conversion of online and offline teaching and learning. We may also need to consider strengthening the connection and interaction between teachers and students through the ethos of SaP, ensuring the meaningful engagement of both students and teachers and providing mutual support to each other in this uncertain time.

Footnotes

Yifei Liang is a doctoral student at School of Education, University of Queensland. His research focuses on students as partners (SaP) in the context of Chinese higher education. His scoping review of SaP has appeared in Higher Education Research & Development.

Dr Kun Dai is a postdoc research fellow (funded by China International Postdoc Program) at the Graduate School of Education, Peking University. His research focuses on teaching and learning in higher education, doctoral education, transnational higher education, and intercultural learning and adjustment. Dr Dai is an associate editor of Journal of International Students. His articles have appeared in several peer-reviewed journals, including Compare, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, and Oxford Review of Education.

Dr Kelly E. Matthews is an associate professor at the Institute of Teaching and Learning Innovation, University of Queensland. Her research interest includes students as partners in higher education, curriculum design in higher education, and university tey teaching and learning. Dr Matthews is an Australian Learning & Teaching Fellow and she also serves as Inaugural Co-editor, International Journal for Students as Partners (IJSaP).

References

Askham

( 2008 ). Context and identity: Exploring adult learners’ experiences of higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(1), 85–97.

Ball

S. J.

( 2016 ). Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8), 1046–1059.

Ballet

, & Kelchtermans

( 2008 ). Workload and willingness to change: Disentangling the experience of intensified working conditions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40, 47–67.

Beauchamp

, & Thomas

( 2009 ). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175–189.

Beaumont

, O’Doherty

, & Shannon

( 2011 ). Reconceptualising assessment feedback: A key to improving student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 671–687.

Bliuc

, Ellis

R. A.

, Goodyear

, & Hendres

D. M.

( 2011 ). The role of social identification as university student in learning: Relationships between students’ social identity, approaches to learning, and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 31(5), 559–574.

Bolden

, Gosling

, & O’Brien

( 2014 ). Citizens of the academic community: A societal perspective on leadership in UK higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 754–770.

Bovill

( 2013 ). Students and staff co-creating curricula—a new trend or an old idea we never got around to implementing? In Rust

(Ed.), Improving student learning through research and scholarship: 20 years of ISL. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Educational Development.

Bovill

( 2019 a). Student-staff partnerships in learning and teaching: An overview of current practice and discourse. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 43(4), 385–398.

10.

Bovill

( 2019 b). Co-creation in learning and teaching: The case for a whole-class approach in higher education. Higher Education, 79, 1023–1037. DOI: 10.1007/s10734 -019-00453-w.

11.

Bovill

, Cook-Sather

, & Felten

( 2011 ). Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, courses design, and curricula: implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic development, 16(2), 133–145.

12.

Bovill

, & Felten

( 2016 ). Cultivating student-staff partnerships through research and practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 1–3.

13.

Cai

( 2013 ). Chinese higher education: The changes in the past two decades and reform tendencies up to 2020. In Ferreira

L. D. C.

& Albuquerque

J. A. G.

(Eds.), China and Brazil: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 91–118). Campinas: Anablumme.

14.

Carless

( 2013 ). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In Bond

, & Molly

(Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 90–103). London, England: Routledge.

15.

Cates

, Madigan

M. R.

, & Reitenauer

( 2018 ). ‘Locations of possibility’: Critical perspectives on partnership. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 33–46.

16.

Cheng

K. M.

( 1990 ). The culture of schooling in East Asia. In Entwhistle

(Ed.), Handbook of educational ideas and practices (pp. 163–173). London: Routledge.

17.

Cook-Sather

( 2015 ). Dialogue across differences of position, perspective, and identity: reflective practice in/on a student-faculty pedagogical partnership program. Teachers College Record, 117(2), 1–29.

18.

Cook-Sather

( 2018 ). Tracing the evolution of student voice in educational research. In Bourke

, & Loveridge

(Eds.), Radical collegiality though student voice. Singapore: Springer.

19.

Cook-Sather

, & Abbot

( 2016 ). Translating partnerships: How faculty-student collaboration in explorations of teaching and learning can transform perceptions, terms, and selves. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 4(2), 1–14.

20.

Cook-Sather

, Bovill

, & Felten

( 2014 ). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

21.

