International Student Participation in Higher Education

Abstract

This is a conceptually oriented article which questions established notions concerning the framing of international students in Anglo-Western universities through a literature review. Focusing largely on students from Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC), and resulting from concerns regarding their level of participation, the literature is considered to have overly represented students’ English language competence and cultures of origin as causal factors. The body of the article explores the strands of this complex debate, reviewing both the literature which argues and questions the importance of English language competence, and that which proposes, challenges, problematizes, and ultimately reaffirms the view that cultural background is the dominant factor. The article argues that the literature has emphasized international students themselves, what makes them different, rather than their participation: Despite the often best intentions to the contrary, it has played to a deficit discourse, and has not always offered helpful guidance to the practice community. The article argues that the theoretical perspective of sociocultural theory, and, in particular, activity theory, offers a theorized understanding of participation and its relationship to learning often lacking in the literature, and enables a holistic understanding of participation in educational contexts. Moreover, as a motivational theory of learning, activity theory helps put into perspective the importance of such factors as language competence and culture of origin.

Keywords

international student participation higher education culture of origin Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC)English language competence local students interculturalism sociocultural theory activity theory

Introduction

A growing body of literature over the past two decades has sought to address the issue of international student participation in Anglo-Western universities, where teaching takes place through the medium of English and institutions subscribe to Western values regarding learning and teaching practices (Carroll, 2015). Although this literature is premised on concerns that international students may not participate on an equal basis with local students, or meet institutional expectations of full participation, it has emphasized international students themselves—what makes them different—rather than their participation. This article argues that the emphasis on international student difference encourages a partial understanding of their participation and plays to a deficit discourse. As Kim (2012) has noted, this research field is functional in nature, emphasizing adaptation. Yet, while educators understandably seek to level the playing field for international students—to seek ways to facilitate their participation—this concern need not reduce to a focus on what international students’ lack. Participation has tended to remain a shadowy construct, with its relationship to learning assumed rather than explicated. In this article, it will be argued that understandings of participation in educative contexts need to be grounded in educational theory. The call is for a turn in the literature, putting participation in the center of the frame.

Sociocultural theories of learning offer a theorized understanding of participation in terms of its relationship to learning: Participation is understood to drive learning with teaching viewed as “enabling participation in knowing” (Northedge, 2003, p. 19). Drawing largely from Wenger (1998), Northedge (2003) offers a model of participation with various levels of engagement as students (novices) make their way from the periphery of the knowledge community they seek to join (their disciplinary field) to become more central members. In my own work (Straker, 2014), I have used activity theory as a way of modeling participation. As one development within sociocultural theory, activity theory derives from Vygotsky’s understanding of human development as a mediated process (Engeström, 2001). It sees human activities as taking place within activity systems (Engeström, 1987, p. 78), where the subject’s pursuit of the object of activity is mediated by “tools” (e.g., language) and social elements, “rules,” “community” (those who matter to the participants), and “division of labour” (i.e., who does what). As activity is communal—it is engaged in with others—the subject will be complex, and an individual’s participation will be seen in the context of other participants’ behaviors. In terms of seeking an understanding of international student participation, this approach could take into account not only international students’ understandings and experiences but those of other participants—teachers, local students—whose understandings and experiences affect international student participation. Likewise, the object is complex, with participants aligning toward different—and perhaps multiple—understandings of the object based on available meanings. As discussed later in this paper, this approach promises a holistic understanding of what might facilitate and what might be obstacles to an individual’s participation in activity.

In the light of such theoretical perspectives, this article offers a critical review of the literature on international student participation, which is deemed to foreground what makes international students different rather than their participation, and to be dominated by two themes: international students’ English language competence and their culture of origin. It will be argued that the literature has dwelt on these unduly, to the extent that they are commonly perceived as the only factors of relevance influencing international student participation. As such, it has inclined toward a deficit discourse, which even the more sophisticated and nuanced understandings articulated in the literature do not fully obviate. In the discussion, the understanding of participation in the literature will be explored, with the argument that the term has been undertheorized further developed. The benefits of a sociocultural approach, as outlined in this introduction, will be returned to.

Language or Culture

The principal themes in the literature have been international students’ English language competence (e.g., Carroll, 2005a; Marginson & Sawir, 2011; Mclean & Ransom, 2005) and culture of origin (e.g., Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; De Vita, 2007; Louie, 2005). Regarding the former, a number of studies have highlighted the dominance of linguistic factors (e.g., Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Lee, 2007); yet there is also evidence that even when language is not an issue (participants are native or near native speakers), their behavior as classroom participants remains a concern (Volet, Renshaw, & Tietzel, 1994). The inseparability of language and culture has also been asserted (e.g., Jones, 1999). Regarding culture of origin, focusing largely on students from East Asia, the literature has engendered a lengthy debate in the course of which the polarized early positions (Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Biggs, 1996) have led to more nuanced understandings (e.g., Louie, 2005; Shi, 2006). These include a consideration of the part played by factors other than culture (e.g., Gu & Schweisfurth, 2006) and direct challenges to the culture construct (e.g., Volet et al., 1994). In the post-millennium, the literature has moved toward a relativist stance, incorporating the perspective of interculturalism (e.g., De Vita, 2007; Marginson & Sawir, 2011). This approach is sensitive to the issues of reification, stereotyping, and cultural imperialism which beset the early literature, although these concerns have not been entirely set aside. In the following sections, these strands will be explored.

Language

In the pedagogic literature, the importance of language has often been foregrounded (e.g., Carroll, 2005a; Marginson & Sawir, 2011; Mclean & Ransom, 2005). Carroll (2005a) considers it unsurprising that language is repeatedly viewed as the main cause of international students’ difficulties, given the challenging language demands and the probability that most international students are nonnative English speakers who may not have previously studied through the medium of English. Marginson and Sawir (2011) assert that the commercial model of higher education in “Westminster countries” (the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia) has resulted in English language entry levels being set too low for students to cope without additional help with English. Mclean and Ransom (2005) argue that the linguistic challenges of international students go beyond the familiar or obvious. Citing the literature on contrastive rhetoric, they note that even the structure of academic texts is language-dependent. Thus, English academic writing is “linear,” Chinese “circular,” Romance languages “digressive,” Middle Eastern languages “parallel”, and Russian and German “a variable of parallel” (Mclean & Ransom, 2005, p. 57).

