Educational Reciprocity and Adaptivity: International Students and Stakeholders

Educational Reciprocity and Adaptivity

­



Educational Reciprocity and Adaptivity challenges the common belief that adapting to new educational settings is the responsibility of international students alone. The book argues that reciprocal responses are required by students and stakeholders alike for an efficient and equitable accommodation of international students in educational settings. Considering how international students negotiate academic challenges and social tensions, it presents both theoretical frameworks and practical tools to work around the tension regarding ethical academic practices. Crucially exploring these issues across a range of geographical and institutional contexts, and therefore offering critical insights into significant developments in international education across the world, the much-needed research in this edited collection explores: • • • •

institutional educational policies regarding international students and stakeholders; institutional practices and how they are received; educational adaptability and responses from different stakeholders; the experiences of international students and institutions in negotiating academic and social tensions.

This important contribution to research on the experiences of international students in different geographical and educational contexts is of great interest to academics, researchers and postgraduate students in the fields of international education, comparative education, sociology of education, youth studies, intercultural studies, migration studies and TESOL. Abe W. Ata currently holds an honorary position at Deakin University, Australia. He is an Adjunct Professor at Swinburne University, Australia. Ly Thi Tran is an Associate Professor at Deakin University, Australia, and an Australian Research Council Future Fellow.

­

Indika Liyanage is an Associate Professor and Discipline Leader (TESOL/ LOTE) at Deakin University, Australia. He is also an Honorary Professor at Sichuan Normal University, China, and Researcher at the Research Centre for Multi-culture, China.

Routledge Research in International and Comparative Education



This is a series that offers a global platform to engage scholars in continuous academic debate on key challenges and the latest thinking on issues in the fast-growing field of International and Comparative Education. For more information about the series, please visit www.routledge.com. Books in the series include: Educational Reciprocity and Adaptivity International Students and Stakeholders Edited by Abe W. Ata, Ly Thi Tran and Indika Liyanage Transnational Curriculum Standards and Classroom Practices The New Meaning of Teaching Ninni Wahlström and Daniel Sundberg The Effectiveness of Mathematics Teaching in Primary Schools Lessons from England and China Zhenzhen Miao and David Reynolds Decolonising Intercultural Education Colonial differences, the geopolitics of knowledge, and inter-epistemic dialogue Robert Aman

Education for Democracy in England and Finland Principles and Culture Andrea Raiker and Matti Rautiainen Transformative Learning through International Service-Learning Towards an ethical ecology of education Phillip Bamber The Critical Global Educator Global citizenship education as sustainable development Maureen Ellis Investigating Education in Germany Historical studies from a British perspective David Phillips Knowledge Hierarchies in Transnational Education Staging dissensus Jing Qi

Educational Reciprocity and Adaptivity International Students and Stakeholders

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Abe W. Ata, Ly Thi Tran and Indika Liyanage

 

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN  

and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Abe W. Ata, Ly Thi Tran and Indika Liyanage; individual chapters, the contributors

 

The right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial matter, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested

 

ISBN: 978-1-138-70739-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-20141-2 (ebk)  

Typeset in Bembo by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear

Contents



viii xiii



Notes on contributors Acknowledgements

3

ta

W. A  

 

A

be

and

T

ran

 

T

hi

 

, L

y

L

iyanage

 

­

k

a



I





1

1 Re-examining reciprocity in international education ndi

 

Introduction

 

PART I

2 Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme: why does the number of ‘foreign’ students matter? 

25

ashimoto

o

H

L

ie 

yl

v

45

omer





 

Kayo

k

3 Adaptation for national competitive advantage: policy on international students in the UK S

4 Understanding international students’ adaptation motivation and behaviours: transformative, strategic or conservative? T

ran

 

T

hi

 

L

y

and

H

oang

 

T

rang





 

23



 



­

Institutional or broader educational policies and practices vis-à-vis international students and stakeholders

62

  

vi Contents

5 Rethinking the value of international student mobility: a case study of the experience of Myanmar University students in Hong Kong L

6 Navigating through the hostility: international students in Singapore 

104

omes

G

atherine 

C

7 Rethinking the issue of rights for international students

124

N

yland

 

hris

C

and

ran

T

 

hi

T

 

L

y



 

85

o

W

ai 

 



at

Y

 

illiam

W

and

g

N

 

Kit

 

ai

 

elix

S



 

F

8 Missing dialogue: intercultural experiences of Pakistani students in their first-year studies at a Chinese university ­



 

83



 

The experiences of international students and institutions in negotiating academic and social tensions



 

PART II

142

L

owe

 



ohn

J

and

ian

 

ei

T

9 Sustaining benefits of higher education internationalisation through cross-cultural adaptation: insights from international students in Malaysia k,

and

a

z

ra

 

abd

 

ordin

, N

hafaei

 

S

162

jamil

 

ha

z

ri

Az

adeh



­



 

M

Krishna 

B

181

ista





10 Do academic and social experiences predict sense of belonging? Comparing among American and international undergraduate students

 

PART III

193

11 Stretching the global imaginaries of internationalisation: the critical role of intercultural language learning pedagogies

195

a

R. Dí  

A

driana







Educational adaptability – instructional practices and international students

z

  

Contents

12 Reconsidering possibilities for integration of international students in tertiary education

vii 209



G

urney

 

aura

L

and

iyanage

L

 

a

k

ndi

I



13 An investigation into the knowledge, education and attitudes of male and female international students in Australia to the International English Language Testing System (IELTS)  

W. A

be

A

ta



224



z

bec

Y

a

 

B

arbara

and

Zahora

 

Index





T

omas

­



14 “Is plagiarism a learned sin?” Textuality, meaning-making, and the rules of the academic game

242

k

255

Contributors

 

­

Abe W. Ata is of a Palestinian Lebanese Australian background, born in Bethlehem. He graduated in social psychology at the American University of Beirut, and was soon nominated as a delegate to the United Nations’ World Youth Assembly in New York. He gained his doctorate at the University of Melbourne in 1980 and has since been teaching and researching at several Australian, American, Jordanian, West Bank and Danish universities, currently at Deakin University, and Adjunct Professor at Swinburne University. His publications span 124 journal articles, 18 books and 23 entries in the Encyclopaedia of Australian religions (2009); Encyclopaedia of the Australian people (2001) and the Encyclopaedia of Melbourne (2005). Several of his books were nominated for the Prime Minister’s Book Awards including International education and cultural-linguistic experiences of international students in Australia (Australian Academic Press, 2015). He was also nominated as Australian of the Year in 2015 and 2011.

 

­

Krishna Bista is Associate Professor in the Department of Advanced Studies, Leadership and Policy at Morgan State University. His research focuses on college student experiences related to classroom participation, perceptions of academic integrity, faculty–student relationships, role of advisors, and cross-cultural teaching and learning strategies in higher education. Previously, he served as the director of Global Education at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, where he was also Chase Endowed Professor of Education in the School of Education.

 

­

Adriana R. Díaz is Lecturer at the School of Languages and Cultures, University of Queensland, Australia. Her main research activities focus on the development of intercultural competence, the variables affecting the implementation of intercultural language curricula and teaching methodologies as well as teachers’ journeys in the development of intercultural language learning pedagogies. She is the author of Developing critical languaculture pedagogies in higher education: Theory and practice (Multilingual Matters, 2013) and co-editor (with Maria Dasli) of the volume The critical turn in language and intercultural communication pedagogy: Theory, research and practice (Routledge, 2017).

  

Contributors

ix

­

Catherine Gomes is Senior Lecturer at RMIT University in Melbourne and recently completed an Australian Research Council DECRA (Discovery Early Career Research Award) fellowship. Her work covers migration, transnationalism and diasporas, particularly transient migration in Australia and Singapore with special interest in international students, their well-being, their social networks and their media and communication use. She is founding editor of Transitions: Journal of Transient Migration (Intellect Books). Her recent books include Transient mobility and middle class identity: Media and migration in Australia and Singapore (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), International student connectedness and identity: transnational perspectives (with Ly Thi Tran, Springer, 2017), The Asia Pacific in the age of transnational mobility: The search for community and identity on and through social media (Anthem Press, 2016) and Multiculturalism through the lens: A guide to ethnic and migrant anxieties in Singapore (Ethos Books, 2015). Laura Gurney (PhD) is a Research Fellow in the School of Education, Deakin University. Her areas of specialisation include teacher learning and professional development, languages education, internationalisation of higher education and academic literacies. As a language teacher, language teacher educator and professional development facilitator, she has worked extensively with students and practitioners from a variety of educational settings in the Asia Pacific.

 

 

 

­

­

­

Kayoko Hashimoto is Lecturer at the School of Languages and Cultures, The University of Queensland, Australia. Her main research areas are language policy, English language teaching (ELT) in Asia, and Japan’s language education. Her recent publications include an edited book Japanese language and soft power in Asia (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), Towards postnative-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (Springer, forthcoming) coedited by S. Houghton, and Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions (Routledge, forthcoming), co-authored with S. A. Houghton and D. J. Rivers. She has been Language and Education Thematic Editor of Asian Studies Review. Trang Hoang is a PhD candidate at Deakin University. She received her B. Ed. English Language Teaching (2003) from Ho Chi Minh City University of Pedagogy and M.Ed. Studies (2006) from the University of Western Australia. Her research interests are international student motivation, adaptation, identity and aspirations. Her PhD research forms part of the Australian Research Council funded project that studies secondary school international students in Australia.

G

G

Hazri Jamil is an Associate Professor specializing in the areas of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Educational Policy and Higher Education Studies. He is Coordinator for lobal Higher Education Network ( HEN) and Coordinator for Academic and Postgraduate Program at National Higher Education Research Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia. He has been a project

Educational Reciprocity and Adaptivity International Students and Stakeholders

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Abe W. Ata, Ly Thi Tran and Indika Liyanage

  

Contributors

xi

­

G

cosmopolitanism and sustainable living in reater China, focusing particularly on the worldview of Chinese societies, and how Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese green-living individuals recognise, perceive, and respond to climate change and severe pollution issues in the course of reflexive modernisation.

 

K

­

Chris Nyland is a Professor in the Department of Management, Monash University, Australia. His research spans a number of areas. He has a longterm interest in the history and evolution of business and economic ideas. ey areas that he has researched in this regard include the evolution of management thought and practice in the United States in the first half of the twentieth century and how classical political economist have explained the respective status of the sexes. A second research area is globalisation and education.

­

­

Nordin Abd Razak is currently a Professor in School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia. His research interests include Measurement and Scale Development, Educational Assessment and Evaluation, International Large-scale Assessment and Psychological Testing. His expertise includes multivariate/multilevel analysis, and Rasch Measurement Model using various statistical software such as SPSS, HLM, AMOS, SMARTPLS, WINSTEPS, JMetrik, RUMM, Test Analysis Program (TAP), and open source (R). He is involved in research projects focusing on quality of teacher work-life, positive education/positive institution, evaluation and assessment. He is a consultant for various divisions in the Ministry of Education and Higher Education in Malaysia.

­

­

G

G

G

Azadeh Shafaei is Senior Research Officer at the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). Prior to joining ACER, she worked as a Research Assistant at raduate Research School ( RS), Edith Cowan University. She obtained her PhD in International Education and lobalisation from Universiti Sains Malaysia. She has a Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics. Her research interests mainly include: cross-cultural adaptation, education mobility, higher education internationalisation, higher education management and leadership, early childhood education and English language teaching and learning. Her research findings have appeared in toptier journals such as Studies in Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, Policy Futures in Education, Higher Education, and Research in International Education. Mei Tian (PhD) is Professor at the School of International Studies at Xi’an Jiaotong University in China. Her research interests include international students’ educational experience in China.

Ly Thi Tran is Associate Professor at the School of Education, Deakin University and an Australian Research Council Future Fellow. Her research focuses on Vietnamese higher education, student mobility and the teaching and learning of international students. She has published widely in the field

  

xii Contributors of Vietnamese higher education and international education and is frequently invited to speak at a wide range of conferences, symposiums and workshops. Ly’s book, Teaching international students in vocational education: New pedagogical approaches, won the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) Excellence Award for Best Practice/Innovation in International Education.

 

­

­

­

Barbara Yazbeck is currently Learning Skills Adviser (Research and Information Skills) at Monash University Library. She works with academics to embed research and learning skills in a range of health science curricula including Pharmacy, Nursing, Radiology and Nutrition. She has extensive experience with undergraduate and postgraduate students having worked in university preparation courses both in Australia and abroad. She has qualifications in Applied Linguistics and Education and has an interest in critical pedagogies and theories of learning. She is the author of ‘Managing diversity in university preparation courses: Seeing difference as potential’ published in EA Journal in 2008. She was a finalist in the English Australia Pearson’s Award 2007. Recently, she received a ViceChancellor’s Citation for Outstanding Contribution to Student Learning (2015) for ‘Excellence in developing evidence-based medicine curricula based on world’s best practice that engage students in enquiry-driven learning and practice for life’.

­

­

Tomas Zahora is a Research and Learning Coordinator at Monash University Library, and a researcher in the history of science, ideas and education. Apart from managing the library’s engagement with the faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, he teaches history, critical thinking and communication skills, and works with librarians and academics to embed skills into the curriculum. He enjoys using the writing group format to teach doctoral students to improve their writing, and has recently developed a masters-level communication course for international students, in which critical thinking skills and conventions are taught from a crosscultural perspective. He has written on plagiarism, encyclopedias, memory and forgetting, and the interaction of futurism and apocalypse, as well as on the history of thought and intertextual practices.

Acknowledgements

The editors gratefully acknowledge the support and advice of Deakin University’s Professor Jane den Hollander, AO, President and Vice Chancellor; Professor Brenda Cherednichenko, Executive Dean; and Professor Christine Ure, Alfred Deakin Professor and Head of School. Abe W. Ata, Ly Thi Tran and Indika Liyanage

Introduction

Re-examining reciprocity in international education ­



1

 

 

 

 

 

Indika Liyanage, Ly Thi Tran and Abe W. Ata

Introduction

­

­

 

­

­

Reciprocity is fundamental in theorisation of social relations as dialogical and mutually constituted, and of human experience of social reality as constructed in relational spaces. Any claim to meaningful understanding of the experience of international students that ignores this fails the first test. At the core of dialogical social constructionist understandings of learning or acquisition of knowledge is the assumption that cultures are shared, socially-constructed realities, and thus that ‘others’ play an essential, irreducible part in socialisation into an already meaningful world (Linell, 2009). Key to this assumption, however, is the recognition that the language, practices, knowledge and conceptual systems that permeate individual cognition and learning are shared only partially, that ‘social construction (and structures) and individual variation are co-evolutionary’ (Linell, 2009, p. 79). Integral to sharing socio cultural knowledge and practices is the individual capacity to have a sense of difference in ‘others’ encountered in social interaction. Successful interaction, if only to achieve disagreement, and the possibility of situated (re)structuring of knowledge of the world necessitates individual other-orientation (Linell, 2009), which implies a reciprocity of perspectives, the attempt to perceive the world from the perspective of the ‘other’, a fundamental tenet of the global citizenship. Intersubjectivity is not just about what interactants share, but also what they do not (Wertsch, 2000) and inherent in any attempt at mutuality or reciprocity is the possibility, or perhaps an inevitability, of alterity (Bakhtin, 1979) of new meanings in the dialogical interaction of voices:

 

In addition to the emphasis on mutuality and reciprocity, there are strains and tensions, differences between people and traditions, boundaries between communities (and reaching across those boundaries), knowledge, norms and expectations at variance. These tensions stand in dialectical (‘dialogical’) relations to each other. (Linell, 2009, p. 82) If we put aside the idea of international education as a product for consumption (reminiscent of simplistic ‘empty vessel’ monologic transmission models

  

4 I. Liyanage et al.



 



of learning) and return to the idea of an international education as a learning experience that ostensibly offers more than learning within monocultural and monolingual confines, then it is, without doubt, encountering difference that prompts learning. It is difference that makes education to be international. Bakhtin introduced the idea of the ‘(the other’s) strange words’ with this tack on dialogue, otherness introduces strangeness, in the form of oppositions, disagreements, and discrepancies between perspectives, evaluations and accounts … tensions evoke thoughts in the self. Thoughts are never quite neutral; they involve evaluations, with cognition and emotions clashing, judging and evaluation one another. It is the disruptive influence of the other that introduces tensions. The other’s ‘outsideness’ brings in a ‘surplus’ of vison, knowledge and understanding other than had before or you had expected to encounter. The other may see things from points of view that have so far been strange or unfamiliar to yourself, and this forces you to reflect and try to understand, thereby possibly enriching your, and our collective, knowledge and language (Linell, 2009, p. 83). Without engaging in contention about strict definitions of universities, and where and when they originated, some perennial characteristics grounded in reciprocity identification of commonalities, the preparedness for encountering difference – have persisted through time in today’s representation of higher education as internationally or globally oriented. For example, these include: recognition and mobility of academic staff; welcoming, indeed expecting, a student cohort that was not simply local; teaching programmes that focus on what is generally agreed to be ‘higher learning’, and; the pursuit and sharing of knowledge through transnational scholarship and research. Movements of scholars and students in earlier periods were admittedly perhaps more regional, rather than the global flows of today. In Europe, which likes to consider itself the birthplace of the modern university, there was still in many ways a shared cultural heritage and experience that bound the seemingly disparate kingdoms and principalities of Europe together (Altbach, 2002). A lingua franca, Latin, and the remnants, or at least the memory, of the Western Roman Empire kept alive through the structures of the Catholic Church and then resuscitated in the ninth century as the shifting political entity of the Holy Roman Empire (Liyanage & Badeng, 2016). Yet evidence abounds of movement and interaction across notional cultural, linguistic and political boundaries. The interaction of European, Arabic and Byzantine scientists, scholars, writers and artists in twelfth century Norman Sicily is well documented as an era of remarkable innovation and cultural fusion that many argue made it the most advanced country in Europe at the time, and an excellent example of intercultural reciprocity. Institutions of higher learning flourished in the Arabic world and, during the European medieval era, Arabic translations of classic works from across Eurasia were made for the use of scholars, enabling the later return of Latin translations of lost texts to fledgling European universities. Today’s internationalised higher education is of a different order because of its scale, ease of movement and much more

  

Reciprocity in international education

5

widespread demand for higher education in a knowledge economy (Stiglitz, 2006), commodification and commercialisation of knowledge as assets and services (Altbach, 2002) owned by nation states, and disparate knowledges and cultural/academic practices that are in contact. The difference is also exacerbated also by nation states’ migration policies, human capacity development, public diplomacy, promotion of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education and establishment of offshore online international education (Tran & Gomes, 2017).

Calls for reciprocity



­

Calls for more reciprocal relationships in international education are in fact a challenge to stakeholders – institutions, policy-makers, academic and professional staff and students – to resolve paradoxes, evident to even the most casual observer, in theory and practice of international education. It is considered to be the high status and reputation of the education systems of BANA countries (Britain, Australasia and North America) and others that attracts students. The very fact of the difference of Western education, and that this difference is imagined to be one that is inherently better and thus more desirable, is key to the hegemonic status it enjoys (Liyanage & Walker, 2014a). This is in tension with the publicly declared value the presence of international students adds to an institution for domestic students in terms of internationalised curricula, the possibilities of development of intercultural competences, and the opportunities to establish professional and academic networks appropriate for success in a globalised world. This claim – that international students bring valuable resources to the educational exchange and contribute to an enhanced quality of the offering to domestic students, can in fact make essential contributions to delivering the ‘international’ in the international education experience with its objectives of productive international/intercultural relationships and global citizenship – implies a change or transformation of the product on offer. Any acknowledgement of reciprocity, that is, of the educational offering changing, especially if there are supposedly concerns about the ‘quality’ of the visiting students and how they need to adapt to the ‘system’, can be construed as a threat to the integrity of the original product (Liyanage & Gurney, Chapter 12). Positioned thus, international students find themselves in a confusing and contradictory, if not explicitly commodified, situation. They become well aware very quickly that to succeed in their studies they are obliged to adapt to and adopt new practices in a climate that explicitly devalues the practices they have used to achieve the academic success necessary for acceptance as an international student (Liyanage & Gurney, Chapter 12). Yet, it is usually too evident in images and materials digitally encountered on a daily basis on university home pages as providers of the ‘resource’ of difference, putatively useful to have on campus for some sort of (usually joyful) improved learning experiences for domestic students with whom they study.

  

6 I. Liyanage et al. ­

­

­



An alternative is that both hosts and guests pursue negotiation of otheroriented reciprocal relationships, that is, international students adapt and are accommodated (rather than assimilated), host institutions (and local domestic student peers) negotiate reciprocal accommodation of difference as well actively adapting themselves to the possibility that a diversity of academic practices and conventions, languages, knowledge, etc. of visiting students is an authentic resource for learning otherwise not available (see Hoang & Tran, Chapter 4). As with the outcome of any social interaction, the relationship need not be symmetrical, but mutual. Embracing the potential to transform and enrich what was originally seen as making opportunities to study at particular institutions desirable might improve the educational experiences of staff and all students, might serve to enhance rankings, reputations or brands. Equally fundamentally, critical engagement with how a performative culture (Ball, 2003), in which the reputations of universities live or die by the double-edged sword of rankings, skews and distorts the activities and priorities of teaching institutions might open up a more inclusive and educationally productive approach to thinking about what internationalisation offers and how it can be evaluated. From an institutional perspective, surely the remit of organisations devoted to research and learning is to engage with other voices, be open to reciprocity and alterity, to resisting, as Díaz (Chapter 11) argues, apparently incontrovertible paradigms, to putting their own assumptions and practices under the microscope in pursuit of ‘yet to-beimagined, even seemingly impossible new institutional and pedagogical realities’ (Díaz, Chapter 11). Reciprocity needs to be recognised as making institutions stronger, more viable and more relevant. The broader range of theoretical views and expertise needed in order to foreground reciprocity in international education have been identified in this collection that explores the reciprocal responses to and complexities involved in international students’ multiple academic and social adjustments to educational settings around the world, highlight the tensions and challenges experienced by all stakeholders.

­

Internationalisation of education and neo-liberal ideology

­

As several of the contributors to this volume have demonstrated, when nations, such as Australia, or Japan (Hashimoto, Chapter 2), or the UK (Lomer, Chapter 3), or Singapore (Gomes, Chapter 6) calculate the benefits of internationalisation primarily in economic terms, and frame policy in terms of numerical targets and market share in competition with other providers of the commodity of education in a global knowledge-based economy, the promises and possibilities of reciprocity in internationalisation of education tend to become obscured. To begin, there is a fundamental contradiction, as pointed out by Ng and Lo (Chapter 5) between assertions that education is the key to social and economic development of poorer nations and decisions

  

Reciprocity in international education

7

 



 

­

 

­

­

­

of universities in developed wealthy nations to impose fees for international students much higher than those paid by local/domestic students. If the performance of higher education in achieving internationalisation is evaluated using performative criteria that focus on ‘bottom lines’ and enrolment numbers, educational outcomes framed in human experiences that are much more difficult to measure on institutional or system scales are neglected or ignored. In fact, the standards that are applied across education sectors to judge the success of institutions, and of the work of professionals, are marketdriven managerialist notions of performance (Stanley & Stronach, 2013) and the significance afforded rankings systems and other quantitative measures, and the linking of these to public funding, distorts the focus of all of the work of education, not just internationalisation elements. These measures shape and direct the priorities of educational organisations and institutions, prefigure objectives and targets, dictate budgetary decisions and redefine what constitutes value in the work of educators. Internationalisation of education and neo-liberal ideology have gone hand-in-hand, and this has meant changes to knowledge production, exchange and consumption, and for professional educators this ‘has had profound consequences … particularly with regard to their relationship to knowledge, to clients, and to the organizational structures within which most of them now work’ (Beck & Young, 2005, p. 183). In policy terms of the knowledge economy, education and educators become a strategic human resource, a form of knowledge capital, and ‘because it is discursively powerful, state-level policy is likely to be influencing institutional discourses on international students, and consequently, on institutional practices and pedagogical relationships’ (Lomer, Chapter 3). At the core of the practices of teaching professionals and professional knowledge production was ‘inner dedication … (or) … inwardness … (a) particular kind of humane relationship to knowledge’ (Beck & Young, 2005, pp. 183–184). The ascendance of obsession with accountability and measurement as a means of achieving educational excellence and quality has pushed the profession of teaching, historically founded upon trust and ethics, towards being a technical, instrumental task (Codd, 2005), and, as the spiralling growth in casualisation of university and college teaching staff attests, commodified teaching. Positioned as consumers in a significant export industry, international students have in turn been commodified, and discursively constructed as the source of an important revenue stream for universities, colleges and schools – ‘cash cows’ (Baas, 2006, p. 14) – in an era in which public policy frequently seeks to curtail spending on education and shift the cost from the state to the consumer. Alongside rhetoric positioning education as a key to success and prosperity in a rapidly changing world, those nations that are the dominant providers of education in the global market are simultaneously constructing education as a private benefit, for which the consumer must bear the cost, rather than as a public good. The commodification of international students is uncomfortably evident in ambivalent and paradoxical discourses that veer from, to give some examples, construction as unwelcome and problematic

  

8 I. Liyanage et al. deficiency to instruments of global economic development to resources for sale to the highest bidder. International students in some contexts are becoming ‘wedged’ by mixed messages. On the one hand, escalations in hostility towards immigrants, reflected in policy shifts, that make it more difficult to enter places such as the UK for study or to remain following graduation (Lomer, Chapter 3), and on the other by rhetoric that extols the opportunities and benefits, for the nation and for individuals, of and for education in responding to structural gaps in job markets and for the best and brightest graduates to participate in consolidating and growing the academic and research reputation of the education sector of the host country, thus (hopefully) gaining an increased market share of the commodity of international student enrolments. In Australia, for example, international students in vocational education are taught using training packages designed to assist learners in developing competencies needed for the Australian labour market, but the current immigration policy has reduced opportunities for these students to secure permanent residency. This situation has created significant contradictions and tensions as the curriculum constructs international students to be ‘one of us’ – a member of the local labour market, but in reality, international vocational students are positioned as visitors who are temporary sojourners in the host country and are likely to leave Australia on completion of their studies (Tran, 2013a; Tran & Nyland, 2013).

Policy discourses

­

Policy discourses that construct an international student identity have the effect, as Lomer (Chapter 3) notes, of essentialising a very diverse group and thus simultaneously of reducing the diverse characteristics, knowledges and experiences of international students. The obverse of this is that policy can, unintentionally, create circumstances that encourage reductive thinking about the complexity and diversity of host populations. Diversity and difference are a double-edged sword in the contemporary world. Encounters with difference can lead to reflection on the nature of essential characteristics that define that difference, and reification of abstract national traits or putative strengths. Engaging with difference reciprocally opens possibilities for participants, admittedly always asymmetrical, of learning and adaptation, of alterity. But meaningful and productive reciprocity demands at least implicit recognition from participants of their own perceived norms as difference, of seeing diversity as mutually inclusive, an ‘insider’ or participant perspective on diversity (Liyanage, Singh & Walker, 2016). A focus on diversity can actually compound the practice of ‘othering’; although it might succeed at one level in deconstructing the reduction of difference, it risks fostering in those who see themselves as ‘natives’ of a national community a perception that they are not participants in the dynamic interplay of diversities (Liyanage et al., 2016) typical of the societies that at present are the dominant international student destinations. If we can construct difference and diversity as something we all

  

Reciprocity in international education

9

­

­



 

­

­

­

have in common, we have taken the first step to a mutually productive reciprocity. Tolerance of difference is not enough, implying a preference for adaptation or acculturation by the ‘other’ to remedy differences, yet as Gomes’ (Chapter 6) discussion of the Singaporean response to internationalisation illustrates, tolerance is perhaps a middle road. There, consistent with Buber’s idea, introduced by Tian and Lowe (Chapter 8), of ‘monologue’ essentialising, demarcating and demonising other groups, a refusal to engage with or orientate to ‘others’ positions international students as a threat or visible manifestation of a negative perception of some aspect of the world (see also Hoang & Tran, Chapter 4). International students are a very visible sign of globalisation and the movement of people, and thus risk being targeted by groups or individuals dissatisfied with the social and economic dislocation often associated with the changing world. In some instances, these responses to international students are simply instances of existing attitudes to difference, such as the tensions between local ethnic groups in Singapore (Gomes, Chapter 6) or the lower sense of belonging reported by minority group domestic students in the USA (Bista, Chapter 10). Yet the reflections of international students in Singapore recounted by Gomes (Chapter 6) reinforce that it is not necessarily solely differences of ethnicity or language that are at issue, but the foreignness that inevitably follows the mobility – of labour, of capital – associated with globalism and global markets. For international students in Singapore, their foreignness made them targets of real or imagined perceived hostility which took the form of racism, xenophobia or passiveaggression, of resentment aroused by competition from outsiders in the markets for student placements and employment, representations of the ills visited upon on locals as a result of globalist neo-liberal ideology. Ironically the hurt was very much a market-oriented response of locals not getting their rightful share of university places, of jobs, of housing, and so on. In Australia, purportedly one of the most ethnically diverse nations, foreignness is also a flashpoint for groups who feel disadvantaged by government spending on refugees, by competition for rental accommodation and work, and who dislike visible difference or foreignness, and international students have been the target of hostility, most potently evident in some violent attacks on students from India (Dunn, Pelleri, & Maeder-Han, 2011; Graycar, 2010). Tensions between the perceived effects of mobility on local populations and government policy that actively encourages an influx of international students, as was also the case in Singapore for a period of time, were nakedly obvious when the attacks in Australia were condemned in terms of the economic impact of any subsequent diminution of the flow of students, and government representatives visited India with the express purpose of defending the reputation of Australia as a safe destination for study (Nyland, Forbes-Mewett & Marginson, 2010). Although it is also understandable that, as transient residents in a host country for the purpose of consuming a service, international students are prepared to more readily overlook or suffer any perceived impingement of their rights in other areas on grounds such as civil,

  

10 I. Liyanage et al.

­



­



 

­



 

race, gender, social, cultural and economic equality, it is surely the responsibility of host countries to reciprocate by guaranteeing visiting students the rights enjoyed by local students and to proactively provide and protect these rights. Students in most study destinations, well aware of their status as guests subject to visa conditions that curtail or constrain participation in local political discourse (e.g. see Gomes, Chapter 6), generally choose to remain silent about any experiences of racism or hostility, even in the private sphere (Gomes, Chapter 6). Furthermore, given the promises in promotion and marketing of education, failure to meet expectations of intercultural opportunities for socialising with local students or improving language skills (Tran & Nyland, Chapter 7; Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8) is almost predictable, in at least some aspects of the experience, and the priority accorded study because of the financial commitments involved means international students are generally less engaged with non-academic activities that their local peers (Bista, Chapter 10). Nonetheless, feelings of social isolation from the host community are common (Bista, Chapter 10), and as Tran and Nyland’s (Chapter 7) data show, the industrial nature of some vocational courses leaves students feeling isolated, almost quarantined from social interactions with local students for the duration of their courses. Although the internationalisation literature has for decades provided myriad examples of difficulties with adjustment to new academic and sociocultural settings, orientation for international students is often brief and continuing support often inadequate (Bista, Chapter 10). The apparent failures of policies and practices at national and institutional levels to promote authentic reciprocity in academic and social relationships with host teaching staff and students have an interesting outcome. For example, exogenous reciprocity becomes the norm among international students themselves, who mix predominantly with their international peers, either conationals, or from the broader region, or more globally (Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8; Tran & Nyland, Chapter 7). The opportunities to benefit from internationalisation and become globally oriented appear to be embraced much more readily by the visitors than by the locals, but social aggregation of international students can have the effect of compounding perceptions of difference, of ‘us and them’, and make it more difficult for social interaction between domestic and international students (Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8). Ironically, without reciprocity, internationalisation delivers to domestic students little of the ostensible benefits promoted/claimed by state and institutional policies. Development of complex multiple identities essential for productive navigation of the contemporary world, the formation of mutually beneficial networks, the emergence of borderless communities that mobility and technology make possible seem more achievable if you leave your own home and immerse yourself in a possibly unwelcoming setting but one that consequently brings together diverse groups with few options but to embrace these possibilities. International students who have to work part time to fund their study are vulnerable to exploitation by employers who rely on part-time and casual

11

  

Reciprocity in international education

employees (Tran & Nyland, Chapter 7). Students are often not knowledgeable about local work practices, pay rates or work conditions, and financial pressures in tandem with difficulties finding regular work lead many, at least in Australia, to accept pay rates below the minimum wages set by the government (Baas, 2006). Restrictions on the numbers of hours worked make any who overstep this mark additionally vulnerable to unscrupulous employers who can use the threats of informing authorities of visa violations:

 

It’s also hard to know the extent to which student visa holders are being ripped off; all we know is that time and again they recur in stories of employers ripping off their workers. They are a group ripe for exploitation – young workers are already vulnerable in workplaces, but international students often also have poor English skills, work casually, are working in a foreign culture, often without an understanding of their rights, and are vulnerable to claims they have breached their visa conditions (which limit them to 20 hours a week paid work). (Keane, 2017)

 

­

­

According to the Netherlands-based International Institute for Asian Studies, ‘not a few students [in Australia] were arrested for violating visa regulations and sent to so-called detention centres to await deportation back to India.’ (Baas, 2006, p. 14)

­

­

­

It is interesting to compare the policy initiatives in different parts of the world and to contrast the strategies employed to attract students that are canvassed by the contributing authors. Students are no longer flowing only to the still rapidly growing international education sectors in countries such as Australia, the UK, USA, Canada or New Zealand that have historically been the destinations of international students. The directions of international student flows are increasingly reciprocal in the geographic sense as some Asian countries and many European countries attract students both from traditional sources and from the nations previously considered to be the destinations of choice for international students. Non-traditional destinations such as Hong Kong (Ng & Lo, Chapter 5), Japan (Hashimoto, Chapter 2), Singapore (Gomes, Chapter 6), Malaysia (Shafaei et al., Chapter 9), and China (Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8) have adopted policies to position their systems as education hubs in a region that has been a major source of the international student flow to predominantly English-speaking nations. Although most of these countries are competing to progress what are generally estimated to be neoliberal objectives, motivated by potential economic benefits for the host nation of supply (with all the multiplied effects) rather than consumption in the education market, and by the possibilities of international prestige and influence, differing circumstances have generated some different approaches. In contrast to nations like the UK, for example, where policy does not make

  

12 I. Liyanage et al.

­

 

­

it easy for students to remain in the country after graduation, or even to move seamlessly from undergraduate to post graduate study (Lomer, Chapter 3), less traditional destinations outside the Western axis of elite higher education – and also of the growing immigration controversies these countries are experiencing – have relaxed regulations to encourage internships and post-study employment. Policy initiatives to attract students to aspiring education hubs has included such as increasing the proportions of students permitted in publicly funded study programmes, scholarships that provide financial support of international students, and extended even to bonded scholarships to retain graduates in the destination workforce (Ng & Lo, Chapter 5; Gomes, Chapter 6). A different policy direction focuses on a best practice model to achieve excellence necessary to become a regional hub (Shafaei et al., Chapter 9). Although the economic benefits of export of education are not discounted, the efforts to attract international students (and academic staff ) of these more recent shifts to internationalisation are part of policy frameworks to develop the quality of education available to their own domestic students and to cultivate academic reputation and prestige. In contrast, policy in traditional destinations of international students relies much more heavily on existing reputation to attract enrolments, especially of high-performing candidates, from outside its borders. While student choices can be influenced by financial cost or incentive, for some these considerations are outweighed by concerns for safety and security or religious and cultural compatibility (Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8).

Openness to reciprocity The importance of more openness to reciprocity in the organisation of study programmes is evident from the research presented by Ng and Lo (Chapter 5), which found that many students resist the ideology of commodification and individual ownership of education as private capital in a knowledge economy, preferring to prioritise public benefits of their education above personal monetary gain. What international students hope to achieve using their qualifications following graduation is not necessarily aligned with the local professional orientations of programmes in the host country. It is easy to assume that the quality and reputations of programmes that have led international students to choose to study in a foreign country means not only that education is regarded as superior in the host country, but that the source countries of students would be better off if professional practices and contexts of graduate work in host countries were transplanted there. Serious critical reflection is essential to consider how study programmes devised and structured for local circumstances, and often to comply with local professional standards, can prepare graduates for the contextually responsive transfer of their learning (Liyanage & Bartlett, 2008; Tran, 2011; Liyanage, Walker & Singh, 2015). This clearly has the potential for great benefits for domestic students as well if a truly internationalised education is to be achieved. Reciprocal approaches can uncover a deeper significance of diversity at more

  

Reciprocity in international education

13

­

­



­



 

­

­

than the surface level of ethnolinguistic background, and to account for the value of education for different individuals and different contexts. This requires more than rejection of technical or monologic classroom teaching practices that present unchallengeable information (Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8) in favour of pursuit of dialogic mutuality at the content level. It requires openness to the value and legitimacy of other knowledge systems and alternative epistemological assumptions. Crucial to reciprocal teaching and learning is the need to recognise and build on the potential capacity of international students as partners or co-constructors of transnational knowledge, skills and attributes in the international classroom rather than recipients of ‘Western’ knowledge and ways of doing (Tran, 2013b). Openness to reciprocity means a commitment to move beyond the ethnocentric frame underpinning the sentiment that international students (‘the others’) need to be one of ‘us’ (Hoang & Tran, Chapter 4). Hoang and Tran argue that assumptions like these shape how responsibility for adaptation is perceived in discourses of international education. Also adopting the view that international students have the onus of adapting to the host environment means that host institutions are responsible for assisting international students make one-way adaptation by overcoming and adjusting their ‘deficiencies’ to be one of ‘us’. Although Ng and Lo (Chapter 5) offer political considerations as an alternative to current emphases in a marketisation approach to internationalisation, perhaps another implication of their study is that, if education is to be commodified as a product in a global market, more significance needs to be accorded to the demand side of the transaction, the needs and aspirations of potential students, rather than assuming they are attracted solely by the inherent value of existing supply of study programmes shaped by and oriented to host country contexts. Indeed, some of the participants in their study took advantage of the incentive measures offered by the host country in order to access higher education but resisted the private benefit of remaining in the host country post-graduation in favour of the opportunity to contribute to development of the social and political capital of their country of origin. The value of education as an export is accorded high status in the national economies of key providers and market hopefuls, and is the subject of state policy and expenditures, but the discursive reduction of international education to a trade cannot be allowed to obscure the human dimension as a key concern for participants (Tran & Nyland, Chapter 7). Situated in the nexus of transnational, ostensibly borderless movement and nation-state regulation, reciprocity in student-host country relationships foregrounds tension between the mobility of student rights and diversity of local contexts. In practice, the education services that constitute the core business of international education are nested in a complex set of variables – customer rights, safety and security, access to quality education and adequate accommodation, employment opportunities and migration opportunities (Tran & Nyland, Chapter 7) – that contribute significantly to the quality of the international students’ experiences and are contingent on a local potpourri of political will, administrative

  

14 I. Liyanage et al.

­

­

­

planning, infrastructure, economic activity and public discourse on issues such as migration and diversity. It is probably not surprising that one aspect of the international student experience in which state-level policy can attempt to manage reciprocity, protection of students’ rights as consumers, is another expression of market orientation. Proactive student awareness-raising about rights as education consumers is commendable (i.e. in Australia, Tran and Nyland, Chapter 7). However, conferring responsibilities for activation of consumer rights protections on a group that often perceives itself as vulnerable in a relationship in which power is invested in the host state and institutions need to be complemented by proactive mechanisms on the part of regulators and providers to encourage consumer rights claims in a nonthreatening and productive atmosphere.

Rights and international students

­

That international students are themselves keenly aware of their rights as consumers to a quality educational experience is understandable given that they have been promised a world-class product. Academic satisfaction (Shafaei et al., Chapter 9) is essential for a positive international student experience. If the reality does not match the promise, if there is a perception of deceptive behaviour on the part of institutions or state agencies, the dissatisfaction or anger reported by contributing authors (e.g. Tran & Nyland, Chapter 7: Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8) is a very human response. Students are usually paying a very high price to study in a host country, not only course fees but living and travel expenses as well, often at the cost of some family sacrifice, or bearing the responsibility of some form of government scholarship; this magnifies the desire to succeed – no one wants to return home a failure – and the role attributed to quality teaching and learning experiences in achieving success. Given the financial significance of international student status, it is understandable that the focus of students is, as Tran and Nyland (Chapter 7) found, primarily on their rights as consumers, rather than as students, to a quality education experience with a positive outcome, and dissatisfactions with student experiences, for example, with teaching styles or access to teaching staff as reported by Pakistani students in China (Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8), are expressed in terms of value for money or misleading advertising. Of course, academic success is situated amid a range of sociocultural and psychological variables (Shafaei et al., Chapter 9) that contribute to dis/satisfaction, but some of these are open to institutional management, for example, interaction with university administration and regulations is a complex field that can be needlessly frustrating for international students (Shafaei et al. Chapter 9; Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8). However, a more reciprocal approach that does not commodify students and position them as consumers, that is perhaps more resistant to the notion of education as a private benefit (Ng & Lo, Chapter 5), might be more attuned to the complex motivations of these ‘consumers’ and how these can be turned to advantage in teaching and learning.

  

Reciprocity in international education

15

International students, English language and academic literacies

­

­

­

 



 

Ethnolinguistic dimensions of reciprocity in international students’ experiences are inevitable. Internationalisation of education, the ostensible integration of international and intercultural dimensions in all aspects of higher education (Knight, 1994), have essentially been conducted using English as a Medium of Instruction (MOI), spawned hugely profitable English language teaching and testing enterprises (Ata, Chapter 13), and been accompanied by a decline – even a ‘crisis’ (Díaz, Chapter 11) – in the teaching and learning of languages other than English (LOTES) in Anglophone universities, hardly an example of international and intercultural reciprocity. Perhaps most striking is the tension between international education as a levelling agent grounded in shared scholarship and (re)distribution of knowledge, and the asymmetry of the relationships between education providers and seekers, potently symbolised by the sociolinguistic gatekeeping of the English language (see Díaz, Chapter 11). In the Anglophone destinations to which most international students flow, ‘othering’ on the basis of ethnolinguistic background begins with discourses that essentialise and problematise users of language other than English. For example, categorisation as a user of English as an additional language can confer an almost ‘pathological’ (Franson, 1999, p. 60) condition that requires treatment and remediation in order to be ‘overcome’. Rather than being recognised as a cognitive asset (Liyanage & Walker, 2014b), any emerging bi/ multilingualism as students develop control of the linguistic resources of English is regarded more in terms of a deficit. In BANA settings, bi/multilingual capacities of students are largely ignored in favour of, paradoxically, linguistic deficit; English is both gatekeeper and reductive benchmark for students who are anecdotally evaluated on the basis of whether their English is judged to be ‘good’ or not (although as Díaz, Chapter 11) points out, assumptions/expectations of domestic students’ English proficiency are similarly monolingually oriented and reductive, and not always realised). English has become another tradeable commodity in the global education market, foundation of a complementary industry, again worth billions, in which profit-oriented organisations offer courses and testing, and publishers supply a seemingly never-ending demand for course books and materials. A significant number of international students enrol in Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and Applied Linguistics programs in BANA countries in order to teach English in their country of origin, that is, the requirement for English proficiency generates part of the flow of students to universities in English-speaking destinations (Liyanage & Bartlett, 2008). With teaching and testing regimes based on standard varieties of English, generic materials and course books insensitive to local contexts, and explicit and implicit promotion of Western language pedagogies through these materials and graduates of TESOL programmes, this is a dimension of international

  

16 I. Liyanage et al.

­

­

­



 

­

­

­

­



­

­

­

education where reciprocity is sorely lacking. Dismissal of the validity of non-standard varieties of English and cultural biases in teaching and testing materials (Ata, Chapter 13) perpetuate the dominance of traditional Englishspeaking student destinations and asymmetries in mutuality. The demand for English proficiency as a pre-requisite for enrolment in study programmes in the traditional student destinations of the BANA axis and the accompanying discursive construction of an ‘English problem’ (Díaz, Chapter 11) rather than celebration of rich linguistic and cultural diversity, is arguably at odds with alleged opportunities for development of international and intercultural experiences and outlooks, let alone development of practical skills in areas such as languages that might advance these internationalist aspirations. Nor has linguistic reciprocity been evident in the attempts of nations outside this sphere to attract students. Opportunities for English mother-tongue students to develop bi/multilingual skills through study in other language mediums are exceptional and reliance on English-medium programmes (e.g. see Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8; Hashimoto, Chapter 3) to attract international students to non-Anglosphere destinations remains the norm. Internationalised education could become more interesting if institutions outside the BANA circle offered ‘products’ that are distinguished by difference such as language of instruction instead of even at this global level falling into the habit of adaptation by the ‘other’ to the norms of the dominant, even on their home ground, accepting the ‘existing hegemonic global order’ (Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8). On another level, as Tian and Lowe (Chapter 8) and Bista (Chapter 10) observe, linguistic differences can be an obstacle to academic and social reciprocity (promised by marketers of international education), contributing to both perceived and actual isolation and marginalisation of international students in host countries, and certainly a factor in congregation of co-nationals in both social and academic contexts that constrains opportunities for reciprocal experiences in host countries. The value of English is currently unchallenged in higher education, but, given the vibrant linguistic ecologies of internationalised education institutions (Díaz, Chapter 11), a reciprocal valuing of LOTEs – frequently found in the linguistic repertoires of domestic students as well as visiting students – has the potential to address this division between visiting and local students. Narrowing the gap between global citizen rhetoric of graduate attributes and rates of LOTE study could further ameliorate isolation of international students and take advantage of campus linguistic diversity. In addition to valuing the diversity of languages that students bring to the classroom, a commitment to recognising and building on students’ bilingual and multilingual capabilities to search for knowledge and intellectual capitals is seen as essential to enrich the learning experiences for all. Furthermore, as Díaz (Chapter 11) so effectively argues, the language classroom is itself a setting that nurtures the skills of dialogue and of reciprocity. The non-Anglophone European Union (i.e. excluding the UK, which is poised for exit anyway) offers a fine example of multi-language teaching and

  

Reciprocity in international education

17

­

 

learning, including English, which integrates notions of public and private benefit as well as critically oriented citizenship of the linguistically diverse region. The first two organising principles of the Common European Framework (Council of Europe, 2011, p. 2) could provide inspiration for international education policy-makers: •

­

­

•

that the rich heritage of diverse languages and cultures in Europe is a valuable common resource to be protected and developed, and that a major educational effort is needed to convert that diversity from a barrier to communication into a source of mutual enrichment and understanding; that it is only through a better knowledge of European modern languages that it will be possible to facilitate communication and interaction among Europeans of different mother-tongues in order to promote European mobility, mutual understanding and co-operation, and overcome prejudice and discrimination.

­

­

­

­

­

­

The spread of English has gone hand in hand with pre-eminence of Western epistemologies, education systems, and academic and professional practices, and expectations that international students will, through a ‘tacitly assumed osmosis-like process of academic acculturation’ (Zahora & Yazbeck, Chapter 14), adopt and conform to the ways teaching and learning that are done in study destinations. Expectations that students will adapt to local conventions and practices are not limited to English-speaking institutions, as the experiences of Pakistani students in a Chinese university recounted by Tian and Lowe (Chapter 8) illustrate. Wherever there is an international dimension to education the balance between assimilation and accommodation of students (Liyanage & Gurney, Chapter 12) needs to be negotiated to the benefit of all participants. Given the power relationships between institutions and students that have been canvassed in this volume, responsibility for initiation of dialogue that is sustained throughout students’ programmes of study rests with institutions. Genuine dialogue grounded on other-orientation that introduces students to discursive practices (Zahora & Yazbeck, Chapter 14) rather than simply technical tool-kits of academic conventions will facilitate productive accommodation of the strengths and knowledge that students already have at their disposal as student scholars. Support for academic staff in introduction of materials and texts that expose all students to wider and more diverse range of epistemological approaches and knowledge is one avenue for exploration if international students are to be provided contexts for participation and contribution that enriches learning for all. One of the key themes emerging from this volume is that international students prioritise their learning, that if they experience supportive, other-oriented interaction and communication with teaching and administrative staff, and domestic students, that if they believe their learning is deemed important by the institution, then they will work hard to adapt to the different circumstances, and be satisfied with their educational experience.