Cook-Sather

, & Luz

( 2015 ). Greater engagement in and responsibility for learning: what happens when students cross the threshold of student-faculty partnership. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1097–1109.

22.

Cook-Sather

, Matthews

K. E.

, Ntem

, & Leathwick

( 2018 ). What we are talking about when we talk about students as partners. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(2), 1–9.

23.

Coombe

, Huang

, Russell

, Sheppard

, & Khosravi

( 2018 ). Students as partners in action: Evaluating a university-wide initiative. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(2), 85–95.

24.

Cortazzi

K. M.

, & Jin

( 1996 ). Cultures of learning: Language classroom in China. In Coleman

(Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169–206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Dai

( 2020 ). Learning between two systems: A Chinese student’s reflexive narrative in a China-Australia articulation programme. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(3), 371–390.

26.

Dai

, Matthews

K. E.

, & Reyes

( 2020 ). Chinese students’ assessment and learning experiences in a transnational higher education programme. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 70–81.

27.

Dai

, Matthews

K. E.

, & Renshaw

( 2020 ). Crossing the ‘bridges’ and navigating the ‘learning gaps’: Chinese students learning across two systems in a transnational higher education programme. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–15. doi:10.1080/07294360.2020.1713731.

28.

Daniels

, & Brooker

( 2014 ). Student identity development in higher education: Implications for graduate attributes and work-readiness. Educational Research, 56(1), 65–76.

29.

Dunne

( 2016 ). Design thinking: A framework for student engagement? A personal view. Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 2(1), 1–8.

30.

Dwyer

( 2018 ). Toward the formation of genuine partnership sapces. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 11–15.

31.

Field, J., & Morgan-Klein, N. (2010). Studenthood and identification: Higher education as a liminal transitional space. Paper presented at the 40th Annual SCUTREA Conference, University of Warwick, Coventry.

32.

Green

( 2019 ). Stretching the cultural-linguistic boundaries of “students as partners”. International Journal for Students as Partners, 3(1), 84–88.

33.

Hagenauer

, & Volet

S. E.

( 2014 ). Teacher-student relationship at university: An important yet under-researched field. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), 370–388.

34.

Harden

, & Fawkner

( 2019 ). A student partnership project to enhance curriculum development in medical education. Teaching Matters blog, University of Edinburgh.

35.

Hargreaves

( 1995 ). Development and desire: A post-modern perspective. In Guskey

T. R.

& Huberman

(Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and perspectives (pp. 9–34). New York: Teachers College Press.

36.

Healey

, Flint

, & Harrington

( 2014 ). Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.

37.

Jia

( 2011 ). Self-perception and self-representation of English teachers from a north-eastern Chinese university. Intercultural Communication Studies, 2, 160–176.

38.

Kelchtermans

( 2009 ). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection? Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(2), 257–272.

39.

Kim

E. P.

, & Olson

( 2016 ). Exemplary Chinese university professors: Qualities and impact on students. The IAFOR Journal of Education, 4(1), 123–145.

40.

Kuh

G. D.

( 2009 ). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706.

41.

Lairio

, Puukari

, & Kouvo

( 2013 ). Studying at university as part of student life and identity construction. Scandinavian Journal of Education Research, 57(2), 115–131.

42.

Leese

( 2010 ). Bridging the gap: Supporting student transitions into higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(2), 239–251.

43.

, & Du

( 2015 ). Teachers’ perspective of their role and student autonomy in the PBL context in China. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 10(2), 18–31.

44.

( 2019 ). Education policy perspective on internationalisation and globalisation of higher education in China. In Li

(Ed), Global higher education shared communities (39–52). Singapore: Springer.

45.

Liang

, & Matthews

K. E.

( 2020 ). Students as Partners practices and theorisations in Asia: A scoping review. Higher Educational Research & Development, 1–15. Doi: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1773771.

46.

Lin

P. L.

( 2019 ). Trends of internationalisation in China’s higher education: Opportunities and challenges. US-China Education Review B, 9(1), 1–12.

47.

Lounsbury

J. W.

, Huffstetler

B. C.

, Leong

F. T.

, & Gibson

L. W.

( 2005 ). Sense of identity and collegiate academic achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 501–514.

48.

MacFarlane

( 2018 ). Higher education learner identity for successful student transitions. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1201–1215.

49.