There are two main strands to the research literature: the first explores perceptions of the importance of the English language competence of international students on classroom participation, the second, the relative importance of language and culture.

The Importance of Language—Student Voices

The first has sought to assess the importance of English language competence in classroom participation in Anglo-Western universities, taking into account both international and local students’ views (e.g., Barron, 2006; Morita, 2004; Ramsay, Barker, & Jones, 1999). International students’ self-criticism of their English language level is exemplified in Morita (2004), who notes that Rie (one of her subjects) puts her feelings that both her classmates and the instructor were ignoring her down to her language level, and Ramsay et al. (1999), who found that international students regarded their language competence as the principal reason why they struggled in lectures. Barron (2006) exemplifies studies which have considered both international and local students’ perspectives. He concludes that for both groups, the language level of international students created problems, including communication breakdown, pressure on local students to edit international students’ work, and language fatigue. Studies focusing primarily on the perspective of local students include Harrison and Peacock (2010) and Osmond and Roed (2010). These studies report similar findings, with local students in both studies justifying their antipathy toward working with international students in terms of international students’ English.

Harrison and Peacock (2010) observe that their respondents found it easy to talk about language as a marker of difference. They comment that this enabled difference to be publicly discussed, but may have masked other differences. In particular, they note the reticence of students to discuss culture.

Language Versus Culture

The second strand of the research literature which emphasizes language has focused on the relationship between language and culture in an attempt to assess the relative importance of each (e.g., Gu, 2009; Jones, 1999; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Lee, 2007). The debate divides into studies which argue that cultural explanations have been overstated (e.g., Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Lee, 2007) and those claiming that you cannot separate language from culture (e.g., Gu, 2009; Jones, 1999).

One attempt to settle the issue scientifically is Lee (2007), a questionnaire-based study of 131 East Asian students in an American university. Lee designed measures for participation, culture, and linguistic factors. She used an 8-point questionnaire to measure participation using such items as “I express my opinions in class” and “I speak out without being called on in class.” The cultural measures adopted categories from Hofstede’s (1984) descriptive model of national cultures. Based on these, the American university classrooms were perceived as individualistic (a competitive atmosphere) with minimal power distance, and East Asian classrooms as collectivist and hierarchical. The linguistic factors consisted of perceptions of language competence and two psycholinguistic constructs, language anxiety and fear of negative evaluation. Lee found no statistically significant relationship between the cultural factors and participation; however, the relationship between language and participation was significant for both language anxiety and fear of negative evaluation. Lee concludes that language was the dominant influence on international student participation. As explanation, she supposes that cultural characteristics constitute nonenduring state traits rather than enduring personality traits, which she sees as underlying linguistic behavior. For Lee, culture would seem to be worn lightly.

The understanding that it is students’ language competence not their culture of origin which is the issue raises what for Kumaravadivelu (2003) is the main question: Why practitioners (English language teaching professionals in this instance) should so readily seek explanations for the classroom behaviors of second language speakers in terms of culture. His main explanation lies in Said’s (1978) thesis of Orientialism; he concludes that language teachers’ stereotypical constructions of international students contribute to a “discursive field” that “shape[s] and structure[s] Western understanding and management of colonised cultures and peoples” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 716). This view has many echoes in the literature. For instance, Marginson and Sawir (2011) claim that Western higher education is inherently ethnocentric, quick to Otherise but often blind to its own Otherness. Hsieh (2007) makes a similar point. As discussed further below, views such as these have colored much of the debate about the influence of culture of origin on international student participation.

The argument that it is not possible to separate language from culture underpins the alternative claim that the role of culture in communication has tended to be understated. Jones (1999), for instance, asserts that in their dealings with international students, lecturers may not appreciate what constitutes competence in a language. He notes that discussion about the English language levels of international students has focused on linguistic competence, overlooking other language competences and their cultural derivations. For instance, students lacking sociolinguistic competence may be unaware of the communicative conventions of the target language, transferring norms appropriate to their home educational context to the new context. They may be unaware of the appropriate linguistic conventions regarding politeness, taboos, social distance, and silence. Psycholinguistic constructs associated with language learner subjectivities may also be perceived as culturally related. For instance, what is unexplored in Lee (2007) is the relationship between the psycholinguistic constructs of “language anxiety” and “fear of negative evaluation” and culture. This is perhaps surprising given the claims elsewhere in the literature on international students (e.g., Wen & Clément, 2003) that language behavior associated with the loss of face is characteristic of Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC). The proximity of the terms “language shock” and “culture shock” (Gu, 2009; Gu & Maley, 2008) further points toward an understanding of language as a dimension of culture. Indeed, the intercultural journey of Gu’s (2009) subjects is largely a linguistic one (below).

Culture

Discussion which centers on the impact of national cultures on the participation of international students has dominated the literature (e.g., Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Biggs, 1996; De Vita, 2007; Louie, 2005). Much of this concerns students from East Asia, predominantly China, with the contrast with Western cultures always implicit and often explicit. The early literature tended to articulate deficit views of non-Western coultures (e.g., Ballard & Clanchy, 1991) or make counter claims (e.g., Biggs, 1996). Responses to this debate included attempts to provide more nuanced understandings of national cultures (e.g., Louie, 2005; Shi, 2006) and contributions which addressed the underlying concerns of stereotyping and hegemony. The latter included both emotive responses (e.g., Greenholtz, 2003) and studies which sought to put the culture construct on firmer footing (e.g., Lee, 2007). Subsequent literature considered other factors, either as a direct challenge to culture as the central construct (the “context studies”; for example, Volet et al., 1994), or as complementary to culture (e.g., Gu & Schweisfurth, 2006). In the post-millennium, the culture debate coalesced again, but this time around the relative discourse of interculturalism (e.g., De Vita, 2007; Gu, 2009; Marginson & Sawir, 2011; Trahar, 2010).