  

18 I. Liyanage et al.

Further thoughts

­

­

­

This volume provides valuable critiques of and challenges to the status quo that should provoke the thoughtful attention of the various stakeholders to the relational nature of the international student experience. The perspectives and insights offered to the reader make it clear that a reorientation to internationalisation of education as a reciprocal enterprise can enhance and enrich the experiences of individuals and groups directly involved either as students or those with whom they interact in settings around the globe. Given more widespread critiques of the neo-liberal ideology as a solution to the problem of provision and distribution of goods and services, it is timely that the various stakeholders – university administrators and international student counsellors, private enterprises, such as education agents, and government departments dealing directly and indirectly with the international education market such as departments of education, commerce and migration undertake a serious assessment of the outcomes of this approach to the provision of education. Indeed, as Díaz (Chapter 11) argues compellingly, academics need to lead the way in challenging assumptions about internationalisation that limit both questions we can ask and the futures we can imagine. To facilitate this, analytical frameworks of reciprocity, such as the Buber example (Chapter 8), need to be applied to the phenomenon of international education if the sources of dissatisfaction from both perspectives are to be addressed. As the contributing authors demonstrate, any success cannot and should not be measured merely by numbers of students, dollar values and market shares. While the potential dividends that flow from success of international education have long been extolled as significant in human terms, both tangible and intangible, including the benefits for the work of education and research itself, under the influence of neo-liberal and managerialist ideologies it has become the practice to measure them in very short-sighted economic terms as a $40 billion export industry, a service provided predominantly by developed, already wealthy nations. This blinkered perspective reduces the value of education to a concentration on money changing hands, to financial gains of international education providers such as universities and colleges that recruit significant numbers of international students, and of businesses that profit from facilitation of the flows of students around the globe and satisfying their essential needs such as accommodation. How long will the viability of international education continue if reciprocity in relations in international education is ignored, if, as Tian and Lowe (Chapter 8) observed, ‘students continue to sense they are being ‘objectified’, reduced to the status of being merely a source of finance, and their education, welfare and humanity are ignored’. This positions reciprocity front and centre not only in best outcomes in academic, social and welfare dimensions of international education, but also in economic considerations. Given the scale of movement of students across borders, priority needs to be directed to some form of international agreement on the rights and reciprocal obligations of international students,

  

Reciprocity in international education

19

 

 

­



 

­

­

­

 

one that participating nations and students must agree to and abide by. This is an area that has failed to keep pace with the changing education landscape, so much so that in Australia, for example, a study found that the rights of international students demand attention in ‘policy areas of education, immigration, human rights, employment, housing, transport, law enforcement, social and community affairs’ (Graycar, 2010, pp. 13–14). Furthermore, the challenge offered by Ng and Lo (Chapter 5) to re-envision access to an international or transnational education in a global world as a human right rather than a product with a price tag captures what has too often been lost in current approaches. While education is available only to those already in possession of wealth, any promise that it is the key to social and material development, a pathway out of poverty, appears destined to remain a myth. Rather, international education as a market arguably deepens social and class divisions and operates as a gatekeeper that excludes those who could most benefit. In a global world, wealthy nation states with high-quality education systems should perhaps be intervening to promote and support a reciprocity at the national level, and rather than profiting from a flow of students to their institutions (that is, moving wealth from poorer nations to their own), take more steps to develop the availability of quality education programmes in the countries from which they currently draw their international student enrolments. This must surely be the next phase of internationalisation and flow of students across borders, not a one-way flow, but one that facilitates opportunities for a more reciprocally international education for students regardless of country of origin. The contradiction of the present iteration of globalisation of education in which, as Ng and Lo (Chapter 5) point out, nations continue to seek advantage in a putatively borderless world is failing to realise the transformative potential of education in social and human terms of a genuine reciprocity, of ‘adopting the initiatives of enhancing the connectivity among people from around the world by internationalization as a project of nurturing humanity, world citizenship’ (Ng, 2012, in Ng & Lo, Chapter 5, p. 100). The current flow of students is lubricated by language, English, but the role of language/s in international education as merely instrumental needs overturning; the idea that one particular language is both necessary and sufficient for an authentic international education needs to be rejected to engage with the proposition that an education cannot be truly international or global if it relies on one language alone. Rather, an international education embeds reciprocity through all students’, including local/domestic students, learning of additional languages in order that it not only ‘engages with the linguistic but also the onto-epistemological wealth that our students bring to it’ (Díaz, Chapter 11, p. 201). As argued convincingly by Shafaei et al. (Chapter 9), the satisfaction of students is closely linked to the ease with which they are able to navigate the demands of the academic, institutional and broader cultural contexts they encounter in host countries, and this contributes directly to the overall achievement of academic success. Given that student satisfaction and academic success is a goal shared by students and host countries and

  

20 I. Liyanage et al.

­

­

­

institutions, and mutually beneficial to all participants, students’ study choices need to be reciprocated by proactive and planned efforts to ease their navigation of the academic, psychological and sociocultural challenges they face in host countries. This necessitates other-orientation, flexibility and openness to alterity, adaptation that will be reciprocated in what Shafaei et al. (Chapter 9) term ‘positive word-of-mouth’, that is, much-valued reputation and prestige as study destinations, and in experiences for both visitors and hosts that resemble more closely the promises of internationalisation.

References

 

 

 

­

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Altbach, P. (2002). Knowledge and education as international commodities. International Higher Education, 28, 2–5. Ata, A. W. (2018). An investigation into the knowledge, education and attitudes of male and female international students in Australia to the International English Language Testing System (IELTS). In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Baas, M. (2006). Cash cows. Milking Indian students in Australia. IIAS Newsletter, 42(14), 14. Bakhtin, M. M. (1979). Estetika slovesnogo tvorchesta (The aesthetics of verbal creation). Moscow: S G Bocharov. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. doi:10.1080/0268093022000043065. Beck, J. & Young, M. F. D. (2005). The assault on the professions and the restructuring of academic and professional identities: A Bernsteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 183–197. doi:10.1080/0142569042000294165. Bista, K. (2018). Do academic and social experiences predict sense of belonging? Comparison among American and international undergraduate students. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Codd, J. (2005). Teachers as ‘managed professionals’ in the global education industry: The New Zealand experience. Educational Review, 57(2), 193–206. Council of Europe. (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved 10 September 2015, from www.coe.int/t/dg4/ linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf. Díaz, A. (2018). Stretching the global imaginaries of internationalisation: The critical role of intercultural language learning pedagogies. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I., Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Dunn, K., Pelleri, D. & Maeder-Han, K. (2011). Attacks on Indian students: The commerce of denial in Australia. Race & Class, 52(4), 71–88. doi:10.1177/03063968 10396603. Franson, C. (1999). Mainstreaming learners of English as an additional language: The class teacher’s perspective. Language Culture and Curriculum, 12(1), 59–71. doi:10.1080/07908319908666569. Gomes, C. (2018). Navigating through the hostility: International students in Singapore. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge.

21

  

Reciprocity in international education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

­

 

­

 

­

 

 

 

 

Graycar, A. (2010). Racism and the tertiary student experience in Australia. Canberra: Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. Hashimoto, K. (2018). Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme: Why does the number of ‘foreign’ students matter?. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage, (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Hoang, T. & Tran, L. T. (2018). Understanding international students’ adaptation motivation and behaviours: Transformative, strategic, or conservative?. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Keane, B. (2017, April 11). International students need greater protection from being underpaid. Crikey Insider. Retrieved 1 June 2017, from http://lnk.edition.crikey. com.au/l/Ah8Njl0VUYPBL348oSwtakI?utm_source=TractionNext&utm_medium= Email&utm_campaign=Insider-Subscribe-110417. Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints. Research Monograph No. 7. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for International Education. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Liyanage, I. & Badeng, N. (2016). Internationalisation of Australia-China higher Education in times of Globalisation. In I. Liyanage & N. Badeng (Eds), Multidisciplinary research perspectives in education: Shared experiences from Australia & China (pp. 1–6). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Liyanage, I. & Bartlett, B. J. (2008). Contextually responsive transfer: Perceptions of NNES on an ESL/EFL teacher training programme. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1827–1836. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.009. Liyanage, I. & Gurney, L. (2018). Reconsidering possibilities for integration of international students in tertiary education. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Liyanage, I., Singh, P. & Walker, T. (2016). Ethnolinguistic diversity within Australian schools: Call for a participant perspective in teacher learning. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(3), 211–224. doi:10.1080/22040552.2016.1272529. Liyanage, I. & Walker, T. (2014a). English for academic purposes: A Trojan horse bearing the advance forces of linguistic domination? In P. W. Orelus (Ed.), Affirming language diversity in schools and society: Beyond linguistic apartheid (pp. 165–175). New York: Routledge. Liyanage, I. & Walker, T. (2014b). Accommodating Asian EAP practices within postgraduate teacher education: Perspectives from Australia. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (Eds), EAP in Asia: Negotiating appropriate practices in a global context. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Liyanage, I., Walker, T. & Singh, P. (2015). TESOL professional standards in the ‘Asian century’: Dilemmas facing Australian TESOL teacher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(4), 485–497. doi:10.1080/02188791.2013.876388. Ng, F. S. K. & Lo, W. Y. W. (2018). Rethinking the value of international student mobility: A case study of the experience of Myanmar University students in Hong Kong. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Lomer, S. (2018). Adaptation for national competitive advantage: Policy on international students in the UK. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds),

  

22 I. Liyanage et al.

 

 

 

 

 

­

 

 

 

­

 

 

­

 

 

 

 

­

­

Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Nyland, C., Forbes-Mewett, H. & Marginson, S. (2010). The international student safety debate: Moving beyond denial. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 89–101. doi:10.1080/07294360903277364. Shafaei, A. (2018). Sustaining benefits of higher education internationalization through cross-cultural adaptation: Insights from international students in Malaysia. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Stanley, G. E. & Stronach, I. (2013). Raising and doubling ‘standards’ in professional discourse: A critical bid. Journal of Education Policy, 28(3), 291–305. doi:10.1080/02 680939.2012.715355. Stiglitz, J. E. (2006). Making globalization work. New York: W. W. Norton. Tian, M. and Lowe, J. (2018). Missing dialogue: Intercultural experiences of Pakistan students in their first year studies at a Chinese university. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Tran, L. T. (2011). Committed, face-value, hybrid or mutual adaptation? The experiences of international students in higher education. Educational Review, 63(1), 79–94. Tran, L. T. (2013a). Teaching international students in vocational education and training: New pedagogical approaches. Camberwell: ACER Press. Tran, L. T. (2013b). Internationalisation of vocational education and training: An adapting curve for teachers and learners. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(4), 492–507. Tran, L. T. & Gomes, C. (2017). Student mobility, connectedness and identity. In L. T. Tran & C. Gomes (Eds), International student connectedness and identity (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht: Springer. Tran, L. T. & Nyland, C. (2013). Competency-based training, global skills mobility and the teaching of international students in VET. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 65(1), 143–157. Tran, L. T. & Nyland, C. (2018). Rethinking the issue of rights for international students. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge. Wertsch, J. V. (2000). Intersubjectivity and alterity in human communication. In N. Budwig, I. Č. Užgiris & J. V. Wertsch (Eds), Communication: An arena of development (pp. 17–31). Stamford, CN: Ablex. Zahora, T. & Yazbeck, B. (2018). ‘Is plagiarism a learned sin?’ Textuality, meaningmaking and the rules of the academic game. In A. W. Ata, L. T. Tran & I. Liyanage (Eds), Educational reciprocity and adaptability: International students and stakeholders. New York: Routledge.

 

Part I

­

Institutional or broader educational policies and practices vis-à-vis international students and stakeholders



2

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme Why does the number of ‘foreign’ students matter? Kayoko Hashimoto

Introduction



When discussing the standings of Japanese universities in the QS Asian University Rankings, which use incoming and outgoing exchange student numbers as a measure of universities’ global appeal, Japanese Prime Minister Abe was quoted as saying that ‘the number of foreign students at a university will define its success’ (Ince, 2014). Prime Minister Abe’s comment relates to the two major goals of Japan’s ‘Top Global University Project’ (hereafter TGUP) – to ‘improve ratio of foreign faculty and students’ and to ‘increase lectures in English’ (MEXT, 2014; original English). In 2014, TGUP replaced the Global 30 Project, part of the government’s ‘300,000 International Students Plan’, proposed jointly by six ministries in 2008,1 which sought to attract 300,000 overseas students to Japanese universities by 2020 (MEXT, 2008). As the 2014 enrolment figure of just under 140,000 indicates, this was an ambitious target. Since the internationalisation of higher education is now measured by university rankings determined by various organisations around the world, and university rankings are used by international students in their choice of universities, attracting staff and students from outside the country has become an imperative part of strategic planning for most universities. In Europe, the need for a common language to facilitate staff and student mobility has led to the rapid proliferation of courses and programmes delivered through the medium of English (Tollefson & Tsui, 2014), and as Phillipson (2006) observes, in the European context (Bologna Process) internationalisation means English medium higher education. Tollefson and Tsui (2014) further argue that the internationalisation of higher education has impacted on the language of research and scholarship and subsequently on secondary education, in which English needs to be taught at a higher level to prepare students for their university studies. In other words, the increased mobility of staff and students has had an impact on the choice of English as the medium for teaching, learning and research in Europe. This is not necessarily the case in Japan, though, because of the different approaches to domestic and international students within the framework of the internationalisation of higher education, as discussed later in this chapter.

  

26 K. Hashimoto

­

­



­



­

­

­



In relation to the Global 30 Project, I have argued that the Japanese government’s ‘English-only’ curriculum initiative in secondary and tertiary programs was not a medium of instruction (MOI) policy (Hashimoto, 2013a). Rather, the initiative highlighted the distinction between Japanese, the national language, and English in the education system. Certainly, it was not expected that domestic and international students would study at Japanese universities using English as their common language, and that high-school students would study English specifically to prepare for such a learning environment. Issues of English as a MOI in Asia have been extensively researched in the field of language policy in education (Tollefson & Tsui, 2004; Hamid, Nguyen & Baldauf, 2014). Although Asian countries have been seeking to enhance their English-speaking capacities in order to cope with the impact of globalisation on education, in many cases individual policies have their own distinct motivations and goals and countries develop specific strategies to protect their own interests and identities (Hamid, Nguyen & Baldauf, 2013). Since the Japanese government acknowledged the impact of globalisation for the first time in a White Paper in 2001, the government’s approach to the teaching of English as a foreign language has been designed to ensure that the language of the new order that is a product of globalisation does not undermine the core identity of the nation and its people (Hashimoto, 2009, 2013b). In other words, Japan’s promotion of English has been based on a negative view of globalisation, which it is feared will have unwelcome consequences such as large-scale immigration and greater use of languages other than Japanese within Japanese society. Given that Japan is also facing numerous issues resulting from an aging population due to the declining birth rate, on the surface, attracting foreign students to Japanese universities would seem to be an ideal solution to the student shortage. It would also enhance the international ‘image’ of the host university, which would appeal to domestic students. In this sense, as Chapple (2014) points out, the actual plans for TGUP are decidedly domestic, even though the government has described it as ‘a funding project that aims to enhance the international compatibility and competitiveness of higher education in Japan’ (MEXT, 2014). Although the project ‘provides prioritised support for the world-class and innovative universities that lead the internationalization of Japanese universities’ (MEXT, 2014), the government does not address how this translates to the internationalisation of teaching and learning. Rather, it is assumed that bringing foreign academics and students to Japan and delivering courses in English will automatically result in the internationalisation of Japanese universities. The rapidly growing global phenomenon of English medium instruction (EMI) has been seen as a top-down policy without pedagogical guidelines for effective EMI teaching and learning (Dearden, 2014), and Japan’s TGUP could be interpreted as one example of this. Dearden (2014) reports that one reason for the introduction of EMI by authorities is to spread the country’s own culture throughout the world, and Japan is identified as a

  

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme

27

­

­

­

 



 

case in point, along with Hong Kong and Sri Lanka. Japan’s emphasis on ‘cultivating identity as a Japanese and spreading Japanese culture to the world’ (Dearden, 2014, p. 12) in relation to the promotion of courses offered in English seems to have shaped TGUP in a particular way. Although it has been pointed out that successful internationalisation is not the same as Englishisation (Kirkpatrick, 2017), Englishisation of university curricula has been encouraged by authorities in many parts of Asia, including Korea, where the government supports universities’ recruitment of international students in order to narrow the gap between the numbers of inbound and outbound students (Kim, 2017). Under TGUP, as discussed later in this chapter, the numbers of ‘foreign international students’ and ‘Japanese students who have studied overseas’ are used as numerical targets for universities in the quest for internationalisation, but reciprocal relationships between the inbound and outbound students are not a concern. This chapter discusses how TGUP itself embodies the contradictions and problems surrounding the seemingly universal goals of the internationalisation of higher education – to attract students from overseas and to offer courses in English – highlighting the particular nature of ‘English courses’ within university curricula and the expectations and treatment of ‘foreign’ students. The chapter is based on an analysis of government publications and relevant documents that relate to TGUP using Critical Discourse Analysis as an analytical tool. I refer to both the Japanese originals and their official English translations where available, examine any differences between them, and discuss the implications. The chapter comprises three parts. First, it examines the framework of TGUP as well as the current problems TGUP gives rise to for participating universities. Second, it revisits the ‘300,000 International Students Plan’ and the post-project evaluation of the Global 30 Project in order to identify the core values that are being re-addressed in TGUP. Third, it examines the first follow-up review of TGUP, which highlights expectations and assumptions about the scheme.

Top global university project, not so ‘super global’

­

The official Japanese name of the scheme is スーパーグローバル大学創成 支援 (lit. creation and support of super global universities), and 37 universities – 13 Type A ‘top type’ and 24 Type B ‘global traction type’ (original English) – were selected to participate in the scheme. Type A institutions (11 national and two private) are ‘world-class universities that have the potential to be ranked in the top 100 in world university rankings’, and Type B institutions (ten national, two prefectural and 12 private) are ‘innovative universities that lead the internationalisation of Japanese society, based on continuous improvement of their current efforts’ (MEXT, 2014). The official English title of the scheme is ‘Top Global University Project’, but the media and many of the participating universities use SGU (the acronym for Super Global Universities), even though MEXT has advised universities not to use

  

28 K. Hashimoto

­

­

 



­

­



this acronym in publications because it is the registered trademark of Sapporo Gakuin University (Ishiyama, 2016). It was reported that MEXT chose the term ‘super global’ because it was thought to be effective and easy to understand, even though they acknowledged that it is a Japanese-English expression (Ishiyama, 2016). It could be speculated that MEXT chose the term ‘super global’ in order to demonstrate that the new scheme succeeds ‘the Global 30 Project – Establishing University Network for Internationalisation’ (original English).2 Initially, the Global 30 Project aimed to support 30 universities, as its name suggests, but in the end only 13 universities were funded due to the project’s financial difficulties. Perhaps MEXT expects that the ‘global’ universities will become ‘super global’ universities.3 In terms of the gap between the Japanese original and the official English version, it is a common practice for Japanese authorities to use different expressions for domestic and international audiences.4 In particular, when loanwords, written in katakana (one type of Japanese alphabet), are used, their meanings often become different from those of the original words. The ubiquitous nature of such Japanese-English expressions is described as a cultural phenomenon (Stanlaw, 2004); some argue that the purpose of using such katakana words is to obscure the meaning, and that katakana words are often deliberately chosen by the authorities for this reason (Kato, 2006). In the case of ‘super global’, it appears only to emphasise the grand and wishful image of the project, and a gap between the image and the reality of the scheme has already emerged. One of the major issues with TGUP for the participating universities is the amount of funding. Initially, it was promised that each Type A university would receive a maximum 500 million yen (roughly equivalent to A$6 million) per annum in funding. It turned out, however, that the average amount of actual funding was 288 million yen (around A$3.5 million) for the 2015 fiscal year. This has caused problems for some universities, which planned their projects based on the expected amount of funding (Ishiyama, 2016). According to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science ( JSPS), which is managing the scheme on behalf of MEXT, the funding period is up to ten years, depending on the nation’s financial circumstances, and funding for each university is determined by the outcome of follow-up reviews, which are carried out every fiscal year.5 The details of the follow-up review will be discussed later in this chapter, but the funding system appears to be designed to ensure that the participating universities make every effort to meet the proposed numerical targets in order to secure funding for the following year. One of these numerical targets is to improve the ratio of foreign students. Normally, the total enrolment numbers of national and public universities are fixed, and therefore any increase in the number of foreign students means fewer domestic students. In order to attract foreign students, though, many universities have waived or reduced the fees for these students, which has resulted in a loss of income of these universities (Ishiyama, 2016). It is something of anomaly that attracting foreign students does not necessarily

  

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme

29

 

­



­

­

­



represent an immediate financial gain for universities under the current education system in Japan. This is in stark contrast to the situation in countries such as Australia where national universities charge higher fees for students who do not have citizenship or permanent residency, and the education export industry is the largest service export earner. Japan’s aging population and subsequent government funding cuts have had a significant impact on both public and private universities.6 According to a survey conducted by Asahi Shimbun and Kawaijuku, 30 per cent of universities prioritise enrolment numbers over applicants’ academic achievements (Katayama, 2016). In other words, those universities accept students with lower academic achievements in order to fill their quotas. This tendency is particularly strong in small-scale universities (under 3,000 students) and private universities, which are financially dependent upon enrolment numbers. The shrinking population has also caused depopulation of the regional towns where most national universities are located. In order to address this issue, MEXT introduced a measure to encourage students to study at regional universities by penalising large-scale private universities in metropolitan areas for exceeding their student quotas. MEXT issued a notice to private universities on 10 July 2015 regarding a new rule that adjusted government subsidies to universities according to student intake.7 This could be seen as an exercise in protecting national universities in regional areas, but the expenses of national universities have also come under increasing scrutiny. MEXT has reduced the subsidies that national universities receive for their operating costs due to the country’s recent financial difficulties (Matsumoto, Sugihara & Mizusawa, 2016). As a result, many national universities in regional parts of Japan, including universities selected for TGUP, have sought to reduce the cost of their academic staff, and consequently the percentage of academic staff on five-year contracts, as opposed to tenure track, has increased to more than 60 per cent. One Type A university lamented that in the current circumstances it would be difficult to attract the best talent. As Japanese universities currently face many challenges brought about by the aging population and reduced government funding, it does not seem that the TGUP’s goal of improving the ratio of foreign students took those challenges into consideration. In order to identify the specific ideas behind this goal (or the lack of them), the next section re-examines the original ‘300,000 International Students Plan’ developed in 2008.

The 300,000 International Students Plan: ‘accepting foreign students’ According to the ‘Study in Japan Comprehensive Guide’ website, managed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the 300,000 International Students Plan was announced by then Prime Minister Fukuda in a policy speech in January 2008. The plan was aimed at making Japan ‘more open to the world’ and expanding ‘the flow of people to and from Japan’.8 These aims suggest

  

30 K. Hashimoto that the educational aspect of the plan was secondary. In terms of the justification for the target number of 300,000 students, two reasons were given. One was that the government wanted to increase the percentage of international students from the current 3 per cent to 10 per cent, assuming that the total number of students enrolled in higher education stayed at around three million. The 10 per cent was based on a comparison with European countries:

­

­

if we look at the current state of foreign student enrolment in other countries, we see that in the case of Germany, a developed non-Englishspeaking nation like Japan, foreign students account for 12.3% of all students enrolled in an institution of higher education. In France, foreign students account for 11.9%.… If Japanese institutions of higher education are to secure a level of foreign student enrolment similar to that of other developed nations, there is a need to increase the percentage of foreign students from the current 3 percent-plus to a percentage close to that of Germany or France, or about 10%. (In other words, 10% of 3 million students which is roughly equal to 300,000.) (300,000 Foreign Students Plan, Study in Japan Comprehensive Guide, English version)



­

The figures for Germany and France appear to be used as the benchmark simply because they are ‘developed non-English-speaking nations like Japan’. No other criteria such as the impact of the Bologna Process, particularly in relation to the status of English as a common language, as mentioned earlier, or the diverse backgrounds of students in European countries, seem to have been taken into consideration. In the case of Germany, in 2014, of the total number of international students, 27 per cent had obtained university admission within Germany (Sakamoto, 2015). This means that more than a quarter of the international students were already living in the country before they commenced their study at university level. In Japan, the expected profiles of international students are rather different. As discussed later in this chapter, some of the universities participating in TGUP require ‘not residing in Japan’ as one criterion for eligibility to apply for courses offered in English. Another reason for setting 300,000 as the goal relates to Japan’s ‘share’ of the world’s ‘foreign students’: There is also a report that says the global foreign student market will rapidly expand in the future. This report estimates that the number of foreign students worldwide will be at about 5 million in 2015, increasing to 7 million by 2025. Foreign students in Japan currently account for about 5% of all foreign students worldwide. If we suppose that the number of all foreign students in 2020, the midway point in the report, is 6 million, then Japan would need to accept about 300,000 foreign students in order to maintain its current share. (300,000 Foreign Students Plan, Study in Japan Comprehensive Guide, English version)

  

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme

31

­

­



The rhetoric of ‘accepting’ foreign students sounds peculiar in itself. Foreign students are not refugees. Individual foreign students come to Japan to study of their own free will and usually at their own expense (apart from scholarships), not because of an agreement between Japan and their country of origin. This explanation of the target number of students could be interpreted as meaning that Japan wants to demonstrate to the world that 5 per cent of the world’s foreign students come to study in Japan. As these two reasons for the figure of 300,000 reveal, it is purely a numerical target that would allow Japan to appear competitive in the international education market. As indicated on the ‘Study in Japan Comprehensive Guide’ website, operated by MOFA, the English wording of the plan is the ‘300,000 Foreign Students Plan’, not ‘international’ students. The Japanese original is 留学生３０ 万人計画 (lit. international students 300,000 plan), and the term 留学生, which literally means ‘students who study abroad’, is usually translated as ‘international students’ or ‘overseas students’. Although MEXT uses the expression ‘international students’ on its website,9 the emphasis by MOFA on the fact that the students are foreign reflects that the plan is part of the socalled policies on foreign nationals (外国人政策). The ‘Outline of the 300,000 International Students Plan’ was compiled by six ministries in July 2008. The document explains that they also want to ‘attract high-achieving international students strategically in conjunction with a highly skilled human resources scheme, paying attention to nations, regions, and fields’ (MEXT, 2008; Author’s translation). The view of international students as potentially highly skilled labour is based on Japan’s ‘policies on foreign nationals’. The Japanese term 外国人政策 (lit. foreign nationals policy) was initially used in the 1990s for foreign residents, mainly Koreans, but for the last ten years the term has been increasingly used in relation to skilled and unskilled labour. Since 2010, the Foreign Nationals’ Affairs Division of the Consular Affairs Bureau of MOFA has run an ‘international workshop on acceptance of foreign nationals and their integration into Japan’ (MOFA, 2016; original English), which adopts a different theme each year. The wording ‘acceptance of foreign nationals’ in the title of the workshop echoes the expression ‘Japan would need to accept about 300,000 foreign students’, discussed earlier. The original Japanese word for acceptance is 受け入れ (lit. receive and accept), which is normally used for admitting, hosting or receiving people from outside as part of one’s duty, obligation, responsibility or to cultivate goodwill.10 As the title of the workshop indicates, there is also an expectation that those who are accepted need to integrate into Japanese society. The second workshop, held in 2011, was on Japan’s future policies for foreign nationals (MOFA, 2011). The workshop report presented both cautious and supportive views on the ‘acceptance’ of skilled and unskilled labour, integration and labour mobility. In the section on ‘acceptance of highly skilled human resources’, it was pointed out that since fewer than half of the international students who wish to work in Japan are able to find a job, it is important to create a more conducive environment for them to work. For example, it

  

32 K. Hashimoto

 



would be achieved by cultivating Japanese people’s views on diversity, rather than focusing on the number of international students and improving entry procedures. The ‘Outline of the 300,000 International Students Plan’ proposed five measures, and the issue of employment on the completion of study came last on the list:





1 2







3 4 5

Invitation to study in Japan. Improvement of administrative procedures for entrance examinations, university admission and entry permits. Promotion of globalisation of universities. Creating an environment that accepts foreign students. Promoting the acceptance of foreign students after the completion of their study. (MEXT, 2008; Author’s translation)

­

These measures relate to the way in which Japanese society should prepare for the targeted number of international students. The lack of any understanding of why international students come to Japan to study and what they want to achieve during their stay is apparent throughout the document. The first measure, ‘Invitation to study in Japan’, was explained as a way to motivate international students to study in Japan, and to provide a one-stop service for prospective students. Five points were listed under this measure, and two of these relate to promoting Japan in the world:  

 

1. Invitation to study in Japan By disseminating Japanese culture and expanding Japanese language education, it aims to increase the number of Japan fans and stimulate their interest in Japan and Japanese universities, which will encourage them to study in Japan.… ­





(1) To establish the national brand of Japan as part of an image-creating strategy by actively disseminating information on Japanese culture, society and higher education.… (5) To strengthen information dissemination by cooperating with the ‘Visit Japan Campaign’ (MEXT, 2008; Author’s translation)

­

The discourse of ‘Japan fans’ is well established among policy makers. At a cross-ministerial policy meeting on intellectual property strategies in 2014, a representative of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) stated that it aimed to create many ‘Japan fans’ who appreciate authentic Japanese culture by inviting them to Japan through the ‘Visit Japan’ campaign organised by the Japan Tourism Agency (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 2014). Similarly, it was stated in the ‘Basic policy concerning intellectual

  

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme

33

­

property policy’ (original English) that the government tries to achieve ‘overseas expansion of the Japan brand by gaining more fans of Japan’ (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 2013). In other words, the 300,000 International Students Plan was a grand plan to attract Japan fans to study in Japan, and therefore the idea of offering courses in English was nothing more than a measure to cater for those fans who have limited Japanese language proficiency. Degree programmes available in English were identified in the third measure ‘Promotion of globalisation of universities’ as a way to make universities more attractive to international students, but no further explanation was provided. The next section examines the post-project evaluation of the Global 30 Program and discusses how some of the measures of the 300,000 International Students Plan were interpreted and implemented.

­

Post-project evaluation of the Global 30 Program: ambivalence about English courses

 

­

In 2015, MEXT published the post-project evaluation of the achievements of the 13 universities that participated in the Global 30 Project. The summary report declares that overall the goals of the project were achieved and the desired outcomes were realised. It also listed the findings that were common to all participating universities – one of the main concerns is related to courses offered in English. It reported that although the numerical target of course offerings was achieved, most of the degree courses offered in English were isolated from the rest of the university curriculum, partly because no Japanese students were allowed to enrol in them. This is not unexpected, as the problem was already evident in 2012 (Hashimoto, 2013a). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the project was not designed to maximise the student experience by providing opportunities of interaction between international and domestic students. Interestingly, however, the issue of courses offered in English was also discussed in the report in relation to future employment and the cultivation of Japan fans:

­

the essence of Japan’s ‘internationalisation’ is not about exclusive devotion to English, but about international students who come to Japan to acquire a certain level of Japanese and understand Japan. From this point of view, international students’ Japanese language learning and understanding of Japanese culture in the English courses seem to be inadequate. Further efforts are required in relation to employment in Japan after completion of study and to cultivate a pro-Japanese cohort. (MEXT, 2015; author’s translation) Although it has been reported that compulsory Japanese language and culture courses are not always welcomed by students, particularly students from Asia (Burgess, Gibson, Kalphake & Selzer, 2010), MEXT seems to believe that it is imperative to equip international students with Japanese language skills and

  

34 K. Hashimoto

­



a knowledge of Japan in order to make them more employable in Japan when they graduate. This echoes the view that foreign nationals need to integrate into Japanese society if they are in employment. In the current international market, however, students choose universities and courses because of the specialised skills and knowledge they will give them, which will increase their employability or opportunities for further study. Perhaps this mismatch of objectives explains the steep decline of interest in participating in Programs in English at Komaba (PEAK) at Tokyo University (Huffington Post, 2015). As part of the post-project evaluation, MEXT conducted a survey of students enrolled in degree courses offered in English. Participating universities were asked to nominate ten undergraduate and ten postgraduate students to complete the survey questionnaire. A total of 225 students responded. Although the information sheet said that the survey did not exclude Japanese students, the questions seem to have been compiled with international students in mind. The questionnaire consisted of 35 questions, and Question 8 related to the student’s reason for choosing to study in Japan: Q. 8 Why did you decide to come to Japan to study? Up to two answers permitted:















1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Wanted to live in Japan; Interested in Japanese subculture (manga, anime and fashion); Geographically close; Degree courses offered in English; Wanted to work in Japan or find job in Japanese company; Obtained a scholarship; Other. (MEXT, 2015; Author’s translation)

­

It is interesting to note that interest in pop culture was listed second. This could relate to the image of Japan fans and a popular belief that foreigners study Japanese language because of an interest in anime and manga. Contrary to expectations, the availability of degree courses offered in English was ranked first by both undergraduate and postgraduate students, although obtaining a scholarship was ranked equal first for postgraduate students. It is striking that the excellence of academic programs or research reputation were not included in the multiple choice options. Again, this is consistent with the main aim of the 300,000 International Students Plan, which is to attract Japan fans and equip them with Japanese language skills and cultural knowledge for future employment. The next section examines the first follow-up review on TGUP in order to explore how the issues addressed in the evaluation of the Global 30 Program have evolved.

  

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme

35

­

FY2015 first follow-up review of TGUP: behind the numerical targets

 

 

­

In 2015, JSPS conducted the first follow-up review of the TGUP, distributing a questionnaire to participating universities in May. The questionnaire consisted of two sections: the first section had 18 questions common to all universities and the second section related specifically to the achievements of each university (JSPS, 2016). Of the first 18 questions, 13 related to internationalisation, three to governance, and two to educational reforms. The 13 questions on internationalisation were: ­



   



   



   

 











 

 

­





 

 

1 Ratio of foreign nationals, and Japanese full-time staff who had obtained degrees overseas (academics) 2 Ratio of foreign nationals, and Japanese full-time staff who had obtained degrees overseas (administrative staff ) 3 Ratio of women (academic and administrative) 4 Ratio of foreign international students 5 Ratio of Japanese students who had studied overseas 6 Number of inbound and outbound students based on agreements between universities 7 Ratio and number of courses offered in foreign languages 8 Number of degree courses available in foreign languages 9 Language proficiency of students 10 Course coding (numbering) practices 11 Syllabus available in English 12 Number of scholarships offered 13 Availability of dormitories for both foreign and Japanese students ( JSPS, 2016; Author’s translation)

­

­



It is interesting to see that the numbers of female employees is seen as being related to the internationalisation of universities. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the growing gender inequality in Japanese society, but it seems that the government is at least aware of Japan’s (low) international standing in terms of gender equality.11 However, since no questions were asked in the questionnaire about either Japanese students or international students in relation to gender, the government’s interest in gender issues in education seems rather superficial. As discussed in the previous section, one of the problems identified in the post-project evaluation of the Global 30 Project was the isolation of courses offered in English within the participating universities. The TGUP follow-up questionnaire, however, did not ask the universities how many Japanese students were enrolled in courses offered in English or how many international students were enrolled in courses offered in Japanese. In the Global 30 Program, all national universities (except Osaka University) imposed a nationality condition on eligibility, meaning that Japanese students and in some

  

36 K. Hashimoto

­



­

­

­



­

cases foreign nationals residing in Japan were not allowed to enrol in courses offered in English (Hashimoto, 2013a). Yonezawa (2010) points out that this was partly due to the difference in funding systems in national and private universities – while the more research-oriented national universities offer graduate programmes in English for small numbers of international students who are more likely to be recipients of government scholarships, which are only available to international students, private universities need to attract as many students as possible to their undergraduate programs. Unlike international programmes offered by Indonesian universities, which are attended by both domestic and international students depending on their language preferences (Dewi, 2017), the ‘courses offered in English’ by Japan’s national universities were in essence not focussed on EMI but on the target students, who are foreigners. This also provides a stark contrast to practices in Taiwan, where the government guidelines stipulate that a degree programme cannot be designated EMI unless 50 per cent of its enrolments are international students (Hou, Morse, Chiang & Chen, 2013). As Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show, the nationality condition imposed by TGUP universities has been somewhat relaxed, but still exists in some cases (six national and two private universities out of 37). The information in the tables was collected from university websites. The programme/course names are their original English. In the follow-up questionnaire, in Q9 on students’ language proficiency, universities were asked to give the number of (Japanese) students who met the ‘foreign language’ proficiency level specified by each university, but were not asked to give similar information about their international students. Since in English-speaking countries it is mandatory for international applicants to provide evidence of the required English proficiency level when applying for a higher education place, I looked up each university website to find the information on courses offered in English. This information is presented in the right-hand column of the tables. Only 15 universities give scores in various English proficiency tests such as TOEFL and IELTS as a requirement, and the average score required is IELTS 6.0 or equivalent, which is low for Type A universities that are ‘world-class universities that have the potential to be ranked in the top 100 in world university rankings’ as MEXT claims (MEXT, 2014). This could be interpreted as meaning that those degree courses offered in English are attracting international students whose English proficiency is not high enough for them to be accepted by other top ranking universities. It could also be inferred that MEXT does not want to place too much emphasis on English in the internationalisation of higher education, and this ambivalent attitude towards English is reflected in the questionnaire itself and the various different names of the programmeand courses offered in English by universities as shown in the tables. Question 7 concerned the numbers and ratio of courses offered in ‘foreign languages’, and universities were asked to provide the numbers of courses offered in foreign languages and English separately (excluding language courses). Interestingly, the data show that 19 universities (of 37) offered

n/a n/a

Private 12 Keio 13 Waseda





Notes * The program/course names are original English. ** When TOEFL and other scores are provided, they are converted to the equivalent IELTS scores.

 

 

 

Undergraduate programs offered in English English-based programs

not specified not specified IELTS 6.0 no information IELTS 6.0 IELTS 5.0 not specified not specified not specified

IELTS 6.0

n/a not residing in Japan n/a no information n/a n/a have a nationality other than Japanese

 

 

 

 

3 Tsukuba 4 Tokyo

 

 

not specified IELTS 6.5

Future Global Leadership Program

2 Tohoku

IELTS 6.0

English proficiency**

Undergraduate programs taught in English Undergraduate programs in English/degree programs offered in English for graduate students 5 Tokyo, medical and dental Postgraduate courses 6 Tokyo, technology International Graduate Program 7 Nagoya English-taught courses 8 Kyoto English-taught degree courses 9 Osaka Special courses in English 10 Hiroshima Integrated courses 11 Kyushu Degree programs in English

Integrated Science Program

National 1 Hokkaido

Eligibility: nationality conditions

no Japanese citizenship or permanent resident status non-Japanese citizen without a permanent residence permit non-Japanese citizen n/a

Program/course name*

University

 

Table 2.1 Type A universities: programs/courses offered in English (November 2016)

All courses are offered in English All-English undergraduate courses

All courses are bilingual English-based postgraduate courses

English-taught program English-taught undergraduate programs English-based degree programs Undergraduate degree program in English Postgraduate degree program offered in English English medium programs Postgraduate programs only (all in English) Open study in English track English-based degree programs Bilingual education

Prefectural 11 Akita international 12 Aizu

Private 13 ICU 14 Shibaura, technology

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24





Notes * The program/course names are original English. ** When TOEFL scores are provided, they are converted to the equivalent IELTS scores.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sophia Toyo Hosei Meiji Rikkyo Soka International Ritsumeikan Kwansei Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific

Courses taught in English not offered not offered not specified not specified International Master’s Degree Program no information no information Discovery Program for Global Learners English-based degree program

National 1 Chiba 2 Tokyo, foreign studies 3 Tokyo, arts 4 Nagaoka, technology 5 Kanazawa 6 Toyohashi, technology 7 Kyoto, technology 8 Nara, science and technology 9 Okayama 10 Kumamoto

 

Program/course name*

University

 

n/a possess neither Japanese nationality nor permanent resident status in Japan n/a applicants residing outside Japan only n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a

n/a – – – – n/a – – n/a have a non-Japanese nationality

Eligibility: nationality conditions

Table 2.2 Type B universities: programs/courses offered in English (November 2016)

not specified IELTS 6.0 not required IELTS 6.0 not specified not specified not specified IELTS 6.0 IELTS 6.0 IELTS 6.0

IELTS 6.5 not specified

IELTS 6.0 not specified

no information – – – – IELTS 5.5 – – not required IELTS 6.0

English proficiency**

39

  

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme

 

 

­

­

­

­

­

 

 

­

­



courses in foreign languages other than English, but there was no information available on what these languages were. For example, Hiroshima University (Type A) offers 52 courses (25 undergraduate and 27 postgraduate) in foreign languages other than English, but this information is not readily available on the university’s multilingual website (English, Chinese, Arabic and Spanish). Question 8 related to the degree courses offered in foreign languages, but universities were not asked to specify which foreign languages were used. It is not clear whether this was a conscious decision by MEXT not to identify particular languages other than English. Were there any degree courses available, for example, in Chinese? Or does this not matter as long as the numerical target was achieved? Similarly, Question 9 concerns the foreign language proficiency of Japanese students, but only three universities provided information about languages other than English, such as French, German, Chinese and Korean. In relation to student mobility, the data for Questions 4, 5 and 6 provide interesting insights into the reality of student mobility at TGUP universities. Question 6 concerned the number of inbound and outbound students under agreements with foreign universities for both credited and non-credited study (about 20 per cent of both inbound and outbound students were noncredited). It asked the ratio of these students to the total number of students enrolled at the university, but it did not ask whether such agreements were reciprocal. The total number of students has been increasing, as has the gap between the numbers of inbound and the outbound students. The ratio was 1 (inbound) : 1.65 (outbound) in 2013, and 1 : 1.70 in 2014. Study abroad outside such university agreements, however, was a different story. While only 3.6 per cent of Japanese students (18,931) had experience studying abroad for credit in 2014, there were 55,531 foreign international students, which comprised 9.8 per cent of the total number of students of TGUP universities. Given that 13,946 Japanese students studied abroad for credit as part of university agreements in 2014, it is clear that outbound students were heavily dependent on university-arranged programs. This reflects the overall decline in the number of Japanese students studying abroad (Lassegard, 2013), as well their so-called inward-looking attitude, as noted by the business sector (Nikkei, 2013). The effort to increase the number of outbound students can be observed in the way Question 5 was formulated. The question asked universities about the number of students who had studied abroad for credit, but according to JSPS, universities were not required to indicate the length of such overseas study for undergraduate students. Since the approval of credit for overseas study is determined by Japanese universities rather than by the host universities, the academic value of the study abroad experience varies considerably. For example, anecdotal evidence suggests that in order to boost the number of students who had studied abroad one Type B university approved credit for a one-day overseas sports event. In other words, Question 5 did not differentiate between students who studied through a year-long exchange programmeand those who spent a few days or a week overseas

  

40 K. Hashimoto

­



engaging in a variety of activities that were not necessarily academic in nature. In other words, this was purely a numerical exercise rather than an educational enquiry. In the summary of the follow-up review, JSPS stated that the project was still in the very early stages, and that it would take time to achieve its targets, indicating the project’s desired trajectory in graphs showing the predicted responses to each question over the next ten years.

Conclusion





Prime Minister Abe’s claim that ‘the number of foreign students at a university will define its success’ represents the government’s push towards a new direction in Japan’s internationalisation of higher education in the current international education market. A close examination of past and current funding schemes for higher education and the related policy documents reveals that the path to achieving this goal is not straightforward. It has been shaped increasingly by the domestic challenges faced by the universities, as well as Japan’s complex views on the impact of globalisation, which are reflected in the way English is treated within the education system. The provision of courses in English is not about the Englishisation of curricula or EMI in Japan because it is part of the agenda for recruiting international students and internationalisation of Japanese universities, rather than about individual (domestic or international) students’ language choice and enhancing their international understanding and experience. It would be ideal for the government to increase the numbers of ‘Japan fans’ who come to Japan to study and stay as skilled workers, and would easily integrate into Japanese society. The Japanese companies’ practice of ‘Japanising’ international students has been criticised as the reason for the mismatch between these students and their employers (Doi & Enatsu, 2010), but the same criticism can be made of the tertiary sector. The apparent indifference to Others – questions such as Who are the foreign students? What do they want? From where they come from? Why do they come to Japan? are never asked by policy makers – has already produced negative consequences for Japan. Nikkei (2016) has reported that Japan has fallen behind other nations such as the USA and China in the increasingly competitive research field of artificial intelligence, while research collaboration between American and Chinese universities has accelerated over the past six years. The article points out that research collaboration between the two countries is largely a result of connections established by Chinese researchers while they were studying at American universities as international students. Although the majority of international students in Japan are from China (49.3 per cent in 2015),12 Japanese universities do not seem to take advantage of the presence of Chinese students. Perhaps consideration of the possibilities for future research collaboration with current international students falls outside the numerical targets of the government schemes.

  

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme

41



Japan’s attempt to attract 300,000 international students by 2020, a date that coincides with the Tokyo Olympics, would provide a useful case study to compare with the situation in other countries, particularly in Asia, where governments have a strong presence in higher education and English as a MOI has a complex relationship with the local community.

Notes

 





 

 



   









 

­

­



 

­

 



 

1 They are MEXT; Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA); Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI); Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. 2 See MEXT website: www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/highered/title02/ detail02/sdetail02/1373894.htm. 3 For the Japanese English, see Ogasawara (2015). 4 For example, one of Type B universities, Chiba University, managed to establish a new faculty/college, 国際教養学部 (lit. international liberal arts college) in April 2016. The official English, however, is ‘College of Liberal Arts and Sciences’, omitting the term ‘international’: www.las.chiba-u.jp/index.html. 5 See ‘Top Global University Project: Outline’ on the JSPS website. It is available both in Japanese (www.jsps.go.jp/j-sgu/gaiyou.html) and English (www.jsps.go. jp/english/e-tgu/outline.html), but the English version is the abbreviated version of the Japanese. 6 According to MEXT (2016), in 2016, there are 777 universities (national 86; prefectural 91; and private 600). This does not include junior colleges. 7 See 平成28年度以降の定員管理に係る私立大学等経常費補助金の取り扱い について [On private university subsidies in relation to fixed number places after FY2016]. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/shinkou/07021403/ 002/002/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/07/13/1360007_2.pdf. 8 See ‘3000000 Foreign Students Plan’ (Study in Japan Comprehensive Guide). Retrieved from www.studyjapan.go.jp/en/toj/toj09e.html. 9 See MEXT ‘Working Group Report on Advancing the Establishment of Sufficient Housing for International Students in Japan towards realizing the 300,000 International Students Plan’. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/ detail/sdetail/1372647.htm. 10 MOFA uses the same expression to describe the arrangement for trainee nurses and care workers who come to Japan from The Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam under the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) scheme. 11 Japan slipped to 111th of 144 countries in the World Economic Forum’s gender equality ranking for 2016, dropping from 101st out of 145 in 2015 (Matsuo, 2016). 12 Japan Student Services Organisation (2016). 平成２７年度外国人留学生在籍状 況調査結果 [2015 fiscal year, Survey results on foreign students enrolment]. Retrieved from www.jasso.go.jp/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2015/index.html. Even though Chinese students are still the majority, the percentage of Chinese students has been decreasing. In 2014, it was 55.9 per cent. Instead, the number of students from Vietnam has been rapidly increasing.

References Burgess, C., Gibson, I., Kalphake, J. & Selzer, M. (2010). The ‘Global 30’ Project and Japanese higher education reform: An example of a ‘closing in’ or an ‘opening up’? Globalisation, Sciences and Education, 8(4), 461–475.

  

42 K. Hashimoto

­

 

­

­

­

 

­

­

­

­

fi

­

 

 

­

­

 

 

 

­

­

­

Chapple, J. (2014). Finally feasible or fresh façade? Analysing the internationalisation plans of Japanese universities. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 3(4), 15–28. Doi, Y. & Enatsu, I. (2010). 日本企業の職場の国際化と留学しのキャリア教 育－高度外国人材の活用と定着 [Internationalisation of the workplace in Japan and career support for international students: Utilisation and settlement of highskilled foreign labour]. Journal of International Students Education, 15, 27–34. Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – a growing global phenomenon. British Council. Dewi, A. (2017). English as a medium of instruction in Indonesian higher education: A Study of lecturers’ perceptions. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys & Ian Walkinshaw (Eds), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 241–258). Cham: Springer. Hamid, M. O., Nguyen H. T. M. & Baldauf, R. B. (2013). Medium of instruction in Asia: Context, processes and outcomes, Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 1–15. Hamid, M. O., Nguyen H. T. M. & Baldauf, R. B. (Eds) (2014). Language planning for medium of instruction in Asia. London: Routledge. Hashimoto, K. (2009). Cultivating ‘Japanese who can use English’: Problems and contradictions in government policy. Asian Studies Review, 33(1), 21–42. Hashimoto, K. (2013a). ‘English-only,’ but not a medium-of-instruction policy: The Japanese way of internationalising education for both domestic and overseas students. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 16–33. Hashimoto, K. (2013b). The Japanisation of English language education: promotion of the national language within foreign language policy. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues, Second edition (pp. 175–190). New York and London: Routledge. Hou, A. Y. C., Morse, R., Chiang, C.-L. & Chen, H.-J. (2013). Challenges to quality of English medium instruction degree programs in Taiwanese universities and role of local accreditors: A perspective of non-English-speaking Asian country. Asia Paci c Education Review, 14(3), 359–370. Huffington Post (2015, March 28). 東大が「滑り止め」？ 合格者7割が入学辞退 したPEAKとは [Is Todai a second choice? 70 percent of the students declined the offer by PEAK]. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.jp/2015/03/28/what-ispeak_n_6960556.html. Ince, M. (2014, May 19). Prime Minister Abe to accelerate internationalisation of Japanese universities [Blog article], QS Intelligence Unit. Retrieved from www.iu.qs. com/2014/05/prime-minister-abe-to-accelerate-internationalisation-of-japaneseuniversities. Ishiyama, H. (2016, April 26).「まるで詐欺」怒る選定校：「スーパーグローバ ル大学」構想 [‘It’s almost fraud.’ Selected universities are angry – ‘Super Global Universities’ scheme]. Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo evening edition, p. 10. JSPS (2016). Top Global University Project, フォローアップ [Follow-up]. Retrieved from www.jsps.go.jp/j-sgu/follow-up.html. Katayama, T. (2016, November 7). 大学3割｢学力より数確保｣－少子化影響、文 科省が規制強化 [30 percent of universities want to secure the number, rather than academic achievements: caused by the declining birth rate; MEXT strengthens regulations]. Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, morning edition, p. 35.