Marquis

, Puri

, Wan

, Ahmad

, Goff

, Knorr

, Vassileva

, & Woo

( 2016 ). Navigating the threshold of student—staff partnerships: A case study from an Ontario teaching and learning institute. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 4–15.

50.

Matthews

K. E.

( 2017 ). Five propositions for genuine students as partners practice. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(2).

51.

Matthews

K. E.

( 2018 ). Engaging students as participants and partners: An argument for partnership with students in higher education research on student success. International Journal of Chinese Education, 7(1), 42–64.

52.

Matthews

K. E.

, Cook-Sather

, Acai

, Dvorakova

S. L.

, Felten

, Marquis

, & Mercer-Mapstone

( 2019 a). Toward theories of partnership praxis: An analysis of interpretive framing in literature on students as partners in teaching and learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(2), 280–293.

53.

Matthews

K. E.

, Dwyer

, Hine

, & Turner

( 2018 ). Conceptions of students as partners. Higher Education, 76, 957–971.

54.

Matthews

K. E.

, Mercer-Mapstone

, Dvorakova

S. L.

, Acai

, Cook-Sather

, Felten

, Healey

R. L.

, & Marquis

( 2019 b). Enhancing outcomes and reducing inhibitors to the engagement of students and staff in learning and teaching partnerships: implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic development, 24(3), 246–259.

55.

Mercer-Mapstone

, Dvorakova

S. L.

, Matthews

K. E.

, Abbot

, Cheng

, Felten

, Knorr

, Marquis

, Shammas

, & Swaim

( 2017 ). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 1–23.

56.

Mihans

, Long

, & Felten

( 2008 ). Power and expertise: Student-faculty collaboration in course design and the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1–9.

57.

Nevgi

, & Löfström

( 2015 ). The development of academics’ teacher identity: Enhancing reflection and task perception through a university teacher development programme. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 53–60.

58.

Sheridan

( 2013 ). A risky mingling: Academic identity in relation to stories of the personal and professional self. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 14, 568–579.

59.

Simon

( 2004 ). Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

60.

Tam

K. Y.

, Heng

M. A.

, & Jiang

G. H.

( 2009 ). What undergraduate students in China say about their professors’ teaching? Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2), 147–159.

61.

Tan

( 2017 ). Constructivism and pedagogical reform in China: Issues and challenges. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(2), 238–247.

62.

Tan

, & Reyes

( 2016 ). Neo-liberal education policy in China. In Guo

, & Guo

(Eds.), Spotlight on China: Changes in education under China’s market economy (pp. 19–33). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

63.

Tian

, & Liu

( 2019 ). Rethinking higher education in China as a common good. Higher Education, 77, 623–640.

64.

Trowler

( 2010 ). Student engagement literature review. York, UK: Lifelong Education Academy.

65.

Tsegay

S. M.

( 2015 ). Students’ experience in student-centred learning at higher education institutions in China: A case study. International Journal for Educational Studies, 7(2), 135–146.

66.

Vignoles

V. L.

( 2017 ). Identity: Personal and social. In Deaux

, & Snyder

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

67.

Vignoles

V. L.

, Schwartz

S. J.

, & Luyckx

( 2011 ). Introduction: Toward an integrative view of identity. In Schwartz

S. J.

, Luyckx

, & Vignoles

V. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 1–27). New York, NY: Springer.

68.

Wang

( 2010 ). Higher education governance and university autonomy in China. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(4), 477–495.

69.

Wei

J. G.

( 2018 ). Practical exploration of undergraduate classroom teaching reform: a case study of Shanxi Normal University. Chinese Education & Society, 51(4), 272–281.

70.

( 2011 ). Interpretation, autonomy, and transformation: Chinese pedagogic discourse in a cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(5), 569–590.

71.

Yang

( 2016 ). Internationalisation of higher education in China: An overview. In Guo

& Guo

(Eds.), Spotlight on China: Chinese education in the globalized world (pp. 35–50). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

72.

Yin

, Han

, & Lu

( 2017 ). Chinese tertiary teachers’ goal orientations for teaching and teaching approaches: The mediation of teacher engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), 766–784.

73.

Yin

, Wang

, & Han

( 2016 ). Chinese undergraduates’ perceptions of teaching quality and the effects on approaches to studying and course satisfaction. Higher Education, 71, 39–57.