The Early Period

As an early contribution to the literature, Ballard and Clanchy (1991) articulate the concerns of academic staff in Australian universities regarding the participation of students from CHC. It offered a cultural understanding of the origins of their difficulties and guidance as to how they could best be supported. Drawing on their own understandings and experiences, Ballard and Clanchy characterized East Asian students as silent in class and passive in learning style, rote learners for whom learning was reproductive, concerned with the conservation of knowledge, uncritical of knowledge claims, and teacher dependent.

Challenges to this stereotypical view are associated with Biggs among others in a series of writings (e.g., Biggs, 1987, 1996, 1999). Biggs (1987) questions whether the observed behaviors of East Asian students could so readily be associated with a passive learning style. Biggs (1996) puts the opposing view, arguing that East Asian students had in fact a deep approach to learning, and that this could be traced to their Confucian heritage. In Biggs (1999), he makes it clear that he does not deny cultural differences, but rather is critical of Western pedagogues who have sought to aggrandize them. To put culture in perspective, Biggs (1999) draws attention to the similarities in the difficulties of international students moving to a Western university to local students moving from school to university. A similar point is made repeatedly in later literature, captured in Ryan and Carroll’s (2005) vivid metaphor of international students as “canaries in the coalmine” (see below).

More Nuanced Understanding of the Impact of Culture

While Biggs’s challenge came in the form of reverse stereotypes, subsequent literature sought more nuanced understandings of national cultures and their impact on learning behaviors. These contributions emphasized diversity within cultures (e.g., Louie, 2005; Ryan & Louie, 2007; Shi, 2006) and cultural change, both Eastern (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006; Louie, 2005; Shi, 2006) and Western (Ryan & Louie, 2007; Wu, 2002). Foremost, they sought to resolve the seeming contradictions in the understanding of the traditional expression of CHC, which were manifest in the diverging interpretations of Ballard and Clanchy (1991) and Biggs (1996).

Shi (2006) holds that Confucianism is a “multi-dimensional concept” (p. 124) arising from diverse (and partial) understandings of the analects and proverbs. Furthermore, he argues that the analects can be used to contradict many of the key assertions of Confucianism. Jin and Cortazzi (2006), for instance, base their claim that students from CHC are reflective learners in the analects. Louie (2005) and Ryan and Louie (2007) note that a variety of interpretations is inherent in the nature of world systems of thought which span millennia and extend across huge regions. Louie (2005) observes, “like other great figures such as Christ and the Buddha, Confucius’s thinking could be twisted to suit all times and needs” (p. 21). He notes how the neo-Confucianists, who came to prominence in the West in the 1980s and 1990s (and influenced the likes of Ballard and Clanchy), argued that Confucian values of perseverance, respect for status, and thrift were those which gave rise to the Asian economic miracle, whereas a generation earlier, Confucian values were blamed for holding development back (Louie, 2005). In making these points, these authors seek to question setting too much store by any particular interpretation of Confucianism. For Western educationalists, the message is that we should treat with caution both deficit and surplus views of students from CHC (Ryan & Louie, 2007).

Louie (2005) has also pointed to diversity in contemporaneous cultural practices, arguing that nonmonolithic cultures are not confined to the West. He observes how Westerners tend to view non-Western cultures monolithically, with the distinction between elite and popular cultures, readily accepted in the West, unacknowledged in others. Regarding education, he argues that the Confucian belief in educability and perfectibility translates in the West to the view that all East Asians have a high regard for education; he notes that while some East Asians clearly do, others do not.

Changes in the educational culture in CHC is also emphasized in the literature (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006; Shi, 2006), mirroring wider cultural and economic change (Louie, 2005; Shi, 2006). Jin and Cortazzi (2006) exemplify the changes to the Chinese culture of learning through reference to English language teaching. They note that since the 2001 curriculum reform in Chinese education, the university English curriculum has focused on many aspects of learning seen to characterize Western higher education, noting parallels in other curricular areas and educational levels. Shi’s (2006) study of the learning preferences and attitudes of middle school students in a Shanghai suburb suggests a move toward a classroom culture more often associated with Western classrooms. Students indicated a preference for equality with the teacher over a hierarchical relationship; were prepared to challenge teachers, texts, and the learning environment; were self-critical; and preferred teachers who were light-hearted and used a variety of learning activities. These findings were in sharp contrast to the study it replicated, conducted only 4 years earlier (Hu, 2002). Shi (2006) argues that the rapid political, social, and economic change over the course of a single decade may account for the preponderance of new findings. Louie (2005) describes the speed of change in East Asia as “breath-taking,” with the physical landscape changing “beyond recognition” leaving “citizens feeling lost and dazed in new landscapes” (p. 21).

Both Wu (2002) and Ryan and Louie (2007) observe that Western educational cultures are not homogeneous either, and are likewise undergoing change. Wu (2002) provides contrasting accounts of his experience of doctoral study at two British universities: one traditional, one new. As an international student from Taiwan, he commenced his study at an “ancient” English university, accepting that the purpose of Socratic pedagogy was “to light the fire” (Wu, 2002, p. 390). The surprise comes with a move to another English university, a new university (an ex-polytechnic), where in place of one hands-off supervisor he now has four, each eager to help. Here the approach is to provide the right level of support. This leads Wu (2002) to conclude that not only each nation but each institution may have a different culture of learning. Ryan and Louie (2007) paint a more dismal view of change in the Western higher education sector. Speaking of the Australian context, they see commercialization and globalization as leading to increasing professional workloads, larger classes, diminished funding for research, and staff who lack training for teaching students from different cultural backgrounds. Central to Marginson and Sawir’s (2011) thesis is the tension in Western higher education between commercialism and pedagogy. They argue that changes to the latter are not coming fast enough in internationalizing universities.