  

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme

43

­

­

 

­

­

 

­

­

 

Kato, S. (2006, April 19). 悲しいカタカナ語 [Sad katakana words]. Asahi Shimbun, evening edition, p. 10. Kim, E. G. (2017). English medium instruction in Korean higher education: Challenges and future directions. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys & Ian Walkinshaw (Eds), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 53–69). Cham: Springer. Kirkpatrick, A. (2017). The languages of higher education in East and Southeast Asia: Will EMI lead to Englishisation? In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys & Ian Walkinshaw (Eds), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 21–36). Cham: Springer. Lassegard, J. P. (2013). Student perspectives on international education: An examination into the decline of Japanese student abroad. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(4), 365–379. Matsumoto, R., Sugihara, R. & Mizusawa, K. (2016, November 24). ｢優秀な人材 が逃げる･･･｣地方国立大、人件費削減に悲鳴 [‘Talent drain’: regional national universities overwhelmed by personnel cost cuts], Asahi Shimbun Digital. Retrieved from http://digital.asahi.com. Matsuo, I. (2016, October 26). Japan’s gender gap widens in World Economic Forum rankings. The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved from www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/ AJ201610260067.html. MEXT (2008).「留学生30万人計画」骨子 [Outline of the 300,000 International Students Plan]. Retrieved from www.kantei.go.jp/jp/tyoukanpress/rireki/2008/07/ 29kossi.pdf. MEXT (2014). Press Release ‘Selection for the FY2014 Top Global University Project’. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf. MEXT (2015). ｢大学の国際化のためのネットワーク形成推進事業｣の事後評 価結果について [Post-project evaluation report on the Global 30 Program]. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/kaikaku/1355917.htm. MEXT (2016). 学校基本調査、平成28年度調査結果の概要：高等教育機関 [FY2016 School Basic Survey Summary: Institutions of higher education]. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/toukei/chousa01/kihon/kekka/k_detail/1375036. htm. MOFA (2011). 平成２２年度「外国人の受け入れと社会統合のための国際ワ ークショップ－将来における我が国の外国人政策を中心に [FY2010 International workshop in acceptance of foreign nationals and their integration in Japan – Japan’s future policies on foreign nationals]. Reprieved from www.mofa.go.jp/ mofaj/gaiko/local/database/pdfs/workshop_houkoku02b.pdf. MOFA (2016). FY2015 International workshop in acceptance of foreign nationals and their integration in Japan – Diversity management in workplaces. Retrieved from www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press3e_000059.html. Nikkei (2013, August 18). 大学生、留学「意向なし」4割－強い内向き志向 [40% of university students are not interested in studying abroad – strong inward-looking attitude]. Retrieved from www.nikkei.com/article/DGXNASDG18014_Y3A810C1 CR8000/. Nikkei (2016, December 9). AI研究、米中２強　出遅れ目立つ日本勢 [AI research, USA and China two powerhouses: noticeably Japan got a late start]. Retrieved from www.nikkei.com/article/DGXLASGG09H0M_Z01C16A2MM0000.

  

44 K. Hashimoto ­

Ogasawara, Y. 霞ヶ関は大丈夫か？その二 [Is Kasumigaseki all right? Part 2.]. Blog article, Huffington Post. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.jp/yasushi-ogasawara/ kasumigaseki_b_7008954.html. Phillipson, R. (2006). English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of languages? European Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 13–32. Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet (2013). Basic Policy Concerning Intellectual Property Policy. Retrieved from www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/titeki2/pdf/kihouhousin_ e.pdf. Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet (2014). 検証･評価･企画委員会(第９回) [The 9th project assessment and evaluation committee]. Retrieved from www. kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/titeki2/tyousakai/kensho_hyoka_kikaku/dai9/gijiroku.html. Sakamoto, S. (2015). ヨーロッパにおける高等教育のグローバル化－ドイツに おける学生の流動性と労働市場を中心に [Globalisation of higher education in Europe: motilities of students and labour market in Germany]. ウエブマガジン留 学交流 [Web magazine study abroad exchange] 54, 37–46. Stanlaw, J. (2004). Japanese English: Language and culture contact. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Tollefson, J. W. & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tollefson, J. W. & Tsui, A. B. M. (2014). Language diversity and language policy in educational access and equity. Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 189–214. Yonezawa, A. (2010). Much ado about ranking: Why can’t Japanese universities internationalize? Japan Forum, 22(1–2), 121–137.



3

Adaptation for national competitive advantage  

Policy on international students in the UK  

Sylvie Lomer Introduction

­



­

The increase in global student mobility in Higher Education (HE) since the 1970s has been widely documented (OECD, 2015). For many traditional destinations, like the UK, USA and the rest of Western Europe, international students have come to be a major source of revenue and a way to sustain and create global reputation for HE. State-level policies have thus emerged which seek to organise and discipline the activities of national sectors, in the interests of becoming more competitive in the global education marketplace (Knight, 2015). Such policies include international education strategies from the UK (DBIS, 2013a), Canada (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, 2014), Malaysia (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015) and Australia (Australian Government, 2016) and national level brands (e.g. EduFrance and Education UK). For newer market entrants, such as Singapore and Malaysia, the twin drivers of revenue and reputation have encouraged governments to develop policies to stimulate the activities of the sector and attract more international students. There is considerable academic interest in international student mobility, particularly in international student adaptation to host culture and its academic norms (e.g. Zhou et al., 2008; Brown, 2009; Gu et al., 2010; Tran, 2011). However, there is little critical research on international education policies in relation to pedagogy and lived experiences of students. Previous research on international student policy focused on policy mobility (Geddie, 2014), historical accounts of policy development (Humfrey, 2011; Walker, 2014), comparisons of policy discourses (Karram, 2013), and explorations of the agencies involved in policy implementation in international HE (Dodds, 2009). Yet structural forces such as state-level policies may impact students, institutions and pedagogical relationships. From a discourse theory perspective (Foucault, 1972; Bacchi, 2009), the way in which powerful discourses, such as policy, speak about and represent social categories, such as students, can alter the way in which such groups are thought about and thus their lived experiences. This chapter therefore builds on a previous study of policy discourses in international HE in the UK to critically examine how they may

  

46 S. Lomer



­



­



impact institutional and individual experiences, particularly educational and pedagogical experiences. Understood as discourse, policy can be understood more broadly than a single text, expanding to the state’s justifications and talk around particular actions (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010). This study therefore adopted an inclusive approach to identifying policy texts and incorporated international education strategies, national branding initiatives, ministerial speeches and so on (these are indicated throughout the text in citations). It adopted Foucault’s (1972) key insight that ideas are shaped by social conditions and by the language in which they are expressed as a starting point for a critical analysis. This language reveals assumptions, the shape of the common-sense that is taken for granted as shared understanding between the speaker or writer and their audience. Such assumptions include implicit value judgements and the objectification of social categories, such as the category of ‘international student’. In this chapter, I explore the assumptions and value judgements made around the notion of adaptation in relation to international students in UK policy discourses. Policy plays a powerful role in shaping public discourse when it promotes particular narratives around international students. It does not, of course, ultimately determine public discourse, and it is important to acknowledge that discursive formations are always complex, often plural, and usually contradictory. The power of policy is to shape, rather than fix, public discourses. From this perspective, the category of ‘international student’ is socially constructed, grounded in shared assumptions about citizenship, mobility and residence, which are shaped by policy discourses. The creation of such a category differentiates ‘international’ students from the presumed norm of ‘home students’, who are understood as those whose citizenship, residency and country of study coincide. This ‘others’ international students, creating a rupture of social difference within the student body (Asgharzadeh, 2008). It also permits the conceptual homogenisation of ‘the international student body’ and thus the promotion of specific assumptions about international students and whether/how they are expected to ‘adapt’. Because it is discursively powerful, state-level policy is likely to be influencing institutional discourses on international students, and consequently, on institutional practices and pedagogical relationships. It is also likely to influence public perceptions of international students, which, in a context of increasing hostility towards migrants of visible difference in the UK, is becoming increasingly problematic. This differentiation is why I did not begin this chapter with a series of numbers to quantify how many international students are present in the UK as a sign of the importance of international HE. The rhetorical convention in academic work of including such numbers as background continually reaffirms ‘international student’ as a valid conceptual category logically distinct from ‘home’ students. It also emphasises the value placed on numbers and on income. Given that international students do not have a democratically backed voice in the state affairs of host countries, they can be considered a population

  

Adaptation for national competitive advantage

47





­



particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of policy and public discourses (Marginson et al., 2010). The study of policy as discourse having a structural impact on students as social agents therefore has a moral imperative: by exposing the power dynamics at work in policy discourses, they can be effectively critiqued and appropriately resisted. This critical examination of policy discourses on adaptation in relation to international students in the UK offers a case study as a tool to contribute towards the development of an engaged pedagogy for international HE (Madge et al., 2009), and a social critique of policy representations. Unsurprisingly, policy discourses emphasise the benefits to the UK of recruiting international students. These rationales were threefold: financial, political, and educational. International students are understood as vectors of foreign currency exchange, constituting an education export (DBIS, 2013a). They are also understood as ambassadors, generating global influence and soft power for the UK on their return home (Blair, 1999). Finally, they are considered to enhance the quality of UK HE by offering an intercultural education for all, as well as increasing the sector’s reputation by word-of-mouth (DTZ, 2011). These rationales were remarkably stable across both the New Labour and Coalition/Conservative administrations, showing more political consensus that division. However, a major rupture occurred around the issue of immigration around the 2010 election, causing international students to be understood as a problematic population (May, 2010; Cameron, 2013). Wider cultural benefits are occasionally highlighted, as are development and aid rationales, but these are not central to policy discourses. In these narratives, a representation of the ‘genuine’ international student is constructed. The ‘genuine’ student complies with immigration requirements, shows an excellent academic record, adapts to academic and cultural norms while in the UK, and intends to return ‘home’ upon completion of their degree. Students who struggle to adapt to academic and cultural norms, conversely, are represented as ‘in deficit’ (Goode, 2007; Henderson, 2009; Marginson et al., 2010). Indeed, such struggle, or the absence of valid qualifications, is seen as a sign of being a ‘bogus’ student. Thus, in national policy international students are those who are expected to adapt to the UK, and not the country or its institutions who should adapt to host international students. Instead, international students are seen as a resource for the UK to adapt to a changing, increasingly competitive world. This chapter will explore how adaptation is understood in policy on international students in the UK. First, I will provide a brief overview of the policies and how they have developed since 1999. Then, I will explain what representations of international students were identified in policy discourses. Finally, I will argue that UK policy positions international students as a resource for the UK to adapt to a changing world, by modifying sector practices to take advantage of opportunities in international education but not by changing curricular, educational or classroom practices.

  

xii Contributors of Vietnamese higher education and international education and is frequently invited to speak at a wide range of conferences, symposiums and workshops. Ly’s book, Teaching international students in vocational education: New pedagogical approaches, won the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) Excellence Award for Best Practice/Innovation in International Education.

 

­

­

­

Barbara Yazbeck is currently Learning Skills Adviser (Research and Information Skills) at Monash University Library. She works with academics to embed research and learning skills in a range of health science curricula including Pharmacy, Nursing, Radiology and Nutrition. She has extensive experience with undergraduate and postgraduate students having worked in university preparation courses both in Australia and abroad. She has qualifications in Applied Linguistics and Education and has an interest in critical pedagogies and theories of learning. She is the author of ‘Managing diversity in university preparation courses: Seeing difference as potential’ published in EA Journal in 2008. She was a finalist in the English Australia Pearson’s Award 2007. Recently, she received a ViceChancellor’s Citation for Outstanding Contribution to Student Learning (2015) for ‘Excellence in developing evidence-based medicine curricula based on world’s best practice that engage students in enquiry-driven learning and practice for life’.

­

­

Tomas Zahora is a Research and Learning Coordinator at Monash University Library, and a researcher in the history of science, ideas and education. Apart from managing the library’s engagement with the faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, he teaches history, critical thinking and communication skills, and works with librarians and academics to embed skills into the curriculum. He enjoys using the writing group format to teach doctoral students to improve their writing, and has recently developed a masters-level communication course for international students, in which critical thinking skills and conventions are taught from a crosscultural perspective. He has written on plagiarism, encyclopedias, memory and forgetting, and the interaction of futurism and apocalypse, as well as on the history of thought and intertextual practices.

49

  

Adaptation for national competitive advantage

­

­



­

­

­

­

Party, 2010). Claiming impacts on social services, housing and transport as a result of mass immigration, leading to widespread ‘public concern’, these targets were introduced, in the face of opposition from the minority coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. These impacted international students who are categorised as immigrants under UK definitions, in line with United Nations definitions (Home Affairs Committee, 2011). In particular, the debate on student migration was shaped by the bogus college scandal in 2009–2010, where a number of students were found to be enrolled in FE and language colleges that were providing inadequate teaching, support and monitoring. Effectively these students and colleges were argued to be exploiting the student visa route as a means for students to enter the UK labour market illegally (Home Affairs Committee, 2009). While many students were considered to have been the victims of unscrupulous recruitment, some colleges were found to have students working full-time in breach of migration regulations, suggesting complicity. Whether the scale of the problem is as significant as the media coverage implied is difficult to assess, but the introduction of the register of sponsors led to the withdrawal of over 2000 colleges. This scandal led to procedures being tightened for students and colleges, raising the English language requirements, restricting part-time work and introducing the Highly-Trusted sponsor status as a requirement for HE institutions to recruit international students (Home Office, 2012). These changes imposed a further burden of monitoring and compliance was placed on institutions, and made the process more stressful and expensive for students (UKCISA, 2013). In addition, the post-study work route was closed, biometric data was required and border interviews were introduced. The tenor of the public discourse has generated consensus by focusing on reducing abuse of the system and minimising illegal immigration, but there has been little recognition that the HE sector has very limited instances of such abuse. Migration policy has made the approach to international students increasingly restrictive, emphasising recruiting ‘genuine international students’ who are argued to be those who study, ‘contribute’ economically, culturally, socially and financially. This generates an implicit binary between students who ‘contribute’ and are therefore ‘genuine’ and students who ‘take’ resources (access jobs, healthcare and other social infrastructure) and are therefore ‘bogus’. In 2013, the Coalition government published the International Education Strategy (BIS, 2013a). This policy covers direct recruitment of international students, but emphasises transnational HE, education technology, commercial relationships and large-scale investment in global partner countries. In other words, it privileges ‘education exports’ that do not require the long-term physical presence of students as immigrants. However, it does emphasise a warm welcome for international students, whose numbers are not limited or capped. A new branding strategy is introduced, led by the tourism agency Visit Britain. Known as Britain is GREAT, this incorporated the Education UK brand under the ‘Knowledge is GREAT Britain’ pillar (Bird, 2014). It is essentially a visual campaign, drawing heavily on historical symbols, so that

  

50 S. Lomer



education fairs include fake red telephone boxes, and images of the guards outside Buckingham Palace. In contrast to the intentionally modern iconography of the original Education UK brand, this evokes a more traditional image. The year 2013 also saw the introduction of two key immigration policy changes: the health surcharge, and the requirement for landlords and employers to check the immigration status of tenants and employees (Home Office, 2013a, 2013b). This introduces further barriers for international students to live, work and study in the UK. This year, the Home Office further restricted the ease of application for extending student visas, forcing students to leave the country to apply. This makes it more difficult for students to, for example, study at undergraduate and then apply to a postgraduate degree, as they would have to return home in between periods of study. Recent proposals from the Home Secretary Amber Rudd (2016) have implied that the right to recruit international students may be limited to ‘the best’ institutions in the country, which could impact the entire sector dramatically. Thus policy on international students in the UK has seen significant changes over the last two decades. Yet there has also been important continuity, particularly in the way that students are represented.

Representations of students in policy

­

­

 

 



Policy represents students in a variety of intersecting ways, all of which emphasise the extent to which international students are said to benefit the UK. These representations highlight a number of key assumptions about students. First and foremost, international students are seen as economic resources who bring in money to the UK. They are seen as a means to grow education exports, and their worth is measured in economic value: ‘overseas students alone are worth £5 billion a year’ (Labour Party, 2005, p. 25). Indeed, students can only be admitted to the UK if they can demonstrate sufficient net worth to the Home Office (Home Office, 2012). This is understood as the primary reason to seek international students: ‘countries (try) to attract more students from overseas to come to them to study, because that is what produces the largest and most visible financial benefits to the country concerned’ (BIS, 2013a, p. 31). This assumes that international students will be reasonably wealthy individuals with the spare income from private sources to invest in education overseas. By my estimates, maintaining a student in the UK costs approximately £30,000 a year, inclusive of fees and living expenses. For many, sustaining this investment is likely to require the combined assistance of an extended family, as well as their own contributions through part-time work (Hyams-Ssekasi et al., 2014). Research suggests that the financial status of many students is therefore more precarious than policy supposes (Choudaha and De Wit, 2014). But their presence is valued to the extent that they benefit the UK economically, and the responsibilities of the UK to international students are minimal, defined primarily in terms of the relationship

  

Adaptation for national competitive advantage

51

­



 

 



­

between provider and consumer. This representation has been present from the outset of the PMI, and indeed can be traced back to the decision to introduce full-cost fees for international students in 1979 under the Thatcher government (Walker, 2014). It cannot be uniquely associated with the Conservative government or the Coalition International Education Strategy, although there has arguably been an intensification of this rationale relative to others. International students are literally described as consumers of international HE (UKCISA, 2011a; BIS, 2013b). They are valued for their capacity to generate reputational capital, by praising and recommending a British education overseas: ‘every institution benefits from that collective reputation and it is in all our interests to defend and extend it’ (Clark, 2015, p. 5). This assumes that students participate in this creation of reputation, embodying the values and quality of UK HE as well as advocating for it. As consumers, students’ satisfaction with their ‘learning experience’ demonstrates a high quality of product. Consequently, the quality of education is conflated with the quality of ‘learning experience’, international students’ satisfaction is measured and the resulting data refracted to create reputation to attract more students. But this requires tackling ‘specific perceptual concerns of students, providing thought leadership on the quality of the student experience’ (DTZ, 2011, p. 52) and understanding alumni as ‘a marketing resource’ (Miller, 2013). In other words, managing international students’ satisfaction requires changing the way they think about their education in the UK, rather than changing the product itself. It is assumed that such a manipulation of perceptions is ethical, legitimate and possible. International students are represented to do more, however, than simply evaluate quality: they also generate and impede it. They are seen as educational assets, for their impact on home students, creating an ‘internationalised classroom’ by virtue of their diversity. An international student body is seen in some cases as a way to force changes to curricula and pedagogy (MellorsBourne et al., 2013), as well as generating inevitable, natural opportunities for developing intercultural competencies by opening a ‘window on the world’ for home students (Blair, 1999). This positions international students as essentially passive, as their mere presence is assumed to be enough to create a diverse classroom. Such a narrative conflicts dramatically with educational accounts of managing intercultural classrooms, which highlight the difficulties and obstacles to doing so, as well as the need for carefully structured and intentionally managed interactions (Turner, 2009; Caruana and Ploner, 2010). But the implicit demands on international students are substantial and require more than passive presence. To generate intercultural learning opportunities, international students have to communicate clearly and openly with students from other cultures, particularly home students. They have to do so in unfamiliar settings and potentially unfamiliar styles of interaction. And where they struggle to do so, they are framed as in deficit, lacking some academic ability, language level or desire to integrate socially (Goode, 2009). This deficit is

  

52 S. Lomer

 



­



­



one way in which the line is drawn between ‘genuine’ and ‘bogus’ students: those who struggle are assumed not to be genuine, or not to be the ‘best and the brightest’. What the point of a UK education would be for a student who never struggled in any way is not clear. Thus, international students are positioned both as assets to educational quality and as potential threats. Both technically and in public discourses in the UK, international students are positioned as immigrants (or migrants in the popular misnomer). They have been implicated in the wider controversy over net migration numbers and have been lumped in as undesirable with asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants, particularly during the bogus college scandal (Home Affairs Committee, 2009; Green, 2010). This is despite a relatively clear distinction in public attitudes towards international students (Blinder, 2012) and an earlier trend under New Labour to view them as positively as a future source of labour to address skills gaps (Home Office, 2006). While the rhetorical commitment to ‘rolling out the red carpet’ (Cameron, 2011) and seeking ‘the best and the brightest’ has been sustained, this has been in contrast to increasing surveillance of international students and tightening of visa procedures and requirements. In sum, current policy is becoming more restrictive, or as it is framed in discourse ‘selective’, aiming ‘to reduce net migration while continuing to ensure we attract the brightest and the best’ (Rudd, 2016), a paradoxical position which fails to consider the reputational impact of the government’s stance on migration on its capacity to attract ‘the best’. Finally, international students are represented as potential ambassadors for the UK, promoting British trade and diplomacy (Blair, 1999). They are seen as long-term advocates (British Council, 2003), who maintain relationships and ties with the UK after they return home (Blair, 2006). The Coalition International Education Strategy lists as evidence a number of ‘world leaders’ who had been educated in the UK (BIS, 2013a), and suggests that the UK has influence with them as a result. International students are assumed to change their political affiliations and beliefs as a result of their time in the UK, resulting in greater affinity with ‘British values and institutions’. This adds up to an increase in soft power for the UK. While this representation is present in all policy periods, it loses prominence in the Coalition and Conservative discourses, relative to the economic imperative. Policy discourses therefore include multiple intersecting and competing representations of international students, all of which stress the ways in which students can benefit the UK.

Concepts of adaptation



 

In essence, international students are seen as a resource for the UK to adapt to a changing world, not for the UK to adapt its educational practices or institutions to or with them. The world is understood to be changing at an accelerating pace (Lawton et al., 2013). Globalisation (Roche, 2000), patterns of mobility (Lawton et al.,

  

Adaptation for national competitive advantage

53

 

 

 



 

 

2013), demographics (British Council, 2012), economic distribution of power (HM Treasury, 2011), and political influence (BIS, 2013a) are all changing rapidly in this policy narrative. The UK is depicted as declining in state power and global influence, particularly relative to BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) (House of Lords, 2014) and ‘expanding political influence in the South and East’ (BIS, 2013a, p. 53). Because international students are seen as ambassadors, as above, they embody the potential to combat this decline. Also, the sheer capacity to attract high volumes of international students is considered a sign of cultural influence or soft power. Maintaining a thriving international education sector is seen as a way to maintain global influence, which is ‘agile’ and adaptable (Hague, 2013). The UK’s economic status is also under threat from ‘aggressive strategies’ (Lawton et al., 2013) in pursuing economic policies, particularly in recruiting international students (British Council, 2012). This, in combination with predicted declines in demand for international HE generates more intense competition (British Council, 2000, 2010; Blair, 2006). The income that international students bring is seen as essential to national economic success (BIS, 2013a), so in a globally competitive economy, sustaining this source of income is seen as an adaptive response. The UK is thus forced to adapt – to ‘deploy strategic thinking’ (British Council, 2010, p. 12), being flexible and innovative in supporting international education (DTZ, 2011). More broadly, adaptation is seen as a key strategy for national success (Labour Party, 2005; Conservative Party, 2010). Thus, on a national level the UK is presented as needing to adapt, and so are institutions and the HE sector. Internationalisation is seen as a way for the sector to adapt to this rapidly changing, increasingly hostile world. Successful institutions have ‘found that the model of engagement, and the way it is marketed, needs to be adaptable’ (Miller, 2013, p. 31). Recruiting international students is seen as a survival mechanism for the sector (Hyland et al., 2008). The sector is exhorted to ‘seize the opportunities to stay ahead in the global race’ (BIS, 2013c). Similarly, on an institutional level ‘the message is that universities must either embrace rapid change or it will be visited upon them, with prejudice’ (Lawton et al., 2013, p. 10). The sector is argued to be responsible for taking advantage of opportunities for different forms of educational collaboration with countries such as China, Malaysia and India, which have traditionally been key sources for international students but are increasingly becoming destinations in their own right (Archer et al., 2011; British Council, 2012). But ‘taking advantage of these opportunities requires education providers, and countries, to modernise and adapt’ (BIS, 2013a, p. 42). ‘These opportunities’, however, often refer to the development of transnational HE programmes, or institutional partnerships with overseas countries; they are rarely in current discourses with reference to increasing physical mobility. This is increasingly seen as an outdated model of international education, and one at odds with the hostile immigration rhetoric of the current government (Rudd, 2016).

  

54 S. Lomer

­

 

 

 



 

­

 

 

­



However, it is seen as important for UK HE to continue to attract students, which requires maintaining and enhancing ‘the quality of international students’ experiences’ (QAA, 2012). To this end, institutions are encouraged to make ‘small adaptations to existing practices’ (Archer et al., 2010), and ‘expand or adapt services which support international students’ (UKCISA, 2011b). This was, indeed, a key characteristic of the PMI, which provided funding for small-scale projects targeted at improving international students’ experiences. It is not a characteristic of either the Coalition government’s International Education Strategy, or of the Conservative government’s plans. It is also worth noting what is silent in these proposals for institutional adaptations. They are not proposing significant restructuring of classrooms, to address power imbalances or residual postcolonial relationships (Welikala and Watkins, 2008). There is no attempt to consider critiques such as Turner’s (2009, p. 245) that: ‘higher education classrooms remain configured according to implicit local norms that silently privilege home students over others’. They are not advocating curricular revolution or a rethinking of pedagogy in light of a globalised student population. Staff ‘did not talk of being able to make departmental and institutional change, rather they talked in terms of making individual changes in their teaching and learning practice and in their values’ (Hyland et al., 2008, p. 29). Even in the recent proposals for the vilified Teaching Excellence Framework (BIS, 2016), there is no mention of the critical potential for major overhauls to learning and teaching in the UK in relation to an international student body. Thus the potential for a radical reimagining of international education on a policy level in the UK is lost, and instead institutions are encouraged to ‘improve services’ in the interests of ‘changing perceptions’. The challenge is to ‘make them (international students) feel guided and supported while they are with us and validated when they get back home’ (British Council, 1999, para. 52, emphasis mine). The change is in influencing perceptions, not creating a major overhaul of institutional provision. The implicit reason for providing such adaptations to teaching practices or expanding of student services is that international students are represented as in deficit, needing to adapt to the British education system by virtue of deficits in previous education, language or cultural norms, and in need of help to do so. ‘One of the key challenges for international students is to adapt swiftly to the conventions and learning style of a UK education’ (UKCISA, 2011b). For example, ‘international students clearly need the means to adapt to what is often an unfamiliar style of learning’ (Archer et al., 2010). They apparently ‘have different needs to British students’ (British Council, 1999, para. 8): support with language (British Council, 1999, para. 11), employability skills (DTZ, 2011), ‘educational and cultural needs’ (QAA, 2012, p. 26; also in Hyland et al., 2008; UKCISA, 2010), research skills (QAA, 2009), study skills (QAA, 2009), group work and discussion (Archer et al., 2010), and transitioning between learning and teaching styles (UKCISA, 2011b; MellorsBourne et al., 2013).

  

Adaptation for national competitive advantage

55

 

­

­

 





This constructs a deficit model of international students’ abilities, which is often associated with national or regional origin. For example, an apparent lack of ‘critical thinking skills’ is often associated with ‘East Asian students’. By implication, nationality or regional origin predicts particular needs and constructs particular deficits. Apart from the quite terrifying generalisations made in such statements, this association creates an unspoken assumption of cultural deficit, wherein groups of people are assumed to be homogenous within cultural groups such that their behaviour can be explained with reference to their national or regional culture (Bullen and Kenway, 2003; Marginson et al., 2010). Policy discourses equate region of origin with culture, eliding national and local or minority group differences, let alone individual variation. So international students can be divided in groups based on regional origins, from which their learning behaviours can be meaningfully predicted. When a student presents with a difficulty or obstacle in their learning, it can be explained with reference to their culture. Thus, responsibility for adaptation is placed on the shoulders of international students (Sidhu, 2006). Where difficulties are experienced, it is attributed to their failure to adapt from their regional origin and the educational deficits consequently to the implicitly superior UK approaches (Kingston and Forland, 2008; Montgomery and McDowell, 2009; Sidhu and Dall’Alba, 2012). This allows British institutions and the HE sector as a whole to avoid a more substantive critique of learning approaches, pedagogy and curricula. Instead, institutions are in need of ‘further guidance at a national level, on good practice in supporting international students and facilitating their adaptation to UK teaching and learning and assessment methods’ (QAA, 2009, p. 18). And yet, an Ipsos Mori study (2006) commissioned as part of the PMI found no significant difference between the proportion of international and home students who struggled to adapt to new ways of learning. This finding suggests that intrinsic characteristics of universities and academic life create obstacles to adaptation in all students, which is well-established in the literature on transitions in home students (Leathwood and O’Connell, 2003; Crozier et al., 2008). Whether these obstacles are understood through the lenses of the hidden curriculum, institutional habitus or identity, a more radical approach to pedagogical, institutional or sector-wide change need not be exclusive to international students, but could instead be an inclusive revolution in learning and teaching in UK HE.

Conclusion So how do policies on international students in the UK consider adaptation? On one level, cultural and social adaptation to approaches to learning is considered the responsibility of students themselves. Where they struggle to adapt, they are considered to be in skills, language or academic deficit. Institutions are held accountable by national agencies for supporting students to adapt (QAA, 2012), but the reform of structures and curricula is not

  

56 S. Lomer



 





­

 

mentioned. Instead, small changes are proposed on an individual staff level as the literature documents (e.g. Turner, 2009), or by expanding services. Where institutions are pressured by national policy to adapt on a more significant level, it is in response to ‘opportunities’ to expand in international education, such as through establishing institutional partnerships or transnational education programmes. These organisational adaptations do not impact the lived experiences of international students physically present in the UK. Adapting in these multi-scalar ways allows the country to increase or sustain recruitment, gaining money to facilitate adaptation to a changing, increasingly competitive world. The interests of the nation are the primordial motivator for adaptation. The problem with this is that it is fundamentally exploitative of international students. This construct sees international students as merely one form of ‘education exports’, interchangeable with educational technology or publishing as a source of revenue. The fact that actual people are physically present in the country, wanting to learn and needing support, almost reads an inconvenience. While institutions and individuals are committed to maximising the educational potential of internationalised classrooms (whatever the challenges), the national policy does not advocate or appear ready to invest in any radical changes in this direction. But I am really levelling an unfair critique of international education policy here. The aim of national policy in this arena is to ensure the efficient deployment of education as an industry for national competitive advantage. In this light, viewing adaptation primarily as something the country and the sector need to do to survive is eminently reasonable. But there is another possibility for international HE. If what we want is a HE sector which is intrinsically international, equitable, open and engaged on a human level as well as institutional one, then adaptation needs to mean something different. It needs to mean substantive curricular and pedagogical reform. It needs to mean that we examine how our teaching approaches are informed by an elitist, imperial history, and consider alternatives. It needs to mean that we understand and value the role that emotions and individuality play in the learning process, and resist the urge to pathologise or culturally explicate this. It needs to mean that we engage with students as individuals and as people, building relationships as an inevitable and valued part of education as a social process (Madge et al., 2014). It needs to mean reciprocal adaptation, the adaptation of both international students and the sector together instead of one to the other. While policy is subordinated to the regime of truth of the competitive marketised model of international HE, this will not happen. But perhaps through critique and discussion, educators can bring these pedagogical ideals closer to the heart of policy discourse.

Introduction

  

58 S. Lomer

­

­

 

­

­

­

 

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

 

­

 

­

Choudaha, R. and de Wit, H. (2014) Challenges and opportunities for global student mobility in the future: a comparative and critical analysis. In: Internationalization of higher education and global mobility. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education Series. Oxford: Symposium Books. Clark, G. (2015) Higher education: funding and co-operation. [Speech to Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Annual Conference 2015]. London. 9 February. Conservative Party. (2010) Invitation to join the government of Britain: the Conservative manifesto. London: The Conservative Party. Crozier, G., Reay, D., Clayton, J., Colliander, L. and Grinstead (2008) Different strokes for different folks: diverse students in diverse institutions – experiences of higher education. Research Papers in Education, 23(2), pp. 167–177. Department of Business Innovation and Skills. (2013a) International education: global growth and prosperity. London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 227033/BIS-13-1081-International_Education-_Global_Growth_and_Prosperity-_ Accessible__2_.pdf. (Accessed: 11 August 2013). Department of Business Innovation and Skills (2013b) International education – global growth and prosperity: an accompanying analytical narrative. London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/ publications/international-education-strategy- global-growth- and-prosperity. (Accessed: 11 August 2013). Department of Business Innovation and Skills (2013c) New push to grow UK’s £17.5 billion education exports industry. [Press release]. London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills. 29 July. Available at: http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/ New-push-to-grow-UK-s-17-5-billion-education-exports-industry-690a3.aspx. (Accessed: 11 August 2013). Department of Business Innovation and Skills (2016) Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice. London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/ publications/higher- education-success- as-a- knowledge-economy- white-paper (Accessed: 25 November 2016). Department for Education and Skills (2006) Prime Minister Blair launches strategy to make UK leader in international education. [Press release]. Available at: http://web archive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080524111138/www.britainusa.com/sections/ articles_show_nt1.asp?d=0&i=41075&L1=41075&L2=41009&a=41689&pv=1. (Accessed: 19 November 2013). Dodds, A. (2009) Liberalization and the public sector: the pre-eminent role of governments in the ‘sale’ of higher education abroad. Public Administration, 87(2), pp. 397–411. DTZ (2011) Prime Minister’s Initiative for International Education Phase 2 (PMI2) London: DTZ. Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (2014) Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing our knowledge advantage to drive innovation and prosperity. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Available at: http://international.gc.ca/globalmarkets-marches-mondiaux/assets/pdfs/overview-apercu-eng.pdf. (Accessed: 25 November 2016). Foucault, M. (1972) The archaeology of knowledge. Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith. London: Routledge.

  

Adaptation for national competitive advantage

59

­

­

­

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

­

­

 

­

 

 

 

 

Geddie, K. (2014) Policy mobilities in the race for talent: competitive state strategies in international student mobility. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40(2), pp. 235–248. Goode, J. (2007) Empowering or disempowering the international Ph. D. student? Constructions of the dependent and independent learner. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), pp. 589–603. Green, D. (2010) Immigration. [Speech to the Royal Commonwealth Society]. London. 7 September. Gu, Q., Schweisfurth, M. and Day, C. (2010). Learning and growing in a ‘foreign’ context: intercultural experiences of international students. Compare, 40(1), pp. 7–23. Hague, W. (2013) Foreign Secretary speech on rejecting decline and renewing Western diplomacy in the 21st Century. [Speech at the Reagan Presidential Library, California]. Simi Valley. 26 June. Henderson, J. (2009) ‘It’s all about give and take,’ or is it? Where, when and how do native and non-native uses of English shape UK university students’ representations of each other and their learning experience? Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), pp. 398–409. HM Treasury, and Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2011) The plan for growth. London: HMSO. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/31584/2011budget_growth.pdf. (Accessed: 11 August 2013). Home Office (2006) A points-based system: making migration work for Britain. London: HMSO. Available at: www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm67/6741/ 6741.pdf. (Accessed: 01 December 2013). House of Lords (2014) Persuasion and power in the modern world. Available at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldsoftpower/150/15002.htm. (Accessed: 17 June 2014). Home Affairs Committee (2009) Bogus colleges: eleventh report of session 2008–2009. London: House of Commons. Home Affairs Committee (2011) Student visas: seventh report of session 2010–11. London: House of Commons. Home Office (2012) Statement of policy for changes to the points-based system. London: Home Office. Home Office (2013a) Controlling immigration – regulating migrant access to health services in the UK consultation document. London: Home Office. Available at: www.gov.uk/ government/consultations/migrant-access-to-health-services-in-the-UK. (Accessed: 21 December 2013). Home Office (2013b) Tackling illegal immigration in privately rented accommodation: consultation document. London: Home Office. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/ consultations/tackling-illegal-immigration-in-privately-rented-accommodation. (Accessed: 21 December 2013). Humfrey, C. (2011) The long and winding road: a review of the policy, practice and development of the internationalisation of higher education in the UK. Teachers and Teaching, 17(6), pp. 649–661. Hyams-Ssekasi, D., Mushibwe, C. P. and Caldwell, E. F. (2014) International education in the United Kingdom: the challenges of the golden opportunity for BlackAfrican students. Sage Open, 4(4). DOI: 10.1177/2158244014562386.

  

60 S. Lomer

­

­

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

 

 

­

 

 

 

 

Hyland, F., Trahar, S., Anderson, J. and Dickens, A. (2008) A changing world: the internationalisation experiences of staff and students (home and international) in UK higher education. York: Higher Education Academy. Ipsos Mori (2006) The international student experience report 2006. Bristol: Ipsos Mori. Karram, G. L. (2013) International students as lucrative markets or vulnerable populations: a Critical Discourse Analysis of national and institutional events in four nations. Comparative and International Education/Éducation Comparée et Internationale, 42(1), pp. 1–14. Kingston, E. and Forland, H. (2008) Bridging the gap in expectations between international students and academic staff. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), pp. 204–221 Knight, J. (2015) New rationales driving internationalization. International Higher Education, 34, pp. 3–5. Labour Party (2005) Britain forward not back: the Labour Party Manifesto. London: Labour Party. Lawton, W., Ahmed, M., Angulo, T., Axel-Berg, A., Burrows, A. and Katsomitros, A. (2013) Horizon scanning: what will higher education look like in 2020? London: The UK HE International Unit, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, and the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Available at: www.lfhe.ac.uk/en/ news/index.cfm/horizonscanning. (Accessed: 28 December 2013). Leathwood, C. and O’Connell, P. (2003) ‘It’s a struggle’: the construction of the ‘new student’ in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 18(6), pp. 597–615. Madge, C., Raghuram, P. and Noxolo, P. (2009) Engaged pedagogy and responsibility: A postcolonial analysis of international students. Geoforum, 40(1), pp. 34–45. Madge, C., Raghuram, P. and Noxolo, P. (2014) Conceptualizing international education: from international student to international study. Progress in Human Geography, 39(6), pp. 681–701. Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Sawir, E. and Forbes-Mewett, H. (2010) International student security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. May, T. (2010) Immigration. [Speech to Policy Exchange]. Available at: www.gov.uk/ government/speeches/immigration-home-secretarys-speech-of-5-november-2010. (Accessed: 17 July 2013). Mellors-Bourne, R., Humfrey, C., Kemp, N. and Woodfield, S. (2013) The wider benefits of international higher education in the UK. London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Miller, N. J. (2013) Strategic affinity: engaging international alumni to support internationalisation: a UK case study approach. York: Higher Education Academy. Ministry of Education Malaysia (2015) Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015–2025 (Higher Education). Pujatraya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. Montgomery, C. and McDowell, L. (2009) Social networks and the international student experience: an international community of practice? Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(4), pp. 455–466. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015) Education at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD. Available at: www.oecd.org/edu/ education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm. (Accessed: 16 April 2016). Rizvi, F. and Lingard, B. (2010) Globalizing education policy. Abingdon: Routledge. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books. (Accessed: 22 November 2015).

  

Adaptation for national competitive advantage

61

 

­

 

­

­

­

 

 

­

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

Roche, B. (2000) UK migration in a global economy. [Speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research]. Available at: http://m.ippr.org/events/54/5875/uk-migrationin-a-global-economy. (Accessed: 24 December 2013). Rudd, A. (2016) Immigration policy. [Speech to the Conservative Party Conference]. Available at: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/full-text-amber-rudds-conferencespeech/. (Accessed: 25 November 2016). Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2009) Thematic enquiries into concerns about academic quality and standards in higher education in England. Gloucester: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2012) International students studying in the UK – Guidance for UK higher education providers. Gloucester: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Sidhu, R. K. (2006) Universities and globalization: to market, to market. Available at: www.amazon.co.uk/kindle-ebooks. London: Routledge. (Downloaded: 28 March 2015). Sidhu, R. K. and Dall’Alba, G. (2012) International education and (dis)embodied cosmopolitanisms. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(4), pp. 413–431. doi:10.1111/ j.1469-5812.2010.00722.x. Tran, L. T. (2011) Committed, face-value, hybrid or mutual adaptation? The experiences of international students in Australian higher education. Educational Review, 63(1), pp. 79–94. Turner, Y. (2009) ‘Knowing me, knowing you,’ is there nothing we can do? Pedagogic challenges in using group work to create an intercultural learning space. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), pp. 240–255. UK Council for International Student Affairs (2010) Prime Minister’s Initiative for International Education (PMI2) – student experience project review of the pilot project scheme. London: UKCISA. Available at: www.ukcisa.org.uk. (Accessed: 11 August 2013). UK Council for International Student Affairs (2011a) PMI student experience achievements 2006–2011. London: UKCISA. Available at: www.ukcisa.org.uk/resources/ 28/PMI-Student-Experience-Achievements-2006-2011. (Accessed: 11 August 2013). UK Council for International Student Affairs (2011b) The UKCISA tier 4 student survey 2011. London: UKCISA. Available at: www.ukcisa.org.uk/files/pdf/about/ material_media/tier4_survey2011_final.pdf. (Accessed: 13 July 2013). UK Council for International Student Affairs (2013) Current government consultations: Initial UKCISA commentary and possible points to make. London: UKCISA. Available at: www.ukcisa.org.uk/news/105/Current-government-consultations. (Accessed: 11 August 2013). Walker, P. (2014) International student policies in UK higher education from colonialism to the coalition developments and consequences. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(4), pp. 325–344. Welikala, T. and Watkins, C. (2008) Improving intercultural learning experiences in higher education: Responding to cultural scripts for learning. London: Institute of Education. Zhou, Y., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K. and Todman, J. (2008) Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 33(1), pp. 63–75.



4

Understanding international students’ adaptation motivation and behaviours Transformative, strategic or conservative?  

 

 

Trang Hoang and Ly Thi Tran Introduction

 



­

­

International student mobility has become a global phenomenon. The number of globally mobile students is recorded at more than five million in 2015 (OECD, 2017). Noticeably, students from Asia represent 53 per cent of international students enrolled worldwide, and most of their major destinations are English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States (Cuauhtemoc and Ranching, 2013). It is important to acknowledge that international students who come from different cultures can bring different mindsets, expectations and behaviours. While such differences may constitute a valuable resource to enrich the teaching and learning in the host country, they can be challenges for international students in relocating to a new environment. Through institutional guidance, international students nowadays are made well aware of adaptation issues related to studying and living abroad, and there are widely available resources to help them navigate their adjustment paths. International students have been found to display various ways of adaptation and self-transformation in their attempt to adapt to the host country’s academic and living environment. The scholarly literature on international student adaptation before the 2000s seems to be driven by an ethnocentric perspective (Tran, 2015, 2016) that largely concentrates on the academic, social and cultural skills that Asian international students were assumed to lack in the ‘Western’ academia (Samuelowicz, 1987; Elsey, 1990; Lacina, 2002), thereby seeing international students as bearing the onus of adaptation. Notably, international students’ struggle with English language proficiency was often linked to their cognitive deficiency (Biggs et al., 1999). These ethnocentric perspectives have led to the assumption that international students are ‘the others’ laden with difficulties and problems who need to assimilate into ‘our’ system. These also underscore the establishment of various remedial programmes that centre on the provision of language and learning support to help ‘fix’ international students’ ‘deficiencies’ rather than assist them in developing their learning skills or maximising their potential (McLean and Ransom, 2005, p. 45). It assumes

  

Understanding adaptation motivation and behaviours

63

 



 



 

­



the responsibility of host institutions is to assist international students in overcoming their deficiencies and adapting to the new setting rather than to create a conducive environment for all the involved actors to engage in reciprocal learning as a result of the encounter of differences. Since the 2000s, there has been some progress towards acknowledging the critical need for reciprocal adaptation for the involved players including international students, academic and professional staff. In practice there is still a significant imbalance between these key players in terms of making changes and adapting their teaching and learning practices (Arkoudis and Tran, 2007; Tran, 2011a, 2013a, 2013b; Marginson and Sawir, 2011). The existing underlying beliefs, values and systems, particularly in the English-speaking host countries that are largely and Eurocentric and underpinned by the ‘innate belief in Western superiority’ (Marginson, 2010, p. 6) appear to preclude the intercultural learning and reciprocal adaptation of academics and international students. Institutional discourse in the host countries still largely constructs international students as those who have to adapt to the host country and host communities rather than those who feel the responsibility towards and have the potential capacity to contribute to intercultural and cultural processes in the host country (Tran and Vu, 2016). This discourse also compromises the potential benefits for capitalising on the diversity of academic practices, knowledges, skills, values, cultural experiences and transnational networks to enrich teaching and learning. The notion of international student adaptation should be questioned as ‘adaptation’ often implies an unequal relationship or the assumption that someone is expected to make changes and adjust to a different way of being and doing in a new setting. International student adaptation to some extent appears to equate with ‘assimilation or socialisation’ (Volet and Jones, 2012, p. 246). However, in practice adaptation is still central to international students’ academic, social and cultural connection with the host environment and it often happens when international students relocate to a new country regardless of whether it is at their willingness or under an external pressure to do so. Therefore, in order to provide effective support and optimise international students’ learning, it is important to have nuanced understanding about the nature and forms of international student adaptation while being aware of the contested nature of the concept and the structural conditions shaping their adaptation experiences. This chapter is an attempt to critically interpret and analyse findings from recent research on international students’ forms of adaptation and the motivations underpinning their adaptation. The goal of this chapter is not to report the findings of the related literature in detail, but rather to suggest how insights gained from scholarly research and debates can contribute to our nuanced understanding of what drives international students’ adaptation behaviours. The research questions to be addressed by the review are therefore: (1) What adaptation behaviours do international students engage in? And (2) What are the motivations for those behaviours? Answers to these questions would greatly benefit education

  

64 T. Hoang and L. T. Tran



institutions and academic and support staff in tailoring their support services to international students. The central information of this chapter is organised into four sections. The first section describes the approach and method that inform and guide the research process. The second section presents findings from the literature review, followed by the third section that outlines and discusses the aspects that affect the construction of a typology framework of international students based on the findings of their adaptation motivations and behaviours. The chapter ends with implications for policy and practice in institutional support for international students.

Approach and method Narrative review

­



A narrative review seeks to ‘summarise, explain and interpret evidence on a particular topic or question using either qualitative and or qualitative evidence’ (Mays, Pope and Popay, 2005). A narrative review helps to inspire deeper thoughts, provides overviews and integrations of a research area, pulls together existing insights into a particular phenomenon, and allows researchers to address much broader questions than a single empirical study could (Green, Johnson and Adams, 2006). In this chapter, we chose to apply the narrative review approach on qualitative studies and quantitative, given that the contexts provided in qualitative research are essential in constructing a more nuanced understanding of international students’ adaptation motivations and behaviours, while quantitative studies provided validation to the relevant concepts. The narrative review method is suitable to the nature and research questions set out for this chapter because its goal is to describe and discuss the findings from recent literature with regards to international students’ adaptation, providing readers with up-to-date knowledge in the field and from diverse contexts. In addition, the chapter aims at not only reporting the findings of related literatures, but also suggesting how insights gained from them can contribute to our nuanced understanding of what drives international students’ adaptation behaviours, and/or what motivations may be linked to what adaptation strategies, and how they may form certain typologies of students so that support can be better designed and targeted, and likely to be relevant for individual circumstances. In line with this goal, the narrative review method suits this chapter because in reporting the findings from literature, the author will be able to add a layer of interpretation and critical analysis of such findings from literature. Sources of information The search included published studies in the period from January 2001 to January 2016 (inclusive). The databases searched included A+ Education,

  

Understanding adaptation motivation and behaviours

65

­

ERIC, and HEDBIB. The following journals were hand searched for relevant articles: Educational Review, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Communication Journal of New Zealand, Cambridge Journal of Education, Education and Training, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, International Education Journal, Journal of Research in International Education and Journal of Studies in International Education. The reference lists and bibliographies of retrieved articles were also hand-searched to identify other studies. Inclusion criteria

­



The review considered qualitative and quantitative studies in the period from 2001 to 2016 January (inclusive) that addressed motivation and/or behaviour of international students in their adaptation process. The participants in the studies were international students with English as a second language and who have studied in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the United States, Canada, Taiwan, and Indonesia. The articles were reviewed following the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative research. The purpose of this tool is to help ensure the quality of the chosen articles. CASP had been widely used in medical literature review for over 20 years, since the tool was developed at Oxford Regional Health Authority in 1993. The main purpose of the tool is to set out important criteria to assist health care practitioners with checking health research findings for trustworthiness, results, and relevance. The quality of the tool has seen its being adopted widely in 30 other countries, particularly in South America and Central and Eastern Europe. This chapter seeks to examine the findings of research articles on the topic of international students’ adaptation. Therefore, it is important to ensure the findings from selected articles are trustworthy and relevant. The CASP checklist for qualitative studies was chosen because it provides ten rigorous questions to guide the author in the process of evaluating the literature findings and making decisions whether to include an article in this review. (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2017). In deciding which article to include in this review, the author first examined if there was a clear statement of the aims of the research and if the research design was appropriate to address the aims of the research. Then the data collection process was examined to ensure the data collected in such a way that addressed the research issue. The author also checked if there is an in-depth description of the data analysis process and if there is a clear statement of findings.

Relationship between international student adaptation and motivations for adaptation Research has highlighted a wide range of factors and processes that facilitate or hinder international students’ successful adaptation (Wang and Mallinckrodt, 2006; Yeh and Inose, 2003). The factors are related to one of these groups: cultural transition, academic integration and social integration.

