Research Highlighted:
Dai, Q. (2023). Chinese international students’ wellbeing: Experiences of assessment in higher education. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 22(2), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/14788047231194173
About the study:
While there is growing research identifying the academic and non-academic challenges to the well-being of Chinese international students, there is little discussion about the differences in and challenges of the assessment they experience. This gap appears to come from a tacit assumption that assessment is universal worldwide, or that students will automatically learn strategies to deal with all the contrasts in assessment themselves. Although, as a Chinese student studying in a master’s programme in the UK in 2019, I experienced considerable differences in assessment between Chinese and British universities and my Chinese peers often expressed their unfamiliarity with various aspects of assessment and sometimes discontent with the ambiguity in assessment. Also, while outcomes of assessment in universities, such as marks, are closely related to resulting academic and career opportunities, according to Bourdieu and Passeron (1990), cultural capital or habitus is misrecognized as individual academic achievement through hegemonic assessment. So, this research aims to provide a close examination of the differences in and challenges of assessment facing Chinese internationals from an insider’s point of view. This research is a Chinese international master’s student’s effort to do research with, about and for international students.
Also, many existing studies and practice in internationalisation of UK Higher Education (HE) adopt a deficit approach that attributes international students’ experiences of challenges to their lack of capabilities, thus responsibilising international students only to adapt to the host environments (Andrade, 2017; Mittelmeier et al., 2022). This reductionist approach also (re)produces a dichotomous and static stereotype that Confucian Heritage Culture and Chinese education are contradictory to Western values and Western educational practice (Tu, 2018). So, as a counter-discourse, this research is developed on the concept of “academic hospitality” aiming to develop a reciprocal relationship between academic “hosts” and “guests” (Dorsett, 2017) and challenge the static dichotomous discourses. For instance, Heng (2017) proposed that fostering meaningful conversations between individuals of diverse backgrounds can challenge established parochialism and develop a recognition of, acceptance of, and respect for multiple identities and diverse cultures and ways of knowledge production. So, this research is an international master’s student’s act of epistemic disobedience to counter the deficit approach to the internationalisation of UK HE and contribute to the decolonisation of UK HE by challenging its neo-colonialist assumptions of universality in assessment.
This research explored Chinese international students’ experience of assessment in the UK, specifically their experienced differences in, and challenges of assessment, correspondingly, their adopted strategies and the institutional support they required. Answers are sought by examining relevant literature and by interviewing thirteen Chinese postgraduate-taught students majoring in different subjects at a Scottish University.
Findings and implications:
Most Chinese students in this research were surprised and confused about the variety of assessment formats they experienced in the UK, especially the oral assessment and group work. Even when formats were familiar to them, the expected answers to the assessment were largely diverse from their previous experience. Specifically, all participants believed that expressing themselves in academic English under time pressure or word limit was the most challenging, such as the acceptable extent of inclusion of personal views, applications of concrete examples, and correct referencing to avoid plagiarism. None of them was confident enough to apply critical thinking, reading, and writing to various types of assessments in the UK. Also, most students felt unaccustomed to the autonomy of the exam preparation and coursework writing, so some of them failed the assessment and might suffer from depression. A deficit stereotype of Chinese students is refuted by the comprehensive understanding of Chinese transmissive education and empirical findings. This research, in line with Heng’s (2019) developmental perspective, showed that while they identified various challenges of assessment, there was a clear process of improvement among all participants, such as growing familiarity with and confidence in the different assessment formats, clarity of the expected answers, and more advanced linguistic capability.
Concerning assessment, most Chinese students used similar strategies when they first encountered assessment in British universities, and the influence on their performance varied among individuals. However, supported by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (Ploner, 2018) and Heng’s (2019) developmental perspective, participants developed new strategies when they realized the diverse expectations. Firstly, the significance of autonomous learning in British universities had a great impact on their preparation strategies and academic performance, such as significantly more use of the recommended reading and resources searched by themselves compared to their previous experience in China. Secondly, while most of them studied alone in Chinese universities, all of them considered social support as the main source and strategy to meet the challenging assessment in the UK, including their co-nationals, other internationals and tutors. Thirdly, apart from other positive strategies, such as time-management skills and making realistic plans, some students also adopted desperate methods in their assessments, such as the overuse of online translation tools.
In terms of institutional support, participants suggested ongoing support for assessment from the whole university, ranging from lecturers, tutors, and academic services to international student services. Among the specific institutional support in the forms of special guidance, lectures, workshops and tutorials, most Chinese internationals highlighted the clarification of expected answers and assessment criteria, such as the extent of inclusion of personal views. Some students also suggested the provision of samples of and practical guidance on the unfamiliar format, and some thought mock exams or formative assessments with effective feedback from tutors and peers would benefit them considerably. Linguistic support in a combination of rich forms was mentioned by all and considered the most imperative support, including strategies and methods to find appropriate academic sources, practical guidance on critical thinking, reading and writing, correct referencing and effective paraphrasing. Also, students recommended training for the teaching staff and the provision of pressure-reducing activities throughout the academic year. Finally, almost all of them advised universities not only to focus on the establishment of campus resources but also to devote energy to the motivation of international students and help them to use resources effectively, such as the group revision and mentoring program provided by universities to ensure good practice shared among students.
International students’ experiences in assessment, including their challenges, growth, strategies and required institutional support, can be used as valuable resources for HE practitioners and researchers to develop culturally relevant pedagogy and for UK HE institutions to decolonise HE. This way, ‘institutions are involving international students in conversations with them, not about them’ (Heng, 2017, p. 847), otherwise ending up in commercialized education that (re)produces stereotypes about them (Dorsett, 2017).
References:
Andrade, M. (2017). Institutional policies and practices for admitting, assessing, and tracking international students. Journal of International Students, 7(1): I–VI.
Bourdieu, P., and Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.) (R. Nice, Trans.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Dorsett, J. (2017). High hopes: International student expectations for studying in the United States. New Directions for Student Services, 2017(158): 9–21.
Heng, T. (2017) Voices of Chinese international students in USA colleges: ‘I want to tell them that … ’. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5): 833–850.
Heng, T. (2019) Understanding the Heterogeneity of International Students’ Experiences: A Case Study of Chinese International Students in U.S. Universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(5): 607–623.
Mittelmeier, J., Lomer, S., Al Furqani, S., and Huang, D. 2022. Internationalisation and students’ outcomes or experiences: A review of the literature 2011-2021. Advance HE.
Ploner, J. (2018). International students’ transitions to UK higher education – revisiting the concept and practice of academic hospitality. Journal of Research in International Education, 17(2): 164–178.
Tu, H. (2018). English Versus Native Language on Social Media: International Students’ Cultural Adaptation in the U. S. Journal of International Students, 8(4): 1709–1721.
Author Biography:
Qiao Dai is a PhD candidate in the School of Education at the University of Glasgow, where she also works as an Associate Tutor. Her PhD research looks at the role of UK International Higher Education in Chinese womanhood between China and the UK. Her research interests generally can be situated in three strands, namely feminisms, international HE, and postcolonial knowledge production and creative inquiry. She can be contacted via email: qiao.dai@glasgow.ac.uk.
Managing Editor: Tong Meng
Network for Research into Chinese Education Mobilities (NRCEM) 