The literature cited in this section has presented a more complex picture of the influence of culture of origin on international student participation, introducing many caveats to the early polarized view.

Response to Accusations of Cultural Hegemony

As Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) comments (above) suggest, another strand to the literature has sought to politicize the debate, with critics of cultural deficit or culturally reductive approaches imputing imperialist or hegemonic tendencies to those who are seen to hold such views. Responses in the research literature have included self-criticism (e.g., Greenholtz, 2003; Trahar, 2010), resolute assertions of the hegemonic nature of Western higher education (e.g., Hsieh, 2007), and recourse to theorized cultural constructs in an attempt to offer a more neutral approach (e.g., Lee, 2007; Marlina, 2009).

Greenholtz (2003), in his study of Japanese exchange students at a Canadian university, reaches the painful conclusion that Western educators’ commitment to Socratic pedagogy “smacks of intellectual imperialism” (p. 123). Trahar (2010) recognizes that her critical pedagogy might itself be viewed as culturally biased, leading to accusations of imperialism. She also notes tension between hegemonic leanings and her commitment to inclusive pedagogy. In Hsieh (2007), a view of Western academia as inherently imperialist provides the backdrop to her study into the silence of a Chinese international student at an American university. Hsieh argues that the perception of America as a nation of cultural diversity belies an “ideology of cultural homogeneity” (p. 379) which supposes the superiority of Eurocentric culture. As the dominant American culture, this sets the values against which all others are judged. Hsieh concludes that in American university classes, international students, and others who do not meet expectations of the dominant culture, are attributed a deficit identity and may be silenced. Elsewhere in the literature, being silent is not seen as a reflection of disempowerment (e.g., Chanock, 2010; below).

Other writers have sought ways to describe national cultures which do not so readily result in cultural stereotyping, with Hofstede’s (1984) framework widely drawn on (e.g., Gu & Maley, 2008; Lee, 2007; Louie, 2005). However, as Louie (2005) notes, Hofstede’s original framework, which consisted of four cultural dimensions (individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and masculinity/femininity), was itself regarded as biased toward Western cultures. This led to the inclusion of a fifth dimension, “Confucian work dynamic,” in later versions of his work (e.g., Hofstede, 1990). Others have criticized the binary nature of Hofstede’s model, which leads to “half-truths” which “conceal as much as they reveal” (Marginson & Sawir, 2011, p. 161), with the stereotypes remaining uncomfortably close.

Holliday (1999) has proposed a turning away from “large culture” approaches, where culture is associated with national groups or ethnicities and is subject to reification, to “small culture” approaches, where cultures are seen to “form from scratch” (p. 248) whenever people meet and interact, cohere, and conflict. Small cultures are nonessentialist and may describe any social grouping—the classroom, for instance. Holliday’s construct of “small culture” has been used in some of literature as a research heuristic (e.g., Clark & Gieve, 2006; Marlina, 2009). However, as Holliday himself points out, small cultures are no more immune to power differentials than large cultures, so questions of hegemony are not avoided. Moreover, Holliday’s (1999) observation that large culture is the default notion remains pertinent.

Challenges to Culture as the Dominant Factor

A third response to the early debate has taken the form of challenges to culture of origin as the dominant construct or sought to complement it. Contributions include those which have advanced the “context theory,” emphasizing the importance of both present (e.g., Volet et al., 1994) and prior (e.g., Volet & Renshaw, 1995) educational contexts, and those which foreground circumstance and personal characteristics as complements to culture (e.g., Gu, 2009; Gu & Maley, 2008; Gu & Schweisfurth, 2006).

Evidence for the importance of the present institutional context was first provided by Volet et al. (1994) in a study which measured the overall study approach of two groups of first-year undergraduates at an Australian university—one local, the other East Asian—over a period of one semester. They found that all students changed in similar ways, suggesting that study approaches were influenced by perceptions of course requirements. Volet and Renshaw (1995) likewise surveyed matched groups of East Asian and local (Australian) first-year undergraduates at the beginning and end of a semester. This study provides evidence that both present and prior educational contexts are influential, but not to the exclusion of cultural factors. The study sought to compare students’ personal goals and perceptions of different study settings for achieving goals. Although there were differences and similarities between the groups, the differences diminished over the course of the semester, indicating the influence of the present context. Many of the early differences (and some of the similarities) are put down to prior educational experience, with students seen to be employing learning strategies they know have worked in the past. Cultural factors, however, were also seen as influential. For example, the authors suggest that the importance given by local students to studying alone may derive from a culturally entrenched view of study as an individual act.

Personal characteristics mediated by circumstance are emphasized in a series of articles by Gu and colleagues (Gu, 2009; Gu & Maley, 2008; Gu & Schweisfurth, 2006). These focus on the subjective experiences of Chinese learners on their intercultural journeys at U.K. universities. In the initial phase, characterized by learning shock, culture is seen to shape experience (Gu & Schweisfurth, 2006). Thereafter, other factors work to transcend culture, determining whether a student’s intercultural experience is personally and academically successful or “a bitter journey which ends in frustrations and failures” (Gu, 2009, p. 47). The role of circumstance is highlighted in Gu and Schweisfurth (2006), which compares the intercultural experiences of Chinese English language teachers taking part in a British Council development project in China with Chinese international students at a U.K. university. They found the students were more flexible in terms of making cultural adjustments, putting this down to the higher stakes involved—they could not afford to fail. The role of personal characteristics, such as motivation, agency, and determination to thrive, are made in each article. Gu (2009) recognizes that these may be seen to have cultural underpinnings; for instance, “perseverance” is identified as a Chinese cultural trait. At the same time, the point is made that personal characteristics “vary greatly even within a monocultural group” (Gu & Schweisfurth, 2006, p. 87). Gu (2009) concludes that her findings “suggests not only that constructs shaped by culture can be changed, but that the nature of each individual’s motivations and experiences is a major factor” (p. 48). Nonetheless, she asserts that background culture is never fully transcended, with some cultural boundaries never crossed Gu (2009; below).