  

66 T. Hoang and L. T. Tran

­

­



­

­



­





Exploring students’ adaptation from a cognitive perspective has resulted in studies related to student motivations and goals (Tran, 2011b; Curtin, Stewart and Ostrove, 2012; Yang and Noels, 2013). The studies show that student motivations and goals are multifaceted and vary depending on the individual and their situation. Each student has their unique circumstances, blend of prior experiences, and needs; therefore, assisting international students in their adaptation requires specific engagement strategies for each individual as they may have additional needs or face alternative barriers. Studies following the cognitive stream are aligned with theoretical frameworks such as Flow theory (Schulte and Choudaha, 2014), Bigg’s approaches to learning (Biggs et al., 1999) or Maslow’s theory of needs (Hendrickson, Rosen and Aune, 2011). Cognitive engagement implies that students are not passive passengers of their education mobility drive but rather hold active commitments, in terms of personal and psychological, to learning and development (Appleton et al., 2006). The concept would well apply to international students, who often have specific purposes for their pursuits of international education and recognise the meaning of international education in their lives. Cognitive engagement theories also suggest that feeling connected to others and achieving a sense of belonging to the education environment is a major part of student’s personal and psychological commitments (Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris, 2004). Other researchers examined international students’ strategic adaptation behaviours within the academic curriculum context. Arkoudis and Tran (2007) presented how international students position and reposition themselves in their attempt to understand and adapt to the disciplinary requirements; Malau-Aduli (2011) explored the coping strategies, skill perceptions and knowledge of assessment expectations of international medical students; Tran (2011a) illustrated the patterns of adaptation that international students went through in their participation in academic writing practices; and Earl and Cong (2011) touched on some study strategies that international students employed in the online learning context. To the best of our knowledge, none of the previous studies have synthesised the behaviour and motivation of international students’ adaptation in the same study. Volet and Jones (2012) pointed out how motivation is a critical, yet under-examined factor in the international student’s adaptation process. It is important to consider these two aspects at the same time because behaviour includes both goal-directed strategies and non-goal-directed general practices while motivation includes reasons and processes that guide behaviour (Astin, 1984, 1993). Seeing the links between the shared behaviours and the motivations involved in international students’ adaptation strategies and practices are particularly significant in terms of promoting healthy and effective engagement practices to international students. Moreover, it would make sense to identify international students’ adaptation behaviours and their motivations from a large number of research findings available. To date, the most widely researched topics concerning international students have dealt with the socio-psychological and/or cultural aspects of

  

Understanding adaptation motivation and behaviours

67

international students’ adjustment or adaptation to the host environment. This body of research has highlighted the challenges that international students face while trying to make sense of, and get used to, the cultural differences in their new social and academic lives. This chapter will adopt another standpoint by presenting and analysing the literature findings in line with the cognitive and behavioural dimensions (or perspectives?) of international students’ adaptation. These key perspectives play a big part in international students’ experience, yet have not yet been widely articulated in existing research on international student adaptation.

Motivations underlying adaptation behaviours

 





­



Yang and Noels (2013) noted the common use of the terms ‘goals’, ‘expectations’, ‘motivation’ or ‘motives’ interchangeably in international education research. Previous research indicates students are motivated to have an international education experience based on a wide range of factors in relation to: opportunities to experience other cultures (King, Findlay and Ahrens, 2010; Kull, 2016); to advance future career opportunities (Cao and Tran, 2014; Blackmore, Gribble and Rahimi, 2015); and to engage in positive intercultural behaviours through increased awareness and understanding of other cultures (Pham and Tran, 2015; Shao and Crook, 2015). In broad terms, motivation is used to explain why individuals make certain decisions and why they choose specific actions. The most widely cited definition of motivation from psychology textbooks come from Kleinginna and Kleinginna (1981), which states that motivation is an internal state or condition (known as a need, desire or want) that serves to activate or energise goal-oriented behaviour and gives it direction. Tran (2015) applied Bourdieu’s theory in explaining the motivations for student mobility. The author conceptualised the motivations of international student mobility as ‘becoming’. A few dimensions of becoming were put forward: becoming more advanced in profession, becoming the designer of their own professional life and becoming the successor of family business. In short, the motivation is about gaining permanent residency status, career advancement and personal transformation. This study correlated with most studies in that international students’ aspirations are for educational, social, personal and professional development. In a similar vein, Pham and Tran (2015, p. 14) also concluded that a common motive cited by the participants is to develop an international learning experience, that is, an intercultural engagement that allows them to be exposed and immersed in diverse cultures. The study highlighted that the longing for intercultural learning and living experiences gave students a sense of outward achievement, which is also associated with an inward desire to feel connected with those within the institution and the wider Australian community. The authors pointed out ‘Their [international students] thirst for belonging in the institutional community and the local community is what

  

68 T. Hoang and L. T. Tran

­

­

­



­

 





­

­

­

­



 

motivates them … and in return gives them the sense of belonging’ (Pham and Tran, 2015, p. 14). Interestingly, in view of students’ motivation to pursue an international education, Yang and Noels (2013) classified international students based on their reports of their expected and feared possible selves: the career-inspired (i.e. to become a professional in their field/cannot get a good job), the academic-focused (obtain the degree/fail to obtain the degree), the capitalbuilder (language proficiency, personal growth, material goods), the intercultural-focused migration (remain in the host country or return to home country/leave host country and cannot return), and the interpersonal-focused (making good domestic friends/friendless). Another major motivation is cultural adaptation, in which international students seek to belong to the host society by becoming a competent member. Several studies have highlighted how international students anticipate to become a member of the host society by becoming sociocultural competent (Sobré-Denton, 2011; Glass, Gómez and Urzua, 2014; Chen et al., 2015). Findings from existing literature reviews suggest that international students’ adaptation motivations could fall into either the human core motivators: Belonging and Anticipation. The term ‘core motivators’ were invented by B. J. Fogg (2008). According to Fogg, humans have three two-sided core motivators: Pleasure/Pain; Anticipation (Hope/Fear) and Belonging (Social Acceptance/Social Rejection). This explanation of human core motivators aligns with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs at the three highest levels: love and belonging needs, self-esteem needs and self-actualisation. In the next section, we align the findings of international student’s academic and sociocultural adaptation behaviours with the two main types of motivations: Belonging and Anticipation.

Adaptation behaviours aligned with the ‘belonging’ motivation

­



­

­

Known as one of human’s core motivators, belonging means that humans seek social acceptance and fear of social rejection. The main forms of behaviours under this motivation are identified as building relationships (Hendrickson, Rosen and Aune, 2011; Glass, Gómez and Urzua, 2014; Hirai, Frazier and Syed, 2015), learning to improve and communicating in English (Li and Zhu, 2013; Rui and Wang, 2015), and adopting context-specific coping strategies (Malau-Aduli, 2011; Chen et al., 2015). Studies found that international students build monocultural, bicultural and intercultural networks. While different goals are associated with different types of social networks, building relationships helps students boost confidence in their self-esteem (Pham and Tran, 2015), provide contexts to reflect on their own culture and learn about the new culture (Shao and Crook, 2015). Building social networks also helps international students accumulate

  

Reciprocity in international education

5

widespread demand for higher education in a knowledge economy (Stiglitz, 2006), commodification and commercialisation of knowledge as assets and services (Altbach, 2002) owned by nation states, and disparate knowledges and cultural/academic practices that are in contact. The difference is also exacerbated also by nation states’ migration policies, human capacity development, public diplomacy, promotion of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education and establishment of offshore online international education (Tran & Gomes, 2017).

Calls for reciprocity



­

Calls for more reciprocal relationships in international education are in fact a challenge to stakeholders – institutions, policy-makers, academic and professional staff and students – to resolve paradoxes, evident to even the most casual observer, in theory and practice of international education. It is considered to be the high status and reputation of the education systems of BANA countries (Britain, Australasia and North America) and others that attracts students. The very fact of the difference of Western education, and that this difference is imagined to be one that is inherently better and thus more desirable, is key to the hegemonic status it enjoys (Liyanage & Walker, 2014a). This is in tension with the publicly declared value the presence of international students adds to an institution for domestic students in terms of internationalised curricula, the possibilities of development of intercultural competences, and the opportunities to establish professional and academic networks appropriate for success in a globalised world. This claim – that international students bring valuable resources to the educational exchange and contribute to an enhanced quality of the offering to domestic students, can in fact make essential contributions to delivering the ‘international’ in the international education experience with its objectives of productive international/intercultural relationships and global citizenship – implies a change or transformation of the product on offer. Any acknowledgement of reciprocity, that is, of the educational offering changing, especially if there are supposedly concerns about the ‘quality’ of the visiting students and how they need to adapt to the ‘system’, can be construed as a threat to the integrity of the original product (Liyanage & Gurney, Chapter 12). Positioned thus, international students find themselves in a confusing and contradictory, if not explicitly commodified, situation. They become well aware very quickly that to succeed in their studies they are obliged to adapt to and adopt new practices in a climate that explicitly devalues the practices they have used to achieve the academic success necessary for acceptance as an international student (Liyanage & Gurney, Chapter 12). Yet, it is usually too evident in images and materials digitally encountered on a daily basis on university home pages as providers of the ‘resource’ of difference, putatively useful to have on campus for some sort of (usually joyful) improved learning experiences for domestic students with whom they study.

  

70 T. Hoang and L. T. Tran

­

­



English language competencies (i.e. build linguistic capitals) (Blackmore, Gribble and Rahimi, 2015). Neri and Ville (2008) studied newly arrived international students’ behaviour in re-establishing social relationships in a foreign and unfamiliar cultural and academic environment, or social capital renewal, and investigated whether such behaviours are positively associated with academic performance. The study found there was a tendency to build close networks with students from their own country of origin and that such investments are not associated with improved academic performance but are associated with increased well-being.

Adaptation behaviours linking to abilities

­

­

­

­

­

­



­

Basic concepts of psychology state that motivation is the impetus towards a behaviour, while abilities include skills and capabilities requisite to the performance of a behaviour. Findings from literature have suggested coping abilities, prior learning experiences and English language proficiency are key abilities that help or hinder international students in performing a goaldirected behaviour (Wang and Mallinckrodt, 2006; Tidwell and Hanassab, 2007; Gram et al., 2013). Previous research into international students’ adjustment suggested that successful adjustment at a tertiary institution is influenced by the student’s coping styles. There are two general ways of coping that have been discussed in literature about international students: emotion-focused coping and problem-focused coping. Positively oriented emotion-focused coping sees international students’ behaviours such as praying for guidance and strength (Chen et al., 2015; Kull, 2016), distracting themselves with home culture entertainment (Gomes, 2014), and disclosing one’s emotions through talking or writing (Chen et al., 2015). On the other hand, negatively oriented emotion-focused coping involves dysfunctional strategies such as drinking (Sa et al., 2014), or avoidance (Wang and Mallinckrodt, 2006). Problem-focused coping is also known as active coping, which involves international students obtaining social support, counselling (Hendrickson, Rosen and Aune, 2011; Sobré-Denton, 2011), and adapt their learning styles (Malau-Aduli, 2011; Tran, 2011a; Gram et al., 2013).

Typology of international students

 

Various studies (Sobré-Denton, 2011; Glass, Gómez and Urzua, 2014; Blackmore, Gribble and Rahimi, 2015) have highlighted that many international students will demonstrate considerable independence around the difficult challenge of managing their international education journey. Research exploring international students’ attempt to exercise their personal agency in their sojourn has resulted in different ways of classifying international students.

71

  

Understanding adaptation motivation and behaviours

­



 

­

fi

­





In view of students’ adaptation behaviours in academic writing practices, (Tran, 2011a) classified international students into three groups. First there are the committed students, who exercise personal agency and deliberately position themselves in a more powerful position, negotiate different identities. They are aware of the disciplinary requirement and determined to achieve their academic goals and to be more empowered in the new community. Second there comes the surface adaptor, who exercises their strategic agency in order to ensure good returns on investment. These students hide the tension between the desire to express what they want to say in their writing and their perception of what they are expected to say. Finally, there are the hybrid students, who engage critically and creatively with the disciplinary requirements and treat their first language and culture as a resource rather than a problem. These students work towards bringing out their voices to reflect their personality/identity while creating a blend of conventional requirements and their personal preferences. In view of change as a result of engaging behaviours, Kiley (2003) clustered international students into three groups. The first category is the transformer, which originated from the concepts ‘transformative learners, or process-oriented learners’ coined by Salmon (1992) and Perry (1970). This is the type of students whose levels of development, or dynamic commitment undergo personal change as a result of undertaking doctoral studies. The author noted that these students have proficient English level (measured by the International English Language Testing System – IELTS 6.5 or higher). Second there is the strategists, who deliberately adopt the necessary strategies to successfully complete the degree in Australia. Based on Bochner (1994) and Berry (1994) theories, which suggest that students do not have to nd the characteristics of their new society desirable, they merely need to identify and adopt them for the necessary time in order to manage well in the society. The interesting finding is that these students would be strategic in terms of their decision to return to the home country upon completion. In this study, these students have competent English levels (IELTS 6.5 or less). Third comes the conservers, who did not report any significant change in social, emotional, or academic ways. These students were similar to those described in the literature as ‘surface learners’ (Prat-Sala and Redford, 2010), that is students who did not substantially change their view of the world as a result of their experience. These were the students who were concerned to ensure that they did not lose their home culture identity by adopting negative qualities that they observed in the host country. They were also the students who went to great lengths to protect their religious and cultural values. These students possess English level of competent and below (IELTS 5.5 to 6.0). The interesting point in Kiley’s study was that the IELTS score was one of the predictors, together with the course of study (Masters or PhD). In collating the findings from related literature reviews, we attempt to construct a framework of classifications of international students (see Table 4.1) based on the model of two-sided core motivators: anticipation

•  Migration-focused (i.e. •  Academic-focused flexible post-study plan: •  Firm post-study plan: remaining in host country return to home country or returning to home country) •  Career-focused

•  Career-inspired •  Academic-focused •  Migration-focused





















Rather low •  Seek to build selfconfidence, self-empathy (i.e. intrapersonal) •  Seek to build intercultural networks and co-nationals networks – interpersonal •  Learn English for social integration



Rather high •  Seek discipline-related internship opportunities. •  Seek to build bi-cultural and inter-cultural networks •  Learn English to achieve higher proficiency













Rather high •  Keen to obtain the degree •  Seek to know disciplinary expectations and follow the rules •  Keen to obtain feedback from lecturers and revise their works accordingly •  Build mainly co-national networks

Positive anticipation and negative belonging

Positive belonging and negative anticipation

Positive anticipation and positive belonging

Surface strategist

Flexible strategist

Transformer

 



•  Unclear











Motivation rationale

Visions

Rather low Ability •  Fear of social rejection Behaviours •  Fear of not obtaining the degree •  Avoid and withdrawal •  Disengage •  Socialise with co-nationals

Negative anticipation and negative belonging.

Conserver

Table 4.1 Framework for classification of international students’ typologies integrating motivation, ability and behaviours

  

Understanding adaptation motivation and behaviours

73

(hope/fear) and the belonging (social acceptance/social rejection) (Fogg, 2008). The findings gathered through the review allows us to create a typology framework of international students. We have identified four broad types of international students, based on the connection between their motivations and abilities.

A transformer: positive anticipation, positive belonging, and high ability

­

­

The transformative international student exercises their personal agency using a lot of autonomy. Driven by the motivation to achieve good outcomes, gains and approval, they focus on deepening bicultural networks in order to have an opportunity to speak to a native English speaker. They also have a determination to seek discipline-related work experience by cultivating every possible opportunity and/or following specific strategies such as seeking summer internships in their home country during semester breaks or holidays. For these students, the motivation has existed in the decision-making phase when they decided to choose the study abroad destination. Future vision of these students is that they want to become a permanent resident and settle down in the host country.

 

­

Engaged students are students who are personally motivated to learn, find intrinsic value in education, and are otherwise self-regulated, autonomous learners capable of setting personal goals and developing coping strategies. (Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris, 2004) Their anticipation is that they hope to find a job after graduation in the host country and the associated fear is that they are not competent enough to be able to do this. On the other dimension, these students seek to belong to the host society. They would seek social acceptance by gaining competencies and for them, social rejection means that people see them as incompetent.

A flexible strategist: positive belonging, negative anticipation, and rather high ability

 

­

In this typology, the international student would exercise their personal agency by self-positioning as someone who is able to create a blend of their home countries’ values and beliefs and the host countries’ expected values. While there is hope for social acceptance, the student is not holding fear for social rejection. They are in control in a way that they belong in their own ways. The student engage in hybrid adaptation to their new disciplinary practice through attempts to create a hybrid space for meaning making.

  

74 T. Hoang and L. T. Tran Within this form of adaptation, the students engage critically and creatively with the disciplinary requirements and treat their first language and culture as a resource rather than a problem. (Tran, 2011a)

­

­

The flexible strategist would keep their minds open in regards to their future, and they do not anticipate remaining in the host country. While they are career-focused, these students would have flexible post-study plan and plan that they may remaining in host country or returning to home country.

A surface strategist: positive anticipation, negative belonging, and rather low ability



In this typology, the international student adapts on the surface. The key motivation of anticipation is fear more than hope. They fear of not belonging, and of social rejection. An example is that international students used surface adaptation when they participate in disciplinary practices. Surface adaptation involves changes at the face value, which enable the students to gain access to their academic discipline and ensure good returns on their investment (Tran, 2011a) in the courses. Students who made surface adaptation disguised their beliefs (Arkoudis and Tran, 2007) and accommodate themselves to the changes required as a coping strategy only in order to engage in their academic community. In other words, they restrain their agency and feel an obligation in response to the requirements of the disciplinary practice. There is the conflict between the aspiration to communicate meaning in a way which accords with their values and the desire to be counted as a member of their academic discipline. Students may also display surface adaptation when they do not feel comfortable or positive about responding to what they think they are expected to write.

 

The student acts out of interest in and valuing of what is occurring; the focus is on rewards, gains, and approval; and the impersonal or a motivated orientation characterised by anxiety concerning competence. (Arkoudis and Tran, 2007)

A conservative student: negative anticipation, negative belonging, and rather low ability In this typology, the international student, due to their limited abilities, would display behaviours such as avoidance and withdrawal; they would also disengage and choose to socialise only with friends from their home country. The motivation is on the ‘fear’ side. The conservative international student fear that they may not be able to obtain the degree, and they also fear of social rejection.

  

Understanding adaptation motivation and behaviours

75

 

These students were still at the stage of maintaining and developing their own ethnic distinctiveness … the conservers, were […] students who did not substantially change their view of the world as a result of their experience. These were the students who were concerned to ensure that they did not lose their […] identity by adopting negative qualities that they observed in Australians. They were also the students who went to great lengths to protect their religious and cultural values. (Kiley, 2003)

­

The conservative international student would also not display any clear vision for their future. If viewed in the frame of social skills deficit, this typology of student could easily be labelled as inadequate, and they have trouble negotiating everyday cross-cultural encounters (Sadrossadat, 1995). However, under our perspective, at this stage, these international students have not gained their control over the new process and environment; therefore, their personal agency has not been fully realised. Implications and recommendations for policy and practice



­

­



­

This chapter provides both theoretical and practical insights into international students’ adaptation motivations and behaviours. The findings provide evidence of international students’ behaviours and motivations for adaptation as they undergo similar challenges throughout their education mobility, across different demographic and geographical contexts globally. Although international student-related research is often localised to a particular context, findings from this chapter prove that there are general lessons that can be drawn and transferred across borders, without the need to reinvent the wheel, in enhancing international students’ experience. Informed by the work of Tran (2011) and Kiley (2003) on international student adaptation and theories on human motivation and behaviours, we focused our discussion on four typologies of international students: the transformative student, the flexible strategist, the surface strategist and the conservative student. The findings have important implications for the development of suitable interventions that focus on teaching specific strategies for students to navigate different academic and social practices. Programs that are designed to respond to international students’ academic needs would greatly assist in the pre-departure stage so that students are not marginalised in the disciplinary community by their unawareness of the expected conventions and potential to exercise agency to engage in productive learning for themselves and other actors in the discourse community. Events and activities that attempt to develop a sense of belongingness and strengthen ties among international students and with co-nationals and locals will help provide valuable emotional and instrumental support. Most institutes for higher education provide several orientation activities and social support structures for new students in order to facilitate their

  

76 T. Hoang and L. T. Tran

 



­

academic and social integration. Based upon our findings, rather than focusing purely on social integration, we encourage institutes to specifically address measures that can enhance academic adjustment of international students and promote reciprocity in adaptation. In other words, international students and the host community share the responsibility to learn productively and mutually from the encounter of differences rather than responsibility for adaptation to differences was mainly expected from international students (Tran, 2013b). In order to provide effective support and optimise international students’ learning, it is important to not only understand the nature of international student adaptation but also challenge the structural conditions which require one-way adaptation merely from international students. Realising the importance of personal relevance with the education experience for encouraging and facilitating student adaptation is crucial as international students’ needs change over time, especially as it has been noted of modern students that:

 

They are interested in education; they are willing to learn; they are highly capable of learning; and they are ready to learn (if not impatiently so). But unlike any cohort of students before them, they clearly and confidently want to learn on their own terms. The pedagogy and technologies of the past are not engaging today’s students because these students are ‘miles ahead of us’ before we even begin. (Parsons and Taylor, 2011, p. 31)

­



 

 

The findings support the view that international students exercise personal agency in various ways, and it is essential to gain an understanding of the motivation behind their academic mobility including what they desire and expect to become or what they think pursuing an education abroad may hold for them in the future. Future research may examine certain behaviours that may be linked to which motivation in order to better align the support resources to engage international students and ensure high level of satisfaction. Studies that examine academic and support staff perspectives of international students have united in their observation that international students are very motivated and driven when it comes to their education (Tidwell and Hanassab, 2007; Nguyen, 2014; Pham, 2016). Building on the nuanced understanding of international student’s adaptation motivation and behaviour that we present in this chapter, further studies may examine broad-based strategies that address the adaptation of international students of different typologies and at different levels of sociocultural, sociolinguistic and intercultural abilities in academic and social contexts.

  

Understanding adaptation motivation and behaviours

77

References

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

 

­

 

 

­

­

­

­

 

Appleton, James J., Sandra L. Christenson, Dongjin Kim and Amy L. Reschly. 2006. ‘Measuring Cognitive and Psychological Engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument’. Journal of School Psychology 44 (5): 427–45. doi:10.1016/j. jsp. 2006.04.002. Arkoudis, Sophie and Ly Thi Tran. 2007. ‘International Students in Australia: Read Ten Thousand Volumes of Books and Walk Ten Thousand Miles’. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 27 (2): 157–69. doi:10.1080/02188790701378792. Astin, Alexander W. 1984. ‘Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education’. Journal of College Student Development 25: 297–308. Astin, Alexander W. 1993. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Berry, John W. 1994. Acculturation and psychological adaptation. In Anne-Marie Bouvy, Fons J.R. van de Vijver, Pawel Boski, and Paul Schmitz (Eds) Journeys into Cross-cultural Psychology (pp. 129–41). Oxford: Garland Science. Biggs, John, Patrick Lai, Catherine Tang and Ellen Lavelle. 1999. ‘Teaching Writing to ESL Graduate Students: A Model and an Illustration’. British Journal of Educational Psychology 69 (3): 293–306. doi:10.1348/000709999157725. Blackmore, Jill, Cate Gribble and Mark Rahimi. 2015. ‘International Education, the Formation of Capital and Graduate Employment: Chinese Accounting Graduates’ Experiences of the Australian Labour Market’. Critical Studies in Education 8487 (December): 1–20. doi:10.1080/17508487.2015.1117505. Bochner, S. 1994. ‘Cross-Cultural Differences in the Self Concept’. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 25 (2): 273–83. Campbell, Jacqui. 2006. ‘Cultural Adaptation : A Case Study of Asian Students Learning Experiences at a New Zealand’, November: 22–24. Cao, Ling and Ly Thi Tran. 2014. ‘Pathway from Vocational Education and Associate Degree to Higher Education: Chinese International Students in Australia’. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 8791 (April): 1–16. doi:10.1080/02188791.2014. 881318. Chen, Yung-Lung, Mi-Chi Liu, Tsu-Wei Tsai and Yueh-Hua Chen. 2015. ‘Religious Practices in Cross-Cultural Contexts: Indonesian Male Science Students’ Adjustment in Taiwan’. Journal of Counseling Psychology 62 (3): 464. doi:10.1037/ cou0000076. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. 2017. CASP Qualitative Research Checklist. Retrieved 3 October 2017, from www.casp-uk.net/%5Cnhttp://media.wix.com/ ugd/dded87_3b2bd5743feb4b1aaac6ebdd68771d3f.pdf%5Cnhttp://media.wix. com/ugd/dded87_e37a4ab637fe46a0869f9f977dacf134.pdf. Cuauhtemoc, Rebolledo and Joris Ranching. 2013. ‘Education Indicators In Focus’, OECD 2013, [Online]. 14: 1–4. Retrieved 3 October 2017, from www.oecd.org/ education/skills-beyond-school/EDIF%202013--N%C2%B014%20(eng)-Final.pdf. Curtin, Nicola, Abigail J. Stewart and Joan M. Ostrove. 2012. ‘Fostering Academic Self-Concept: Advisor Support and Sense of Belonging Among International and Domestic Graduate Students’. American Educational Research Journal 50 (1): 108–37. doi:10.3102/0002831212446662. Earl, Kerry and Yan Cong. 2011. ‘Chinese International Students’ Experience of Studying Online in New Zealand’. Waikato Journal of Education 16 (1): 93–105. http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/6141.

  

78 T. Hoang and L. T. Tran

­

 

­

­

­

­

 

Elsey, Barry 1990. Teaching and learning, In Magaret Kinnell (Ed.), The Learning Experiences of Overseas Students (pp. 57–69). Suffolk: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Fogg, B. J. 2008. Behavior Model – Motivation. Retrieved 3 October 2017, from www. behaviormodel.org/motivation.html. Fredricks, Jennifer A., Phyllis C. Blumenfeld and Alison H. Paris. 2004. ‘School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence’. Review of Educational Research 74 (1): 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059. Glass, Chris R., Edwin Gómez and Alfredo Urzua. 2014. ‘Recreation, Intercultural Friendship, and International Students’ Adaptation to College by Region of Origin’. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 42: 104–17. doi:10.1016/j. ijintrel.2014.05.007. Gomes, Catherine. 2014. ‘Negotiating Everyday Life in Australia: Unpacking the Parallel Society Inhabited by Asian International Students through Their Social Networks and Entertainment Media Use’. Journal of Youth Studies 18 (4): 515–36. d oi:10.1080/13676261.2014.992316. Gram, Malene, Kirsten Jæger, Junyang Liu, Li Qing and Xiangying Wu. 2013. ‘Chinese Students Making Sense of Problem-Based Learning and Western Teaching – Pitfalls and Coping Strategies’. Teaching in Higher Education (preprint): 18 (7): 1–12. doi:10.1080/13562517.2013.836096. Green, Bart N., Claire D. Johnson and Alan Adams. 2006. ‘Writing Narrative Literature Reviews for Peer-Reviewed Journals: Secrets of the Trade’. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 5 (3): 101–17. doi:10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6. Hendrickson, Blake, Devan Rosen and R. Kelly Aune. 2011. ‘An Analysis of Friendship Networks, Social Connectedness, Homesickness, and Satisfaction Levels of International Students’. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (3): 281–95. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.08.001. Hirai, Reiko, Patricia Frazier and Moin Syed. 2015. ‘Psychological and Sociocultural Adjustment of First-Year International Students: Trajectories and Predictors’. Journal of Counseling Psychology 62 (3): 438–52. doi:10.1037/cou0000085. Kiley, Margaret. 2003. ‘Conserver, Strategist or Transformer: The Experiences of Postgraduate Student Sojourners’. Teaching in Higher Education 8 (3): 345–56. doi:10 .1080/1356251032000088565. King, Russell, Allan Findlay and Jill Ahrens. 2010. ‘International Student Mobility Literature Review’. Higher Education Funding Council for England, November. Retrieved 3 October 2017, from www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/Year/2010/ studmoblitreview/Title,92244,en.htm. Kleinginna, Paul R. and Anne M. Kleinginna. 1981. ‘A Categorized List of Emotion Definitions, with Suggestions for a Consensual Definition’. Motivation and Emotion 5 (4): 345–79. doi:10.1007/BF00992553. Kull, Ann. 2016. ‘Going Far or Staying Close? Transnational Mobility among Southeast Asian Students in Islamic Studies’. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia 4 (1): 109–29. doi:10.1017/trn.2015.15. Lacina, J. G. 2002. ‘Preparing International Students for a Successful Social Experience in Higher Education’. New Directions for Higher Education 17 (1): 21–7. Le, Huong, Fung Kuen Koo, Rodney Arambewela and Ambika Zutshi. 2017. ‘Voices of Dissent: Unpacking Vietnamese International Student Experience’. International Journal of Educational Management 31 (3): 280–92, doi: 10.1108/IJEM-072015-0099.

  

Understanding adaptation motivation and behaviours

79

­

­

 

­

­

­

­

 

­

 

­

 

­

Li, Wei and Hua Zhu. 2013. ‘Translanguaging Identities and Ideologies: Creating Transnational Space through Flexible Multilingual Practices amongst Chinese University Students in the UK’. Applied Linguistics 34 (5): 516–35. doi:10.1093/ applin/amt022. Malau-Aduli, Bunmi S. 2011. ‘Exploring the Experiences and Coping Strategies of International Medical Students’. BMC Medical Education 11 (40): 1. doi:10.1186/ 1472-6920-11-40. Marginson, Simon. 2010. International Student Security: Globalization, State, University. Keynote address to the World Universities Forum, Davos, 9–11 January 2010. Marginson, Simon and Erlenawati Sawir. 2011. Ideas for Intercultural Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mays, Nicholas, Catherine Pope and Jennie Popay. 2005. ‘Systematically Reviewing Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence to Inform Management and Policy-Making in the Health Field’. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 10 Suppl. 1 (July): 6–20. doi:10.1258/1355819054308576. McLean, Patricia and Laurie Ransom. 2005. Building intercultural competencies: implications for academic skills development. In Jude Carroll and Janette Ryan (Eds), Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All (pp. 45–62). Oxford: Routledge. Neri, Frank and Simon Ville. 2008. ‘Social Capital Renewal and the Academic Performance of International Students in Australia’. The Journal of Socio-Economics 37 (4): 1515–38. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2007.03.010. Nguyen, Huynh Mai. 2014. ‘Faculty Advisor’s Experiences Working with International Graduate Students’. Master’s Thesis, The University of Texas at San Antonio, Texas 3 (2): 102–16. OECD (2017), Indicator C4 what is the profile of internationally mobile students?, In Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators (pp. 286–303). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved 3 October 2017, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-26-en. Parsons, Jim and Leah Taylor. 2011. Student Engagement: What Do We Know and What Should We Do? Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta. Perry, William G. and Harvard University Bureau of Study Counsel. 1970. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pham, Lien and Ly Tran. 2015. ‘Understanding the Symbolic Capital of Intercultural Interactions: A Case Study of International Students in Australia’. International Studies in Sociology of Education 25 (3): 204–24. doi:10.1080/09620214.2015. 1069720. Prat-Sala, Merce and Paul Redford. 2010. ‘The Interplay between Motivation, SelfEfficacy, and Approaches to Studying’. British Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (2): 283–305. doi:10.1348/000709909X480563. Rui, Jian Raymond and Hua Wang. 2015. ‘Social Network Sites and International Students’ Cross-Cultural Adaptation’. Computers in Human Behavior 49: 400–11. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.041. Sa, Jaesin, Dae-C. Seo, T. F. Nelson, David K. Lohrmann and N. T. Ellis. 2014. ‘Psycho-Social and Cultural Adjustment among International Students at the University of Wollongong’. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Graduate School of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Wollongong, 1995. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1881/.

  

80 T. Hoang and L. T. Tran

 

 

 

 

 

­

 

 

 

­

­

­

­

Sadrossadat, Seyed Jalal. 1995. ‘Psycho-Social and Cultural Adjustment among International Students at the University of Wollongong’. http://ro.uow.edu.au/ theses/1881/. Salmon, Phillida. 1992. Achieving a PhD – Ten Students’ Experiences. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Schulte, Sheila and Rahul Choudaha. 2014. ‘Improving the Experiences of International Students’. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 46 (6): 52–8. doi:10.10 80/00091383.2014.969184. Shao, Yinjuan and Charles Crook. 2015. ‘The Potential of a Mobile Group Blog to Support Cultural Learning Among Overseas Students’. Journal of Studies in International Education 19 (5): 339–442. doi:10.1177/1028315315574101. Sobré-Denton, Miriam. 2011. ‘The Emergence of Cosmopolitan Group Cultures and Its Implications for Cultural Transition: A Case Study of an International Student Support Group’. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (1): 79–91. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.007. Tidwell, Romeria and Shideh Hanassab. 2007. ‘New Challenges for Professional Counsellors: The Higher Education International Student Population’. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 20 (December): 313–24. doi:10.1080/09515070701573927. Tran, Ly Thi. 2011a. ‘Committed, Face-Value, Hybrid or Mutual Adaptation? The Experiences of International Students in Australian Higher Education’. Educational Review 63 (1): 79–94. doi:10.1080/00131911.2010.510905. Tran, Ly Thi. 2011b. ‘International Vocational Education and Training-the Migration and Learning Mix’. Australian Journal of Adult Learning 51 (1): 8–31. Tran, Ly Thi. 2013a. Teaching international students in vocational education and training: New pedagogical approaches. Camberwell: ACER Press. Tran, Ly Thi. 2013b. International student adaptation to academic writing in higher education. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Tran, Ly Thi. 2015. ‘Mobility as ‘Becoming’: A Bourdieuian Analysis of the Factors Shaping International Student Mobility’. British Journal of Sociology of Education 5692 ( June): 1–22. doi:10.1080/01425692.2015.1044070. Tran, Ly Thi. 2016. Students’ academic, intercultural and personal development in globalised education mobility. In C. H. Ng. Fox, B. and Nakano, M. (Eds), Reforming learning and teaching in Asia-Pacific universities: Influences of globalised processes in Japan, Hong Kong and Australia (pp. 95–113). Dordrecht: Springer. Tran, Ly Thi and Lien Pham. 2016, International Students as Intercultural Agents: Engagement with Domestic Students, Institutions and the Wider Community. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 46 (4): 560–81. Tran, Ly Thi and Thao Thi Vu. 2016. ‘I’m Not Like That, Why Treat Me the Same Way? The Impact of Stereotyping International Students on Their Learning, Employability and Connectedness with the Workplace’. The Australian Educational Researcher 43 (2): 203–20. Volet, Simone and Cheryl Jones. 2012. Cultural transitions in higher education: Individual adaptation, transformation and engagement. In Stuart A. Karabenick and Timothy C. Urdan (Eds), Transitions across schools and cultures (advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 17 (pp. 241–84). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Volet, Simone, Cheryl Jones and Cultural Transitions. 2015. Article Information : Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Vol. 17. Emerald Group. doi:10.1108/ S0749-7423(2012)0000017012.

  

Understanding adaptation motivation and behaviours

81

­

­

­

Wang, Chia-Chih D. C. and Brent Mallinckrodt. 2006. ‘Acculturation, Attachment, and Psychosocial Adjustment of Chinese/Taiwanese International Students’. Journal of Counseling Psychology 53 (4): 422–33. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.422. Yang, Ruby Pi-Ju and Kimberly A Noels. 2013. ‘The Possible Selves of International Students and Their Cross-Cultural Adjustment in Canada’. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de Psychologie 48 (3): 316–23. doi:10.1080/00207594 .2012.660161. Yeh, Christine J. and Mayuko Inose. 2003. ‘International Students’ Reported English Fluency, Social Support Satisfaction, and Social Connectedness as Predictors of Acculturative Stress’. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 16 (1): 15–28. doi:10.1080/09 51507031000114058.

 

Part II

The experiences of international students and institutions in negotiating academic and social tensions

Rethinking the value of international student mobility1



5

 

 

A case study of the experience of Myanmar University students in Hong Kong  

 

 

 

 

 

Felix Sai Kit Ng and William Yat Wai Lo Introduction

­

 

­



­

­

­

­

­

­

International student mobility is increasing globally. Universities have responded to globalization by recruiting more international students to internationalize higher education and to generate the revenue for host institutions and countries. In this connection, Hong Kong has implemented an internationalization strategy, through which the number of non-local students has significantly increased in the last decade, to fulfill its desire to become a regional education hub. The internationalization policy seems to have been successful in converting a local-oriented, self-contained system into an education hub for recruiting non-local students. In this context, several studies have focused on the factors that influence non-local students to choose Hong Kong as their study destination (Bodycott & Lai, 2012; Li, 2011; Li & Bray, 2007; Ng, 2011; Zeng & Watkins, 2011). Many of these studies view increasing the number of non-local students as a policy response to the challenges of global talent competition and the emergence of a global higher education market. Thus, the notion of developing Hong Kong into a regional education hub is used instrumentally in the examination of the role of non-local students (Cheung, Yuen, Yuen, & Cheng, 2010, 2011; Lai & Maclean, 2011). This instrumentalist approach is useful in revealing the connection between higher education and economic growth and development: a neoliberal landscape of higher education. However, we believe that this is inadequate for addressing the normative dimension of cosmopolitanism, mainly its valuesbased approach to higher education internationalization (Stier, 2004, 2010), in the discussion of the rationales for recruiting international students. Specifically, the neoliberal view overlooks the importance of the idea of higher education as a human right in mitigating global inequity and injustice that results from neoliberal policy. Therefore, this study aims to examine the relevance of the concept of higher education as a right to understand global interconnectedness by considering the experience of students from Myanmar in Hong Kong. It identifies factors that help and obstruct this

  

86 F. S. K. Ng and W. Y. W. Lo

­

­



under represented group in pursuit of higher education in Hong Kong. It also rethinks the extent to which the current approach to the internationalization process is related to the notion of higher education as a transnational right. This chapter initially illustrates Hong Kong’s policy initiatives in recruiting more international students and their rationales. It then elaborates the current approach to researching international student mobility and the cosmopolitan alternative adopted in this study. This study employs a qualitative case study approach, explained in the method section. After reporting pull-push factors on three levels and their linkages, the chapter discusses the current approach to international student mobility. It argues that the approach has omitted the relevance of the human right to higher education in a global context. Given that there is no way back to a self-contained system, the chapter concludes by arguing for a global domestic political agenda that engages a cosmopolitan vision to conceptualize international student mobility.

 

Policy initiatives for student inflow in Hong Kong

­

­

­

­

­

­



 

­

­

In 2004, the Hong Kong government announced the policy of developing Hong Kong as a regional education hub. Its primary aim was to recruit more non-local students for the internationalization of higher education (Tung, 2004). However, according to the University Grants Committee (UGC), developing Hong Kong into an education hub is “a policy of investment in the competitive knowledge economy by providing educational services to a population that is non-local with a strong emphasis on inward pull” (UGC, 2010, p. 54). This statement shows that the policy served the mission of driving forward economic and social development for the betterment of Hong Kong; it was used to generate local revenue from outside and to attract overseas talent (Knight, 2013). During the economic recession of the late 1990s and early 2000s, the idea of building an education hub emerged in Hong Kong. The idea was seen as a way to provide a new force for economic growth. Education was considered an industry to be exported to satisfy the growing demand for education in neighboring countries. Following the 2008 global financial crisis, the idea of exporting education services was consolidated. In 2009 the government acknowledged educational services as one of the six new economic engines that could complement the traditional economic pillars (Tsang, 2009). Since the government expressed an intention to expand the tertiary education sector by recruiting non-local students, a rise in the number of non-local students has been recorded (UGC, 2004). In 2010, the UGC doubled the allowed proportion of non-local students to 20 percent in the publicly funded programs of its institutions (UGC, 2010). The government concurrently relaxed the regulations on immigration and employment and increased scholarship opportunities to attract more non-local students. Specifically, the revised regulations allow non-local students to take part-time jobs and internships during their study period and to stay and work after the completion of

87

  

The value of international student mobility

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

their degrees. The government, through the establishment of the HKD1 billion HKSAR Government Scholarship Fund in 2008, also offers new scholarship opportunities to attract non-local students. Targeted scholarship schemes were also established for non-local students from member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, India and South Korea, starting from the 2012/2013 academic year (Education Bureau, 2016). Consequently, the ratio of non-local enrolments in UGC-funded programs has significantly increased from 2.86 percent to 15.33 percent between 2001 and 2013. The total enrolments of non-local students reached 14,510 in the 2013/2014 academic year (UGC, 2017). However, when looking into the statistics of origin of international students, the majority of these students came from the Chinese mainland. According to the UGC (2017), 78.39 percent of non-local enrolments in the 2013/2014 academic year was from mainland China. It reveals that though more non-local students have been recruited, the government could not diversify the source of origins. The local government seems reliant heavily on a national strategy of building an education hub.

From neoliberal human capital approach to cosmopolitan conceptualization

­



­

­

The current approach to student mobility implies an economic imperative that can be illustrated by two interrelated discourses. First, neoliberal ideology and practices, which have widely spread around the world, have framed the global agenda for higher education internationalization. In this regard, local higher education is viewed as a tradable service, a private good in a globally competitive market (Albach & Knight, 2007; Tilak, 2008). International student mobility is perceived as a profitable opportunity that can be used to generate revenue from tuition fees, particularly from the pockets of outsiders. It is more important to explore ways to boost revenue for local development than to emphasize whether the system includes diverse students, or whether the system can provide an equal system for different students. Owing to the attractiveness of this profitable opportunity, many regions and countries have therefore attempted to participate in the international trade in education services (OECD, 2004), and to increase the tuition fees imposed on non-local students. This mindset of revenue generation through participation in the global higher education market appears in Hong Kong’s policy documents. Additionally, under the principle of “One Country, Two System,” the close relationship with mainland China is seen as a positional advantage that can attract more non-local students, and become a useful strategy to generate income. Second, policymakers tend to view recruiting international students instrumentally, as a way to develop human capital, rather than to show their appreciation of neoliberal theory. In a knowledge-based economy an important function of higher education is to cultivate human resources as well as to

  

88 F. S. K. Ng and W. Y. W. Lo

­

­



 

 

fi

innovate and apply new technologies in economic activities (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). This explains why “talent competition” and “brain drain and gain” are keywords in the illustration of a human capital approach to the internationalization of higher education and the education hub strategy. The idea can be applied to explain the strategy of attracting talent in Hong Kong. As the UGC notes, “A vibrant research environment is essential to attract talents to Hong Kong … all talented people are attracted by the presence of other talented people in the same and related elds” (UGC, 2010, p. 89). This statement indicates an awareness of the connection between the idea of an education hub and human capital development. Geographical proximity to the Chinese mainland again is an advantage for attracting talent that shares a similar background. Importantly, the government does not need to invest much for human capital development along with the neoliberal mechanism of higher education as one’s life plan. International student mobility therefore shows the pivotal role higher education plays in economic and national development in the globalization era. This implies an ontology of global connectivity in enhancing economic competitiveness by using the container of the nation-state (Chow & Loo, 2015). This conceptual approach has however overlooked the importance of a normative conceptualization of higher education internationalization, and is inadequate in addressing the educational mission of internationalization (Ng, 2012). More specifically, it undermines the role of higher education as a human right (Burke, 2012; Hodgson, 1998; McCowan, 2013) in the discussion of ideological rationales for internationalization with a cosmopolitan vision (Lo & Ng, 2013, 2015). To demonstrate a critical approach to, and an alternative dimension of international student mobility, this study takes into account the values of cosmopolitanism. In researching internationalization of higher education, cosmopolitanism is adopted as an alternative frame of reference, which unveils the failure of functioning institutions based on the national frame and opens up a horizon of humanity. This cosmopolitan vision guides us to treat international student mobility to a post-national concept and to call for “a global domestic political agenda” in higher education policy (Beck, 2013). Thus, we look into a group of Myanmar university students studying in Hong Kong with the assistance of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government Scholarship Fund and other international education aids. With the sociopolitical turmoil and changes in Myanmar in recent decades, we believe that their encounter with risk must be significantly different from the “luxury risk” by using the neoliberal approach (Caruana, 2014). This study intends to understand the status and experience of this underrepresented group by analyzing the push and pull factors in their pursuit and navigation through higher education in Hong Kong. Thus, international student mobility can be studied, understood and illustrated on the basis of the human right to higher education in a global context.

  

The value of international student mobility

89

Research methodology

­

­



­

­

­

­

­

Based on a theoretical approach to student minorities in Hong Kong, this study looks at students from Myanmar (also known as Burma) with the financial support of international education aids. We began the study with a review of the literature on Myanmar’s higher education system and the circumstances of surrounding migrant and refugee students from the Thai-Myanmar border region. Fourteen semi-structured interviews were subsequently conducted in 2013. Chain-referral sampling was employed to recruit respondents, as this group of students was relatively small and scattered over different universities and programs. It is more effective to reach this part of the non-local student population via the assistance of an insider. Each respondent was invited to a one-on-one, face-to-face semi-structured interview. The interviews, which lasted about 60–90 minutes, concentrated on the factors influencing respondents’ decisions to study in Hong Kong and their study experience in both home and host countries. Though a standardized interview protocol was used to ensure conformity and comprehensiveness across interviews, respondents were allowed to stray from the interview guide and further explain their unique circumstances. The interviews were conducted in English because, on top of the consideration of convenience, the language was used as the medium of instruction at the respondents’ universities. In other words, the respondents used English educationally and socially on campus. Thus, the use of English as the medium of interview allowed the respondents to express themselves independently. As shown in Table 5.1, the 14 respondents are from ethnically diverse backgrounds. Some have refugee and forced migrant backgrounds. In other words, their families have fled the country because of political persecution  

Table 5.1 Background information of the 14 respondents Name*

Gender

Ethnicity

Age

Field of study

Level of study

Susan Philip Chloe Heidi Sally Louie Lynn Dolly Zac Helen Alan Yang Sandy Mike

Female Male Female Female Female Male Male Female Male Female Male Male Female Male

Burman Kachin Burman Kachin Kachin Karen/Rakhine Burman Kachin Shan Rakhine Kachin Chinese Shan N.A.

17 28 21 N.A. 35 22 24 28 27 21 23 23 24 24

Social sciences Social sciences Social sciences Education Social sciences Social sciences Social sciences Social sciences Social sciences Finance Humanity Engineering Social sciences Finance

Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Postgraduate Postgraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate



Note * Respondents’ reported names are pseudonyms.

  

90 F. S. K. Ng and W. Y. W. Lo

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

and economic hardship and have settled in the Thai-Myanmar border region or Thailand. It is also noteworthy that most were doing their bachelor’s degrees and studying subjects in the humanities and social sciences. A priori coding was employed in the analytic process. The interview data were sorted for themes, by applying a pre-existing framework. The sorting scheme was developed based on the analytic framework developed by Buchmann and Hannum’s (2001) study of education and social stratification in developing countries. This framework illustrates that the provision of educational opportunities for students in developing countries is a consequence of the dynamic interrelationship between various factors at different levels, rather than merely aims at satisfying a personal choice. Education outcomes are influenced by multiple factors including macro-societal forces, school factors, community factors, and family factors. Similarly, education decisions are made based on multilevel factors. To illustrate such a multidimensional decision-making, we adopted this analytic framework to demonstrate the effects of multilevel factors on educational opportunities. Guided by the framework, three broad themes, namely, sociopolitical factors, community-school factors, and familyindividual factors, were used to develop the categorization of the interview data and to make sense of it.

Determinants of student outflow from Myanmar Level 1: sociopolitical factors

 



The sociopolitical context and development of Myanmar are essential for understanding the decisions to study abroad by the students of the country. Two political issues are of particular importance to illustrate the recent political developments in the country. First, Myanmar has been undergoing a series of political and democratic reforms since former President Thein Sein came into office in 2011 (Steinberg, 2013). After a long period of military dictatorship, Myanmar has experienced a more relaxed political atmosphere. The government released opposition political leaders such as Aung San Suu Kyi. The National League for Democracy (NLD) even won the 2015 General Election serving as the governing party. This suggests that the country is slowly transitioning from military dictatorship, although queries have been made about the sustainability of the political reforms (Rogers, 2012). Second, ethnic conflicts exist in the country. Indeed, Myanmar is one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world. Some 130 ethnic groups have their languages and dialects (Topich & Leitich, 2013). According to online statistical data (CIA, 2013), Burmans account for 68 percent of the population. The second largest ethnical group is Shan (9 percent), followed by Karen (7 percent), Rakhine (4 percent), Chinese (3 percent), Indian (2 percent), Mon (2 percent), and others (5 percent). According to this demographic profile, the Burman majority in different domains dominates

  

The value of international student mobility

91



­

­



Myanmar, in different ways, and to different extents. Other ethnicities see Burmanization as another form of political hegemony. Moreover, conflicts exist between the central government and the ethnic minorities in the country. Former President Thein Sein has attempted to reduce the tensions among ethnic groups by inviting dissidents to return to the country (Steinberg, 2013). However, the recent issue of ethnic cleansing of the Muslim Rohingya minority in Rakhine state reveals that the NLD government has yet to obtain the full cooperation with the army to contain the ethnic violence. Ethnic hostility remains a hot issue in Myanmar because it explains the recent political tensions and associated social problems. These political developments provide a useful contextual lens in viewing the interview data. Several respondents noted that their ethnic minority identities affected their educational choices. Philip preferred to study a diploma programmerun by Kachin, which was not recognized by the authorities, rather than studying in the formal schooling system. Zac noted that as a Shan, he felt uncomfortable studying in Burmese and accepting the official history of Myanmar. Alan, a Kachin, also felt unhappy with the policy of the medium of instruction. For him, teaching in Burmese is considered a form of oppression. The most typical case can be highlighted by the story from Susan, a Burman. She attended two years of secondary school in Myanmar. However, since her father participated in the anti-government protests in 2007, her family fled to the Thai-Myanmar border region. This family background affected her study. “I tried to attend a school in the refugee camp, but was unable to continue my study in schools in Thailand,” she expressed. Because of her ethnical background, she decided to quit because she had safety concerns attending the school run by Karen, a minority group in conflict with the Myanmar government dominated by Burmans. Consequently, she stayed in the referee camp for two years without formal education and decided to study for General Educational Development tests and to apply for scholarships to study abroad. Her experience reflects the way that political issues and tensions between ethnic groups restrict the educational opportunities in local communities and encourage students to pursue education outside their home country. These reasons somehow explain their decision to leave the country for better education. Furthermore, pursuing better education was the main reason for their decision to study abroad, indicated by most of the respondents, but the education quality issues in Myanmar are likely relevant to the political contexts. As Dolly remarks:

 

Because of political reasons, universities were closed when I graduated from high school. I was able to go to Pan Kachin College for a diploma only. Two years later, I was enrolled in a public university. However, I quit before completing the first year because I was not happy with the quality of education in Burma. Then, I went to Thailand and worked in an NGO.

  

92 F. S. K. Ng and W. Y. W. Lo



 

­

The political events in Myanmar are evidently connected to higher education development. All universities were closed for two years after the student protests in 1988. The student strikes in 1996 and 1998 resulted in a further threeyear closure. Due to the active participation of students in political activities, many universities initially located in Yangon were sanctioned and relocated to other parts of the country, and undergraduate programs were taught on campuses far from the urban center. These steps were taken as measures to keep students away from politics (Lall, 2008). Also, the Myanmar government exercises strict controls over the university sector to impose its political ideology. Universities were under centralized control and had limited autonomy (Lwin, 2006, 2010). Lwin (2012, p. 8) therefore argues that “the structure of a university has all the appearance of an army with the rector looking like an army general commanding colonels, majors and captains.” Our interview data also reflects such situations. For example, Chloe earned a bachelor’s degree in English in Myanmar. However, she expressed hesitation about the quality of the qualification because the attendance requirement was loose and most of the courses employed distance learning. Her understanding of such an arrangement was due to the government’s restrictions on university operations. Yang completed his bachelor’s degree in electronics engineering in Myanmar. He shared his observations on the relationship between political issues and the quality of higher education: The differences in the course contents between Myanmar and Hong Kong are minor. However, the levels of university are different; that in Myanmar is lower. I would not blame my professors because this is related to the political environment in the country, in which the government intended to downgrade universities to colleges after the 1988 protests. Heidi also earned a bachelor’s degree in English language arts and agreed with Chloe’s evaluation of Myanmar’s higher education system. “Corruption existed in the university sector that people could buy qualifications and some teachers were not highly qualified,” she added. This evaluation was reinforced by Sally and Dolly, who spent a year studying in universities in Myanmar and decided to quit because of their dissatisfaction with the quality of education. In summary, the majority of the respondents consider political issues and their effects on higher education in Myanmar as a significant influence on their decision to study abroad. In this context, the relatively stable and secure environment of Hong Kong becomes a pull factor, though Hong Kong’s higher education system is not perceived as exceptional.

­

Level 2: community-school factors ­

Community-school factors are considered as the availability of resources at the community and institutional levels, teaching and learning culture, and

93

  

The value of international student mobility

­



 

employment opportunities and career prospects in Myanmar. Since the democratic reforms, former President Thein Sein has addressed the need for improvement in public education in his inaugural address (Steinberg, 2013) and ordered to prioritize quality enhancement in higher education (Department of Higher Education, 2014), educational resources have been scarce in Myanmar. However, according to the data of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, the public expenditure on education accounted for 0.8 percent of the GDP of the country, out of which approximately 15 percent was spent on higher education, compared with 56 percent on primary education and 29 percent on secondary education in 2011 (UNESCO UIS, 2014). Despite the physical renovation of universities such as Yangon University, the higher education reform has been deemed as “decorative, inadequate and somewhat superficial” and also fails to initiate ideological reconstruction (Esson & Wang, 2016, p. 11). In Myanmar, all higher education institutions are publicly funded (Department of Higher Education, 2014). Every institution adopts a Soviet-type model, under the authority of a central ministry. As shown in Table 5.2, individual ministries are responsible for monitoring the corresponding higher education institutions. Also, educational resources are unevenly allocated among the ministries. Higher education institutions under the Ministry of Education receive a limited budget, whereas those under the Ministries of Defense and Agriculture are better funded, better staffed, and better equipped (Tin, 2008). Although political factors are identified as a significant influence, the lack of resources is considered as another major cause of the quality issues in higher education in Myanmar. It leads to the concerns, which have been reported in the previous section, and encourages students to seek overseas educational opportunities. Such an analysis is confirmed by Heidi’s assessment  

Table 5.2 Number of higher education institutions by the jurisdiction of the central ministries (2011–2012) Ministry

Number of higher education institutions

Education Science and Technology Health Co-operatives Defense Border Affairs Culture Transport Agriculture and Irrigation Environmental Conservation and Forestry Livestock Breeding and Fisheries Religious Affairs Union Civil Service Board

66 61 15 5 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Source: Department of Higher Education (2014).

  

94 F. S. K. Ng and W. Y. W. Lo

­

­



 

of higher education in Hong Kong. She said, “I like Hong Kong’s education very much. The facilities and equipment are great here.” Teaching and learning culture is also related to issues of quality within higher education. Our respondents indicated a notable difference between the teaching and learning culture in Hong Kong and that in Myanmar. The view that Hong Kong has a more student-centered learning culture whereas Myanmar retains the traditional teacher-centered model of teaching was widely shared among the respondents. The style of instruction in Myanmar, as Tin (2008) explained, is connected to the religious context in which schools are established in a hierarchical structure; the commands of superiors are not to be questioned or challenged. In particular, the pedagogy reveals this conservative atmosphere. Our respondents reported that teachers in Myanmar emphasize the memorization of facts and give tests to measure the memory of the students. Chloe’s comment indicates this pedagogical conservatism:

­

I found that Burmese education was deeply set in the traditional instruction and passive learning style. Students were passive in learning and professors were close-minded. The mere goal was to pass the examinations. Compared with their past experiences, the teaching style in Hong Kong connects them to critical thinking and analytical skills. As Philip remarked: I like the teaching style in Hong Kong, which encourages students to think independently. It is quite different to the way I experienced in Burma, which emphasizes memory training.



Zac compares his learning experience in Thailand, the Philippines, and Hong Kong, and thinks that Hong Kong’s education is the best among those of the three countries because it encourages students to think independently. Zac’s experience also reveals the relevance of career prospects in his decision to study abroad. He had worked as an illegal migrant worker in Thailand and Malaysia, but he was disappointed with the working conditions. Subsequently, he decided to look for educational opportunities. He first returned to Myanmar, learned English, and then went to the Philippines and Hong Kong for higher education. Sally also faced difficulty in finding employment opportunities in Myanmar. She earned a medical degree from a public university, but could not find a job in the medical field and had to work in NGOs providing community services. Largely, our respondents confirmed that their decision to study abroad was linked to the lack of career prospects in Myanmar. This illustration of career prospects is different to that revealed in the literature, which focuses on how foreign credentials and overseas experience can help students to increase their competitive advantage in both domestic and international labor market and to accumulate and convert various different types of capital (Bodycott, 2009; Waters & Brooks, 2010; Xiang & Shen, 2009). In short, our interview data suggests that the pursuit of

  

The value of international student mobility

95

better education is an important motivating factor for studying abroad among our respondents. This finding is different to the report in Perkins and Neumayer’s study (2012), which has indicated that university quality is not significant in shaping international student mobility.

­

Level 3: family-individual factors

 



 



­

­

Existing literature suggests that decisions to study abroad are connected to plans for post-graduation settlement (Robertson, 2011) and social ties to others in foreign countries (Collins, 2008), but these two influential factors are not shown to be highly relevant in our interview data. Among the 14 respondents, only Mike said that he had ties across borders and wanted to study abroad because his sister worked in Singapore. His top destination choice was Singapore rather than Hong Kong, and he hoped to work in Singapore after graduation. The rest tended to return to Myanmar in the long term, although seven were interested in pursuing further studies in Englishspeaking countries, and one respondent wanted to work in Hong Kong for several years after graduation. The commitment of the informants to the development of Myanmar is an interesting aspect of our finding. For example, Sandy has a forced migrant background. Around 20 years ago, the military government exiled her father who was a politician. Sandy was then adopted by her relatives and stayed in Myanmar. After completing high school, she moved to Thailand and was reunited with her family. She was completing her bachelor’s degree and would study in the US for her master’s degree. Although her family members hesitated to move back to their home country, she was personally keen to return to Myanmar. Having a similar family background with Sandy, Louie’s father was a political prisoner. With this background, Louie was brought to Thailand, where he lived and studied for around five years. His father’s influence was a key factor affecting his choice of studying public policy. Although he had planned to seek a master’s degree abroad, he was keen on returning to Myanmar and pursuing a political career there. “I want to become a member of parliament,” he said. Many respondents indicated that the subjects they were studying were not their top choices because their choices somehow were tied to their scholarship opportunities. However, they studied hard and were eager to link their study to their career development plans. As Susan put it, “I hope I can become a social worker and work in Kachin, because there are many refugees. I would like to help these refugees in the region, even though I have never been there.” Sally also said: I will return to Myanmar after graduation. I would rejoin the agency (which is in Kachin) in which I was working. I am a member of Kachin Peace Network. I hope I will be able to contribute to peace and stability in Kachin.

  

96 F. S. K. Ng and W. Y. W. Lo

­

­

Several other respondents also shared similar life goals and hoped to devote themselves to the development of Myanmar or their communities based on what they studied in Hong Kong. The significance of this part of the data urges us to rethink the emphasis on studying abroad as a capital-enhancing opportunity (Xiang & Shen, 2009). We argue that this account of international student mobility accentuates the market setting of education provision, in which higher education is primarily seen as one’s life plan, private consumption in a global market. The personal visions of the respondents exemplify the non-economic considerations in the decision to study abroad, implying a sociopolitical dimension of international student mobility and the transnational value of higher education internationalization. Associations of the determinants

 

­



­

­

­

The interview data suggests that the macro-structural forces (i.e., the sociopolitical factors) play a major role in shaping factors at both meso (e.g., education quality) and micro (e.g., personal vision) levels. Indeed, education is commonly used as an ideological control by governments in many nondemocratic countries. The quality of education, as already discussed, is closely connected to government policy. In this sense, the quality issues in higher education and the individuals’ life-course aspirations reported in this study are political in essence. Therefore, an economic perspective should not overshadow the political aspect of international student mobility in discussing the nature of international student mobility. Furthermore, the data in this study suggests that the push factors in Myanmar are stronger than the pull factors in Hong Kong. For instance, democracy is identified as a relevant variable in the analysis of the decision to study abroad (Perkins & Neumayer, 2012). However, the respondents in the present study were not pulled by the presence of a higher democracy level in Hong Kong but were mainly pushed by the lack of democracy in Myanmar. Indeed, three respondents noted that Hong Kong was not their top choice, and six out of the seven respondents who indicated the interest to seek postgraduate study after completing their undergraduate study preferred going to other English-speaking countries rather than staying in Hong Kong. This preference reveals that Hong Kong is not very attractive in their view. Importantly, many of the respondents can study in Hong Kong because of the financial support of the Hong Kong Government Scholarship. They were not attracted by the success of Hong Kong universities as a market but by the human right approach to and the educational perceptive of higher education internationalization. These issues constitute a fundamental question about the relevance of providing the scholarship to this group of students to the policy goals of promoting the higher education industry in Hong Kong and of bringing the city to the global competition for talent, which are embedded in the internationalization agenda for higher education in Hong Kong.

  

The value of international student mobility

97 ­

­



Thus, we believe that we need to shift our views from a human capitalbased perspective to a cosmopolitan right-based conceptualization to the internationalization of higher education. Specifically, we argue that the instrumentalist approaches used by the Hong Kong government in its policy on the internationalization of higher education is inadequate in developing a transnational perspective, in understanding the educational value of international student mobility and in rationalizing its recruitment of international students (Lo, 2015).

 

What university do we want?

­

­



 

As captioned in the previous section, an instrumentalist approach to the internationalization of higher education focuses on the economic utility of international student mobility but is inadequate in rationalizing a policy that helps the international mobility of the respondents who have disadvantaged backgrounds. At the same time, since Hong Kong’s higher education system has been developed as an industry in a global market, from which it can recruit only those who can afford this “luxury risk.” However, an ontological question of higher education must be answered. Specifically, what university do we want (Beck, 2013)? Three programmatic options can be identified for the future development of higher education in Hong Kong. The first option refers to maintaining the status quo of the neoliberal human capital approach to international student mobility. The local higher education system relies on the market logic and needs to been remodeled as to an industry in a global market with an increase of tuition fees. Under this influence of neoliberalism, the purpose of recruiting international students is defined as a way of stimulating economic growth and development (e.g., generating local income and competing for talent). Only a few (international) students can obtain the financial support to pursue higher education in Hong Kong. This neoliberal project leads to anti-education education reforms; it undermines the educational value of international student mobility and widens social and global inequalities, accelerates the return of Social Darwinism in a global context (Beck, 2013). Paradoxically, the policy for recruiting international students was even perceived as a “national” project in Hong Kong. Without the support of public funding, local universities have increased the level of tuition fees particularly to nonlocal students for higher education expansion (Lo & Ng, 2013). Since not many international students can afford the increased tuition fees and are interested in pursuing higher education in Hong Kong, this higher education market has to rely heavily on the positional and national advantages with students from the Chinese mainland. This perspective limits our vision to the dichotomies of the local against the global and our nation against their nations. Thus, this neoliberal policy and its influences on education ideology impose a constraint on our understanding of the nature of international student mobility.

  

98 F. S. K. Ng and W. Y. W. Lo

 

­

 

 

­

­

 

 



­

­

­

­



The second programmatic option sees higher education as a self-contained system surrounded with wall and border. As the first enlightenment of higher education, this approach worked well in the past, but this local model of higher education is in ruins under the processes of regionalization and globalization. Its proponents tend to advocate the right to higher education for “local people,” and to overlook the transnational mobility of students, people, information, technology, uncertainty, and risks. This option also over emphasizes the concepts of wall and border for local security and denies the importance of higher education internationalization. They embraced the conservative motto: if we play our part in ensuring nothing changes, why should anything change (Beck, 2013)? According to this logic, local government or universities do not help international student mobility by subsidizing students from Myanmar and other non-local students. Thus, the underprivileged group will be excluded further in international student mobility. Its rise is contingent heavily on external threats, ontological insecurity, and the sentiment of local populism. However, as Beck (1992) points out, there is no way back to a self-contained system. It is a nostalgic agenda, simply ignoring the essence of historical changes (Beck, 2013). The last scenario then becomes more important. As mentioned before, as a theoretical framework, this approach needs to reinvent the notion of higher education as a human right in a transnationalized context, restoring the educational value of higher education internationalization. The existing literature offers different arguments for this option. For example, Hodgson (1998) argues that higher education be a right because it has social and individual functions; its social utility is a prerequisite to its individual use that promotes dignity, development, and welfare of individuals. Burke (2012) suggests that widening the access to higher education should be undertaken as a project for social justice to tackle the complex issues of inequality, exclusion, and misrecognition, given that neoliberal discourse and framework have marginalized the concept of social justice in the domain of social policy. Similarly, McCowan (2013) notes that “all people have a right throughout life to engage in educational processes that are intrinsically as well as instrumentally valuable, and that embody respect for ‘human rights’ ” (p. 173). These arguments provide a right perspective on higher education that forms a base for an argument for the borderless provision of higher education. Based on this human-right-based perspective, Zeus (2011) also believes that higher education plays “a key role in bridging the gap between relief and development by building refugees’ capacity and self-reliance” (p. 264), and “can serve the purpose of refugee empowerment” (p. 271). In short, higher education serves a function of capacity building (p. 260). She argues that the provision of higher education should not be constrained to institutions of nation-states and should not be bounded by national borders because of the benefits stated earlier and the general unavailability of quality higher education in many developing countries. This argument rationalizes the significant role of student mobility in promoting “transnational” human

  

The value of international student mobility

99

­

rights in the context of cross-border higher education. Thus, students from developing countries and refugee backgrounds can be included in this option.

A normative dimension of international student mobility

­

­



The ideas from the third option are highly relevant to our discussion on the normative dimension of international student mobility. As indicated in our interview data, the political and community factors have limited the access of the respondents to quality higher education in Myanmar. This finding reveals the importance of the borderless provision of higher education (i.e., more educational opportunities in Hong Kong) to enhancing the access of this disadvantaged group to higher education. Their aspirations of contributing to their home country lift the individual functions to the social functions of higher education, implying that international student mobility not only plays a role in empowerment and development at the individual level but also helps promote transnational justice and development. Instead of viewing higher education exclusively as the enhancement of one’s biography and life plan, this implication shows that international student mobility contributes to social and human development in a broader context. From a conceptual perspective, this case study illustrates the nexus between the goal of international student mobility and that of nurturing humanity. As we have argued elsewhere, the process of the internationalization of higher education carries a cosmopolitan vision (Lo & Ng, 2013, 2015). This worldview guides us to critically examine the notions of neoliberalism and its national outlook in the cross-border student flow and the policy of exporting higher education services. Specifically, we argue that the current approach to student mobility presents two main flawed assumptions. On the one hand, it overemphasizes international student mobility as private consumption rather than social investment (i.e., human development). Its economic utility overshadows sociopolitical and educational dimensions. On the other, local and global dimensions are assumed as mutually exclusive. This model justifies a universal agenda of market competition at a global scale, as it retains the significance of national borders in understanding globalization. We believe that this approach oversimplifies international student mobility and higher education internationalization by relying on a global market with a national outlook. In the context of globalization, it also cannot properly respond to the proliferation of transnational risks such as climate change, terrorism, global financial crises, Ebola, and refugees. Thus, we need a “global domestic political agenda” (Beck, 2013), which advocates for a cosmopolitan vision. This worldview contains a form of inclusive pluralism and particularly views individual, communal, social, educational, political, economic, local, national, global and other relevant dimensions as a side-by-side existence in the internationalization process.

  

100 F. S. K. Ng and W. Y. W. Lo

­

­

­

 

­

­



We argue that this global domestic political agenda in higher education policy not be an unrealistic ideology, which is only connected to the moral world (Stier, 2004). Instead, as Beck (2006, 2013) stated, those who view the reality through the lens of the nation-state and clear borders are idealists because they take the national outlook for granted and cannot notice the shifting reality transformed by the profound global changes. To implement this agenda in higher education, we need to adopt a cosmopolitan vision to internationalization. This worldview enables us to recognize the transforming reality and to “turn the university into the laboratory of a second, postnational enlightenment” (Beck, 2013, p. 58). Thus, the local higher education system is not a self-contained system or a global market; instead, it is viewed as a part of the global higher education system and world society. Importantly, this understanding of the positioning consolidates the argument about adopting the initiatives of enhancing the connectivity among people from around the world by internationalization as a project of nurturing humanity and world citizenship (Ng, 2012). It eases the cultural tension between the local and the non-local and narrows the new global class cleavage between globally mobile elites and territorially bounded people (i.e., students in Myanmar or Thai–Myanmar border region). In this sense, this cosmopolitan approach to international student mobility neither provokes new conflicts nor produces losers of globalization. It also rationalizes the argument stating that mass education and talent flow can be seen as part of the global brain circulation and global knowledge production, whereby both local and non-local students are educated and prepared for establishing and connecting to the world society.

Conclusion

­

­

­

Myanmar has been undergoing significant transitions since the democratic reforms in 2011. The country needs an educated population to sustain its reforms and opening-up because of its years of isolation. Many of the respondents indicated their intention to return to the country and to contribute to their homeland after they have completed their studies. This diaspora may become a driving force for further changes and development in the country. Nevertheless, what is the role of Hong Kong (as a global higher education market or if returning to embrace a self-contained system) in sustaining Myanmar’s transition process? The inexistence of a special tie between the two places guides us to critically rethink the design and implementation of approaches to promoting international student mobility and strategies for recruiting international students. Through the three-level framework, this case study reveals the relevance of the human right to higher education in promoting higher education internationalization. It also illustrates further the significance of cosmopolitanism in conceptualizing international student mobility and the need for a global domestic political agenda in higher education policy.

  

The value of international student mobility

101

Note  

 

 

 



1 This chapter was mainly revised and adapted from the authors’ previously published article, Lo, W. Y. W. and Ng, F. S. K. (2016) Connectivity for whom and for what? A normative dimension of education hub, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 38(3): 354–368.

References

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

 

 

 

 

­

­

­

 

Altbach, P. G. & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4): 290–305. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London; Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Beck, U. (2006). The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. (2013). Twenty Observations on a World in Turmoil. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bodycott, P. (2009). Choosing a higher education study abroad destination: What mainland Chinese parents and students rate as important. Journal of Research in International Education, 8(3): 349–373. Bodycott, P. & Lai, A. (2012). The influence and implications of Chinese culture in the decision to undertake cross-border higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(3): 252–270. Buchmann, C. & Hannum, E. (2001). Education and stratification in developing countries: a review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 77–102. Burke, P. J. (2012). The Right to Higher Education: Beyond Widening Participation. Abingdon: Routledge. Caruana, V. (2014). Re-thinking global citizenship in higher education: From cosmopolitanism and international mobility to cosmopolitanisation, resilience and resilient thinking. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1): 85–104. Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]. (2013). The World Factbook – Burma. Retrieved November 24, 2016, from www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ geos/bm.html. Cheung, A. C. K., Yuen, T. W. W., Yuen, C. Y. M., & Cheng, Y. C. (2010). Promoting Hong Kong’s higher education to Asian markets: Market segmentations and strategies, International Journal of Educational Management, 24(5): 427–447. Cheung, A. C. K., Yuen, T. W. W., Yuen, C. Y. M., & Cheng, Y. C. (2011). Strategies and policies for Hong Kong’s higher education in Asian markets: Lessons from the United Kingdom, Australia, and Singapore. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(2): 144–163. Chow, A. S. Y. & Loo, B. P. Y. (2015). Applying a world-city network approach to globalizing higher education: Conceptualization, data collection and the lists of world cities. Higher Education Policy, 28(1): 107–126. Collins, F. L. (2008). Bridges to learning: International student mobilities, education agencies and inter-personal networks. Global Networks, 8(4): 398–417. Department of Higher Education, Myanmar. (2014). Myanmar Higher Education Policy. Retrieved November 12, 2014, from www.myanmar-education.edu.mm/dhel-2/ myanmar-higher-education-policy/higher-education-policy/. Education Bureau. (2016). HKSAR Government Scholarship Fund. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/postsecondary/local-higheredu/publicly-funded-programmmes/scholarship.html.

  

102 F. S. K. Ng and W. Y. W. Lo

 

 

­

 

 

 

­

 

­

 

 

 

 

 

Esson, J. & Wang, K. (2016). Reforming a university during political transformation: A case study of Yangon University in Myanmar. Studies in Higher Education, advanced online version: 1–12. Hodgson, D. (1998). The Human Right to Education. Dartmouth: Ashgate. Knight, J. (2013). Education hubs: International, regional and local dimensions of scale and scope. Comparative Education, 49(3), 374–387. Lai, A. & Maclean, R. (2011). Managing human capital in world cities: The development of Hong Kong into an education hub. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(3): 249–262. Lall, M. (2008). Evolving education in Myanmar: The interplay of state, business and the community. In M. Skidmore & T. Wilson (Eds), Dictatorship, Disorder and Decline in Myanmar (pp. 127–150). Canberra, Australia: ANUE Press. Li, M. (2011). Border crossing and market integration: Mainland consumers meet Hong Kong suppliers. In D. W. Chapman, W. K. Cummings, & G. A. Postiglione (Eds), Crossing Borders in East Asian Higher Education (pp. 319–342). Hong Kong: Springer. Li, M. & Bray, M. (2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push– pull factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education, 53(6): 791–818. Lo, W. Y. W. (2015). Revisiting the notion of Hong Kong as a regional education hub. Higher Education Policy, 28(1): 55–68. Lo, W. Y. W. & Ng, F. S. K. (2013). A critical reflection on internationalization of higher education in Hong Kong: The search for a cosmopolitan alternative. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Development, 2(1), 37–46. Lo, W. Y. W. & Ng, F. S. K. (2015). Trends and developments of higher education research in Hong Kong: In pursuit of a cosmopolitan vision. Higher Education Policy, 28(4), 517–534. Lwin, T. (2006, November). Education in Burma: Hope for the future. Paper presented at 2006 IDAC Conference Interactive, Diversified, Autonomous, Creative Literacy Conference, Exhibition & Storytelling Festival, Taipei, Taiwan. Lwin, T. (2010). Critical Thinking : The Burmese Traditional Culture of Education. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from www.thinkingclassroom.org/resources.html. Lwin, T. (2012). What Should Be the Policy on Education in Democratic Burma/Myanmar? Retrieved November 12, 2014, from www.thinkingclassroom.org/Education Papers/1. Dr. Thein Lwin Discussion Paper on Educational Reform (draft – English) 12April2012.pdf. Marginson, S. & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and Higher Education (OECD Education Working Paper No. 8). Paris: OECD. McCowan, T. (2013). Is there a universal right to higher education ? In Education as a Human Right (pp. 115–131). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Ng, S. W. (2011). Can Hong Kong export its higher education services to the Asian markets? Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 10(2): 115–131. Ng, S. W. (2012). Rethinking the mission of internationalization of higher education in the Asia-Pacific region. Compare, 42(3), 439–459. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. [OECD]. (2004). Internationalization and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges. Paris: OECD. Perkins, R. & Neumayer, E. (2012). Geographies of educational mobilities: Exploring the uneven flows of international students. Geographical Journal, 180(3): 246–259.

103

  

The value of international student mobility

 

 

 

 

­

 

 

 

Robertson, S. (2011). Student switchers and the regulation of residency: The interface of the individual and Australia’s immigration regime. Population, Space and Place, 17(1): 103–115. Rogers, B. (2012). Burma: A Nation at the Crossroads. London: Rider/Ebury Pub. Steinberg, D. I. (2013). Burma/Myanmar: What Everyone Needs to Know (2nd ed.). New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stier, J. (2004). Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologies in higher education: Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(1): 1–28. Stier, J. (2010). International education: Trends, ideologies and alternative pedagogical approaches. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(3): 339–349. Tin, H. (2008). Myanmar education: Challenges, prospects and options. In M. Skidmore & T. Wilson (Eds), Dictatorship, Disorder and Decline in Myanmar (pp. 113–126). Canberra, Australia: ANU E Press. Tilak, J. B. (2008). Higher education: A public good or a commodity for trade?. Prospects, 38(4): 449–466. Topich, W. J. & Leitich, K. A. (2013). The History of Myanmar. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood. Tsang, Y.K. (2009). The 2009 Policy Address: Breaking New Ground Together. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Tung, C. H. (2004). The 2004 Policy Address: Seizing Opportunities for Development Promoting People-based Governance. Hong Kong: Government Printer. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization – Institute for Statistics [UNESCO UIS]. (2014). UIS Statistics in Brief: Education (All Levels) Profile – Myanmar. Retrieved January 2, 2014, from http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/ TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=198&IF_Language=eng. University Grants Committee. [UGC]. (2004). Hong Kong Higher Education: To Make a Difference, To Move with the Times. Hong Kong: Author. University Grants Committee. [UGC]. (2010). Aspirations for the Higher Education System in Hong Kong – Report of the University Grants Committee. Hong Kong: Author. University Grants Committee. [UGC]. (2017). Statistics. Retrieved March 21, 2017, from http://cdcf.ugc.edu.hk/cdcf/statEntry.do?lang=EN. Waters, J. & Brooks, R. (2010). Accidental achievers? International higher education, class reproduction and privilege in the experiences of UK students overseas. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(2): 217–228. Xiang, B. & Shen, W. (2009). International student migration and social stratification in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(5): 513–522. Zeng, M. & Watkins, D. (2011). Adaptation of Mainland postgraduate students to Hong Kong’s universities. In D. W. Chapman, W. K. Cummings, & G. A. Postiglione (Eds), Crossing Borders in East Asian Higher Education (pp. 343–373). Hong Kong: Springer. Zeus, B. (2011). Exploring barriers to higher education in protracted refugee situations: The case of Burmese refugees in Thailand. Journal of Refugee Studies, 24(2): 256–276.



6

Navigating through the hostility International students in Singapore  

Catherine Gomes

Introduction

­

­

­

­



 

­

­

In 2008 the Singapore government announced ambitions plans to increase the number of international students studying at universities and other educational institutions from 90,000 to 150,000 by 2015. These plans were part of Singapore’s Global Schoolhouse initiative to make the nation-state into an international student hub and thus become an active competitor in the lucrative international education market. Unlike traditional international student hubs, Singapore also intended to attract top students to its public-funded universities with bonded scholarships in order to build up its skilled workforce. International students in other words would be assured of employment for three years in local companies or in government after graduation. Additionally, the government was encouraging international students to take up permanent residence so as to prevent a brain drain of this newly skilled workforce. Fast forward to the present and we find that not only has the 2015 initiative been rescinded but international student intake has also decreased significantly to 76,000. What happened for Singapore to backtrack on its international education road map? Over the past decade Singaporeans have taking to social media to accuse the government of displacing locals in favour of international students for public-funded university places. In 2011 Singaporeans took their frustrations to the polls which resulted in the worse parliamentary electoral showing by the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) in the history of Singapore. While there have not been reported open aggression towards international students, do they face other kinds of hostility and how do they dealt with this? Through interviews with 61 university-going international students pursuing full-time degrees in Singapore, this chapter documents the anti-foreign sentiments respondents face in their host society and the strategies they use to deal with local hostility and negativity.

105

  

Navigating through the hostility

Singapore: aspirations to be a Global Schoolhouse

­

­



­

­

­



­

­

­

­



­

­

 

­

In the early 2000s Singapore launched the Global Schoolhouse initiative that witnessed diverse institutions and programs establish themselves in the nationstate. The newly minted Singapore Education brand was meant to promote Singapore as a ‘premier education hub’ with the aim of both educating its local students as well as attracting international students (Dessoff, 2012, p. 19). By 2011, Singapore had around 70 registered private higher education providers catering to 47,500 full-time and part-time Singaporean students (ICEF Monitor, 2012).1 At its peak in 2008, Singapore was home to approximately 90,000 international students (University World News, 2008). The Singapore government, in other words, saw the nation-state as a global education hub that could well become host to diverse public and private institutions of higher learning from local and foreign education providers. Looking specifically at the higher education sector, Singapore has two public universities (National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University), three government-supported universities (Singapore Management University, Singapore University of Technology and Design and the Singapore Institute of Technology), private universities (e.g. Singapore Institute of Management which administers foreign university degree programs on top of their own) and branch campuses of foreign universities (e.g. Hull University) and collaborative Singapore-foreign institutions (e.g. Yale-NUS College). In addition, Singapore has five polytechnics (e.g. Nanyang Polytechnic and Singapore Polytechnic) and other government-affiliated institutions providing industry-specific diploma and degree programmes (e.g. Building and Construction Authority or BCA Academy) (Ministry of Education, Singapore, 2014; The Complete University Guide, 2014). Singapore had other reasons for investing heavily in education other than merely making inroads into the lucrative international education market. Turning itself into a global education hub where Singaporeans and nonSingaporeans benefit from local and foreign institutions is a key strategy the government relied upon to make Singapore into a knowledge-based economy. This would see the city-state strengthen its position as a regional services hub and manufacturing base for multinational companies (Sanderson, 2002). Additionally, Singapore’s workforce would become one that is ‘highly educated, highly motivated and productive’ (Singapore Economic Development Board, 2016). In addition, becoming an international hub would help prevent a local brain drain since one in ten Singaporeans studying in higher education were doing so outside Singapore (Ziguras and Gribble, 2014). The aim of making Singapore into an education hub thus was not only to educate its own population who were hungry for degrees and to a lesser extent, diplomas, but also to attract international students from the region and elsewhere (Sidhu, Ho and Yeoh, 2014; Ziguras and Gribble, 2014). In order to attract top international students to its publicly funded universities and polytechnics, the Singapore government, under its Ministry of

  

106 C. Gomes

­

­

­

­



­

­

­

­

­



­

Education, administers tuition grants worth about SGD$210 million each year (6 per cent of the 1,700 polytechnic students and 13 per cent of the 2,200 public-funded university-going undergraduates).2 The grants heavily subsidise international student fees with recipients paying very little in this regard. Upon graduation, these students are then bonded in Singapore for three years to work for locally based companies (Ministry of Education, Singapore, 2014). In this study, almost half (28) of the respondents report that they are recipients of these scholarships and therefore bonded in Singapore after graduation. In addition, Singapore also has scholarships, grants and fellowships that are specific to the region such as the Singapore Government Scholarships for Southeast Asians and the ASEAN Foundation Scholarships in Development, Environment, and Information Technology for (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) ASEAN Nationals. Because of its knowledge-based agenda, Singapore is arguably a nation of job opportunities. Although at the time of writing Singapore’s growth rate has been slowing down, Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower reports that by the end of the second quarter of 2016 its unemployment rate, at 2.1 per cent, is still one of the lowest in the world (Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, 2016a). Since Singapore generally has job opportunities, international students other than those bonded for the first three years might be able to find work locally after graduation. Current immigration policies in Singapore allow them to apply for permanent residence once they are on skilled working visas (S-Pass or E-Pass). According to Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower, the S-Pass (Skilled Pass) ‘allows mid-level skilled foreigners who earn a fixed monthly salary of at least $2,200 to work in Singapore’ while the E-Pass (Employment Pass) ‘allows foreign professionals to work in Singapore. This applies to foreigners who earn a fixed monthly salary of at least $3,300, and have acceptable qualifications’ (Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, 2016b). The availability of jobs in locally based companies for international student graduates thus is in contrast to the situation of education hubs in Western countries such as Australia where preference is given to citizens and permanent residents. Besides a robust economy filled with job prospects, Singapore is a dynamic city listed as a developed country by the World Bank (2014). Singapore has a high standard of living, a comprehensive education system, an infrastructure that is constantly changing to meet the demands of the nation and a stable government that actively promotes law, order and ethnic harmony among its citizenry. Singapore also supports a citizenry that is multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious and multilingual with the Chinese, the Indians and the Malays making up the primary ethnic groups. The assumption then is that international students from the Asian region whose ethnicities, cultures and languages have similar hues to the ethnic cultures and lingua franca represented in Singapore would possibly find acculturating and assimilating into Singaporean society much easier than if they were in the West. For instance, ethnic Chinese international students whose mother tongue is Mandarin

107

  

Navigating through the hostility

 

­



­

 

(e.g. students from Mainland China and Taiwan) might feel more comfortable in Singapore since Mandarin is one of the four official spoken and written languages.3 As I write later in this chapter, however, this acculturation and assimilation far from takes place. Moreover, these students might be more willing to take up permanent residence and stay indefinitely in the nationstate or at least for a significant number of years. Singapore, in other words, seems to be the perfect place for international students. However as this chapter will show, the decision of the Singapore government to welcome foreigners (skilled workers and students) to the country was not at all embraced by the Singapore citizenry. The result was deep xenophobia and passive-aggressive hostility from Singaporeans who are anxious about being left out in their own country in terms of employment and education (Gomes, 2014).

­

Anti-foreigner sentiment and cutting back on international student enrolment

­

­



­

On 16 February 2013 something extraordinary happened in once apathetic Singapore. In a rare form of public demonstration, 5,000 Singaporeans attended an organised protest held at Speakers Corner in Hong Lim Park. The protest was organised by Gilbert Goh, founder of Transitioning.Org (Goh, 2014), which is an employment agency catering solely to Singaporeans who lost their jobs to foreign talent migrants. Through online feature articles and organised talks, Transitioning.Org is also strongly committed to the antiforeign migrant movement that is sweeping through Singapore. The protest was against a newly endorsed government White Paper on Population that projected Singapore’s population to reach 6.9 million by 2030 mainly through migration. While the government argued that 6.9 million people in Singapore is a ‘worse case scenario’ yet necessary to cater to Singapore’s ageing population and to replenish locals who have not been procreating as effectively as they should, Singaporeans had significantly differing opinions. Many took to social media to complain that Singapore was already vastly overcrowded and increasing its population to 6.9 million primarily through the bringing in of foreign migrants to take up work (and residence) was a supremely silly decision particularly for the future of the next generation of Singaporeans. However, before the release of the White Paper, there had been a strong sense of discontentment in Singapore because of the high numbers of skilled foreigners – known as locally as ‘foreign talent’ – entering the city-state (Gomes, 2014). Taking to social media, Singaporeans accused the government of favouring foreign talent over and above Singapore-born citizens who could trace their lineage to migrants who came during the time when Singapore was a colony of the British (1819–1959). Moreover, Singaporeans were blind to any ethnic cultural similarities they might have with the foreign talent and did not spare them from any vitriol. Chinese Singaporeans and

  

108 C. Gomes

­

 



 

­

­

Indian Singaporeans, for example, have respectively taken to social media to air their enormous dislike for People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizens and South Asians temporary and permanent migrants (Gomes, 2014). Targeting the foreign talent, Singaporeans accused them of causing a number of social ills related to overcrowding and increases in costs of living (e.g. the rise in the price of apartments).4 Singaporeans also saw foreign talent as threatening their livelihood in terms of taking jobs away from them since many felt that foreign talent workers were cheaper to hire (and sometimes possessing questionable qualifications) than locals themselves. International students too were subject to online xenophobic attacks by Singaporeans who felt that these students were not assimilating into Singaporean society and that they denied young citizens places in the two top public-funded universities in the nation-state. Here Singaporeans expressed their concern that international students on scholarship or who were enrolled in the highly respected state universities – the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in particular – were taking limited and highly competitive places away from potential local tertiary-going students. International students on scholarship who were perceived to behave badly, were taken to task by citizens as in the case of PRC student Sun Xu. On 18 February 2012, Sun Xu – who was an undergraduate at NUS – posted disparaging remarks about Singaporeans on his account on the Chinese microblogging site Weibo. A translation of his post from Mandarin to English by Yahoo News Singapore reads as such: It’s so annoying to have gangster Singapore uncles stare at you when you bump into them. There are more dogs than humans here in Singapore.



 

­

Eagle-eyed Singaporeans who saw his post took to social media to vent out their anger for calling them ‘dogs’. Despite apologising for his remarks on his Facebook page, offended Singaporeans complained to NUS and demanded that the institution revoke Sun’s scholarship while questioning the government’s policy of funding students who disrespect the country and its citizens (Chen, 2012). While NUS made the decision to fine Sun SG$3,000, terminate his scholarship in the final semester of his studies and make him undergo three months of compulsory community service, Singaporeans still felt that his sentence was too light (Lai and Matthews, 2016, p. 29; Sim, 2012). International students, as my respondents informed me, thus have to be on their best behaviour in Singapore and as I discuss later in this chapter, do not take to social media to discuss anything to do with Singapore society or its culture. Singaporeans took their discontent at the rising number of foreign talent in Singapore to the polls. During the 2011 General Elections, the PAP – the incumbent and only ruling party Singaporeans have ever known since independence in 1965 – received its worst ever election result. While the

109

  

Navigating through the hostility

­

­

­



PAP maintained power with a clear majority of 61 per cent of the popular vote, they realised that they needed to address the foreign talent issue head on. While putting into place some measures to limit foreign skilled workers (Ghosh, 2003), the government also, as I mention in the introduction of this chapter, rescinded its plans to increase its student intake. So by the 2015 General Election where the PAP scored a landslide victory, international student numbers had fallen sharply to half of its intended intake for that year. Singapore’s plans at being a world player in the international education marketplace took a severe blow due no doubt to populist pressure.5 So how do international students in Singapore – some of who come from the Asian region and share similar ethnic cultural heritage with Singaporeans, cope with the anti-foreign sentiment? With this question in mind I embarked on a month-long fieldtrip in Singapore in order to learn the strategies international students used to cope with the anti-foreign hostility that clearly dominates Singaporean discourse.

Methodology

­



 



­

From February to March in 2014 I did fieldwork in Singapore where I interviewed 61 tertiary-going international students. This was part of a bigger comparative study of the everyday lives of transient migrants (international students, skilled workers and working holiday makers) in Singapore and in Australia. The interviews with the international students were approximately an hour long and usually took place on university campuses that were the most convenient places for the respondents. Respondents were recruited through advertisements in international student society groups and in student hostels, through canvasing and through the snowball effect where respondents informed their friends of the project or brought them along for scheduled interviews with the researchers. The advertisements requested for respondents who were over the age of 18 and who had lived in Singapore for a minimum of three months. Participants were remunerated with a SGD$30 shopping gift voucher each for their time. Table 6.1 provides demographic details of the respondents reported in this chapter. As indicated, the sample included students from a range of countries undertaking undergraduate and postgraduate study. Notably, most of the participants came from Indonesia and from China. Possible reasons for the higher numbers from these countries could be because of Singapore’s proximity to Indonesia and its active recruitment of students from China (Yang, 2016).6 Of note as well is the period of time respondents had spent in Singapore. Here more than half (32) spent four years or more in the nation-state. This is because many of the respondents undertook their earlier education in Singapore where they completed their secondary (middle school) and junior college (high school) prior to enrolling into university.

  

110 C. Gomes  

Table 6.1 Demographics Gender

F – 30 M – 31

Age range

18 to 24 (47) 25 to 29 (10) 30 and over (4)

Country of citizenship

China (16) Great Britain (2) Indonesia (19) India (7) Malaysia (7) Norway (1) Philippines (1) South Korea (3) United States of America (1) Vietnam (4)

Ethnicity

Batak (1) Biracial (2) Caucasian (4) Chinese (28) Indian (9) Indonesian (5) Korean (3) Vietnamese (3)

Length of stay in Singapore

>1 year (14) 1 year to >2 years (3) 2 years to >3 years (7) 3 years to >4 years (5) 4 years to >5 years (25) 5 years to >6 years (0) 6 years to >7 years (7)

Education pursuit

Undergraduate (46) Postgraduate (15)

­

­



With the help of two research assistants (RAs), we interviewed students individually or in small groups of two to four people on questions pertaining to their self-perceived identities, social networks (friendship groups), experiences with Singaporeans, and their media and communication use. Additionally, participants were asked to complete a short written survey that captured their background information such as age, gender, country of birth/citizenship, ethnicity(s) and number of years in Singapore to date. The data in this chapter is reflective of the open-ended questions we asked pertaining to respondents’ sense of belonging, impressions of Singaporean society, plans for the future and their social networks. The duration of the interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 60 minutes, depending on the willingness of the participants to go into more depth. The results revealed that despite a welcoming

  

Navigating through the hostility

111

local government, seeming cultural similarities to the host nation, substantial periods of time studying in Singapore and intentions of taking up permanent residence, international students not only have difficulties adapting to Singapore society but create their own form of agency to allow them to navigate their everyday life in transience.

Singaporeans perceived to place barriers between themselves and foreigners

­





­

 

­

 

When asked about what they thought of Singapore and Singapore society, respondents spoke candidly about their impressions of the citizens of their host nation. This honesty, when compared to the working professionals we spoke to, struck me as interesting since I revealed to them that while I am based in Australia where I work for a local university in Melbourne, I am a Singapore-born citizen. Of my two RAs, who is also Singaporean, did not hide her nationality either. While the working professionals were generally positive commenting on conventional aspects of Singapore and its society such as its good governance (e.g. ‘Singapore is [a] pretty clean and decent society, less corruption compared to Korea or anywhere else in Asia’), its cosmopolitanism (e.g. ‘Singapore is both Eastern and Western’) and its people (e.g. ‘It’s very ordered and strict and it’s a safe and sanitised environment’ and ‘Spore society is more relaxed and polite and respectful to one another’), the international students we spoke to were more critical of their hosts particularly in terms of their attitudes towards non-Singaporeans. Here the international students revealed openly that they feel that while Singaporeans are not a physical threat to them, they do feel some form of hostility from the citizenry. Moreover, they state that while they may or may not have been victims of or subject to xenophobia in Singapore, they sense that Singaporeans, while on the surface are pleasant as individuals, place barriers between themselves and foreigners which then makes it difficult for meaningful relationships to be formed between both groups. Nick, an Indonesian student who was at a local university but who had undertaken his secondary and junior college study in the city-state, explains that he finds Singaporeans contradictory. While he is generous in his praise about the Singaporeans he has met, explaining that they are ‘nice’ and ‘caring’, he also recognises that there is a deep dislike for anyone who is foreign. He states: Some of the Singaporean that I know are really nice like they are really caring and care about you. But then I also see a different part of the Singaporean society where they kind of dislike the foreigners. It’s like we are some discriminated like – it’s like discrimination at the first lunch that you meet. I remember when I was back in JC [junior college] it’s like half of my class are foreigners and half of my class are Singaporeans.

  

112 C. Gomes  

And on the first day of school the Singaporeans it’s like they are grouped together and sometimes they talked about the foreigners that kind of sense.

­

­

Here Nick’s experience reveals that there is an automatic social barrier that comes up between Singaporean students and non-Singaporean students from their first day of meeting. This barrier seems to come about despite Singapore’s multicultural landscape. Eun, a female Korean student, for instance, highlights that while Singaporeans are very proud of their cosmopolitanism and diversity, she feels that Singaporeans create barriers between themselves and non-Singaporeans precisely because of the latter’s foreignness. She explains:

 

Singaporeans always say they’re very international and it’s true that they have diverse cultures and stuff and it’s true that I think compared to other, other countries, Singapore is very open to foreigners even, even when I’m conversing with my local friend. I think compared to other countries it’s true that it’s very cultural diversity and stuff, people really understand me and they don’t really judge me based on my nationality, that’s true, that’s all true compared to other countries. But still I still feel a little barrier when, as in they still have this, ‘Oh you are a foreigner,’ there’s still some line there, I cannot cross I feel.

­

­

Echoing discussion of these self-created barriers Singaporeans put up is Eun’s friend Hyun. Also a Korean student studying in Singapore, Hyun explains that although she has Singaporean friends, her being a foreigner limits how far her friendships with them can go. Instead she tells us that she finds it easier instead to form and maintain meaningful relationships with co-nationals. She states:

 

I just feel that we cannot, our relationship cannot grow further. Yes we talk to each, we like to go out shopping together, I talk about what I went through and stuff, but I still feel that, I don’t, I don’t know what it is but I still feel some distance and if I meet a Korean I think it’s going to be easier, there wouldn’t be that line of … that much. I don’t know exactly what it is but that’s what I feel.

­

While respondents did not report open physical or verbal harm exacted towards them, they feel discriminated against, for instance, by Singaporean employers. Gani an Indian-Indonesian tells us her experience: I don’t have any fears about finding a job or getting a place, becoming a PR, I think like that will happen but my issue is more with the blending in with Singaporeans because I – in the last year I felt a lot of hostility and that was strange because in my first year it wasn’t there like I mean

  

Navigating through the hostility

113

the job discrimination and stuff like that, it was bound to happen but sometimes it just feels really unfair, like let’s say it’s me and a Singaporean student next me, just by virtue of being – having the Singaporean title they have access to a lot more jobs. Like for example I just applied for internships and the … not really a problem but in the smallest ones they just specify if you’re not Singaporean … do not apply.

 

Here Gani reveals her frustration with Singaporeans, where she believes that they have little perspective of how they are privileged more because they are citizens while she as a foreigner, and is in a much more precarious position particularly when it comes to employment. Likewise Raj from India points out that Singaporeans do not understand that living as a foreigner in a country where the culture and language are different, is difficult and takes effort to adapt. He tells us:

 

I think negative experiences would be subjective because of – of course there are times when I feel like an outsider, the fact that I have to use English, the fact that sometimes I have to repeat what I’m saying because people in certain places don’t understand my accent. It – the fact that I’m putting in so much effort to get a point across makes me feel that this is something not natural. The fact that I can’t use Hindi very often, the fact that sometimes I don’t laugh at their jokes and they don’t laugh at mine or yeah I think that the fact that I sometimes I feel inhibited to put my point across in a group but – let’s say four other Singaporeans because they will have majority opinion and if I think differently I know it wouldn’t get through. I think psychology they call it some minority some effect but so it’s the fact that it’s all been relative to me because of the fact that I’m an outsider and of course it’s not something that really bothers me because I know that even if I went to another country I would experience the same things, so.…

 

­

Meanwhile other international students we spoke to explain that they do feel that Singaporeans behave in a passive-aggressive fashion towards them once they know or suspect them to be transient migrants as Larry student from Norway tells us: And like taxi drivers, for example, you take a lot of taxis as a foreign student here – when – you know when you’re getting a good taxi driver and you know when you’re getting a bad one, because you can tell it by who – I mean, how he looks literally, almost. I mean, you know who is going to be – if he’s younger he’s going to be talking a lot, he’s going to be nice – if he’s old Chinese he’s not going to talk to you, he’s just going to drive there, and be a bit angry all the way, or a bit pissed because you drove only 5 minutes with the taxi and you’re a foreigner, you could definitely pay more.… And when you’re walking the streets and here it

  

114 C. Gomes

 

also happens, and with girls, especially from – with a girl walking opposite me, and if she’s – we’re on the same sidewalk she will either cross the road or she will look down.… They will look down and they will like look down all the way past, like they will not – I mean, they will try to avoid eye contact as best as possible, as if I’m going to do something bad to her, or – I don’t know—… it’s like that, they’re afraid of foreign guys grabbing them and then having their way.