Interculturalism

In the post-millennium, the repositioning of the debate within the discourse of interculturalism (e.g., Carroll, 2005b, 2015; De Vita, 2007; Gu, 2009; Marginson & Sawir, 2011; Summers & Volet, 2008; Trahar, 2010) has enabled culture to be viewed in more relativist terms. It has been helpful in counteracting arguments which have inclined too readily toward deficit conceptions; yet in so doing, it has facilitated the reaffirmation of the early position that culture of origin is the defining factor shaping the experiences of international students. De Vita (2007), for instance, in his comprehensive review, argues that the supposed stereotypes of students from CHC are not misconceptions, asserting, “It is not by denying their existence that we can have an impact” (p. 156). A complementary aspect has been the call for a culturally inclusive pedagogy. This combines a cultural understanding of the challenges facing international students with the insights of the contexts theorists. Ryan and Carroll (2005) have set this within the broader context of widening participation, with their analogy of international students with canaries in a coalmine conveying the view that a pedagogy of benefit to international students will benefit a broad range of learners. While some of this literature does focus specifically on international students’ experiences of interculturalism (e.g., Gu, 2009; Gu & Maley, 2008), much is pedagogic in intent, advancing inclusive pedagogies through the development of the intercultural awareness of both university teachers and students (e.g., Carroll, 2005b, 2015; De Vita, 2005; Marginson & Sawir, 2011; Trahar, 2010).

Using questionnaire and interview data, Gu and Maley (2008) and Gu (2009) provide empathetic accounts of the intercultural journeys of Chinese international students at U.K. universities, describing their experiences of an unfamiliar educational environment and personal lives which are often isolated and lonely (Gu, 2009). At university, they struggle to push aside years of teacher-centered education and spoon-feeding; outside class, the challenge is to become independent after overprotective upbringings in one-child households (Gu & Maley, 2008). Their journeys lead to changes at the “deepest level” (identity change; Gu, 2009, p. 47); yet culture is never fully transcended and they exhibit “fractured selves,” with one subject claiming “two sets of values,” one for China and one for the United Kingdom. Gu (2009) captures this in Hoffman’s (1998) evocative self-image of being lost in translation—a self which is divided linguistically but empowered. In her alignment with Hoffman, it would seem that Gu views the intercultural journey of her subjects as inseparable from language.

Regarding the intercultural awareness of teachers, Mclean and Ransom (2005) observe that university teachers tend to see the cultural assumptions inherent in their disciplinary discourses as self-evident. They note that a consequence of assuming shared knowledge is that expectations are rarely made explicit. Trahar (2010) invites teachers to question their own assumptions about shared knowledge as part of a two-way process where an understanding of the perspectives of others requires awareness of one’s own. This is set within a broader critical pedagogy in which both teachers and students are urged to make explicit their cultural understandings and to be critical of them. Lecturers should question even “inviolable” Western academic traditions, for instance, those relating to criticality and plagiarism (Trahar, 2010, p. 151). Louie (2005) is critical of what he sees as common practice in international education contexts where teachers attempts to understand the experiences of their students by collecting cultural snippets about their background. He urges teachers to develop metacultural sensitivity where the ability to view both our home cultures and the new cultures we encounter from the perspective of an outsider leads to an empathetic understanding of cultural differences. Leask (2007) characterizes teachers in international contexts as intercultural learners, proposing a competency framework. Underlying these contributions is the understanding that the development of intercultural awareness among higher education educators will be conducive to a more inclusive pedagogy, benefiting international students.

Much of the literature on the development of intercultural awareness among students has focused on the importance of multicultural group work, with contributions such as De Vita (2005) and Ryan and Hellmundt (2005) setting high, and rarely challenged, expectations for this form of learning. De Vita (2005), for instance, considers it “the ideal vehicle for activating the social, behavioural and emotional learning processes that are required to develop an internationalised culture” (p. 82). A second understanding as broadly held is that multicultural group work is unpopular with students (e.g., Volet & Ang, 1998). Two strands have emerged in this literature: Research studies which seek to understand students’ experiences of multicultural group work (e.g., Kimmel & Volet, 2012; Summers & Volet, 2008) and pedagogic literature which addresses how the challenges to multicultural group work might be met (e.g., Carroll, 2005b, 2015; De Vita, 2005).

Summers and Volet (2008) survey local and international students’ experiences of multicultural group work over the duration of their undergraduate study. They conclude that multilingual students with previous experience of intercultural contexts were the most favorably disposed to multicultural group work; however, all the groups studied became more negative in their attitude following group work experience. Much of the literature affirms this dismal view (e.g., Harrison & Peacock, 2010; Osmond & Roed, 2010), with fear of lower grades often seen as a reason for local students’ antipathy toward working with international students (e.g., De Vita, 2002; Ledwith, Lee, Manfredi, & Wildish, 1998). In a study of students on both business and science programs, Kimmel and Volet (2012) find students’ perceptions of working in culturally diverse groups varied according to the learning context, with the science program offering the more favorable climate. They found support for the impact of cohort characteristics: While the business students always formed new groups, the science students remained in the same work groups for the duration of their study. The authors conclude that their familiarity and acquaintance with each other may have facilitated intercultural interactions.