 

­



The respondents did not only observe differential treatment towards them based on their foreignness but also felt discriminated against because of their ethnicity. Despite Singapore’s multicultural population which is host to a strong ethnic Chinese majority and ethnic Malay and ethnic Indian minorities where Chinese, Malay and Indian cultural festivals are accorded, arguably, equal importance at least when it comes to national holidays where each group has two national holidays a year, there is racism in Singapore. In illustrating the everyday racism that exists between Singaporeans of different ethnic groups, Selvaraj Velayutham (2009) describes how Singaporeans sometimes treat him with contempt because he is a Tamil Singaporean. Using his experiences of being ostracised on public transport in Singapore – where non-Tamil Singaporeans refuse to sit next to him – Velayutham presents a very real example of what minorities, especially Tamil people, go through because of their skin colour. Explaining this discrimination even further is Sangeetha Thanapal, who in 2014 started an online conversation about Chinese privilege (Thanapal, 2016) on the marginalisation of ethnic minorities in Singapore at the hands of Chinese Singaporeans because of skin colour. She explains, in relation to gender and skin colour, that in Singapore

 

­

women of different races are treated differently. This kind of colourism and inter-POC (people of colour) policing of skin colour is not new or unique to Singapore, of course. A lot of it is internalized White supremacy: the lighter you are, the higher on the hierarchy you stand. (boundary 2, 2015)

 

­

­

This discrimination, as our Indian-Indonesian respondent Gani reveals, is also unsurprisingly directed at non-Singaporean ethnic Indians. Gani tells us:

 

I think I’ve associated myself with that group and anyone I work with associates me with that group. And so sometimes when I walk into a group project people hold those stereotypes against me. Clearly respondents feel discriminated against in Singapore, first as foreigners, and, for students such as Gani, the internal racism among Singaporeans adds another level of bigotry and intolerance she has to deal with. So how do respondents cope with the inequality and hostility they face in Singapore?

  

Navigating through the hostility

115

 

Respondent strategies to deal with Singaporean attitudes towards them

­

The international students I spoke to however are aware that they live in a country where they are not completely welcomed but have learned to deal with it. They, in other words, create strategies in order to protect themselves against any real or imagined perceived hostility that takes the form of racism, xenophobia or passive-aggression. These strategies can be broadly categorised into personal and practical approaches. Personal approaches: all about attitude

 

The international students we spoke to, while aware of Singaporean attitudes towards them, were somewhat sanguine about this. Instead, they revealed that they tried not to let the racism or xenophobia affect them. Gani, who we met earlier, for instance, explains that she deals with the racism she faces by being the best that she can be in terms of her accomplishments. Others, such as Indonesian student Nick, explained that he understood why Singaporeans disliked foreigners. He says: [P]art of me thinks it is their life you know some of them complain about how foreigners come and use their resources. I think actually their right to be not so happy about it. It’s like I don’t think I’m very affected by it – the comments.

­



 

Nick feels that Singaporeans have the right to feel angry at foreigners who they consider as threatening their economic progress (e.g. taking away jobs and university places) and the social fabric of the nation by not blending in (e.g. speaking in English or Singapore English also known as ‘Singlish’) (Gomes, 2015, pp. 149–171). Nick, in other words, generally ignores Singaporean attitudes towards him. While personal attitude is a way for respondents to deal with the hostility they feel Singaporeans have towards them, others rely on more practical measures that are based on keeping low profiles, especially on social media, and by using their own identities as an effective strategy. In the case of the latter in particular, respondents create social networks that are exclusively made up of co-nationals. This is despite many of them spending their formative years in the Singapore schooling system where the majority of their classmates were Singaporean.

­

­

Practical approaches: self-censorship in the digital space and national identity-based communities All the international students I spoke to were ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001) – young people below the age of 30 who grew up with the internet for most

11

  

Reciprocity in international education

employees (Tran & Nyland, Chapter 7). Students are often not knowledgeable about local work practices, pay rates or work conditions, and financial pressures in tandem with difficulties finding regular work lead many, at least in Australia, to accept pay rates below the minimum wages set by the government (Baas, 2006). Restrictions on the numbers of hours worked make any who overstep this mark additionally vulnerable to unscrupulous employers who can use the threats of informing authorities of visa violations:

 

It’s also hard to know the extent to which student visa holders are being ripped off; all we know is that time and again they recur in stories of employers ripping off their workers. They are a group ripe for exploitation – young workers are already vulnerable in workplaces, but international students often also have poor English skills, work casually, are working in a foreign culture, often without an understanding of their rights, and are vulnerable to claims they have breached their visa conditions (which limit them to 20 hours a week paid work). (Keane, 2017)

 

­

­

According to the Netherlands-based International Institute for Asian Studies, ‘not a few students [in Australia] were arrested for violating visa regulations and sent to so-called detention centres to await deportation back to India.’ (Baas, 2006, p. 14)

­

­

­

It is interesting to compare the policy initiatives in different parts of the world and to contrast the strategies employed to attract students that are canvassed by the contributing authors. Students are no longer flowing only to the still rapidly growing international education sectors in countries such as Australia, the UK, USA, Canada or New Zealand that have historically been the destinations of international students. The directions of international student flows are increasingly reciprocal in the geographic sense as some Asian countries and many European countries attract students both from traditional sources and from the nations previously considered to be the destinations of choice for international students. Non-traditional destinations such as Hong Kong (Ng & Lo, Chapter 5), Japan (Hashimoto, Chapter 2), Singapore (Gomes, Chapter 6), Malaysia (Shafaei et al., Chapter 9), and China (Tian & Lowe, Chapter 8) have adopted policies to position their systems as education hubs in a region that has been a major source of the international student flow to predominantly English-speaking nations. Although most of these countries are competing to progress what are generally estimated to be neoliberal objectives, motivated by potential economic benefits for the host nation of supply (with all the multiplied effects) rather than consumption in the education market, and by the possibilities of international prestige and influence, differing circumstances have generated some different approaches. In contrast to nations like the UK, for example, where policy does not make

117

  

Navigating through the hostility

 

2013). Commenting (unfavourably) on the political situation in Singapore might well be perceived as taking part in political activities and thus leading to the revocation of their student pass. The international students who took part in this study were well aware of the conditions of their stay in Singapore and were not willing to jeopardize this. How then did they deal with hostility? Here I suggest that respondents use their identity as a strategy while living in transience. International students are transient migrants who:

 

 

­

­

develop complex, creative strategies to navigate life in transience which are rooted in their self-perceived identities. These identities may be categorised as existing (e.g. nationality), recent (e.g. new found religion), temporary (e.g. international student) and developing (e.g. perception of oneself as a global citizen). While these self-perceived identities may be interlinked, recent identities may still be developing and temporary identities contribute to developing ones (e.g. international student and working holiday identities are part of a developing global citizen identity), they allow transient migrants to occupy social and cultural spaces exclusively occupied by fellow transient migrants and thus steer their future endeavours. (Gomes, 2017, p. 3)

­

­

­



­

Despite the majority of the student respondents doing some of their secondary (middle school) and junior college (high school) education in Singapore, they revealed that their time in the city-state made them more conscious of their nationality. This is also in spite of half (32) of them intending to stay in Singapore after their studies as permanent residents. While the respondents made friends with Singaporeans during their schooling days, they did not maintain relationships with them while at university. One reason, at least in the case of Singaporean male students, was because of national service. Singapore has conscription for young men once they reach the age of 18, hence delaying their entrance into university by two years. Another reason why the international students do not have meaningful relationships with Singaporeans, particularly those at university, is, they explain, because local students have families to go back home to while they only have each other once classes for the day end. In addition, the majority of respondents in this study live in halls of residence or student hostels where only other international students reside. While they are exposed to international students from different countries, the respondents explained that they tended to mix almost exclusively with co-national international students. This is in contrast to international students in Australia who were more open to forming social networks with international students beyond co-national affiliation (Gomes, 2015; Gomes, Chang, Jacka, Coulter, Alzougool and Constantinidis, 2015). Some of the ways by which the students were friends with fellow co-national students that extended beyond their courses and accommodation was through interests.

  

118 C. Gomes

 

 

 

 

­



 

­

­



 

­

 

­



­

­

­

These interests tended to be national-specific. For instance an Indonesian international student revealed that almost all her friends were co-national students with an interest in theatre. At the time of our interview, she was rehearsing for an Indonesian musical to be performed in Singapore. Religion is another interest that bound international student co-nationals together. Christianity is an increasingly popular religious ideology in Singapore. According to the 2000 Singapore population census Christianity is the fastestgrowing religion, primarily due to increased conversions on the part of ethnic Chinese (Department of Statistics, Singapore, 2001, pp. 33–40). Catholicism meanwhile accounts for one-third of all Christians in Singapore, with the rest belonging to other denominations such as Presbyterianism (Department of Statistics, Singapore, 2001, pp. 33–34). Likewise, Christianity features predominantly among international students. In Singapore many churches across the denominations have special language worship services and bible studies groups for its various diasporic congregations. For instance, a few Catholic churches (e.g. the Cathedral of the Good Shepherd) in Singapore have long offered Sunday masses in Tagalog for its Filipino congregation while churches of other denominations such as the Orchard Road Presbyterian Church not only have Sunday services in Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian language) but also bible studies and fellowship groups specifically for the Indonesian diaspora and in Bahasa. However, while the bible emphasises community as a fundamental Christian strength and aspiration (DailyVerses.Net, 2016) – for instance the Ten Commandments (Exodus, 20: 1–17) is a template for living and interacting with others by respecting each other’s rights, property, and relationships – this sense of community does not translate in Singapore between locals and foreigners within a congregation. So while the majority of international student respondents may have lived in Singapore since secondary and/or junior college and belong to a religious ideology which emphasises community, they (re)create that sense of community within a co-national environment. Hence rather than being part of the larger Singaporean Christian community, they create a parallel Christian community for themselves where they feel a sense of belonging in Singapore with their co-nationals rather than to Singapore with Singaporeans (Gomes, 2017, p. 187). The formation of these parallel communities thus is based around key variables such as circumstance, nationality, region and interests. International students form their own communities and in this case based on their status as foreign students (circumstance) with co-nationals in Singapore (region) around their theatre performances and faith (interests). Community, as Graham Day (2006) explains, is ‘a fundamental aspect of society, perhaps its very core’ (p. 2). Community for Day, in other words, allows for the flourishing of ‘those things which people have in common, which bind them together, and give them a sense of belonging with one another’ (p. 2). Referring to the earlier work of sociologist John Urry, Gerard Delanty (2003) went a step further in his definition of society and community, arguing such

119

  

Navigating through the hostility

­

constructs are neither static nor territorial but rather dynamic and everchanging, primarily because of human mobility. Delantry explains:

 

 

­

­

An assumption current in much of contemporary sociological theory is that ‘society’ is a creation of modernity; more specifically it is an expression of the geopolitical contours of the nation-state. By equating society with a territorial entity, for example the nation-state, theorists such as John Urry (2000) not too surprisingly come to the conclusion that society is now obsolete and sociology needs to replace it with new categories. For Urry, the alternative to society is mobilities and to which new kinds of community as possible. Community is thus seen as more amendable to mobility than is society and has a resonance in the global society in which we live. This argument is interesting for many reasons, not least in rehabilitating community as a category appropriate to the global age. (p. 150)

 

Delantry and Urry are correct in their observations of the impact of human movements on our understanding of the notions of society and the changing dynamics of the concept of community as seen in the case of the international students in Singapore and the ways in which they create a sense of community as a strategy to deal with any real or imagined hostility towards them.

Conclusion



­

­

­

On the surface Singapore seems like an ideal place for international students. It is a first world cosmopolitan and multicultural country with a stable government, a strong economy and an excellent education system. However simmering below the surface is a citizenry who harbour deep anger towards foreigners who study and work in the country and who they accuse of stealing local jobs (workers) and local university places (students) as well as contributing to overcrowding and threatening the social fabric of the Singapore society. International students who were part of this study admit that they feel Singaporean hostility towards them that takes the form of xenophobia, racism and passive-aggression. However they develop personal and practical strategies to deal with this hostility. Here they rely on their own attitudes to dealing with the anti-foreign sentiment (for instance by not letting it affect them and by understanding Singaporean frustrations) or resort to common sense by not engaging in activities that express their frustration with Singapore (e.g. discussing or broadcasting their negative experiences or feelings about Singaporeans on social media) and creating communities with conationals through common interests. What this study in other words tells us is that international students rely on creative strategies in order to cope with living in a country which, while on the one hand provides them with study and possible work opportunities

  

120 C. Gomes

­

­

post-graduation, on the other hand is also unwelcoming. The lessons that we learn from the ways in which international students navigate their everyday lives in Singapore despite the hostility shows us that they live parallel lives to Singaporeans despite living among them and create a strong sense of belonging to co-national international students in spite of the length of stay in the country. These lessons thus allow international education service providers to reflect on programs that encourage intercultural interactions and understandings between local and international students as well as to see international students not as victims but rather agents of their own destinies.

Notes

­



 



 





 



 



1 Concerned about the increasing glut in the graduate job market, both Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan advised young Singaporeans that diplomas were just as important as degrees as markers of success. Both stressed that while higher education is important, young Singaporeans who have diplomas should not thereafter enrol in degree courses since the significance of success is the job that they do after their studies (Toh, 2013). 2 In 2013, Singapore’s Ministry of Education spent SGD$5.1 million on tertiary education alone (Matthews, 2013). 3 While English is the language used in government and education, Mandarin together with Malay (Bahasa Melayu) and Tamil are the other official languages in Singapore. While these are official languages, Singaporeans also speak the dialects that are representative of the clan groups and provinces their ancestors came from. Among the Singaporean Chinese for instance, Hokkien, Teowchew, Cantonese and Hakka are widely spoken among family and friends. 4 Eighty per cent of Singaporeans live in high-rise apartments due to the scarcity of land (Housing & Development Board, 2016) 5 Other factors such as the increasing cost of living and the pulling out of top universities such as the Chicago Business School and New South Wales Asia who had satellite campuses in Singapore. 6 Published official statistics from the Singapore government on the number of international students based on country of origin is often unavailable. This is an issue other researchers looking into international student mobility have also encountered (e.g. Ziguras and Gribble, 2014). I found that statistics on international students are only available when the government chooses to release the information to the media or when questioned about it in parliament. This lack of transparency is perhaps because of the tension Singaporeans feel towards international students who feel that these students take away university places from locals. Moreover, Singaporeans have also voiced in social media that the international students are recipients of generous scholarships that they feel should also go to local students instead.

References  

BibleGateway, n.d. Exodus 20: 1–17, The Holy Bible: King James Version, viewed 28 November 2016, www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A117&version=KJV. boundary 2. 2015. ‘Chinese Privilege, Gender and Intersectionality in Singapore: A Conversation between Adeline Koh and Sangeetha Thanapa’. b2o: The Online Community of the Boundary 2 Editorial Collective, viewed 28 November 2016, www.

  

Navigating through the hostility

121 ­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

­

­

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

­

 

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

boundary2.org/2015/03/chinese- privilege-gender- and-intersectionality- insingapore-a-conversation-between-adeline-koh-and-sangeetha-thanapal/. Casey, A. S. 2016. Anthony S Casey: International Wealth Manager & Consultant, viewed 28 November 2016, http://anthonyscasey.com/. Chen, C. 2012. ‘S’poreans outraged over PRC scholar’s “dog” comment’. Yahoo! News, 22 February, viewed 28 November 2016, https://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/ singaporescene/poreans-outraged-over-prc-scholar-dog-072146916.html. DailyVerses.Net. 2016. ‘20 Bible Verses about Community’. DailyVerses.Net, viewed 28 November 2016, https://dailyverses.net/community. Day, G, 2006. Community and Everyday Life. Oxford and New York. Delanty, G, 2003. Community: Key Ideas. London: Routledge. Department of Statistics, Singapore, 2001. ‘Religion’. Census of Population 2000: Statistical Release 2: Education, Language and Religion, viewed 12 December 2014, www. singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications-and-papers/cop2000/census_stat_release2, pp. 33–40. Dessoff, A, 2012. ‘Asia’s Burgeoning Education Hubs’. International Education, JulyAug, pp. 16–26, viewed 30 November 2016, www.nafsa.org/_/file/_/ie_julaug12_ asia.pdf. Ghosh, P. 2003. ‘Singapore Seeks To Cut Quota On Foreign Workers Amid Worries Over Immigration, Rising Labor Costs’. International Business Times, 26 February, viewed 28 November 2016, www.ibtimes.com/singapore-seeks-cut-quota-foreignworkers-amid-worries-over-immigration-rising-labor-costs-1103229. Goh, G. 2014. ‘About’. Transitioning.org, viewed 29 November 2016, www. transitioning.org/about-2/. Gomes, C. 2014. ‘Xenophobia Online: Unmasking Singaporean Attitudes Towards “Foreign Talent” Migrants’. Asian Ethnicity, 15(1), 21–40. Gomes, C. 2015. Multiculturalism through the Lens: A Guide to Ethnic and Migrant Anxieties in Singapore. Singapore: Ethos Books. Gomes, C. 2017. Transient Mobility and Middle Class Identity: Media and Migration in Australia and Singapore. Shanghai: Palgrave Macmillan. Gomes, C., Chang, S., Jacka, L., Coulter, D., Alzougool, B. and Constantinidis, D. 2015. ‘Myth Busting Stereotypes: The Connections, Disconnections and Benefits of International Student Social Networks’. 26th ISANA International Education Association Conference, Melbourne, 1–4 December. Ho, D. 2014. ‘Anton Casey’s Comments on “Poor People” in Singapore Make Headlines in British Press’. Straits Times, 23 January, viewed 28 November 2016, www.straitstimes.com/singapore/anton- caseys-comments- on-poor- people-insingapore-make-headlines-in-british-press. Housing & Development Board 2016. ‘Public Housing – A Singapore Icon’. Housing Development Board, viewed 28 November 2016, www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/ about-us/our-role/public-housing-a-singapore-icon. ICEF Monitor, 2012. ‘Singapore’s “Carefully Calibrated” Expansion Plans’. ICEF Monitor, vol. 4, viewed 20 August 2015, http://monitor.icef.com/2012/09/ singapores-carefully-calibrated-expansion-plans/http://monitor.icef.com/2012/09/ singapores-carefully-calibrated-expansion-plans/. Immigration & Checkpoints Authority, 2013. ‘Terms & Conditions of Student’s Pass (STP)’. Immigration & Checkpoints Authority, viewed 28 November 2016, www.ica. gov.sg/data/resources/docs/Visitor%20Services/Terms_and_Conditions_STP.pdf ).

  

122 C. Gomes

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

Lai, A.L. and Matthews, M. 2016. ‘Navigating Disconnects and Divides in Singapore’s Cultural Diversity’. Managing Diversity in Singapore: Policies and Prospects. In M. Matthews and W. F Chiang, (Eds), Diversity in Singapore: Policies and Prospects (3–40). London: Imperial College Press. Madianou, M. and Miller, D. 2012. Migration and New Media: Transnational Families and Polymedia. London: Routledge. Matthews, D. 2013. ‘Singapore: No Sleep for the Lion City’s Universities’. Times Higher Education, 21 November, viewed 24 April 2014, www.timeshighereducation. com/features/no-sleep-for-singapores-universities/2009064.article. Ministry of Education, Singapore. 2014. ‘TG Online’. Ministry of Education, viewed 29 November 2016, https://tgonline.moe.gov.sg/tgis/normal/index.action. Ministry of Manpower, Singapore. 2016a. ‘Passes and Visas’. Ministry of Manpower, 30 November 2016, www.mom.gov.sg/foreign-manpower/passes-visas/Pages/default. aspx#sthash.X8CJOYRl.dpuf. Ministry of Manpower, Singapore. 2016b. ‘Summary Table: Job Vacancy’. Ministry of Manpower, viewed 28 November 2016, http://stats.mom.gov.sg/Pages/JobVacancy-Summary-Table.aspx. Prensky, M. 2001. ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’. On the Horizon, 9(5), pp. 1–6. Sanderson, G. 2002. ‘International Education Developments in Singapore’. International Education Journal, 3(2), 85–103. Sidhu, R., Ho, K. C. and Yeoh, B. S. A. 2014. ‘Singapore: Building a Knowledge and Education Hub’. International Education Hubs, 8, pp. 121–143. Sim, F, 2012. ‘NUS Student Sun Xu Punished for “Dogs” comment’. Yahoo! News, 27 March, viewed 28 November 2016, https://sg.news.yahoo.com/chinesescholar-sun-xu-s-scholarship-terminated.html. Singapore Economic Development Board, 2016. ‘Future Ready Singapore’. Singapore Economic Development Board, viewed 28 November 2016, www.edb.gov.sg/content/ edb/en/why-singapore/about-singapore/values/knowledge.html. Thanapal, S. 2016. Singaporean Chinese Privilege, viewed 28 November 2016, http:// thisissgchineseprivilege.tumblr.com/. The Complete University Guide, 2014. ‘Studying in Singapore’. The Complete University Guide, viewed 20 November 2014, www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/ international/asia/singapore/. Toh, Y. C. 2013. ‘University Degree “Not Vital for Success”: Khaw Boon Wan’. The Straits Times, 5 May, viewed 30 November 2016, www.straitstimes.com/ singapore/university-degree-not-vital-for-success-khaw-boon-wan. University World News, 2008. ‘Singapore: Plans to Attract 150,000 International Students’, University World News, issue 46, 28 September, viewed 28 November 2016, www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080925152611417. Urry, J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century. London: Routledge. Velayutham, S. 2009. ‘Everyday Racism in Singapore’. In A. Wise and S. Velayutham, (Eds), Everyday Multiculturalism (255–273). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. World Bank. 2014. Singapore. The World Bank, viewed 10 April 2014, www.worldbank.org/en/country/singapore. Yang, P. 2016. International Mobility and Educational Desire: Chinese Foreign Talent Students in Singapore. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  

Navigating through the hostility

123

Ziguras, C. and Gribble, C. (2014). ‘Policy Responses to Address Student “Brain Drain”: An Assessment of Measures Intended to Reduce the Emigration of Singaporean International Students’. Journal of Studies in International Education, viewed 30 November 2016, http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/12/11/10283153145 61121.refs.

Rethinking the issue of rights for international students



7

 

 

 

Ly Thi Tran and Chris Nyland

Introduction

­

 



 

­



­

­

­

­

This chapter extends the scope of existing literature on the experiences and needs of international students (Rosenthal, Russell & Thomson, 2007; Marginson, Nyland, Sawir & Forbes-Mewett, 2010; Cheung & Yue, 2013; Tran, 2013) to include aspects of rights associated with their status as cross-border students. It draws on a study funded by the Australian Research Council that includes 105 semi-structured interviews with international students from 25 vocational education and training (VET) institutes in Australia. The students’ accounts reveal that they perceive themselves as customers of the education services in the host country. The research found that the issue of rights for international students is intimately related to the provision of high-quality education and employment and welfare support for this cohort. Traditionally the responses of the host government in relation to international education are centred around the promotion of the country as a destination for international students, the nexus between education and migration, employment and work experience for international students, and the welfare of this cohort (Robertson, 2008, 2011; Forbes-Mewett & Nyland, 2009; Tran & Soejatminah, 2016). However, increasing attention has been given to international student rights by the Australian government. This is evidenced in their commissioning of Association of Australian and New Zealand International Education Professionals (ISANA) to produce videos and materials to raise international students’ awareness of their rights and responsibilities under the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act and the National Code, the policy text International Student Strategy for Australia: 2010–2014, the review and amendment to the ESOS Act and the development in providing information through the study in Australia website. Policy texts on international students such as International Student Strategy for Australia: 2010–2014 and National Strategy for International Education 2025 were explicit in conceding international students have specific rights and spelled out strategies for the sojourners to be able to realise their right to a high-quality education, consumer protection and employment. Within

  

International students’ rights

125

­

­

­

­



­





­

Australia, international students’ rights have been framed in accordance with the ‘consumer protection’ principle that is regulated by the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and Immigration laws. The consumer focus has been criticised for an excessive concentration on the protection of the financial interests of international students rather than domains that relate to their security and welfare (Sawir, Marginson, Nyland, Ramia & RawlingsSanaei, 2009; Pejic, 2012). Changes to the ESOS Act aim at more effectively protecting the rights of international students as consumers of education services. These include improvement in a strengthening of regulations that govern education service providers and the enhancement of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s capacity to solve complaints about private providers. However, these amendments to the Act were introduced without any substantial attention being accorded to international students’ understanding of their rights and it is this fundamental omission that is addressed in this chapter. The 2012 Australian Human Rights Commission’s report entitled ‘Principles to promote and protect the human rights of international students’ identified the key human rights areas that should be addressed in policy documents and proposed four key principles these being the need to: (1) enhance the human rights of international students, (2) ensure all international students have access freedom from discrimination, (3) consider the diverse needs of international students, and (4) empower international students during their stay in Australia (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012). A global movement that seeks to enhance international students’ rights has also marked a cornerstone for global considerations. This is reflected in a global charter for international students’ rights, which is often referred to as the International Student Mobility Charter developed by the European Association for International Education. The charter specifies a set of standards to protect and enhance the rights of globally mobile students. These address key domains concerning students’ rights ranging from equity of treatment, intercultural competence, student engagement, transferability of study loans and quality of assurance to protection of student status in-country, in case of visa or host institution crisis (The PIE News, 2012). The International Student Mobility Charter was developed in response to significant concerns about problems arising from the right and welfare vulnerability of the fast growing mobile student population globally in recent years. Forbes-Mewett and Nyland (2009) have also explored the issue of international student rights in the context of the right to socio-economic security and have shown that within Australia this is a notion that is all too often neglected and that students suffer as a consequence. Although the Australian Human Rights Commission has argued that ‘As a nation, we also have a duty of care to ensure the health, safety and well-being of international students’ (2012: 3), rights remain an under-theorised area in the literature and the voices of international students themselves in relation to their rights as students and as visitors to Australia have not yet been accounted for in empirical

  

126 L. T. Tran and C. Nyland



­

­

studies. The Australian Human Rights Commission (2012) has argued that the protection of rights for international students is essential to ensure and enhance their health, safety and well-being. Understanding these aspects will help the international education sector and the Australian government fulfil their ethical commitment to providing high-quality education and supporting international students in ensuring good returns on their investments in studying in Australia. Given the lacuna in theory and the recent government emphasis, this chapter opens up new possibilities and ways of viewing international students in relation to their rights and the responses of the related stakeholders in the host community. The chapter begins by discussing the literature, policies and discourse related to the issue of international student rights. We then proceed to detail the research methodology used in this study. We conclude with a discussion of the main domains of rights to which international students attribute.

International students and the issue of rights

­

 



­

 

­

Scholars have argued that despite the existing anti-racism policies and discourse in some host countries such as Australia and the US, in general nation states lack the mechanisms required to adequately manage the growing population of international students and their integration into the local community ( Jakubowicz & Monani, 2010; Marginson, 2012). On relocating to and studying in a host country, international students are often seen as ‘outsiders’ or ‘aliens’ (Marginson, 2012) and even worse as those who might pose the risk of taking local students’ places in education institutions or locals’ jobs in the labour market. The anti-migration sentiments widely held in some host countries also essentialise international students as mere migration hunters, regardless of their diverse purposes and aspirations associated with overseas study (Tran & Nyland, 2011). International students’ non-citizenship status in the host country has led to less than equal entitlement and protection, exclusion and even discrimination. International students’ physical residence is separated from their national citizenship and they move across national borders in a world in which entitlements and protection of rights are predominantly framed nationally (Marginson, 2012: 11). According to the Australian Human Rights Commission (2012: 9), challenges for international students should but currently do not include access to safe, adequate and affordable housing, personal safety and security, access to physical and mental health services, safe and fair employment, and privacy. Previous research has shown that, as compared to domestic students, international students are marginalised in terms of access to standard housing, medical service, student loans, childcare and subsidised transport (Marginson et al., 2010). Since international students are lawfully temporarily resident in Australia for an extended period, these less than equal entitlements and exclusions can be regarded as ‘discrimination on grounds of civil, cultural and social rights’ ( Jakubowicz & Monani, 2010: 14). Violating

  

International students’ rights

127

­

 

­

­



­

­





­

 

international students’ rights is often described as racism, discrimination, exploitation and harassment (Szoke, 2012). This can be seen as discrimination on the ground of race, colour, culture, religion, language or sex ( Jakubowicz & Monani, 2010; Szoke, 2012). These forms of discrimination can emerge from their interaction and dealings with the local community, health care providers, migration agents, real estate agents, landlords, employers and education providers (Pejic, 2012; Szoke, 2012). The literature widely agrees that cross-border mobile students are subject to rights vulnerability. International students are often seen to live and study in ‘a legal limbo’ (Marginson, 2012; Pejic, 2012). This status has also been argued to result from ‘the deferral of responsibilities from the Commonwealth to the educational provider’ (Pejic, 2012: 14). The third implication is that for the country of education, this growing group of students seems to be associated with ambiguous meanings. Much has been talked about their financial benefits to the country of education but their presence in the host country also triggers anxiety about access to national resources and sensitivities about security as well as migration. International students’ cultural, diplomatic and intellectual contributions to the host nation have been acknowledged in rhetoric but, in practice, how to fully realise these potentials remains ambiguous. Drawing on the work of French social philosopher Jacques Derrida, Jakubowicz and Monani (2010: 12) proposed four dimensions of the relationships emerging from the conditional hospitality that involves reciprocity between the host country of education and guest international students. These include international aid recipients, potential citizens, service consumers and export carriers. As international education is predominantly driven by neo-liberal commercialisation principles, international students, the key actors in international education, are often positioned as consumers of education services. In terms of human rights, this market approach goes hand in hand with the customer right approach (Jakubowicz & Monani, 2010). That is, the rights of student-customers are seen in relation to the fees, prestige and quality of educational programs, safety and security, access to adequate accommodation, employment opportunities and, implicitly or explicitly, migration opportunity (Jakubowicz & Monani, 2010). Marginson calls for a more relational cosmopolitan approach to treating cross-border students’ rights. That is, this group are granted ‘quasi-citizenship status’ whereby ‘their rights and entitlements are aligned as closely as possible to those of local students’ (Marginson, 2012: 11). In a similar vein, Jakubowicz and Monani (2010) argue that if international students are not marginalised and can access broader range of human rights in the country of education, they will feel included and welcome. This also leads to enhanced social cohesion. However, to date, only international students who are European citizens undertaking overseas study in a country of the European Union can enjoy quasi-citizenship status (Sawir et al., 2009: 46).

  

128 L. T. Tran and C. Nyland

The research





­

This research includes interviews with more than 150 international students and staff as well as fieldwork conducted in dual-sector and vocational education institutions in three main states of Australia: New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (QLD) and Victoria (VIC). The student participants were selected based on the broad criteria that they are enrolled as an international student in either a public or private VET institute in Australia. Interviewees were recruited through an invitation sent to their institutions and interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. The participants were enrolled in a wide range of VET programs including Hospitality, Building and Construction, Finance, Community Welfare, Hairdressing, Automotive and IT. Second interviews were also undertaken with a small number of students based on their willingness to participate in a second interview. The purpose of the second interview is to understand what changes the students have made with regard to their learning and social adaptation six months after the first interview. To protect the confidentiality of the participants, pseudonyms are used and institutions are kept anonymous. The students’ national origins and courses are summarised in Table 7.1. The researchers read the interview transcripts several times and used NVivo software version 10 to code the interview data. We highlighted the phrases, sentences and paragraphs that highlight students’ specific views on their rights. Then we drew on related scholarly work and theory on student

 

Table 7.1 The students’ national origins and courses Nation of origin

Number of interviewees

VET course

South Asia India Other

22 2

Food and hospitality Management and commerce Building and carpentry

Northeast Asia China Korea Japan

18 10 2

Information technology Hairdressing Community welfare work Automotive

18 7

Others Total –

Southeast Asia and the Pacific Vietnam Other (Malaysia, Philippine, Thailand) Mauritius Europe and the UK South America Others Total

Number of interviewees 40 10 16 9 8 5 4 13 105 –

5

–

–

12

–

–

3

–

–

6 105

– –

– –

  

International students’ rights

129



 

and citizen rights as well as the broader literature on international students to interpret the interview data. The following discussion foregrounds the meanings that international students in the Australian vocational education sector ascribe to their rights as students in the country of education.

Rights in relation to education The interviews with international students show that many believe their human rights were adequately protected in Australia: Like here in Australia, human rights are much more active than I think in some other countries. So here definitely they are very good. They are giving more importance everywhere. (Indian, Community Welfare, Public College)

 

I really think I have many more rights than an Australian to be honest … I’d imagine the government has done a pretty good job. (British, Hairdressing, Public College) I think I’ve got a right to study. And I’ve got the right to work because my visa permits me to work as well. And I’ve got my rights to express myself for you know I don’t have I think, even though I’m an international students but I regard myself as a student within Australia. That’s for me, the only thing that differs us is probably is that we are international but for me I think I’ve got everything, access to everything. (Vanuatu, IT, Public College)

 

I think that I’m well protected actually if we want to talk about these things. Yeah, yeah. I feel well protected. If I have a problem, I can talk. It is good justice here. (French, Communication and Media, Public College) However, the students expressed a range of perspectives about their education rights. There seems to be a paradox in both the scholarly literature and the public policies of the host country around the rights of international students. The educational experience of international students appears to be at the centre of the existing literature about international education and has attracted consistently rich research over the past decade (Lee & Rice, 2007; Rosenthal et al., 2007; Tran & Nyland, 2011; Tran, 2011, 2016). Yet the education rights of this student cohort appear to be neglected in scholarly work. This may be partly due to the assumption that as international students are engaged in international education, they naturally have the same education rights as domestic students and the complexities underpinning their education rights have not been brought to light. This may also be because

  

130 L. T. Tran and C. Nyland

­



education rights may be polarised by other domains of rights based on civil, race, gender, social, cultural and economic grounds. In the public discourse and state policies of the country of education, their rights as consumers of education services and their welfare rights appear to be accorded more emphasis. Many international students in this study see their rights as being intimately interwoven with their education rights. Education rights may involve the right to be provided with high-quality teaching and learning and with adequate resources to support learning and many feel positive about their rights companied with the quality education services they are entitled to. This is illustrated through the following voices:

 

Yeah, I have the right to be properly educated in what I am doing right now. And maybe that’s all. (Philipino, Hospitality Management, Public College) My rights, get the best possible teaching and lot of practice work. It’s also very nice, we have a nice workshop with all the machinery. It’s really great. I think they had to pay a lot of money to get the equipment. (German, Cabinet Making, Public College)

 

And I think the main right I think is we have the right to receive quality education for the money we’re paying and I think we shouldn’t have to pay so high. (Indian, Community Welfare, Private College)

­



­

­

These students perceive themselves to be customers of educational services in the host country. For them, the right to gain access to high-quality education appears to be the most fundamental aspect of rights in their host country. Their aspiration towards rights entitlement reflects the nature of their student status. Academic enhancement is an ultimate goal for many students who have invested in international education. Therefore, international students’ perception of their own rights may differ significantly with that of migrants or denizens who are legal and permanent residents but non-citizens of a host country (Atikan, 2006). The latter groups appear to be more concerned with their civic and social rights than education right. Such a difference indicates that the ways people see their rights are strongly shaped by their conditions and life goals. Other students are however critical of the extent to which their entitlement to a high-quality education is satisfied: I feel a bit out of place in Australia as an international student. I think that feeling passes through me because there’s a sense of injustice about my course. With my other friends and the community I feel at home. There’s no problem there. But I think it’s mainly in my identity as an

  

International students’ rights

131

international student that I feel kind of persecuted and I feel unhappy and not at home, not welcome, you know … I feel my contribution in class is not valued. That I am seen as someone who’ll come here to take something from the system, like a PR or something. But I feel that they don’t recognise that I want to be part of it and contribute something to the class. (Indian, Community Welfare, Dual Sector University)

 

No. I was thinking that I will be with the local students and we’re going to learn something from the other students, the other cultures, the language, definitely. But the scenario is completely different. They bring all the students from the same country, they put you in confined places where you don’t have any connection with the local people. And they just teach whatever they have in the curriculum whether it has any implementation in the community or not. (Indian, Community Welfare, Private College) We have the right not to be ripped off … I think it occurs because international education is revenue for Victoria, for the government. What are they call it now? They’re selling it as a product, a commercial thing. You can’t do that and then complain that the students that come here are not interested in learning because you’re not selling it to them as something as a learning opportunity. You’re viewing it as commerce not as education. There’s a big contradiction there. (Indian, Community Welfare, Public College)

 



The Indian student in the first excerpt, who studies for a diploma in welfare, felt that her rights in the classroom context are undermined because she wants to share with the teacher and the class about her experience and understanding of the welfare system in India but the teacher ignores her contribution. She powerfully made the connection between the lack of recognition of students’ voices in class and the injustice to her rights as a student. She proposed that the teacher’s attitude towards students’ learning and their suppression of students’ contributions may be rooted in the widespread labelling of international students in vocational education as those who are mere ‘PR hunters’ with no or little real interest in learning. Tran and Nyland (2011) have also found that the stereotyping of international students in vocational education as a homogenous group who see migration as an end for their international education has detrimental effects upon various aspects of teaching and learning. Remarkably the student revealed a sense of belonging to her peers and the community. While her educational right appears to be subordinated, she feels protected with regards to her social rights. The second excerpt reveals that the student feels her education rights are not honoured because of the contradictions in how the international education discourse positions international students. In her view, Australian

  

132 L. T. Tran and C. Nyland

­

­



­

education is ‘sold’ to international students as a commercial product to generate financial revenue rather than as a learning opportunity and high quality is not always guaranteed. This is in line with the neo-liberal marketdriven principle driving the current state of international education that has been criticised by a number of scholars (Marginson, 2007). In accordance with this discourse, international students are constructed as consumers of a commercial product rather than ‘real’ learners. But on the other hand, there is labelling that international students are not really interested in learning. These paradoxes have not done justice to international students. The Australian international education sector experienced a period of turbulence between 2009 and 2010 largely due to the collapse of a number of private VET colleges and the fact that students took the streets in protest. These colleges operated in an unethical manner through actively marketing the opportunity to migrate rather than the opportunity to gain a high-quality education and commonly did not have the facilities and capacity to cater for international students. The collapse of these dodgy private colleges, mainly in the two biggest cities of Australia, Sydney and Melbourne, are typical examples of how international students’ rights are violated. Below are some snapshots into international students’ experiences when their colleges go bankrupt:

Well, when we came here, we paid a lot of money. We signed a contract with the college as a consumer so we had a right to know that the college is closing down. But the college hadn’t informed us. After closing up the college, they said, okay, we don’t have enough money to run the college. That’s why we are closing the college. (Indian, Community Welfare, Private College) I’m not really enrolled in the TAFE yet. So I’m still a student of a private institution. And my experience with the private institution is worse in the sense of the quality of education and what they are providing. In the case of facilities, what they are providing to the international students how they behave and how they tackle international students’ problems. So all these things make my experience with the private institutional sector, the private colleges, worse. (Indian, Community Welfare, Private College) These students overwhelmingly see their education rights in terms of consumers rather than as students. Within the private VET setting, many students feel that their consumer rights have been adequately protected. The system’s failure in managing a number of private colleges and protecting international students when these colleges collapse has induced substantial discontent among the international student cohort. Positioning themselves as customers in international education, the students stress they do have a right to be provided the ‘commodity’ they purchase, and because in many the failure to

  

International students’ rights

133

provide for students’ right to be provided the ‘product’ they have purchased has imposed significant costs on them that they and their families may spend their whole lives seeking to recoup.

Rights in relation to accommodation and employment Many students associate their student rights with their security rights on the basis of having access to adequate housing and employment in the country of education.

 

I think I am free here. I am enjoying the lifestyle in Sydney but international students should be given accommodation by their host organisation where they can be together, share their knowledge, group discussion, everything. We see each other in class but when we go home we are in different places so we can’t share our knowledge. So I think that if students in Australia are given accommodation on campus it will be good. (Bangladeshi, IT, Public College)

 

It’s like protection for international students, for example, I was cheated by an Aussie guy. I give him my bond for a stay in his apartment and he said to me, I can’t get it back. I went to the Consumer Affairs Victoria, they do nothing and the police do nothing. And the lawyer said to me it cost you more to do something in the court than the money they owe you. Then it’s like we feel really, really alone here because we don’t have tools to complain with. This kind of thing. Then you can’t do anything. You lose your money. Or sometimes the people insult and you can’t do anything because you’re an international student not Australian. It’s really bad. You have to live in that way, sometimes you have to be strong to be an international student here. You don’t have the money to hire a lawyer or something to give some respect, how can I say that? It’s like recover your things, if somebody stole from you. (Columbian, Marketing, Private College)

­

The students pointed out the imbalance between the number of international students recruited in Australia and hosts’ capacity to cater for the needs of international students. Moving beyond the learning needs, these students highlight their right to safe accommodation and suitable employment. In this regard, students tend to closely align their rights to their consumer rights, which indicate host institutions’ and countries’ responsibility to provide the ‘service’ and ‘infrastructure’ to meet student consumers’ welfare needs. There are three key issues emerging from the foregoing episodes. First, students’ health, safety and study are undermined because institutions that host international students and are responsible for providing for them lack the capacity to do so. Second, access to on-campus accommodation is seen to go hand in

  

134 L. T. Tran and C. Nyland



­

hand with enhanced engagement between international students and domestic students and among international students themselves. Students revealed their aspiration to develop friendship, share knowledge and enhance their cultural understandings through the opportunity to live on campus. This can also help diminish the sense of isolation and loneliness that confronts some international students as indicated in Marginson et al.’s study (2010). Third, international students’ non-citizen status is vulnerable to the violation of rights as the current international education regime lacks transparent mechanisms needed to adequately safeguard student rights. In one of the examples above, the student reported how they are ripped off by their landlord and their life is undervalued when both Consumer Affairs Victoria and Victoria Police failed to protect them on the bond issue. Bringing the issue to court is too costly for them. As a result they suffer with injustice. Beyond the level of social and economic marginalisation, this situation embodies social and economic exploitation. With regard to their experience with employment and the workplace, the participants revealed: They don’t pay you, I think they still don’t pay me a minimum wage here. They just pay me apprentice rate but I’m clearly not an apprentice. Yeah, but I can’t argue that because for them I’m new in Australia.… So, like now it’s the holidays so I’m getting to find out about my rights and speak to them. And if they’re not going to do anything, then I can always look for another job I guess. (Malaysian, Bakery, Private College)

 

Job opportunities means they prefer a 17 years old apprentice over a qualified hairdresser who is 23 years old because they have to pay extra. I think that is a big problem because for me to apply and get a job it’s so hard because there are so many 17 years old school dropouts who will be doing hairdressing. I can’t say it’s wrong. That is blocking the opportunities for the international students to get into jobs. (Chinese, Game Design, Public College) I got a lower payment even though I teach the other guys. I should get a higher wage than other guys or at least the same as the other guys. And they say, anyway you need a job, right because you are an international student and you need a job obviously because it’s harder to live without money. (Korean, Cookery, Private College)

­

There are certain gaps in the job market that can lead to international students being exploited. First, their right as a worker is not safeguarded because the demand for part-time employment among international and domestic students exceeds the supply and some employers take advantage of this situation.

  

International students’ rights

135



­

­



As a result, international students who are desperate for a job to make ends meet in the host country can be paid significantly below the minimum wage level. Their lack of bargaining power and lack of knowledge about the employment market as well as workplace regulations in the country of education makes them vulnerable. Furthermore, many international students may have to work longer than they are allowed in accordance with their visa conditions to provide for their living. This situation makes them more likely to become victims of workplace abuse, unscrupulous exploitation and sexual harassment while less likely to report these issues to concerned authorities. Second, many international students are discriminated against in the workplace in the sense that do not get adequate pay in accordance with the nature of the job for which they are responsible. For example, they may get less pay than their local counterparts for a job that demands higher skills. In addition, international students in VET who are over 18 years old and not an apprentice get paid as an apprentice, at a wage much lower than the minimum wage level. Apparently, some employers purposefully ignore the rule and exploit international students, especially those who may be new to the country. This reinforces the view that their temporary non-citizen resident status and lack of knowledge about the local system makes them vulnerable to exploitation. Third, international students perceive that their employment opportunities may be restricted because local employers may prefer a 17-year-old apprentice to a qualified international student due to the gap in minimum wage for these two groups. All these factors along with racial discrimination as discussed above have created barriers for international students to access the employment market and contributed to their negative experience in the workplace. An example of where international students believed they are officially treated as inferior to local students is the 20 hours work limit per week during the semester:

 

What are my rights as an international student? I’m only allowed to work 20 hours a week. I’m allowed to work only 20 hours and I’m not, I don’t have the same rights as an Australian student, I know that. (Indian, Hospitality Management, Public College) I suppose it’s my right to be treated with a bit of respect. And I think one thing they could probably do is change the hours that we’re allowed to work. I think it’s a bit ridiculous we’re only allowed to work 20 hours. (Irish, Accounting, Private College)

­

While the intention underpinning the government’s rule of restricting 20 hours work per week during the semester is to ensure international students have sufficient time to focus on their study, this regulation raises several issues. This may represent discrimination against international students on the basis of their non-citizen status, as domestic students have an unrestricted

  

136 L. T. Tran and C. Nyland right to work. As some international students put it, such a regulation makes them feel they are not treated with respect and equity. More significantly, singling out international students as a group who can work a maximum of 20 hours per week risks the implied assumption about their academic deficit and their need for more study time compared to domestic students who do not face any restrictions on their work time. In essence, this difference indicates international students are less entitled to rights in terms of working hours than domestic students.

 

Rights in relation to public transport fares The aspect of rights that the international students in this study were most concerned about is the fact that there is an absence of public transport concession for international students, particularly in Victoria and New South Wales.

 

­

And also on public transport. It’s shocking that we don’t get concessions cards. So I think that is outrageous. Like that has to change. I mean, first of all you’re on a tight budget so. Also it affects your sense of self-respect. You know, if I’m a student then why am I being treated differently from everyone else? (Indian, Community Welfare, Public College)

 

Concession prices. Like you know I pay a lot of money. This college lives out of international student money. And they don’t treat us well enough. Because I lived in London for a while and I studied there. And just that little fact of not getting, not being able to get a discount on transport makes my life miserable, like I cannot believe that it doesn’t exist. Come on, like we’re students. You know? I just can’t get over it. (Mexican, Horticulture, Public College) International students in South Australia, the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory enjoy full rights to public transport concessions like domestic students. Victoria is currently the only state in Australia that withholds concessions on public transport for international students. The NSW government is introducing a programmethat offers a 90 or 365-day travel pass at a price discounted up to 35 per cent for travel outside the city on MyMulti2 and MyMulti3 tickets. This programmehas come under criticism for being ‘piecemeal and unhelpful’ (Meld magazine, 2013). Under this program, international students must pay up to $1,540 up front in order to be entitled for concession and tickets can also only be purchased through their institution during enrolment. According to Meld magazine, the NSW government withholds concession on the MyMulti1 ticket, which provides unlimited transport access to the inner city and surrounding suburbs.

  

International students’ rights

137





The excerpts above revealed various forms of frustration international students feel about not being offered public transport concession. For many of them, this is a form of discrimination as they are treated with less equity than their domestic counterparts. Especially, many international students tend to link the fact that they are denied a discount on public transport with the much higher fee they pay as compared to domestic students, which highlights the binary structure of citizen/outsider. As Marginson put it, they are treated as ‘outsiders with weak claims to the common weal’ (2012: 22). By denying the concession on public transport for international students, the Victorian government seems to formally impose marginalisation on international students, which makes them more vulnerable to discrimination in the community. The absence of concessions on public transport for international students can lead to detrimental financial, intellectual and psychological effects for them. Financially, students reveal that they struggle to cover the full fare on public transport, which is very costly. The denial of discounted tickets can affect their study because they try to walk to campus instead of catching public transport, which makes them exhausted and unable to concentrate in class. Other students revealed that they refuse to go to campus to do group work with other students on the day they have no class to minimise the cost of public transport. Some mentioned that they have to restrain from participating in social and cultural activities on campus and in the community to save travel costs. Worse still, some students indicate they try to save the cost of a full fare by trying to walk a long way home instead of taking public transport, which seriously threatens their safety. But above all, many feel that they are treated in an unequitable and disrespectful manner and both life and their identity as an international is devalued.

Rights to be listened to and make a complaint The right to be listened to and make a complaint has been seen as fundamental to their rights as international students:

 

My human right, I think the government should spend some time, just like you [the interviewer], just to do the report to checking how the area is different for international students, questions like this, listen to our opinions. They have to take time listen our opinion and to know us. We need help or we don’t need help like this, yeah. But I think the government is concentrating on the economic side. You know why? Because Australia is selling education and we pay the money and sometimes we find it difficult to pay. (Taiwanese, Business, Private College) Oh my rights, yes. Well to be notified of changes and everything. Notify us of what’s going on and any change in migration, yeah. What’s going on with the timetables and opportunities. (Mauritius, Hospitality Management, Private College)

  

138 L. T. Tran and C. Nyland



­

­

The right to voice one’s opinions has always been regarded as fundamental aspect of human rights (UNESCO’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). As articulated in the above excerpts, international students expressed their desire to communicate their needs, concerns and expectations on their study and well-being to the relevant government bodies. In the recent ‘Principles to promote and protect the human rights of international students’, the Australian Human Rights Commission also maintained that ‘a clear understanding among stakeholders of the needs and experiences of international students living in Australia is vital to ensuring the protection of their human rights’ (2012: 12). Listening to and taking into account the needs, experiences and aspirations of international students is essential to humanise international education and make this industry more student-centred. Otherwise, as one of the students in the above excerpts put it, the focus is still on the ‘economic side’. There is still an imbalance between the commercialisation of international education and the effort to cater for international students’ educational and welfare needs. Importantly, listening to international students’ voices and recognising their contributions is interwoven with recognising their fundamental worth as a human being. The students from private colleges also gave examples about how their complaints and inquiries are treated in an unethical manner I think it’s about a month before collapsing the college, they increased the fee.… And they increased that fee by over 14% at once. And we asked okay, we are in the last term. We are just going to finish our course and you have increased our fee, it was 14% which is too much for us. How are we going to pay? And strangely the management, the Principal said, okay, if you don’t want to pay, you can’t pay this school fee, then leave the college.… We are here for the business and we are doing the business, not the welfare of the students. Yeah, I wasn’t the only one there to ask that question. We were about 40 or 50 students that were there who asked the management, the Principal. (Indian, Community Welfare, Public College)

 

Yeah, they are not speaking because they are not vocal and the first thing that they don’t know to whom they have to ask, where to go, where is the place to ask the question or push the issue.… That college after the closure of that, I hadn’t had any idea which way to go, whom to ask.… There should be some single point to address these types of international student issues. Like if I don’t have accommodation, who I can ask? If I don’t have a job, who am I going to ask? I do have a medical problem right now. Who am I going to ask? (Indian, Community Welfare, Public College) The fact that there is so much confusion they don’t even know their own rules about appeal. How can a university not know their own rules?

  

International students’ rights

139

I don’t understand. Like the teacher in charge of appeals didn’t have the correct information. So that’s really, really shoddy and shonky. (Indian, Community Welfare, Public College)



­



The students’ accounts revealed three significant concerns with their rights. First, their voices and their right to ask questions are suppressed by the managers of the private college. Through the way they respond to students’ enquiries about tuition fee increases, the college obviously positions itself as a business, not an educational institution. Worse still, they mentioned students’ welfare is not their responsibility. The way this college treats international students is consistent with other international students’ description of the manner and operation of the dodgy private colleges they are enrolled in as mentioned in the above sections. But beyond the ethical matter, their treatment of international students also indicates an unsustainable approach to running a ‘business’. In the current competitive international education environment, institutions have to try to satisfy the needs and expectations of international students to survive. Second, the students mentioned they are unaware of where and whom to turn to for information and assistance regarding accommodation, employment, health, visa and study issues. Then when their college goes bankrupt, they do not know where to seek help. Also different stakeholders they turn to do not tend to see it as their responsibility to help the students out in such a crisis. This situation indicates a serious gap in the system that does not have transparent and strict regulations to protect the rights of international students as human beings and as customers of education services. Recognising that international students’ rights as customers of education services have been seriously breached as a consequence of the crisis in the private sector between 2009 and 2010, the government has implemented changes to the ESOS Act. These include the tightening of the regulation for education service providers and enhancement of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s role to solve international students’ complaints about private providers. While this step is applauded, it focuses mainly on students’ rights as a customer while other rights domains, including welfare, security and identity rights, have not yet been adequately addressed in the updated ESOS Act. In these situations when their rights are breached, students will be more empowered if they can ‘access the necessary social, legal and information services’ (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012: 13). The Australian Human Rights Commission further suggests different stakeholders need to provide international students with adequate information on the complaint-making and handling processes regarding potential and actual breaches of their rights (2012). Third, international students raise concerns about the mechanisms that provide support and handle their complaints. Only international student services seems to take responsibility for looking after international students while other services, including sports clubs, religions and cultural clubs, health services and their own department in which international students are involved, do not appear to see catering for international students as part of their responsibility.

  

140 L. T. Tran and C. Nyland

Conclusion



­

The study shows that the international students in this study predominantly position themselves as customers of the education services and thus associate their rights with consumer rights. While a number of international students in this study feel their civil and political rights are better honoured in Australia than in their home countries and their education rights are adequately provided for, some confronted conditions where their rights were breached, especially as a result of the collapse of the colleges in the private VET system in 2010 and the inadequate system and support to deal with this situation. Others expressed a feeling of being inadequately treated while not being provided with basic welfare, accommodation and employment entitlements. These students do not see that their engagement in international education in Australia is grounded in mutual benefits. That is, they pay the Australian institutions for their education. However, they see themselves as the ‘dollar’ mines for a range of services in Australia. In return, they do not receive equal entitlements as domestic students due to their non-citizen status. Indian students are the group that most strongly report that their rights are being breached. This is because most interviewees in this study who are victims of the private college turbulence between 2009 and 2010 are Indian as these colleges source students from one specific region or province in India through agents. In addition, many Indian students are upset because they are lured to the course by the migration prospect but the government changed the skilled migration policy while they were midway through their course. Many international students, especially those from European countries or America, are satisfied with the way they are treated in Australia because they may not experience the trauma associated with the college closure and the forms of marginalisation in the community.

References

 

­

Atikcan, E. O. (2006). Citizenship or denizenship: The treatment of third country nationals in the European Union. Brighton: Sussex European Institute. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2012). Principles to promote and protect the human rights of international students. Sydney: New South Wales. Cheung, C. K. & Yue, X. D. (2013). Sustaining resilience through local connectedness among sojourn students. Social Indicators Research, 111(3), 785–800. Forbes-Mewett, H. & Nyland, C. (2009). Understanding and managing international student security needs in Australia: The case of Monash University. Clayton, Vic.: Monash University. Jakubowicz, A. & Monani, D. (2010). International student futures in Australia: A human rights perspective on moving forward to real action. Canberra: Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. Lee, J. J. & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409. Marginson, S. (2007). Global position and position taking: The case of Australia. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1), 5–32.

  

International students’ rights

141

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

­

­

 

Marginson, S. (2012). Equals or others? Mobile students in a nationally bordered world. In M. Blythman & S. Sovic. (Eds), International students negotiating HE (pp. 9–28). London: Routledge. Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Sawir, E. & Forbes-Mewett, H. (2010). International student security. Port Melbourne, Vic.: Cambridge University Press. Meld magazine. (2013). NSW international student transport concessions ‘not useful’. Retrieved from www.meldmagazine.com.au/2013/03/nsw-transport-concessionsnot-useful/. Pejic, D. (2012). International student welfare in Australia. Melbourne: International Social Service Australia. Retrieved 2 October 2017, from www.iss.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/International-Student-Welfare-in-Australia.pdf. Robertson, S. K. (2008). Residency, citizenship and belonging: choice and uncertainty for students-turned-migrants in Australia. International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 4(1), 97–119. Robertson, S. (2011). Cash cows, backdoor migrants, or activist citizens? International students, citizenship, and rights in Australia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(12), 2192–2211. Rosenthal, D. A., Russell, J. & Thomson, G. (2007). Social connectedness among international students at an Australian university. Social Indicators Research, 84(1), 71–82. Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Ramia, G. & Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (2009). The pastoral care of international students in New Zealand: is it more than a consumer protection regime? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(1), 45–59. Smith, P. & Blake, D. (2005). Facilitating learning through effective teaching: At a glace. Adelaide: NCVER. Szoke, H (2012). Racism exists in Australia – are we doing enough to address it? Presentation at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld. 16 February 2012. Retrieved 7 November 2016, from www.humanrights.gov.au/news/ speeches/racism-exists-australia-are-we-doing-enough-address-it. The Pie News. (2012). EAIE charter advocates for overseas student rights. Retrieved 16 May 2016, from http://thepienews.com/news/eaie-charter-to-ensure-overseasstudent-rights/. Tran, L. T. (2011). Committed, face-value, hybrid or mutual adaptation? The experiences of international students in higher education. Educational Review, 63(1), 79–94. Tran, L. T. (2013). Teaching international students in vocational education: New pedagogical approaches. Cambewell: Australian Educational Research Council. Tran, L. T. (2016). ‘Mobility as becoming’: A Bourdieuian analysis of the factors shaping international student mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(8), 1268–1289. Tran, L. T. & Nyland, C. (2011). International vocational education and training – The migration and learning mix. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 51(1), 8–31. Tran, L. T. & Soejatminah, S. (2016). ‘Get foot in the door’: International students’ perceptions of work-integrated learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(3), 337–355. UNESCO. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. UN General Assembly.



8

Missing dialogue

 

 

Mei Tian and John Lowe

 

­

Intercultural experiences of Pakistani students in their first-year studies at a Chinese university

Introduction

­

­

­





­

There has been a dramatic growth in the number and diversity of international students in Chinese universities due to an increase in global interest in China. In 2012 China became the third most popular destination, with 328,330 international students enrolled in Chinese higher education (HE) institutions (IIE, 2013). By 2015 this figure has swelled to 397,635, and is expected to increase further, with the Chinese government declaring a 2020 target of half a million international students in Chinese universities (Ministry of Education, China (MOE), 2010, 2016). However, among all international students in China in 2015, it is estimated that of those enrolled at these universities, 53 per cent have been registered in short, non-degree courses – a situation that brought about challenges to China’s high ranking tertiary institutions. Among the top-ten countries of origin of international students in China in 2010,1 one provided an interesting contrast to the more general pattern – Pakistan. Although the country was sending only modest numbers of students to China (7,406 students, ranking tenth among countries of origin), the proportions of these on degree courses were 95 per cent (MOE, 2011). In 2015, the number of Pakistani students doubled to 15,654, ranking sixth among countries of origin (MOE, 2016). This number is likely to increase further, given China’s recent stress on recruitment of students from south Asia as a strategy to enhance its influences in the neighbouring region in its ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative (Sebastian & Choudaha, 2015). Worldwide, with almost 4.5 million students studying in tertiary education outside their home country, their experiences abroad have attracted considerable research attention (OECD, 2013). These studies shed light on our understandings of the challenges international students face in the initial phase of their cross-cultural studies (Gu & Schweisfurth, 2006; Spencer-Oatey & Xiong, 2006; Tian & Lowe, 2009, 2010, 2013; Talebloo & Baki, 2013). The identified intercultural difficulties lie in academic studies, social interation and discrimination, language and communication, and personal psychological, security and identity issues (Lee & Rice, 2007; Jackson, 2008; Sovic, 2009;

143

  

Intercultural experiences of Pakistani students

­

­



­



­

­

Marginson, Nyland, Sawir & Forbes-Mewett, 2010; Sherry, Thomas & Chui, 2010; Bailey, 2013; Talebloo & Baki, 2013). Researchers also warn us of the danger of cultural stereotyping, stressing that international students’ academic, social and cultural adaptation is complex and non-linear (Rienties, Beausaert, Grohnert, Niemantsverdriet & Kommers, 2012). Recent significant increases in the number and diversity of international students studying in China have led to studies of student experiences beginning to appear in English academic literature. These studies reported the lack of knowledge of China prior to the intercutural studies, initial challenges in intercultual interaction, language proficiency in relation to sense of belonging and general disappointment with education quality (Haugen, 2013; Tian & Lowe, 2014; Li, 2015). Regarding Pakistani students, Chinese domestic literature reported local teachers’ language problems when teaching international students in English, cultural, religious and academic differences these students faced, lack of university support, across-cultural stress, and mutual dissatisfaction with social interactions between Pakistani students and local residents (Chen, Tang, Yan & Wen, 2010; Zhang, Long & Liu, 2012; Cao, 2015). This chapter reports findings of our research into a group of first-year undergraduate Pakistani students’ academic and social experiences at a single university in China. It focuses on the way these students interpreted their relationships with Chinese people in their daily interactions at the initial stage of their intercultural studies. This chapter evaluates the extent to which such interpretations influenced their attitudes towards host people. An outline of Martin Buber’s work on interpersonal/inter-community relationships, and the way his model provides an insight to interpret them, will also be discussed.

 

Theoretical framework: Martin Buber ­

The I-Thou relationship and dialogical communication

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

­



 

 

 

­

­

­

At the heart of Martin Buber’s philosophical work are the relationships between human beings (Yaron, 1993). Buber uses what he called ‘the primary words’ – I-It and I-Thou – to describe human relationships. These are combinations in which each component cannot exist without the other: ‘If Thou is said, the I of the combination I-Thou is said along with it … I-thou can only be spoken with the whole being’ (1958, p. 3). Binding ‘I’ and ‘you’ together stresses the significance of mutual relationships; that is, one needs to learn to live in relationships with others, through ‘will and grace’ (1958, p. 7) in order to understand more fully ‘you’ and discover the ‘I’ of one’s self. The ‘I-Thou’ relationship sharply contrasts with ‘I-It’. ‘It’ may denote a non-living object, but a person may also be ‘objectified’ through an ‘I-It’ relationship in which an ‘I’ uses and controls another in a way which ‘sees the beings around him as machines … which must be … utilized for the Cause …’ (1958, p. 68). ‘I-Thou’ is characterized by mutuality, inseparability, openness, empathy and love; ‘I-It’ is constituted by overemphasised differences,

  

144 M. Tian and J. Lowe

 

­

 

 

 

 

 

­

­



­

­

demarcation, emotional detachment, manipulation and dominance. ‘I-It’ resembles an individualised version of a collective ‘us-them’ relationship with essentialisation of the other and unequal power relationships as its essence. Buber introduces the concept of ‘dialogue’ to describe the ‘meeting’ of two parties in the ‘I-Thou’ relationship: it is through dialogue that ‘I’ experiences the other side in ‘I-Thou’ (2004). He draws a fine distinction between ‘true’ dialogue and ‘technical’ dialogue – one where a mere exchange of information and ideas ‘prompted solely by the need of objective understanding’ and from ‘monologue’ (2004, p. 22). Monologue, although it is always ‘disguised as dialogue’, does not involve sincere listening to or real understanding of the uniqueness of the other (2004, p. 22). In monologue, I and the other remain separated with no intimate mutual relationship being established. In contrast, genuine dialogue is more of an attitude than merely an action. It starts from a willing ‘turning towards the other’, is represented by sincere listening and ‘inclusion’ of ‘Thou’ with love and respect and finally achieves reciprocity; that is, through our meeting, ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ are aware of and appreciate each other’s distinctiveness, ‘the outline of the self ’ (2004, pp. 23, 25 and 117). Here, the ‘inclusion’ stresses the significance of one person to know the other ‘in its singularity’ and as a ‘fellow human being’ (Yaron, 1993, p. 137). This marks a sharp contrast with the Said’s treatise on orientalists’ demarcation of ‘us’ and ‘them’, and Sanderson’s proposal of ‘known unknown’ which explains how ‘us’ construct ‘the cultural others’ through stereotyping (Said, 1978; Sanderson, 2004). Not only does dialogue lead to ‘I-Thou’ relationships between individuals, but it also prevents groups and communities from essentialising, demarcating and demonising other groups who are different from ‘us’ in terms of religion, culture, ethnicity and so on. Buber on education

­

 

 



 

­

­

 

­

­

 

­

Buber (2004) stresses the significance of education as a ‘light-spreading force’ in the hearts of younger generations. Education means change in individual’s actions and attitudes ‘towards more desirable direction’ (Yaron, 1993, p. 140). At the heart of the process of education are interpersonal relationships between educator and student, but both ‘I-It’ and ‘I-Thou’ educator-student relationships can appear. Take class teaching as an example. An emphasis on rules and the presentation of facts and unchallengeable information tend to lead students to learn by ‘copying … in apathy or in despair’ (2004, p. 105). This results in an ‘I-It’ teacher-student relationship (see Guiherme & Morgan, 2009). For Buber, education cannot be realised by compulsion, and failure to notice this leads to ‘humiliation and rebelliousness’ (2004, p. 125). An educational relationship is one of ‘pure dialogue’ (2004, p. 116). The key to this dialogical relationship is ‘mutuality’, which can be interpreted as mutual trust, mutual respect and mutual willingness to communicate and to participate in the other’s life. When educators are conscious of their

  

Intercultural experiences of Pakistani students

145

­

­

­



­



 

responsibility for inclusion, i.e. to ‘say Thou’ and act accordingly, students feel accepted as fellow human beings, secure, and ready to trust the educator (2004, p. 126). Only at this moment would they – rather than show no interest or rebel – desire to enter into the dialogical relationship, to meet the educator in the dialogue and work with the educator to achieve education of character. In Buber’s writings pupils’/adolescents’ relationships with educators can never fall into complete mutuality (2004). Guilherme and Morgan (2009), however, point out that a higher level of communion, according to Buber, is possible in the relationship between teachers and university students, which in turn can enable the I-Thou relationship based on symmetrical mutuality to emerge. A further point to make is that Buber’s stress on ‘I-Thou’ in education is not only for a dialogical relationship to emerge between individuals, but, fundamentally, for dialogues within a human community (Yaron, 1993). ‘IThou’ in education will facilitate the solution of conflicts, deepen understandings, and gain and sustain peaceful co-existence between different religious, cultural and ethnic groups (Buber, 2004).

Methodological procedure

How much had the participants known about the host country and host people, prior to their arrival in China? How did they perceive their relationship with host people in daily interactions during their first-year study in China? Did their perceived relationship change their understandings of China and Chinese people? If yes, in which way? ­

2



1



­

This chapter reports findings from research into the experiences of a group of first-year Pakistani students in China. The research was guided by the following questions:

 



3

­



­

­

Fieldwork was conducted at a research-intensive university in central China (henceforth, Central University, CU). CU is sponsored by the national 2112 and 9853 projects and its vision and mission statements include development into ‘a world-class university’ (CU website). CU has enrolled international students since the 1950s and in a medical degree course since the 1990s. In 2011 when the research was carried out, there were over 1,200 international students studying at CU, with over 800 pursuing an undergraduate degree; of the 1,200, over 400 were from Pakistan. CU targets an enrolment of 2,500 international students for degree studies by 2020 (CU strategic plan 2016–2020, draft version). The authors have done studies at CU and this helped access to the target group. This study combined quantitative and qualitative methods. In October 2011 a questionnaire survey was conducted to all first-year Pakistani

  

146 M. Tian and J. Lowe

­



­

 

­

­

students in the CU medical undergraduate course.4 In 2011 this Englishinstructed five-year Bachelor’s programmeattracted 118 students from many countries, but over half of these students were from Pakistan. Working with the school of international education, paper questionnaires were distributed to all new entrants and 73 valid questionnaires were returned from Pakistani students. The survey provided background information, such as gender, age, home town, native language, English and Chinese abilities, and baseline understandings of the respondents’ reasons for coming to China and their impressions of China/Chinese people prior to the crossbroader study. Of those who had indicated their willingness to participate at the end of the questionnaire, one female and six male Pakistani students were invited for interviews. This represented the percentage of female students among all Pakistani respondents in the survey. Another two Pakistani students in their fourth year of the same course were soon added to the core group, in response to the first-year Pakistani participants’ comments about the influence that older students had on them. In interviews, emphasis was put on the interviewees’ freedom to narrate their perceptions and experiences. All interviews were conducted in English. Each interview lasted 90 to 120 minutes, was audio recorded and later fully transcribed by a native English speaker. All interviews were initially coded under broad headings such as ‘Reasons for studying in China’, ‘Prior impression of China’, ‘Interactions in course’, ‘Interactions outside university’, and so on, that we developed from the research questions. New categories arise from multiple readings of the transcripts and discussions with each other based on the components of Buber’s teaching. In reporting individual students’ responses, we use prefix P to refer to Pakistani participants. P3 is the only female in this group. P7 and P8 are the two senior students.

Findings

­

­

We present the findings under six sub-headings; the first establishes the expectations of the students prior to arrival, while the others describe their perceived relationship in China with five significant groups of people, i.e. Chinese teachers, administrative staff, Chinese students, local Chinese people and senior co-national students. Initial reported reactions

 

­

Questionnaire data show that the majority of the students in 2011 did not have much pre-arrival knowledge about China (Figure 8.1) or the host city (Figure 8.2). Those who reported they had known something about China, obtained their information mainly from the internet and traditional media, such as movies and books, in their home country (Figure 8.3). In

Before coming here how much did you know about China? 50 45

Number of participants

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Nothing

Not much

Chinese history

Some

Chinese politics

Chinese culture

A lot Chinese geography

Chinese lifestyle

 

Figure 8.1 Pre-arrival knowledge about China.

Before coming here how much did you know about this city? 50 45

Number of participants

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Nothing

A little

Quite a lot

 

Figure 8.2 Pre-arrival knowledge about the host city.

A lot

  

148 M. Tian and J. Lowe Before coming here how much information did you get about China from these sources? 35

Number of participants

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Home media

Internet Nothing

Friends/ family

University

Not much

Some

Movies

Books

A lot

 

Figure 8.3 Information sources about China prior to the start of the course.

 

interviews, the students were honest that they had given little thought to China as a place to live, or to Chinese people, society or culture. What expectations they had, were often misinformed by representations in the media at home. I had really low expectations. I expected China … to be like really poor, not really developed and stuff. (P3)



Such an apparent lack of cultural interest and absence knowledge however resulted in exception that will be noted in view of experiences reported later. P2 stated that his parents were afraid of unwelcome cultural influences if he went to study in ‘some Western Countries’ but felt it was culturally safer for him to be in China, notwithstanding the absence of an ‘open culture’ – one which he expected to reflect liberal social norms. P8 was concerned about attitudes to Islam and Muslims in Western countries, but felt that China is ‘a safe country for being a Muslim’. In all, rather than an interest in China itself as a motivation to study there, for interviewees, the main reason to choose China was to obtain a degree that is affordable, meets their aspirations and is recognised in Pakistan. As some of them explained:

  

Intercultural experiences of Pakistani students

149

When the new students come, we ask them, ‘Why did you come?’ They said, like, they couldn’t get a seat in Pakistan. And the second reason, because this university is recognised by PMDC.5 (P8) It’s cheaper than a lot of other places, you know, China. (P7) ­

Interaction with Chinese teachers: linguistic/pedagogical ‘I-It’

­

Questionnaire data show that most Pakistani students expected that class teaching style and teacher-students relationship at CU would be similar to those they had at home, and that the course would help them develop professional knowledge and skills (Figure 8.4). When interviews were conducted, Read each statement and decide whether it describes an expectation you had before you came to China Communication will be a problem

Language will be a problem

I will make Chinese friends

The university will support me throughout the course I will have opportunities to practice my professional knowledge and skills I will enhance my professional knowledge and skills Expectations of a good student in a Chinese university will be different from those in my home school/university Teacher-student relationships will be similar to those in my home school/university Class teaching will be similar to my experience in my home school/university

0 10 20 30 I had no expectation I disagree  

Figure 8.4 Pre-arrival expectations.

40 I agree

50

60

70

  

150 M. Tian and J. Lowe

 



 



­

­

however, students were dissatisfied with their relationship with teacher. The term ‘linguistic/pedagogical I-It’ was used to emphasise the students’ perception, that is, teachers did not have the language ability, while showing little willingness to communicate, understand or ‘include’ the students in teaching; rather the students felt that there were few teacher-student interactions in class, teachers were not approachable outside the class and they were not treated with respects. All teaching on the course is done by Chinese lecturers, in English, with occasional exceptions such as the unit on Medical Chinese. When the interviews were conducted, the students in general were disappointed with this teaching; although describing their teachers as ‘knowledgeable’, they complained that ‘they cannot pass their knowledge to us because they cannot communicate with us that well’ (P2). Although recognising that some had better English than others, the Pakistani participants developed a consensus that most of their teachers were not linguistically competent enough: ‘Most of our teachers – I will say maybe eighty per cent of them – their English is very, very poor’ (P7). In some classes, lecturing took the form of teachers reading their slides. In response, students complained that: They are not explaining anything. They are just reading from the slides, reading and reading and reading. (P2)

 

Teachers are like computers. They have [been] given stuff and they’re just teaching. If you ask them questions, they don’t get your question. Very often … sometimes they do, but normally, even you ask something, they are unable to answer your question … or maybe they try but they cannot tell us. (P4) In a top Chinese university like CU, apart from teaching, academic staff are now facing increasing pressure in research. In medical school, most teachers need to practice in affiliated hospitals. In this study we did not interview teachers and could not claim that other responsibilities explained why they were short of time for tutoring, as shown in the below. We, however, believe whatever the reason was, the participants’ perceptions were important: Lack of approachability made them feel they were not taken seriously by the Chinese lecturers: Either they really don’t have time or they will say, like, ‘OK, after the class’. We go to them after the class and then they will say, ‘Sorry, I don’t have time. I have to go. Maybe next time’. And that’s it, like, the question just hangs in the air. We don’t get the answers. (P8)

  

Intercultural experiences of Pakistani students

151

 

They also perceived that prejudices were the real source of the latter’s unwillingness to communicate with them.

 

They prefer Chinese students. There are [ethnic] Chinese students in our university and they’re topping for everything, which I don’t get it.… There’s always this teacher who will favour the students, because I have seen that happen in my country as well. (P3) Language use reinforced the Pakistani students’ perceptions, as ethnic Chinese students ‘are speaking Chinese with teachers and everything, so you never know what’s happening, which I think is really unfair’ (P3). Because these conversations tended to take place in Chinese, they generated suspicion and a sense of exclusion among the Pakistani students.

­

 

Interaction with Chinese administrative staff: attitudinal/ linguistic ‘I-It’

 



­

­



­

­

 

­

­

In the questionnaire, most respondents indicated their expectation that the university would provide services to support them throughout the course (Figure 8.4). In interviews, no students reported they received satisfactory service. We used attitudinal/linguistic I-It to describe the students’ perceived relationship with the non-academic university staff who provided them with the service. By using attitudinal/linguistic, we stress that although language still played a role, it was mainly the staff ’s attitudes, which were described by the students as beauracratic, indifferent, prejudiced and money-oriented, that hurt the participants and made an I-Thou communion impossible. The participants had frequent contact on campus with the Chinese administrative staff, called ‘office people’ by our interviewees. The responsibilities of ‘office people’ are wide-ranging: disciplinary issues, applications for and allocation of university accommodation, visa extension, the organisation of extra-curriculum activities, and so on. The information they provided was often critical for the students’ survival and ability to thrive in this new context. The students found that the contacts with Chinese administrators were, however, too often unhelpful. All participants complained about the administrators’ procrastination in handling problems they had with university accommodation, such as leaking toilets, old carpets, low availability of single rooms and slow internet access. Negotiating their needs with Chinese administrators was not easy, but this was seen more as a problem of the administrators’ attitude, than language. Furthermore, not all of the rules which administrators enforced had been clearly written out or fully explained, which disoriented and confused the students, leaving them with a sense of personal powerlessness. One female Pakistani student said:

  

152 M. Tian and J. Lowe

 

Then I asked them, like, ‘Can I move to the boys’ dorm?’ – because the first floor is for girls. But they’re very … I don’t know … I seriously don’t know why they don’t give us the rooms over there because some of the girls they get it. There are empty rooms. They’re like, ‘No, it’s all full.’ They don’t give it to you. (P3) Noteworthy in view of comments by P8 quoted earlier about his expectation of greater tolerance of Islam in China, is this perception that their religious practices and needs were not respected. The Pakistani students – like, 90 per cent of them – are Muslims, right? They must pray five times a day. And even though in our dormitory there are, like, empty, big halls.… They know we need some place to pray – all the Muslim students from all the countries – but they don’t give us that place. (P8)

 



This comment must be contrasted, however, with P7’s observation that he had never in four years experienced any ‘issue’ with being a Muslim in China, although he was careful not to talk about his religion in public. Overall, it seemed that the administration had not informed the students of legal restrictions on religious activities on Chinese campuses, although some students were aware of bans on proselytising and public worship.6 When their love of cricket, which ranks second only to religion in Pakistan, was not understood or was met with intolerance, Pakistani participants felt that their culture was not being respected. This further contributed to their sense of segregation between ‘them’ (office people) and ‘us’ (Pakistani students), who were the only group interested in the game:

 

Every guy here, Pakistani, they love playing cricket. But, they are only allowed in PE for 2 hours.… They think the ball is really dangerous. Because Chinese people, they complain, like, the ball, it can come and hit us.… (P4)

 

Our office teachers told us that you can’t play cricket in the ground. Where are we going to play the cricket then? We get really emotional about that. I don’t think it’s fair. (P7) If the above cases can be interpreted simply as instances of misinformation or cultural misunderstandings between Chinese staff and the Pakistani students, the following encounter clearly portrays racist sentiments.

  

Intercultural experiences of Pakistani students

153

Once there was a problem, we go to the office.… Something to do with the dormitory. I can’t remember correctly.… So what did they tell us? ‘If you are not comfortable here, go back to your home’. That’s what they told us. What kind of answer.… (P7)

­





‘Go back to your home’ is a clear instruction to the Pakistani not to take the university or China to be their ‘home’, even temporarily, that they do not ‘belong’ to this place and are here on sufferance. Note that this comment was not attributed to an individual administrator but generically to all ‘office people’, a demarcation of ‘them’ and ‘us’ that also expresses unequal distribution of power in favour of ‘them’. One student (P6) claimed that as a Pakistani in China he had anticipated receiving ‘special treatment … because our governments share good relations’. In contrast, his more experienced ‘senior’, P8, described a hierarchy of respect to be expected from ‘the office’, in which Pakistanis were at the bottom and Middle-eastern students, ‘because they [the office] know they have a lot of money … are above the UK and Americans’.

­

 

Relation with Chinese students and local Chinese people: linguistic ‘I-It’



­

­

­

­

In the questionnaire survey, the majority of the respondents indicated their expectation to make Chinese friends (Figure 8.4). Our interviews show that despite initial expectations for intercultural friendship, international students tended to stick together with their co-nationals (see also Robson & Turner, 2007, Tian & Lowe, 2009). Linguistic ‘I-It’ is used to describe the students’ perceived relationship with Chinese students and local people: as reported by our participants, language-related difficulties were a major barrier for intercultural contacts; the lack of social- and emotional-connectiveness with the host people, however, led to a sense of marginalisation, insecurity and isolation. During the course, the participants and their Chinese peers were taught separately and lived separately on the campus. In interviews Pakistani participants attributed communication difficulties – when opportunities presented – to language barriers. She’s a Chinese Muslim girl who wanted to talk to us.… When we got to talk to her, she didn’t know any English, and that became a barrier and that kind of fell through. (P6) Meanwhile, with a large Pakistani community at CU, there was little need or appetite for external, intercultural interaction.

  

154 M. Tian and J. Lowe Maybe we have problems with other groups. We are Pakistani but, like, everybody has their own group. We hang out together. We don’t hang out with others. (P4)

­

Sometimes negative experiences on campus and outside pushed students back to a sense of belonging with co-nationals, as a defensive mechanism and source of emotional support.

 

We feel like there’s nobody else for us. Only we have each other here. We have no family, no friends. Even, we feel like we have been isolated. We have no interaction between the foreign students and the Chinese students. (P8) Outside campus, students generally presented positive impressions of the local community. It’s good, it’s nice. Mostly, in general, Chinese people are very good, very helpful, very friendly. (P1) Like other international students (Tian & Lowe, 2014), the Pakistani interviewees talked of their experiences of being stared at and having photographs taken without permission. The senior students learned to ignore it, but this could lead to further isolation and greater difficulty in making contact with local people, who to some extent became invisible or irrelevant. I think I’ve got used to it. When I walk on the street, I don’t see anything.… Every time somebody is new and they walk with me they will say, ‘Oh, my god, everybody is staring at you and watching’. I say, ‘Where? Who?’ Like in the beginning I used to note, like, this person watching me, that person watching me, because I am different. (P8) In general, there was limited contact between students and local people beyond daily needs such as shopping, but the impact of this could be to enhance a sense of isolation and boredom, as this female student noted.7

 

I sit and I pray, ‘Please let the time pass’. I watch movies, I surf the net until I get bored, study, talk to my parents, go hang around in someone’s room. (P3)

 

­

The tendency to socialise – to ‘hang out’ – in groups of co-nationals appears at times to provoke the more directly hostile interactions that were

  

Intercultural experiences of Pakistani students

155

occasionally reported, further strengthening essentialised stereotypes among some students of a threatening ‘other’, and minimising chances of constructing a closer dialogue with the hosts. You don’t know anyone. They know you are a foreigner, they can harm you. They can do anything. Because in China, you are not secure … when you go alone you still fear the security problems. (P4) The role of senior students: strengthening ‘us’ and ‘them’ demarcation

­

­

Since Pakistanis had formed the largest national group on this course for several years, there was a large number of experienced, Urdu/Punjabispeaking co-nationals that new arrivals could turn to for advice in the confusion and uncertainty of their new environment. This advice had often been handed down through successive cohorts of students, establishing a body of ‘received wisdom’ among the ‘seniors’ (as they were called) about the course, the university, life in China and Chinese people. This offered templates for interpreting and engaging with the university and external environments: Mostly, instead of going to our teacher, we go to our senior students. Because we can understand them much better than we can our teachers. (P1)

They [senior students] just said, like, OK, the first thing, you just go to the class. The instructor will take attendance, after that you can leave the class. You can study by yourself. (P6) In particular, the seniors warned new students about transactions with ‘the office’, perpetuating a view of the administration as antagonistic and unhelpful.

 

They [senior students] said, ‘Don’t go to the office. If you have problems, try to solve it yourself. Because if you go to the office, it’s like a sticky glue over there. They know you have problems, they will catch you. So, they will try to make more problems for you. (P6) One senior student provided insight into how this process of mutual distrust between staff and Pakistani students may have developed and which he was now reproducing through his advice to newcomers. You can’t have any relationship with teachers.… Some of them are OK, but most of them … the general perception is if he’s a foreign student, so

  

Reciprocity in international education

15

International students, English language and academic literacies

­

­

­

 



 

Ethnolinguistic dimensions of reciprocity in international students’ experiences are inevitable. Internationalisation of education, the ostensible integration of international and intercultural dimensions in all aspects of higher education (Knight, 1994), have essentially been conducted using English as a Medium of Instruction (MOI), spawned hugely profitable English language teaching and testing enterprises (Ata, Chapter 13), and been accompanied by a decline – even a ‘crisis’ (Díaz, Chapter 11) – in the teaching and learning of languages other than English (LOTES) in Anglophone universities, hardly an example of international and intercultural reciprocity. Perhaps most striking is the tension between international education as a levelling agent grounded in shared scholarship and (re)distribution of knowledge, and the asymmetry of the relationships between education providers and seekers, potently symbolised by the sociolinguistic gatekeeping of the English language (see Díaz, Chapter 11). In the Anglophone destinations to which most international students flow, ‘othering’ on the basis of ethnolinguistic background begins with discourses that essentialise and problematise users of language other than English. For example, categorisation as a user of English as an additional language can confer an almost ‘pathological’ (Franson, 1999, p. 60) condition that requires treatment and remediation in order to be ‘overcome’. Rather than being recognised as a cognitive asset (Liyanage & Walker, 2014b), any emerging bi/ multilingualism as students develop control of the linguistic resources of English is regarded more in terms of a deficit. In BANA settings, bi/multilingual capacities of students are largely ignored in favour of, paradoxically, linguistic deficit; English is both gatekeeper and reductive benchmark for students who are anecdotally evaluated on the basis of whether their English is judged to be ‘good’ or not (although as Díaz, Chapter 11) points out, assumptions/expectations of domestic students’ English proficiency are similarly monolingually oriented and reductive, and not always realised). English has become another tradeable commodity in the global education market, foundation of a complementary industry, again worth billions, in which profit-oriented organisations offer courses and testing, and publishers supply a seemingly never-ending demand for course books and materials. A significant number of international students enrol in Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and Applied Linguistics programs in BANA countries in order to teach English in their country of origin, that is, the requirement for English proficiency generates part of the flow of students to universities in English-speaking destinations (Liyanage & Bartlett, 2008). With teaching and testing regimes based on standard varieties of English, generic materials and course books insensitive to local contexts, and explicit and implicit promotion of Western language pedagogies through these materials and graduates of TESOL programmes, this is a dimension of international

  

Intercultural experiences of Pakistani students

157

­



 

­

­

­



­



­

­

than to expect the students to take the initiative, then the teachers and nonacademic staff of our participants apparently failed to take such a responsibility. As the students reported, their teachers relied heavily on lecturing, often characterised by reading aloud prepared slides, seldom questioning or otherwise interacting with students; knowledge was delivered, but not satisfactorily communicated. To a great extent, lecturers were not the ‘educators’ of Buber’s vision, for they merely saw themselves as doing a job of delivering content to the students. Dissatisfaction among the first-year Pakistani students was apparent. They were unhappy that they were paying for a course that was poorly taught, and unhappy with the lack of space to complain or have their complaints taken seriously. Their dissatisfaction turned to frustration and anger. This fed into a cycle of mutual contempt and final breakdown of any possibility of dialogue between the Pakistani students and many of their teachers. If ‘pedagogical I-It’ largely characterised the participants’ view of their relationship with their teachers, that with the administrative staff was largely an ‘attitudinal I-It’ one. It was the administrative staff whose attitudes received the bitterest criticism; the Pakistanis became convinced that the administrators were deliberately unsympathetic, and that they despised and deliberately discriminated against international students in general and certain nationalities in particular. They felt that the administration was interested in neither their education nor their welfare but simply saw them as a source of money, so that those students perceived to be wealthier gained greater respect. This leads to a question on the sustainable development of the course, if students continue to sense they are being ‘objectified’, reduced to the status of being merely a source of finance, and their education, welfare and humanity are ignored. Their sense of being objectified inside and outside the classrooms pushed the first-year Pakistanis to turn to their co-national group for support. The senior Pakistani students acted as mentors, providing practical advice, which had itself been shaped by accumulated experiences and handed-down stories of objectification. The participants’ forewarned responses, in turn, served to replicate this objectification by their teachers and office staff, other students and, in some cases, by Chinese people outside the university. The possibilities of mutual understanding among individuals as individuals, and a commitment to ‘say Thou’ in order to build dialogical relationships, became difficult to contemplate. Rather, in this ‘monological’ domain, Pakistani students and Chinese others tended to see each other as ‘a thing among things’, i.e. ciphers in undifferentiated and essentialised blocks, between which existed an unbridgeable gap (Yaron, 1993, p. 2). It is overly harsh, however, to judge these teachers’ professional capacity in Buber’s terms solely on the basis of these international classes. Two of our participants observed the same teachers in classes of Chinese students, where they showed concern that the students should understand the material, responded to questions and provided further explanation, in a display of greater empathy with the students’ needs. It would be possible to interpret this difference as indicating prejudice in favour of Chinese students, but we

  

158 M. Tian and J. Lowe

 

 

­

­



­



­



have no evidence for this, and those students who reported these observations were convinced that language was really at the heart of this difference in pedagogy. It was impossible, they suggested, for the teachers to adopt such an approach when they were obliged to use English. Language, as such, is an important factor that renders the educational situation we are looking at more complicated than those Buber seems to have anticipated in his comments on educational relationships. In this study the poor grasp of English among many lecturers and in ‘the office’ was remarkable and indefensible for a programme delivered in English and which – formally – expected no knowledge of Chinese among the students. Some instruction in Chinese was included within the course structure but it was clear that not all students took it seriously, perhaps because it was the medical degree, which attracted many of them to China, not an interest in the country or its language. Language was more or less heavily implicated in other international student experiences of exclusion and inclusion that contributed to varying degrees of estrangement between the students and the university, between the international students and Chinese students, and between the students with wider Chinese society (Tian & Lowe, 2014). The I-It relationships our participants felt trapped in have, therefore, not only pedagogical or attitudinal but also linguistic roots. This inevitably raises questions about the wisdom of China offering courses delivered in English in order to attract international students, whether for political, academic or simply financial reasons (Li, 2015). At this stage of the development of Chinese as a globally taught and understood language, however, it is difficult to see how courses delivered in Chinese can recruit the number of international students on degree-bearing courses that China has signalled it wishes to attract. It is perhaps salutary to bear in mind that at the heart of the educational endeavours to ‘internationalise’ HE for national strategic purposes lie the lives and life chances of individuals whose individuality and humanity are easily overlooked as they become objectified in statistics of enrolments and national rankings. Practically, our research case shows strong evidence that the potential for international student dissatisfaction can arise from various different issues: linguistic, pedagogical and attitudinal. These issues contain the potential to seriously undermine efforts to internationalise the university and harm the international students’ perceptions of the faculty, administrative staff, the institution, and of Chinese HE and China more broadly. Previously, researchers have called for teachers, researchers and policy-makers’ awareness of and critical reflection on various forms of oppression that ethnic minority students are likely to face, including ‘racialization, monolithic representations, invis ibility, racism, as well as academic disengagement, the lack of sense of belonging and agency’ (Lei, 2006, p. 97). A study on international students also points to the significance of academics’ ‘sincere empathy’, which reduces the students’ anxiety and helps them to go through the ‘turbulence … with culture, language and race’ (Marx & Pray, 2011, p. 530). In line with the

  

Intercultural experiences of Pakistani students

159

suggestions, we argue that administrators and faculty in Chinese HE institutes should recognise the potential causes of international student dissatisfaction, so as to develop strategies to ensure the ‘transformative’ – rather than ‘symbolic’– internationalised environments to emerge (Tian & Lowe, 2009). Such ‘transformative’ environments celebrate the international richness that the students bring about and would affect the nature of the educational experiences of all in the universities (Turner & Robson, 2008).

Acknowledgement The research was funded by Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education, China (15YJC880078).

Notes

­

 

­



­

­







­







1 Our research was planned in 2010; here we treat that as a reference year for enrolment data, with more recent figures added when appropriate. 2 Project 211 was initiated in 1995 by the Chinese Ministry of Education to promote research quality through the provision of national funding; 116 universities are currently designated as Project 211 institutions. 3 Project 985 was initiated in May 1998; 39 universities have been designated as Project 985 institutions, receiving additional funding to promote research reputations and establish ‘world-class’ status. 4 The course was in ‘Western medicine’; some ‘Chinese tradition medicine’ units were included in the curriculum, however. 5 PMDC: Pakistan Medical and Dentistry Council. 6 China Education Law stipulates that ‘the State separates education from religion’ (1995). China Regulations on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools stipulates that ‘Chinese-foreign cooperatively-run schools shall not offer religious education, nor conduct religious activities’ (2003). Although neither the Law nor the Regulation mention international students, it can be inferred that their religious activities are forbidden on Chinese campuses. 7 Gender-based differences in the experiences of these international students – and particularly the Pakistani students – demand further research, designed with that specific focus in mind.

References

 

Bailey, C. (2013). Negotiating writing challenges of the first written assignment at a UK university. In S. Sovic & M. Blythman (Eds), International students negotiating higher education (pp. 173–189). Abingdon: Routledge. Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Buber, M. (2004). Between man and man. London: Taylor & Francis Group. Cao, C. (2015). Bajisitan liuxuesheng kuawenhua shiying yali yanjiu [Research on intercultural adaptation stress of Pakistani students in China]. Kaifeng Jiaoyu Xueyuan Xuebao, 35(9), 148–149. Chen, Y., Tang, B., Yan, X. & Wen, J. (2010). Dui bajisitan liuxuesheng yingyu jiaoxue de chuqian tikun [Reflection on experiences of teaching Pakistani students in English]. Hunan Zhongyiyao Daxue Xuebao, 30(2), 10–13.

  

160 M. Tian and J. Lowe

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

Gu, Q. & Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Who adapts? Beyond cultural models of ‘the Chinese learner’. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 74–89. Guilherme, A. & Morgan, J. (2009). Martin Buber’s philosophy of education and its implications for adult non-formal education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(5), 565–581. Haugen, H. Ø. (2013). China’s recruitment of African university students: Policy efficacy and unintended outcomes. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 11(3), 315–334. IIE. (2013). Project atlas: Trends and global data. Retrieved 6 July 2014, from www.iie. org/projectatlas. Jackson, J. (2008). Language identity and study abroad. London: Equinox. Lee, J. & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409. Lei, L. (2006). Teaching and learning with Asian American and Pacific Islander students. Race Ethnicity and Education, 9(1), 85–101. Li, X. (2015). International students in China: Cross-cultural interaction, integration and identity construction. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 14(4), 237–254. Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Sawir, E. & Forbes-Mewett，H. (2010). International student security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marx, S. & Pray, L. (2011). Living and learning in Mexico: Developing empathy for English language learners through study abroad. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(4), 507–535. Ministry of Education, China. (2010). Liuxue zhongguo jihua [Studying in China scheme]. Retrieved 8 October 2017, from http://202.205.177.9/edoas/website 18/52/info1285655371911352.htm. Ministry of Education, China. (2011). Laihua liuxuesheng jianming tongji [Brief statistics of international students in China]. Beijing: Government of China, Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, China. (2016). Statistics of international students in China in 2015 [2015 nian quanguo laihua liuxuesheng shuju tongji]. Retrieved 8 October 2017, from www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/201604/t20160414_238263.html. OECD (2013). Education indicators in focus. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/education/ skills-beyond-school/EDIF%202013-N°14%20(eng)-Final.pdf. Rienties, B., Beausaert, S., Grohnert, T., Niemantsverdriet, S. & Kommers, P. (2012). Understanding academic performance of international students: The role of ethnicity, academic and social integration. Higher Education, 63(6), 685–700. Robson, S. & Turner, Y. (2007). Teaching is a co-learning experience: Academics reflecting on learning and teaching in an ‘internationalised’ faculty. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 44–54. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
 Sanderson, G. (2004). Existentialism, globalisation and the cultural other. International Education Journal, 4(4), 1–20. Sebastian, E. & Choudaha, R. (2015). Knowledge helps power China along the new silk road. Retrieved 8 July 2016, from The Australian website: www.theaustralian.com. au/higher-education/opinion/knowledge-helps-power-china-along-the-new-silkroad/news-story/e9e1ce87c1eb6642d9233fd70f7d9c42. Sherry, M., Thomas, P. & Chui, W. (2010). International students: Vulnerable student population. Higher Education, 60(1), 33–46.

  

Intercultural experiences of Pakistani students

161

­

 

­

­

Sovic, S. (2009). Hi-bye friends and the herd instinct: International and home students in the creative arts. Higher Education, 58(6), 747–761. Spencer-Oatey, H. & Xiong, Z. (2006). Chinese students’ psychological and sociocultural adjustments to Britain: An empirical study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 37–53. Talebloo, B. & Baki, R. (2013). Challenges faced by international postgraduate students during their first year of studies. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(13), 138–145. Tian, M. & Lowe, J. (2009). Existentialist internationalisation and the Chinese students experience in English universities. Compare, 39(5), 659–676. Tian, M. & Lowe, J. (2010). Intercultural experience in English universities: A case study of Chinese students. In F. Maringe & N. Foskett (Eds), Globalisation and internationalisation in higher education (pp. 291–305). London: Continuum. Tian, M. & Lowe, J. (2013). The role of feedback in cross-cultural learning: A case study of Chinese taught postgraduate students in a UK university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 580–598. Tian, M. & Lowe, J. (2014). International identity and intercultural experiences of American students in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(3), 281–297. Turner, Y. & Robson, S. (2008). Internationalizing the university. London: Continuum. Yaron, K. (1993). Martin Buber. Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 23(1/2), 135–146. Zhang, Y., Long, L. & Liu, Y. (2012). Bajisitan yixue liuxuesheng kuawenhua shiying yanjiu [Research on the acculturation of Pakistani medical students in China]. Zhonghua Yixue Jiaoyu Tansuo Zazhi, 11(9), 981–984.