Trahar (2010) also offers some hope, with the research reports written by her research subjects, all of them international students taking a master’s program in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), showing awareness not only of the challenges of multicultural group work but also its value. For instance, Yuan, a mature student from Taiwan, reports how she took a stand against the characteristic submissiveness expected of Taiwanese women and the dominance of men in the group “from cultures where it seemed that whatever a man says is considered to be important” (Yuan quoted in Trahar, 2010, p. 148). Yuan adds, “I learned that I needed to find a way to speak out and I think the men learned that they too had to adjust” (Yuan quoted in Trahar, 2010, p. 149). Trahar (2010) emphasizes the importance of scaffolding. She sees the success of group work as related to how academics position themselves with regard to international students, whether they have a deficit conception or adopt an inclusive approach.

Carroll (2005b, 2015) and De Vita (2005) exemplify the literature which seeks to address how the challenges to multicultural group work might be overcome. They provide advice on task design and the group formation process (De Vita, 2005), awareness raising of the pedagogic rationale for multicultural group work and how this can be squared with other objectives (Carroll, 2005b, 2015), and guidance in managing groups and dealing with conflict (Carroll, 2005b, 2015). De Vita (2005) sees linguistic and cultural differences as translating into power differentials, which results in dominance by local, native English-speaking students. In contrast, Carroll (2005b, 2015) argues that many problems put down to cultural diversity are in fact generic, with culturally reductive explanations obscuring underlying causes stemming from the method itself. In making these points, De Vita and Carroll reflect different perspectives on international student participation; on one hand, emphasizing what distinguishes them, on the other, what they share in common with other students.

Calls for greater inclusivity are now frequent in the pedagogic literature (e.g., Carroll, 2015; Marginson & Sawir, 2011), yet attitudes among higher education educators appear slow to change. While the reason for this is most often ascribed to a shortfall in resources for teacher development (e.g., Marginson & Sawir, 2011; Ryan & Louie, 2007), we also need to ask whether the literature itself, with its preoccupation with international students qua international students—rather than on their participation—plays a part in reinscribing understandings within the practice community which much of the literature seeks to question.

Discussion

The emphasis on cultural difference, with East and West as the parameters, characterizes how the issue of international student participation has been pursued in the literature; however, it raises the question of whether the exploration of cultural difference should be so principal. Although several contributions have offered nuanced understandings of culture leading to better informed discussion, there is a risk of the clock being set back. The relativist underpinnings of interculturalism, as the most recent reformulation of the debate, may not provide adequate safeguards from reification, stereotyping, and hegemony, with the danger that these understandings may be reinscribed. Indeed, relativism itself affirms cultural difference. The demands of intercultural thinking, instanced by Trahar (2010) in her questioning of how academics position themselves with respect to their expectations of international students, may be one challenge to many when the accent falls on the practicalities of how best to scaffold the learning of students from different cultural backgrounds. The question of whether the English language competence of international students should also be so central should likewise be raised. Often unqualified concerns for these two aspects have dominated the literature, closing the field to more holistic understandings of participation. This brings the danger of overlooking other factors of importance, or their construal as secondary or dependent factors, subject to the reductive nature of cultural and linguistic arguments.

How participation is viewed in the literature is at issue, for while the participation of international students is the subject in question, participation is rarely in the center of the frame. Participation is commonly viewed as a matter of “rights” (Ryan & Hellmundt, 2005, p. 13) or as an “ideal” (Marlina, 2009, p. 236), with the assumption that international students’ participation is not as it should be largely unquestioned. Research has tended to focus on seeking causal understandings for why participation falls short of the ideal, rather than directly investigating participation. Robertson, Line, Jones, and Thomas (2000), for instance, provide answers to the perceived lack of participation of international students in terms of their experiences of cultural estrangement, leading to feelings of isolation, or their confidence or competences (e.g., in English language and thinking skills). Even when the literature centers on students’ experience of participation in diverse classes (e.g., Harrison & Peacock, 2010; Osmond & Roed, 2010), the cultural and linguistic lenses are readily applied. In Lee (2007), where participation is the principal construct, carefully explicated in her 8-point questionnaire (see above), it is the dependent variable. The purpose of her enquiry is to explain participation in terms of other factors (language and culture). With the emphasis falling on international students themselves, what makes them different, the literature—with exceptions (e.g., Carroll, 2005b)—has focused on their foreignness, constructing them as “flat” characters.

What participation actually means has often been overlooked. Where this has been addressed, it has largely been understood as in terms of linguistic behavior, specifically spoken language (Hsieh, 2007; Jones, 1999; Lee, 2007; Ramsay et al., 1999; Thom, 2010; Trahar, 2010), with some writers making reference to listening (Thom, 2010; Trahar, 2010). Silence is commonly seen to characterize nonparticipation (Hsieh, 2007; Jones, 1999; Ramsay et al., 1999), with Jones (1999), for instance, exhorting lecturers to help international students “out of silence into talk” (p. 248). Others have argued that silence can be participatory (e.g., Chanock, 2010; Mclean & Ransom, 2005; Morita, 2004). Indeed, a complex literature has emerged, with discussion of silence, and how it might be understood, becoming one of the stages for the big debates. Carroll (2015) speaks of having “lost count” (p. 119) of the times lecturers of her acquaintance have interpreted the fixed expressions on students’ faces as indicative of passiveness and disengagement, rather than deep thought and concentration (her view), while Chanock (2010) sees silence as a form of protest, a marker of two competing views of learning, one active and participatory (read Western), the other contemplative and reflective (read Eastern). Chanock (2010) defends students’ reticence (i.e., their reluctance to participate in the Western sense) as a matter of rights. As noted (above), others refer to international students as being silenced (Hsieh, 2007) or ignored (Morita, 2004).

For Carroll (2015), what defines participation is active engagement, thus thinking can be participation (cognitive participation) as much as speaking (oral participation). Marlina’s (2009) students perceived the reading and thinking they did in preparation for classes as participation. Broader understandings are also present; for instance, Carroll (2005b), in her discussion of multicultural group work, identifies the ability “to crunch the data” (p. 90) and generate PowerPoint slides as nonverbal participation, while Mclean and Ransom (2005) see as participatory the loutish antics of local students (putting their feet on the table).

More fundamentally, the relationship of participation to learning is an assumption which, while occasionally explicit (e.g., Marlina, 2009), is rarely developed. Where it is, there are leanings toward a sociocultural perspective. Carroll (2015), for instance, relates the importance teachers assign to participation to their commitment to constructivist pedagogies, noting “[i]nteractive teaching methods are the bedrock of constructivist pedagogies” (p. 119), while Morita (2004) employs the terms “peripheral” and “full participation.” By referring to situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991), one development within sociocultural theory, Morita uses participation as an educational construct: To learn is to participate in a community of practice. By framing participation within sociocultural theory, Morita signals a useful direction for research in this field.

Northedge (2003), for instance, has developed Wenger’s (1998) ideas to characterize different types of learning and learners in higher education contexts. He refers to the communities of practice in higher education as “knowledge communities” and notes that learners participate at different levels. As highly specialized fields, knowledge communities develop sophisticated discourses through which central members exchange and develop understandings. Students, who may have varying degrees of prior understanding of their subject field, can be positioned along a continuum from peripheral to central participation. Peripheral participation may be vicarious and result in understandings at variant with the understandings of community experts, while central participation is generative, in the sense that participants play an active role in developing understandings, and by virtue of this procedure understandings become increasingly convergent. Applying this approach to understanding international student participation, the degree and nature of their participation may be seen to reflect their positioning as members of knowledge communities. Students who are quiet in class and prefer to listen rather than contribute to discussions exhibit in Northedge’s terminology vicarious participation.

Sociocultural theory puts participation in the center of the frame, offering a way of looking at learning which focuses less on learners and more on their behaviors. It would be useful to draw more on the literature on sociocultural theory, to provide solid theoretical grounding to our discussions concerning international student participation. As outlined in the introduction, I have used activity theory (Straker, 2014) as a way of modeling participation. This takes into account multiple stakeholders (subjects) and the several other elements in the activity system which mediate—in ways which are both obstructive and facilitative—between particular subjects and their pursuit of the object of activity. In activity theory, “object” translates to “motive”; Leontiev (1978) has described the object of activity as its “true motive” (p. 62). What activity theory offers educationalists, therefore, is a motivational theory of learning.

The object of activity is complex and may be viewed differently by different individual subjects or the same individual subject at different moments in time. Explicating the object of the activity helps to understand subjects’ behaviors as participants in activity and the importance they assign to the different elements within the activity system. For instance, in my study, the subjects (both international and local students) viewed the English language competence of international students instrumentally (i.e., as a tool). However, whether English language competence was perceived as a matter of concern or less of an issue was dependent on which object they held in view.

Conclusion

Seeking an understanding of why international students qua international students do not meet the expectations of full participation should not be the only line of enquiry. It has entangled the literature in irresolvable debates about the relative importance of English language competence and culture of origin, while relativism in cultural thinking has brought mixed messages which have often not helped practitioners in their difficult decisions regarding time and resource allocation. Better guidance for the practice community may result from focusing research more specifically on participation in international classrooms, taking a holistic view which includes both international and local students’ perspectives and those of other stakeholders. Issues such as language competence and culture of origin do not go away, but rather are seen in a broader context.

This article has argued that the field is undertheorized, at least with regard to educational theory. It has put the case for framing research within sociocultural theory as a research paradigm which provides a theorized understanding of participation in educational contexts. In particular, activity theory is proposed, offering a motivational theory of learning which takes us beyond the identification of “issues” (e.g., English language competence, students’ cultures of origin) to ask why an “issue” is conceived as such. Turning researchers’ attention to the object of activity, and therefore to motivation, provides a means for understanding the extent to which the elements of the activity system (subject, tools, rules, community, division of labor), in their particular manifestations (e.g., language competence, culture of origin), are perceived as facilitators or obstacles in the subjects’ pursuits of the object of activity. By foregrounding motivation, the approach put forward in this article compares with Volet and Jones (2012). In their critical review of the literature, they argue that motivation is “a critical, yet under-examined construct” (Volet & Jones, 2012, p. 273). However, while Volet and Jones view motivation in individualistic terms, directing researchers to explore learner agency, this article views motivations as socially constructed, as available meanings out there which individuals in their engagement with others in activity align to. The call for a move away from concerns with individuals themselves to their collective participation in activity marks the difference between these two approaches.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

John Straker is programme manager of the insessional English language support programme at INTO University of Exeter and an Honorary Associate Research Fellow in the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter. His main professional and research interest is facilitating international student participation in degree programmes. His current research explores the utility of activity theory as a framework for understanding and researching international student participation.

References

Ballard

Clanchy

(1991). Teaching students from overseas: A brief guide for lecturers and supervisors. Melbourne, Australia: Longman Cheshire.

Barron

(2006). Stormy outlook? Domestic students’ impressions of international students at an Australian University. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(2), 5-22.

Biggs

(1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs

(1996). Western misconceptions of the Confucian heritage learning culture. In Watkins

Biggs

(Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences (pp. 45-67). Hong Kong/Melbourne: Comparative Education Research Centre/Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs

(1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: SRHE.

Carroll

(2005a). “Lightening the load”: Teaching in English, learning in English. In Carroll

Ryan

(Eds.), Teaching international students: Improving education for all (pp. 35-42). London, England: Routledge.

Carroll

(2005b). Multicultural groups for discipline-specific tasks. In Carroll

Ryan

(Eds.), Teaching international students: Improving education for all (pp. 84-91). London, England: Routledge.

Carroll

(2015). Tools for teaching in an educationally mobile world. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Chanock

(2010). The right to reticence. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 543-552.

10.

Clark

Gieve

(2006). On the discursive construction of the Chinese learner. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19, 54-73.

11.

De Vita

. (2002). Does assessed multicultural group work really pull UK students’ average down? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 153-161.

12.

De Vita

. (2005). Fostering intercultural learning through multicultural group. In Carroll

Ryan

(Eds.), Teaching international students: Improving education for all (pp. 75-83). London, England: Routledge.

13.

De Vita

. (2007). Taking stock: An appraisal of the literature on internationalising HE learning. In Jones

Brown

(Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp. 154-168). Oxford, UK: Routledge.

14.

Engeström

(1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.

15.

Engeström

(2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.

16.

Greenholtz

(2003). Socratic teachers and Confucian learners: Examining the benefits and pitfalls of a year abroad. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3, 122-130.

17.

(2009). Maturity and interculturality: Chinese students’ experiences in UK higher education. European Journal of Education, 44, 37-52.

18.

Maley

(2008). Changing places: A study of Chinese students in the UK. Language & Intercultural Communication, 8, 224-245.

19.

Schweisfurth

(2006). Who adapts? Beyond cultural models of “the” Chinese learner. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19, 74-89.

20.

Harrison

Peacock

(2010). Interactions in the international classroom: The UK perspective. In Jones

(Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice (pp. 125-142). London, England: Routledge.

21.

Hoffman

(1998). Lost in translation: A life in a new language. London, England: Vintage.

22.

Hofstede

(1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

23.

Hofstede

(1990). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

24.

Holliday

(1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237-264.

25.

Hsieh

(2007). Challenges for international students in higher education: One student’s narrated story of invisibility and struggle. College Student Journal, 41, 379-391.

26.

(2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogic imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15, 93-105.

27.

Jin

Cortazzi

(2006). Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19, 5-20.

28.

Jones

(1999). From silence to talk: Cross-cultural ideas on students’ participation in academic group discussion. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 243-259.

29.

Kim

(2012). The birth of academic subalterns: How do foreign students embody the global hegemony of American universities? Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 455-476.

30.

Kimmel

Volet

(2012). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes towards culturally diversive group work: Does context matter? Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 157-181.

31.

Kumaravadivelu

(2003). Problematizing Cultural Stereotypes in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 37(4), 709-718.

32.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Leask

(2007). International teachers and international learning. In Jones

Brown

(Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp. 119-129). Oxford, UK: Routledge.

34.

Ledwith

Lee

Manfredi

Wildish

(1998). Multiculturalism, student group work and assessment. Oxford, UK: Oxford Brookes University.

35.

Lee

E. L.

(2007). Linguistic and cultural factors in East Asian students’ oral participation in U.S. university classrooms. International Education, 36(3), 29-47.

36.

Leontiev

A. N.

(1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

37.

Louie

(2005). Gathering cultural knowledge: Useful or use with care? In Carroll

Ryan

(Eds.), Teaching international students: Improving education for all (pp. 17-25). London, England: Routledge.

38.

Marginson

Sawir

(2011). Ideas for intercultural education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

39.

Marlina

(2009). “I don’t talk or I decide not to talk? Is it my culture?” International students’ participation of tutorial participation. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 235-244.

40.

Mclean

Ransom

(2005). Building intercultural competencies. In Carroll

Ryan

(Eds.), Teaching international students: Improving education for all (pp. 45-62). London, England: Routledge.

41.

Morita

(2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573-603.

42.

Northedge

(2003). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 17-32.

43.

Osmond

Roed

(2010). Sometimes it means more work: Student perceptions of group work in a mixed cultural setting. In Jones

(Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice (pp. 113-124). London, England: Routledge.

44.

Ramsay

Barker

Jones

(1999). Academic adjustment and learning processes: A comparison of international and local students in first-year university. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 129-144.

45.

Robertson

Line

Jones

Thomas

(2000). International students, learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education Research & Development, 19, 89-102.

46.

Ryan

Carroll

(2005). Canaries in the coalmine: International students in western universities. In Carroll

Ryan

(Eds.), Teaching international students: Improving education for all (pp. 3-10). London, England: Routledge.

47.

Ryan

Hellmundt

(2005). Maximising international students’ cultural capital. In Carroll

Ryan

(Eds.), Teaching International students: Improving education for all (pp. 13-16). London Routledge.

48.

Ryan

Louie

(2007). False dichotomy? “Western” and “Confucian” concepts of scholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39, 404-417.

49.

Said

(1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

50.

Shi

(2006). The successor to Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnaire study on Chinese students’ culture of learning English. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19, 122-147.

51.

Straker

J. O.

(2014). A case study of international student participation in an undergraduate module in management in a UK business school using the lens of activity theory (Doctoral thesis). University of Exeter, UK.

52.

Summers

Volet

(2008). Students’ attitudes towards culturally mixed groups on international campuses: Impact of participation in diverse and non-diverse groups. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 357-370.

53.

Thom

(2010). Mutual cultures: Engaging with interculturalism in higher education. In Jones

(Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice (pp. 155-168). London, England: Routledge.

54.

Trahar

(2010). Has everybody seen a swan? Stories from the internationalised classroom. In Jones

(Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice (pp. 143-154). London, England: Routledge.

55.

Volet

Ang

(1998). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An opportunity for inter-cultural learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 17, 5-23.

56.

Volet

Jones

(2012). Cultural transitions in higher education: Individual adaptation, transformation and engagement. In Karabenick

Urdan

(Eds.), Transitions across schools and cultures (Vol. 17, pp. 241-284). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

57.

Volet

Renshaw

(1995). Cross-cultural differences in university students’ goals and perceptions of study settings for achieving their own goals. Higher Education, 30, 407-433.

58.

Volet

Renshaw

Tietzel

(1994). A short-term longitudinal investigation of cross-cultural differences in study approaches using Biggs’ SPQ. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 301-318.

59.

Wen

Clément

(2003). A Chinese conception of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16, 18-38.

60.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

61.

(2002). Filling the pot or lighting the fire? Cultural variations in conceptions of pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 7, 387-395.