Sustaining benefits of higher education internationalisation through cross-cultural adaptation ­



9

Insights from international students in Malaysia  

 

 

 

Azadeh Shafaei, Nordin Abd Razak, and Hazri Jamil Introduction

­

­

­

 

 

 

 

 



­

­

Higher education is a vital part of increasing global education market and international students’ mobility is an inseparable aspect of it (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2001; Verbik & Lasanowski, 2007). As such, international trades in higher education services, also known as ‘internationalisation of higher education’, began to grow in terms of importance, volume, and scope from the mid-1980s (Knight, 2005). Based on a report by World Trade Organization (WTO), there was a substantial increase in the number of international students globally (i.e. the students pursuing a postgraduate-level programme in a country outside their home country) from 1.75 million to nearly three million between 1999 and 2007 (World Trade Organization, 2010). Indeed, internationalisation of higher education refers to the integration process of intercultural, international, or global dimension that can lead to functions, purpose, and delivery of postsecondary education (Knight, 2004; King, Marginson, & Naidoo, 2011). The significant growth of higher education internationalisation is very much related to international activities that take place in higher education services (Tham & Kam, 2008). As stated by World Trade Organization (1998), international service delivery in higher education can be divided into four categories namely; (1) consumption abroad which refers to students’ cross-border mobility or relocation to a country outside their home country for the purpose of living and studying, (2) cross-border delivery which refers to international distance education, (3) commercial presence which refers to undertaking a foreign course, offered by foreign universities in students’ home country, and (4) the movement of natural persons which includes movement of people across their national borders for delivering services. Since the focus of the current study is on the movement of international students to foreign countries for the purpose of undertaking postgraduate-level studies,

  

International students in Malaysia

163

­





consumption abroad is the aspect of international service delivery that we are concerned with. Offering education services is an opportunity for higher education institutions to raise their international profile and increase their market share at the same time. Education can contribute to both private good (i.e. students’ economic status or personal satisfaction), and public good (i.e. improving national economy, reducing crime and social problems, promoting social and cultural diversity, and fostering community values) (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2001). As a consequence, a notable amount of attention has been paid to higher education internationalisation by governments around the world in order to boost their countries’ economy by making improvements in universities’ academic work and national development (Porter & Vidovich, 2000). According to Tham and Kam (2008), the main driving forces for countries to move towards internationalisation of higher education are the economic, academic, social, cultural, and political benefits, among which economic and academic advantages are more prevalent. This fact has led to a worldwide competition among educational institutions to develop a knowledge-based economy through training the best brains both in developed countries and developing countries especially in Asia (Arokiasamy, 2010). As a result, the share of Asian countries in the global education market has been significantly increased from 25 to 34 per cent while the US and European Union have witnessed a drop in their share of the global education market from 37 to 30 and from 26 to 22 per cent, respectively (Thomson Reuters, 2014). Developing countries, especially in Asia, have shown interest in hosting a significant number of international students to improve their countries’ cultural and social diversity, increase income, and gain global prestige. Malaysia is one of the Asian countries soaring to develop strategies to attract international students and export its educational programs (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Internationalisation of higher education in Malaysia Higher education internationalisation is one of the fundamental steps for Malaysia towards producing marketable graduates, attracting more international students, and generating innovation through research and development (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2007). Through improving and empowering higher education, Malaysian educational institutions can become comparable to the best institutions in the world. As such, internationalisation has been prioritised as one of the seven key strategic plans in order to transform Malaysia’s higher education (Tham & Kam, 2008). With the aim of sustainable growth of higher education internationalisation, the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia has planned to increase the number of international students hosted in this country to 200,000 by 2020, with average consistent growth of 13.5 per cent annually to become a hub of excellence in the region (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2007) and

  

164 A. Shafaei et al.

 



­

­

­

­



 

­

­

­

­



build a greater global visibility of and trust in the Malaysian higher education brand (The Sun Daily, 2015). The success of this strategic plan lies in the successful process of attracting and hosting students in Malaysia. This can be achieved through the strategy to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness in hosting international students through the adoption of international best practices (The Sun Daily, 2015). As such, identifying the mechanism which fosters a self-sustaining promotion of the higher education system in Malaysia is paramount. This can enhance the resilience of higher education in Malaysia and immunes it against unprecedented risks and setbacks. An important element in this self-sustainable mechanism is international students’ cross-cultural adaptation process in the context of higher education mobility. Specifically, cross-cultural adaptation refers to international students’ ability in successfully managing stress and challenges in a culturally new environment (i.e. psychological adaptation), and attaining a high social and cultural fit in the new context (i.e. sociocultural adaptation) (Ward & Kennedy, 1993). As supported in a study by Shafaei and Abd Razak (2016a), international students’ cross-cultural adaptation (i.e. psychological and sociocultural adaptations) is related to their psychological well-being, academic satisfaction, and willingness in spreading positive word of mouth about their educational institutions. In the same study, several individual factors (i.e. English language proficiency, media usage, intention after graduation, and acculturation attitude), and situational factors (i.e. social support, perceived stereotype image, and perceived complexity) were identified that associate with international students’ psychological and sociocultural adaptations. It is illuminated from the results of the mentioned study that relocating to a new cultural environment is a main source of stress and challenge for international students since they have to cope with two cultures at the same time (Berry, 2006). Therefore, it is of a great importance to put international students at the heart of higher education internationalisation and pay considerable attention to their needs and requirements. If international students overcome their difficulties, challenges, and stress in a new environment, they can successfully adapt and the negative consequences of norms and its related stereotypes would be avoided (Earley & Ang, 2003; Molinsky, 2007). Hence, the issue of crosscultural adaptation becomes crucial to consider because not only does it enhance international students’ resilience in adapting to the host country, but also it can result in self-sustaining promotion of higher education through spreading positive word of mouth. The current study aims to perform an investigation to find out the most important factors that could enhance international students’ willingness in promoting Malaysian higher education institutions to others. Besides, this study seeks to identify the individual and situational factors that have the highest importance but have a relatively low performance with regards to psychological and sociocultural adaptations in Malaysia to illuminate the areas which need improvement with higher education management activities.

  

International students in Malaysia

165



­

Specifically, this study aims to find out the most important factors with the relatively lowest performance with regards to psychological and sociocultural adaptations as well as positive word of mouth (see Figure 9.1) using Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) in SmartPLS (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015). The findings of the study can provide insightful practical, managerial, and empirical implications for authorities in higher education, policy makers, academicians, and university administrators to efficiently manage resources in order to enhance resilience of both international students in adapting to the host country, and higher education institutions in the competitive global education market. Therefore, the following research question is raised: ‘What are the factors with the most importance yet lowest performance with regards to word of mouth, psychological adaptation, and sociocultural adaptation?’ Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA)

ELP MU INaG PSYCHA

AdjA

PPWB WOM

AttA SCA

SS

PAS

PSI PC

 

Figure 9.1 Research model adopted from the study of Shafaei and Abd Razak (2016a). Note ELP: English Language Proficiency, MU: Media Usage, INaG: Intention to Stay in the Host Country after Graduation, AdjA: Adjustment Attitude, AttA: Attachment Attitude, SS: Social Support, PSI: Perceived Stereotype Image, PC: Perceived Complexity, PSYCHA: Psychological Adaptation, SCA: Sociocultural Adaptation, PPWB: Perceived Psychological Wellbeing, PAS: Perceived Academic Satisfaction, WOM: Word of Mouth.

  

166 A. Shafaei et al.

Methodology Sample and data collection

­

The sampling frame for the study included international students undertaking a postgraduate-level programme (i.e. Master or Doctoral) in the top six research and public universities in Malaysia. The samples were selected using a random sampling technique through applying a computer generated numbering system (Microsoft Office Excel, 2013). To get international students’ insights on the variables undertaken in this study, an online questionnaire was emailed to the randomly selected international postgraduate students. Overall, 2,792 emails containing the online questionnaire were sent to international postgraduate students with ethical considerations. The aims and purpose of the study were thoroughly explained in the cover letter of the questionnaire and the respondents were ensured that their responses would be merely used for the conduct of this study. Moreover, the respondents were assured their responses would be treated confidentially and anonymously. A total of 1,165 responses were received (response rate of 42 per cent), however, 1,098 complete and usable surveys were included in the data analysis. Table 9.1 presents profile of the respondents in this study. Variables and measurement As shown in Figure 9.1, the variables undertaken in this study are English Language Proficiency (ELP), Media Usage (MU), Intention to Stay in the  

Table 9.1 Profile of the respondents Variable

Category

Percentage

Gender

Male Female

69 31

Marital status

Single Married

45 55

Current education level

Master PhD

40 60

Age group

Below 25 25–30 31–35 36–40 41–45 45–50 51 and above

8 37 27 14 8 4 2

Geographical region

Asia Middle East Africa

49 32 19

  

International students in Malaysia

167

­

Host Country after Graduation (INaG), Adjustment Attitude (AdjA), Attachment Attitude (AttA), Social Support (SS), Perceived Stereotype Image (PSI), Perceived Complexity (PC), Psychological Adaptation (PSYCHA), Sociocultural Adaptation (SCA), Perceived Psychological Well-being (PPWB), Perceived Academic Satisfaction (PAS), and Word of Mouth (WOM). Table 9.2 shows the measurement scales adapted to measure each construct in this study.

­

Data analysis and Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA)

­



­

The model in this study as depicted in Figure 9.1 builds on the previous study stated earlier. To achieve the objectives of the current study and answer the research question raised, first, the measurement model was examined to confirm the validity and reliability of the reflective constructs through performing a Partial Least Squares (PLS) algorithm. In addition, for the formative constructs, multicollinearity, weight, and significance of the weights were assessed. In the second step, path modelling was examined to find out the significance of the relationships in the model. As stated earlier, the main objective of this study is to find out the factors with the most importance yet lowest performance with regards to the criteria of word of mouth, psychological adaptation, and sociocultural adaptation. Therefore, we performed Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) in SmartPLS (Ringle et al., 2015). In fact, the analysis of importance-performance matrix (IPMA) of path modelling was carried out in the current study to identify possible areas that need to be addressed and improved with management activities. By assessing IPMA, the impact of latent variables with a relatively high importance and low performance on a particular endogenous latent variable would be identified (Hock, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2010). As such, IPMA results provide managerial insights to address and improve the identified areas with high importance and low performance (Hock et al., 2010; Ringle, Sarstedt, & Zimmermann, 2011; Schloderer, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2014; Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014). As such, IPMA was carried out in several stages; first, the IPMA was performed for positive word of mouth, the ultimate endogenous variable in the model, to find out the important factors which could enhance international students’ willingness in promoting Malaysian higher education institutions. In the following stages, IPMA was carried out for psychological adaptation and sociocultural adaptation separately to identify the individual and situational factors which possessed the highest importance but lowest performance with regards to the mentioned endogenous variables. The next section explains the findings of the IPMA analyses.

Findings The estimation of IPMA in this study was carried out using SmartPLS version 3.0 by taking the results of structural model total effects (importance) and the

Social support (formative construct) Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988)

Acculturation attitude Adopt and Keep Scale (Swaidan, Vitell, Rose, & Gilbert, 2006)

ELP: 4 items

Number of items adapted

9

International students’ attitude about Adopt: 5 adjusting to the host culture or Keep: 5 attaching to their ethnic culture.

International students’ perceptions about the support they receive from different sources of family, friends and university staff.

‘I use media to learn about Malaysian culture.’ 5-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘1’ Never to ‘5’ Always.

‘I am able to express my ideas in English.’ 5-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘1’ Not at all to ‘5’ Very well.

Sample item

‘University staffs are very supportive of international students.’ 6-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘1’ Strongly Disagree to ‘5’ Strongly Agree.

‘I should behave in accordance with Malaysian culture.’ ‘I should maintain my original culture.’ 6-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘1’ Strongly Disagree to ‘5’ Strongly Agree.

INaG: 2 items ‘I intend to stay in Malaysia after graduation.’ 6-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘1’ Strongly Disagree to ‘5’ Strongly Agree.

International students’ exposure to MU: 4 items media and usage of media in order to learn Malaysian cultural norms and values.

International students’ abilities in understanding, speaking, reading, and writing in English.

Definition

Intention to stay in Malaysia after graduation Intention Scale (Tartakovsky, International students’ willingness to 2012) stay in Malaysia after graduation.

Media usage Bicultural Involvement and Adjustment Scale (BIAS) (Szapocznik, Kurtines, & Fernandez, 1980)

English language proficiency Language Proficiency Scale (Kwak, 1991)

Scales

 

Table 9.2 Constructs measurement scales







5

‘In Malaysia, making friends is easy for me.’ 6-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘1’ Strongly Disagree to ‘5’ Strongly Agree.

‘I have difficulty to understand my university rules and regulations.’ 6-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘1’ Strongly Disagree to ‘5’ Strongly Agree.

‘Malaysian people have positive attitude about students from my country.’ 6-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘1’ Strongly Disagree to ‘5’ Strongly Agree.

continued

DASS: 6 ‘Since I came to Malaysia, I have experienced SWLS: 5 negative feelings.’ Self-Esteem: 6 6-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘1’ All of the time to ‘5’ None of the time. ‘In most ways, my life in Malaysia is close to my ideal life.’ ‘I have positive attitudes towards myself.’ 6-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘1’ Strongly Disagree to ‘5’ Strongly Agree.

International students’ overall fit level 10 in Malaysia.

How complex international students 6 perceive Malaysian university rules and communication with university staff.

International students’ perception about their overall positive image in the host society (Malaysia).

Psychological adaptation (formative construct) •  Depression Anxiety and Stress International students’ psychological Scale (DASS) (Lovibond & distress comprised depression, life Lovibond, 1995) satisfaction in the new •  Satisfaction with Life Scale environment (Malaysia) as well as (SWLS) (Diener, Emmons, self-esteem. Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) •  Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)

Sociocultural adaptation Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS) (Ward & Kennedy, 1999)

Perceived complexity Complexity Scale (Dupagne & Driscoll, 2005)

Perceived stereotype image Stereotype Image Scale (Carpenter, 1995)

  

Reciprocity in international education

17

­

 

learning, including English, which integrates notions of public and private benefit as well as critically oriented citizenship of the linguistically diverse region. The first two organising principles of the Common European Framework (Council of Europe, 2011, p. 2) could provide inspiration for international education policy-makers: •

­

­

•

that the rich heritage of diverse languages and cultures in Europe is a valuable common resource to be protected and developed, and that a major educational effort is needed to convert that diversity from a barrier to communication into a source of mutual enrichment and understanding; that it is only through a better knowledge of European modern languages that it will be possible to facilitate communication and interaction among Europeans of different mother-tongues in order to promote European mobility, mutual understanding and co-operation, and overcome prejudice and discrimination.

­

­

­

­

­

­

The spread of English has gone hand in hand with pre-eminence of Western epistemologies, education systems, and academic and professional practices, and expectations that international students will, through a ‘tacitly assumed osmosis-like process of academic acculturation’ (Zahora & Yazbeck, Chapter 14), adopt and conform to the ways teaching and learning that are done in study destinations. Expectations that students will adapt to local conventions and practices are not limited to English-speaking institutions, as the experiences of Pakistani students in a Chinese university recounted by Tian and Lowe (Chapter 8) illustrate. Wherever there is an international dimension to education the balance between assimilation and accommodation of students (Liyanage & Gurney, Chapter 12) needs to be negotiated to the benefit of all participants. Given the power relationships between institutions and students that have been canvassed in this volume, responsibility for initiation of dialogue that is sustained throughout students’ programmes of study rests with institutions. Genuine dialogue grounded on other-orientation that introduces students to discursive practices (Zahora & Yazbeck, Chapter 14) rather than simply technical tool-kits of academic conventions will facilitate productive accommodation of the strengths and knowledge that students already have at their disposal as student scholars. Support for academic staff in introduction of materials and texts that expose all students to wider and more diverse range of epistemological approaches and knowledge is one avenue for exploration if international students are to be provided contexts for participation and contribution that enriches learning for all. One of the key themes emerging from this volume is that international students prioritise their learning, that if they experience supportive, other-oriented interaction and communication with teaching and administrative staff, and domestic students, that if they believe their learning is deemed important by the institution, then they will work hard to adapt to the different circumstances, and be satisfied with their educational experience.

  

International students in Malaysia

171



average values of the latent variable scores (performance) measured on a scale from 0 to 100 to draw attention to the significant areas that need improvement (Anderson & Fornell, 2000). At first, IPMA was performed to find out the impact of exogenous variables on the ultimate endogenous variable in this study, which is word of mouth (WOM). Then, IPMA was carried out to find out the individual and situational factors with the most importance yet lowest performance with the criteria of psychological adaptation (PSYCHA) and sociocultural adaptation (SCA). Table 9.3 shows the results of IPMA for word of mouth (WOM), psychological adaptation (PSYCHA), and sociocultural adaptation (SCA). As the results show (Figure 9.2), the three most important factors for the criterion of word of mouth (WOM) are perceived academic satisfaction (PAS), psychological adaptation (PSYCHA), and sociocultural adaptation (SCA). It is also evident that among the three mentioned important factors, sociocultural adaptation (SCA) has the lowest performance. Since perceived

 

Table 9.3 IPMA results for WOM, PSYCHA, and SCA Endogenous constructs

Latent variables

Importance (total effect)

Performance

Word of mouth

AdjA AttA ELP INaG MU PAS PC PPWB PSI PSYCHA SCA SS

0.12 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.81 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.73 0.20 0.17

69.00 73.55 80.67 44.59 42.70 70.11 39.09 74.56 59.29 66.95 67.84 63.25

Psychological adaptation

AdjA AttA ELP INaG MU PC PSI SS

0.12 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.14 0.12 0.21

69.00 73.55 80.67 44.59 42.70 39.09 59.29 63.25

Sociocultural adaptation

AdjA AttA ELP INaG MU PC PSI SS

0.15 0.02 0.16 0.05 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.10

69.00 73.55 80.67 44.59 42.70 39.09 59.29 63.25

  

172 A. Shafaei et al.

100

ELP

80

AttA

PPWB PAS

AdjA

SCA

Performance

PSYCHA

60

SS PSI INaG

40

MU

PC

20

0 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Importance  

Figure 9.2 IPMA map for word of mouth.





­

­

academic satisfaction was found as the most important factor related to word of mouth, additional IPMA analysis was carried out to identify the most important factors that could influence international students’ academic satisfaction.1 Thus, IPMA was performed for perceived academic satisfaction. Interestingly, psychological and sociocultural adaptations, which are the two facets of cross-cultural adaptation, were found to be the most important factors with regards to perceived academic satisfaction (Figure 9.3). This finding confirms that cross-cultural adaptation comprising psychological and sociocultural adaptations plays a crucial role in enhancing international students’ academic satisfaction as well as their willingness in spreading positive word of mouth. Similar to the previous stages, IPMA was performed for psychological adaptation to elucidate the most important individual and situational factors that had the lowest performance. This could clarify the areas that need improvement and more attention by authorities of higher education to ensure international students better psychological adaptation. Figure 9.4 presents the IPMA map for psychological adaptation. As illustrated in the IPMA map, the top four important factors with regards to psychological adaptation (PSYCHA) are perceived complexity (PC), social support (SS), perceived stereotype image (PSI), and adjustment attitude (AdjA). The lowest performance, however, pertains to perceived complexity

100

ELP

80

AttA

Performance

AdjA PSI

60

SCA

PSYCHA

SS

INaG MU

40

PC

20

0 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Importance  

Figure 9.3 IPMA map for perceived academic satisfaction. 100

ELP

80

AttA AdjA

Performance

SS PSI

60 INaG MU

PC

40

20

0 0.0

0.05

0.10

0.15

Importance  

Figure 9.4 IPMA map for psychological adaptation.

0.20

0.25

  

174 A. Shafaei et al.



(PC) which is the area that requires more attention to increase international students’ psychological adaptation. In the same vein, IPMA was carried out for sociocultural adaptation to identify which individual and situational factors could improve international students’ social and cultural fit (i.e. sociocultural adaptation) in Malaysian cultural context. Figure 9.5 visualises the IPMA results for sociocultural adaptation. As depicted in Figure 9.5, the three most important factors with regards to sociocultural adaptation (SCA) are perceived stereotype image (PSI), perceived complexity (PC), English language proficiency (ELP), and adjustment attitude (AdjA). Similar to psychological adaptation, the factor with the lowest performance with regards to sociocultural adaptation is perceived complexity (PC). The following section present detailed discussions of the study findings.

Discussion As the results revealed, international students’ satisfaction with their overall academic performance (i.e. perceived academic satisfaction), their successful management of stress and challenges in the new environment (i.e. psychological adaptation), and their ability to manage daily life and achieve social and cultural fit (i.e. sociocultural adaptation) are the three most important factors in recommending their educational institutions through positive word of mouth. 100

ELP

80

AttA AdjA

Performance

SS

PSI

60 INaG

MU PC

40

20

0 0.0

0.05

0.10 Importance

 

Figure 9.5 IPMA map for sociocultural adaptation.

0.15

0.20

  

International students in Malaysia

175



­



­

­

­



Marketing of higher education has gained a considerable amount of attention by competing countries such as the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in which prioritising students’ needs and requirements are emphasised (Sohail & Saeed, 2003). Since students’ demands are placed at the core of marketing strategies applied for higher education, it is paramount to concentrate on the factors crucial to international students. As proven in the current study, students’ academic satisfaction, psychological adaptation, and sociocultural adaptation are the key factors assisting countries to achieve a selfsustaining marketing strategy through positive word of mouth. A cross-cultural adaptation process can enhance the resilience of international students through their psychological and sociocultural adaptations to the new culturally unfamiliar environment. This could further lead to developing a self-sustaining marketing strategy for higher education institutions to maximise their share in the global education market, and propelling competing countries, especially Malaysia, to their target of becoming an education hub in the region. Furthermore, the findings of the current study support the notion that academic satisfaction is a vital predictor of positive word of mouth in promoting higher education institutions to others by international students (Naik, Gantasala, & Prabhakar, 2010). The two factors that possess the highest priority in relation with academic satisfaction are psychological and sociocultural adaptations as shown in this study. This is in line with the statement made by Kulik, Oldham, and Hackman (1987) and supported in a study by Shafaei and Razak (2016a) that the fit level between the characteristics of a person and the environment can result in satisfaction, psychological well-being, and high performance. To enhance international students’ academic satisfaction, it is essential to ensure they adapt psychologically and socioculturally to the new cultural environment while pursuing their postgraduate studies. The results of IPMA for psychological adaptation indicate that the complexity perceived by international students in terms of communication and understanding university rules (i.e. perceived complexity), the support they receive from family, friends, and university staff while studying in a host country (i.e. social support), and how positive international students perceive their country’s students’ stereotype image in the host country (i.e. perceived stereotype image) are the most important contributing factors. Additionally, international students’ perceived stereotype image, perceived complexity of university and communication rules, and their inclination towards adapting to the host country’s cultural values and norms (i.e. adjustment attitude) are the factors that possess the highest priority with regards to sociocultural adaptation. It is worth noting here that among all the mentioned important factors, perceived complexity of university and communication rules has the lowest performance with regards to both psychological and sociocultural adaptations. This is in line with earlier study by Shafaei and Abd Razak (in press), in which stereotype image and adjustment attitude were found to be the crucial factors influencing psychological and sociocultural adaptation of international students.

  

176 A. Shafaei et al.



­

­



­

­

­



The difference between international students’ cultural and academic backgrounds with that of the host society, and unfamiliarity of international students with the norms and values of the new environment may result in perceiving complexity (Hooley & Horspool, 2006). The higher the level of complexity perceived by international students, the lower the engagement with host people and cross-cultural adaptation. Thus, international students need to receive sufficient support from university staff in order to overcome their difficulties such as communication problems, homesickness, loneliness, and anxiety while attaining successful cross-cultural adaptation (Yee, 2014). It is also crucial to encourage international students to mix with host people through enhancing their adjustment attitude and willingness towards adapting to the host country’s cultural values and norm (Slethaug & Manjula, 2012). This requires higher education authorities to ensure that international students possess a positive image in the host country. As stated by social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981), individuals are embedded in the society in which they interact with other individuals and grow through society’s interpersonal interactions and the perceptions of others. Therefore, the negative or positive image that international students perceive about their country’s students in the host country is another important factor that needs to be highlighted with regards to cross-cultural adaptation. Based on the findings of the current study, efforts should be made to address the needs of international students with regards to perceived complexity, perceived stereotype image, social support, and adjustment attitude. The findings of the current study yield valuable insights for authorities in higher education sector, policy makers, and university administrators in countries competing to maximise their share of global higher education market. As international students and higher education institutions are the two important aspects of higher education internationalisation, focusing on the needs of international students and addressing them in time can benefit both parties. As most higher education stakeholders would agree, it is imperative to provide a good experience for international students (Arambewela, 2010). The consequence of the good experience for international students would be successful cross-cultural adaptation, academic satisfaction, and positive word of mouth, which is a self-sustaining marketing strategy. Thus, the factors pointed out earlier can be translated into some practical and managerial implications. To minimise the complexity of university and communication rules, educational institutions can offer some workshops to familiarise international students with the norms and values of the host country as well as the university rules upon their enrolment. The necessary information can be provided in a comprehensive guidebook that international students can refer to. Media is an important tool to provide and share norms and values through a university’s website. Since communication problems are one of the main sources of stress and anxiety for international students, necessary effort should be made to reduce such confusion. For instance, the signage on the campus, university

  

International students in Malaysia

177



official forms, and other newsletters should be written in both the host country’s language as well as English language. To ensure that international students receive enough support from university staff, it is crucial to provide a support network in each university. Through hiring educated, knowledgeable, and friendly staff, higher education institutions can establish a support centre for international students so that they can talk about their problems and seek advice from experts. Additionally, it is vital to educate both international students and host nationals about cultural differences and encourage them to respect these differences. It is crucial to avoid racial discrimination and judgment by host nationals towards international students and spread a sense of unity in the presence of cultural diversity. By engaging international students in various cultural and social events, cultural understanding and respect would be enhanced, leading to the formation of a positive stereotype image in the host country. This can also promote willingness in international students towards learning about host country’s cultural values, and boosting their adjustment in the host country.

Conclusion

­

­

­

­

Building upon previous research, the current study identified the most important factors with relatively lowest performance with regards to positive word of mouth, psychological adaptation, and sociocultural adaptation in the context of international students in Malaysian public universities using IPMA. The utilisation of the study findings could benefit both international students and higher education institutions through increasing their resilience in the competitive global education market. Since there is a rapid growth in international higher education on one hand and emerging countries are planning to attract more international students on the other hand, it is vital to ensure international higher education can benefit international students and become a profit centre at the same time. To be a niche market for international higher education, the programmes and practices should meet the needs of international students through enhancing their cross-cultural adaptation. This is a win-win situation because international students’ successful cross-cultural adaptation can result in their academic satisfaction that can ultimately boost their willingness for promoting their educational institutions to others through positive word of mouth. This self-sustaining marketing strategy can protect higher education institutions from unexpected obstacles in their quest to attain prosperity.

Note

1 Note: This stage is not included in the objectives of the study since it is an extra analysis to confirm the importance of psychological and sociocultural adaptations.

  

178 A. Shafaei et al.

References

 

­

­

 

­

 

 

­

­

­

­

­

 

 

 

­

­

 

 

 

 

 

Altbach, P. G. & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. Anderson, E. W. & Fornell, C. (2000). Foundations of the American customer satisfaction index. Total Quality Management, 11(7), 869–882. Arambewela, R. (2010). Student experience in the globalized higher education market: Challenges and research imperatives. In M. F & N. Foskett (Eds), Globalization and internationalisation in higher education: Theoretical, strategic and management perspectives (pp. 97–107). London: Continuum International. Arokiasamy, A. R. A. (2010). The impact of globalization on higher education in Malaysia. Retrieved 20 January 2015, from www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/waoe/ aroka.pdf. Berry, J. W. (2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 43–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carpenter, J. (1995). Doctors and nurses: Stereotypes and stereotype change in interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 9(2), 151–161. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-w., & Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), Social Indicators Research Series (Vol. 39, pp. 247–266). Dordrecht: Springer. Dupagne, M. & Driscoll, P. (2005). First phase of a scale development project to measure perceived attributes of consumer communication technologies. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Sheraton New York. Earley, P. C. & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60–75. Hock, C., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2010). Management of multi-purpose stadiums: Importance and performance measurement of service interfaces. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 14(2), 188–207. Hooley, T. & Horspool, P. (2006). Two sides of the same story: Staff and student perceptions of the non-native speakers experience of the British academic system. The East Asian Learner, 2(2), 1–10. King, R., Marginson, S., & Naidoo, R. (2011). Handbook on globalization and higher education: Edward Elgar. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Knight, J. (2005). Cross-border education: Developments and implications in the Asia and the Pacific region. Paper presented at the Regional Seminar on Implications of WTO/ GATS on Higher Education in Asia & the Pacific, Seoul, Korea. Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person-environment fit. Journal of vocational behavior, 31(3), 278–296.

  

International students in Malaysia

179

 

­

 

 

 

 

­

­

­

 

­

 

 

­

 

Kwak, K. (1991). Second language learning in a multicultural society: A comparison between the learning of a dominant language and a heritage language. Kingston, Canada: Queen’s University. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H.-B., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., Gloster, C. S., … Treistman, D. (2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: Utility for women and students at historically Black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 84–92. Lovibond, P. F. & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. McBurnie, G. & Ziguras, C. (2001). The regulation of transnational higher education in Southeast Asia: Case studies of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia. Higher Education, 42(1), 85–105. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. (2007). The national higher education strategic plan: Laying the foundation beyond 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2014, from www.mohe.gov.my. Molinsky, A. (2007). Cross-cultural code-switching: The psychological challenges of adapting behavior in foreign cultural interactions. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 622–640. Naik, C., Gantasala, S. B., & Prabhakar, G. V. (2010). SERVQUAL, Customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions in retailing. European Journal of Social Sciences, 17(2), 200–213. Porter, P. & Vidovich, L. (2000). Globalization and higher education policy. Educational Theory, 50(4), 449–465. Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Zimmermann, L. (2011). Customer satisfaction with commercial airlines: The role of perceived safety and purpose of travel. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(4), 459–472. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3: Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. Retrieved 1 November 2016, from www.smartpls.com. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schloderer, M. P., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2014). The relevance of reputation in the nonprofit sector: The moderating effect of socio-demographic characteristics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(2), 110–126. Shafaei, A. & Abd Razak, N. (2016a). International postgraduate students’ crosscultural adaptation in Malaysia: Antecedents and outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 57(6), 739–767. doi: 10.1007/s11162-015-9404-9. Shafaei, A. & Abd Razak, N. (in press). What matters most: Importance-performance matrix analysis of the factors influencing international postgraduate students’ psychological and sociocultural adaptations. Quality & Quantity, 1–20. Slethaug, G. & Manjula, J. (2012). The business of education: Improving international student learning experiences in Malaysia. World Journal of Social Sciences, 2(6), 179–199. Sohail, M. S. & Saeed, M. (2003). Private higher education in Malaysia: Students’ satisfaction levels and strategic implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(2), 173–181. Swaidan, Z., Vitell, S. J., Rose, G. M., & Gilbert, F. W. (2006). Consumer ethics: The role of acculturation in US immigrant populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(1), 1–16.

  

180 A. Shafaei et al.

 

 

 

­

­

 

­

Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W. M., & Fernandez, T. (1980). Bicultural involvement and adjustment in Hispanic-American youths. International Journal of intercultural relations, 4(3), 353–365. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tartakovsky, E. (2012). Factors affecting immigrants’ acculturation intentions: A theoretical model and its assessment among adolescent immigrants from Russia and Ukraine in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 83–99. Tham, S. Y. & Kam, A. J. Y. (2008). Internationalising higher education: Comparing the challenges of different higher education institutions in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(4), 353–367. The Sun Daily. (2015). Malaysia has one of highest proportions of international students pursuing higher education. The Sun Daily. Retrieved 15 November 2016, from www.thesundaily.my/news/1314991. Thomson Reuters. (2014). The Asian higher education rankings. London: Amity University. Verbik, L. & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends. World Education News and Reviews, 20(10), 1–16. Ward, C. & Kennedy, A. (1993). Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home. International Journal of Psychology, 28(2), 129–147. Ward, C. & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 659–677. World Trade Organization. (1998). Education services: Background note by the Secretariat. WTO Council for Trade in Services. World Trade Organization, W. (2010). Secretariat Report, supra note 3. Yee, C. P. (2014). Internationalization of higher education: A literature review on competency approach. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 4(2), 258–273. Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41.



10 Do academic and social experiences predict sense of belonging? Comparing among American and international undergraduate students  

Krishna Bista Introduction

­

­

­

­

­

Sense of belonging is a feeling of connectedness that reflects the social support that students perceive on campus (Tinto, 1993; Jacoby & Garland, 2005; Strayhorn, 2012). Previous studies suggest that students’ positive college experiences and their abilities to connect with peers and faculty indicate their sense of belonging (Astin, 1993; Tinto, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Wentzel & Muenks, 2016). In other words, sense of belonging is related to student engagement (Strayhorn, 2012). But in the case of international students (also known as non-US citizens or foreign visa holders), they are different from American students in academic expectations, social values and cultural beliefs (Bista & Foster, 2011; Kuh et al., 2011; Lee, 2011; Bista & Foster, 2016b). These differences make it difficult for international students to adjust life overseas (Trice, 2004; Zhai, 2004; Mwangi, 2016; Yao, 2016). International students, unlike their American counterparts, face several social and cultural challenges of acculturation and integration (Bista & Foster, 2016b). For instance, they experience feelings of alienation, homesickness, anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and stress (Zhai, 2004; McClure, 2007; Curtin, Stewart & Ostrove, 2012; Yao, 2016). In her study, Gareis (2012) found that one-third of the 454 international students had no close American friends and were generally not satisfied with the quality of their friendships. International students are known as ethnic minority students in American colleges and universities and their social and cultural identities are perceived with stereotypes (Lee, 2011). Studies show that international students have reported that they feel marginalized, alienated, isolated, unsupported and unwelcomed by their peers and faculty members (Trice, 2007; Marginson, Nyland, Sawir & Forbes-Mewett, 2010; Montgomery, 2010; Le, LaCost & Wismer, 2016). Relatively little research has been done that compares international students’ sense of belonging with domestic peers. It is worth knowing whether non-US students feel welcomed and included in the institutions of American higher education. Student participation in social and cultural activities or their interactions with US students and faculty members

  

182 K. Bista plays a vital role in understanding the issue of fit (Strayhorn, 2012; Curtin et al., 2013; Le et al., 2016).

The importance of sense of belonging

­

 

­



­

­



 

Sense of belonging captures the students’ view of whether they ‘feel included in the college community’ (Hurtado & Carter, 1997, p. 327). The sense of belonging consists of individuals’ cognitive (relationship to the group on/off campus settings) and affective elements (responses or behaviours) (Tinto, 1993). Tinto’s (1993) theory examines the relationship between student academic and social integration to students’ college experience and retention. This framework is based on Tinto’s (1993) interactionalist theory of student departure. Scholars have identified several college factors related to sense of belonging and social and academic support of students such as interactions with peers and faculty (Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow & Salomone, 2003), co-curricular involvement (Hurtado & Carter, 1997), perceptions of campus racial climate (Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella & Hagedorn, 1999) and living on campus (Berger, 1997). Johnson, Soldner, Leonard & Alvarez (2007) examined sense of belonging among a national sample of 2967 undergraduate students, and their findings suggested that African-American, Hispanic/Latino and Asian Pacific American students reported a lower sense of belonging than White/Caucasian students. Ostrove and Long (2007) conducted a study with 322 students and found that only demographic variables were related to sense of belonging. Similarly, Curtin et al. (2012) found that advisor support was associated to sense of belonging among doctoral international students in the United States. Other studies report a variety of empirical studies on sense of belonging in relation to student engagement (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2011). Astin (1993) operationally defined student engagement as the quality and frequency of students’ involvement in academic and non-academic settings. In short, there are a few studies that have focused on sense of belonging of international students (Curtin et al., 2013), and a few studies related to the sense of belonging of American, Latino and African-American students (Berger, 1997; Johnson et al., 2007; Ostrove & Long, 2007; Strayhorn, 2012; Le et al., 2016; Yao, 2016).

­

International enrolment and socio-cultural factors

­

­

Currently, more than 1,043,839 international students from different countries (41 per cent undergraduate, 36 per cent graduate, 33 per cent nondegree or post-study training) are attending American colleges and universities (Open Doors, 2016). These students typically come to the United States with clear academic goals, but they struggle to socialize in American cultural and academic environments (Trice, 2004). Students have reported that colleges

  

Do experiences predict sense of belonging?

183

­





­

­

offer limited support services to cope with their diverse academic and social issues and challenges while studying in the United States (Ikwuagwu, 2010; Bista & Foster, 2016a; Le et al., 2016). The majority of international student departments, for instance, offer a traditional day-long orientation session at the beginning of the semester, instead of offering a comprehensive programmethat includes a variety of services such as advising, classroom expectation, faculty-student interaction, student organizations, on-campus employment, and immigration concerns over time as students advance social and academic steps. However, existing literature on international students shows that they experience a series of problems such as adjustment issues, mental health issues (alienation, anxiety and depression), discrimination and cultural stereotypes (Trice, 2004; Curtin et al., 2012; Garies, 2012). For example, Trice (2004) found that the majority of international students socialized with American students very little when he surveyed 454 graduate students. Similarly, Gareis (2012) found students from Africa, Asia and the Middle East interacted less often with students from European countries. International students have unique academic and social issues that challenge their college success because their experiences differ based on their gender, nationality, language and culture. Literature has suggested that international students’ limited English language proficiency, insufficient academic advisement and limited knowledge of the US educational system prevents them from fully belonging to campus social and academic life (Pederson, 1991; Bista, 2011; Kuo, 2011; Austell, 2013; Le et al., 2016). Although graduate students are frequently approached by peers and faculty members, undergraduate students face more challenges in their social, cultural and academic adjustments (Ren & Hagedorn, 2012). There is a gap between quality college support services and successful college experiences for international students. Also, results of national surveys have ignored the role of international students and their sense of belonging in campus communities (Johnson et al., 2007). This study has made an attempt to bridge the gap by exploring academic and social activities of international students in the campus community to understand their sense of belonging.

Purpose The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the academic and social activities of international students and their sense of belonging on campus. The following research questions guided this study: What are the academic and social experiences of undergraduate international students in the institutions of American higher education? Do academic and social experiences in college affect sense of belonging differently between international students and American students?

  

184 K. Bista

Method

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a quantitative study, this chapter used data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collected at a public Southern university in the United States. For the purpose of the analysis, data are named and categorized into dependent and independent variables to examine students’ sense of belonging (Table 10.1). The NSSE instrument is a national questionnaire which has been used in more than 1,600 colleges and approximately 5.5 million students have taken the survey since 2000 in the United States and Canada (NSSE, 2012). The NSSE includes more than 100 items designed to measure college student engagement. The sample for the current study consisted of (n = 177) international undergraduate students and (n = 1,168) American undergraduate students who participated in one academic year. The total sample is (N = 1,365) students consisting of both international students and American students.

Measures

 

 

Sense of belonging is the dependent variable in this analysis. The sense of belonging was operationalized using three items from the NSSE questionnaire: (1) students’ relationships with faculty members; (2) students’ relationships with administrative staff members; and (3) students’ relationships with other students (peers). A composite variable using all three items (α = 0.763) was calculated. Originally, responses to each item were placed on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (Unfriendly, Unsupportive, Sense of Alienation) to 7 (Friendly, Supportive, Sense of Belonging). Scores for the composite variable, which combined all three items, range from 3 to 21, with higher scores indicating higher levels of sense of belonging. Based on sense of belonging framework, the independent variables were operationalized as below:

­

The academic variables included: class participation, interaction with faculty, work with other students, conversation with other students, number of years in school, grades, number of hours spent studying and participation in co-curricular activities. ­

The social variables included: community-based work (voluntary or paid), attendance in campus activities such as dance and music, work on campus, work off campus, hours relaxing and socializing.

Data analysis and findings Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine existing patterns among variables. Independent and dependent variables were coded and operationalized based on the sense of belonging framework (Table 10.1). Regression tests were used to estimate the net effect of various sets of predictors on the

  

Reciprocity in international education

19

 

 

­



 

­

­

­

 

one that participating nations and students must agree to and abide by. This is an area that has failed to keep pace with the changing education landscape, so much so that in Australia, for example, a study found that the rights of international students demand attention in ‘policy areas of education, immigration, human rights, employment, housing, transport, law enforcement, social and community affairs’ (Graycar, 2010, pp. 13–14). Furthermore, the challenge offered by Ng and Lo (Chapter 5) to re-envision access to an international or transnational education in a global world as a human right rather than a product with a price tag captures what has too often been lost in current approaches. While education is available only to those already in possession of wealth, any promise that it is the key to social and material development, a pathway out of poverty, appears destined to remain a myth. Rather, international education as a market arguably deepens social and class divisions and operates as a gatekeeper that excludes those who could most benefit. In a global world, wealthy nation states with high-quality education systems should perhaps be intervening to promote and support a reciprocity at the national level, and rather than profiting from a flow of students to their institutions (that is, moving wealth from poorer nations to their own), take more steps to develop the availability of quality education programmes in the countries from which they currently draw their international student enrolments. This must surely be the next phase of internationalisation and flow of students across borders, not a one-way flow, but one that facilitates opportunities for a more reciprocally international education for students regardless of country of origin. The contradiction of the present iteration of globalisation of education in which, as Ng and Lo (Chapter 5) point out, nations continue to seek advantage in a putatively borderless world is failing to realise the transformative potential of education in social and human terms of a genuine reciprocity, of ‘adopting the initiatives of enhancing the connectivity among people from around the world by internationalization as a project of nurturing humanity, world citizenship’ (Ng, 2012, in Ng & Lo, Chapter 5, p. 100). The current flow of students is lubricated by language, English, but the role of language/s in international education as merely instrumental needs overturning; the idea that one particular language is both necessary and sufficient for an authentic international education needs to be rejected to engage with the proposition that an education cannot be truly international or global if it relies on one language alone. Rather, an international education embeds reciprocity through all students’, including local/domestic students, learning of additional languages in order that it not only ‘engages with the linguistic but also the onto-epistemological wealth that our students bring to it’ (Díaz, Chapter 11, p. 201). As argued convincingly by Shafaei et al. (Chapter 9), the satisfaction of students is closely linked to the ease with which they are able to navigate the demands of the academic, institutional and broader cultural contexts they encounter in host countries, and this contributes directly to the overall achievement of academic success. Given that student satisfaction and academic success is a goal shared by students and host countries and

  

186 K. Bista

Variables

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10.2 Means and standard deviations for all variables, both samples – international students (n = 177) and American students (n = 1168) International students

American students

M

SD

M

SD

14.92

3.79

15.78

3.50

Academic Class participation Interactions with faculty Worked with other students Conversation with other students Year in school Grades Co-curricular activities

4.95 4.53 4.84 4.75 2.18 3.49 2.26

1.34 1.52 1.50 1.92 1.41 0.57 1.56

4.59 4.66 4.28 4.28 2.74 3.35 1.94

1.43 1.45 1.53 1.84 1.36 0.51 1.52

Social Community-based work Attended activities such as dance Work on campus Work off campus Relaxing and socializing

3.57 4.66 1.84 1.85 3.75

1.27 1.60 1.51 1.83 1.68

4.28 4.59 1.49 3.45 3.54

1.53 1.53 1.34 2.74 1.56

22.95 1.48

5.92 0.50

22.35 1.64

1.32 0.48

Dependent variable Sense of belonging

Background Age Sex

Note NSSE = National Survey of Student Engagement. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation.



­

­

­

approximately 27.3 per cent of the variance in American college students’ sense of belonging could be explained by the variables in the final model. Significant predictors of sense of belonging included: class participation, interaction with faculty, years in school, grades, co-curricular activities, community-based work, number of hours of relaxing and socializing, age and gender of the students. A side-by-side summary of the regression results is presented in Table 10.3. Multicollinearity was checked in this analysis. Multicollinearity exists when two or more independent variables are highly correlated (Field, 2009).

Discussion

­

The purpose of this study was to examine the academic and social activities of international students and their sense of belonging on campus. Results were compared to American undergraduate students to examine whether academic and non-academic experiences affected sense of belonging similarly or differently. Results have offered the following insights about the sense of belonging for international students and their American counterparts.

0.554** –0.115 0.278 0.176 0.445* 0.081 0.554 0.350 0.279 0.113 –0.228 0.511** –0.926 0.606

Social Community-based work Involvement in activities Work on campus Work off campus Relaxing and socializing

Background Age Sex







 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

60.978

102.63

Constant

Academic Class participation Interactions with faculty Worked with other students Conversation with other students Years in school Grades Co-curricular activities

0.571 0.532

0.232 0.199 0.172 0.144 0.165

0.222 0.213 0.194 0.158 0.198 0.183 0.222

β

SE

B

–1.52 0.08

0.103 0.116 0.052 –0.133 0.207

0.203 –0.048 0.114 0.091 0.172 0.035 0.203

–

American students

International students

Variables/predictors

 

Table 10.3 Regression results: international students and American students

–0.880*** 0.436*

0.339*** 0.193** 0.066 –0.051 0.163**

0.260*** 0.178** –0.095 –0.817 5.30*** 0.135*** –3.64*

–3.64

B

0.128 0.187

0.067 0.067 0.067 0.033 .0058

0.073 0.074 0.056 0.087 0.367 0.064 1.06

1.06

SE

–0.332 0.060

0.148 0.084 0.025 –0.040 0.073

0.107 0.074 –0.050 –0.318 0.779 0.059 0.107

–

β

  

188 K. Bista

Sense of belonging of international students

­

 

 

­

­

 

 

 

 



­

Results from this study suggest that only three academic and social variables (class participation, number of years spent in the college and number of hours spent for relaxing and socializing) out of 14 positively influenced international students’ sense of belonging. Other variables such as interactions with faculty, work with peers, co-curricular activities, community-based work and involvement in social activities such as music and dance, work on campus, work off campus, and age and gender of international students did not influence sense of belonging. This model of analysis suggests that undergraduate international students focused mainly on their studying, relaxing and socializing, and classroom participation. In the analysis, the standardized beta for class participation (β = 0.203) and number of hours for relaxing and socializing (β = 0.207) was greater than the number of years in school (β = 0.172). This study follows the findings of the previous study in which Curtin et al. (2012) found international students placed a higher value on research and academic experiences than domestic students. Social participation and interactions with peers and faculty are considered important college integration for students. Results suggest that international students were less engaged in non-academic activities. This may speculate that international students experience other challenges such as social isolation, mental health issues and problems in cross-cultural adjustment due to a lack of campus integration (Trice, 2004; McClure, 2007; Gareis, 2012).

Sense of belonging: international students and American students comparison



­

­

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results of this study show sense of belonging for both international students and American students. However, the predicators that influenced sense of belonging differed between international students and American students. For instance, American students (M = 15.78, SD = 3.50) reported higher levels of sense of belonging compared to international students (M = 14.92, SD = 3.79). Unlike their international counterparts, factors such as interaction with faculty, grades, co-curricular activities, community-based work, involvement in social activities, age and gender were significant predictors of sense of belonging for American students. On the other hand, factors such as class participation, number of years in school, and number of hours spent relaxing and socializing were significant predictors of sense of belonging for both American students and international students. These variables had positive associations with the outcome measure. The unstandardized beta (β) coefficients on class participation for international students and American students were 0.203 and 0.107 respectively. Findings from earlier studies suggest that international students were more focused on class assignments and exams. But for time in school, the influence

  

Do experiences predict sense of belonging?

189

 

 

 

­

­

­





 

 

 

 

 

on sense of belonging was greater for American students (β = 0.779) than international students (β = 0.445). In relaxing and socializing, the influence was higher for international students (β = 0.511) than American students (β = 0.073). Perhaps this suggests that international students have more free time and can spend more time relaxing than American students. Descriptive results also showed that undergraduate international students have comparatively lower scores in class participation, interactions with faculty and discussion and group work with peers than their American counterparts. Along with previous studies, this may indicate that limited English language proficiency, the silent nature of students in the classroom, the influence of home culture and the learning styles of international students were significant barriers to a sense of belonging and a positive college experience (Bista, 2011; Kuo, 2011; Gareis, 2012; Austell, 2013). Despite these barriers and challenges, international students in this study reported a slightly higher grade level than their American counterparts. The findings of this study can be translated into practice. Faculty and staff who work with international students may consider interactive social and academic activities to integrate both international and domestic students on campus. For instance, providing more support services (e.g. bridge programs, individual and group tutoring, on campus employment, housing services and English language programs) and community-based programs may increase student sense of belonging on campus. There were some limitations of this study, which further narrows down the implications. First, this analysis relied on self-reported data collected from international students and American students at a public Southern university in the United States from one academic year. Second, the analysis did not include ethnicity of international and American student participants as the original NSSE instrument does not categorize this item, especially for international students. The two groups of students are different in terms of their background characteristics and academic majors. This may raise questions about the issue of diversity in both student populations. Third, some scholars raised questions about the potential cultural bias of instrument NSSE and outcomes based on self-reported perceptions (e.g. Bowman, 2011). Although findings may have limited generalizability, these limitations do not reduce the usefulness of the study in understanding the factors associated with international students’ subjective sense of integration into college in relation to their American counterparts. Finally, since this study was limited to the participants from one campus, future research is suggested using a large sample size of international students from several public and private universities to explore international students’ college experiences and sense of belonging.

References ­

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  

190 K. Bista

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

­

 

 

 

­

 

 

­

 

­

 

 

 

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

Austell, D. B. (2013). What college counselors need to know about international student advisors: Field notes on the professionals, the clients, and the challenges. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 27(3), 226–237. doi: 10.1080/8756 8225.2013.798224. Berger, J. B. (1997). Students’ sense of community in residence halls, social integration, and first-year persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 38(5), 441–452. Bista, K. (2011). Why are foreign students silent in the U.S. classroom? Faculty Focus. Magna Publications. Retrieved from www.facultyfocus.com/articles/learningstyles/a-first-person-explanation-of-why-some-international-students-are-silent-inthe-u-s-classroom/. Bista, K. & Foster, C. (2011). Issues of international student retention in American higher education. International Journal of Research and Review, 7(2), 1–10. Bista, K. & Foster, C. (eds). (2016a). Campus support services, programs, and policies for international students. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Bista, K. & Foster, C. (eds). (2016b). Exploring the social and academic experiences of international students in higher education institutions. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Bowman, N. A. (2011). Validity of college self-reported gains at diverse institutions. Educational Researcher, 40(1), 22–24. doi: 10.3102/0013189X10397630. Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999). Campus racial climate and the adjustment of students to college. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 134–160. Curtin, N., Stewart, A. & Ostrove, J. M. (2012). Fostering academic self-concept: Advisor support and sense of belonging among international and domestic graduate students. American Educational Research Journal, 20(10), 1–30. doi: 10.3102/00028312 12446662. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gareis, E. (2012). Intercultural friendship: Effects of home and host region. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(4), 309–328. doi: 10.1080/17513057. 2012.691525. Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J. & Salomone, K. (2003). Investigating ‘sense of belonging’ in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(3), 227–256. Hurtado, S. & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324–345. Ikwuagwu, V. O. (2010). International student satisfaction levels with student support services at Delaware State University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Delaware State University, Delaware. Jacoby, B. & Garland, J. (2005). Strategies for enhancing commuter student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 6(1), 61–79. Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., RowanKenyon, H. T. & Longerbeam, S. D. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–524. doi: 10.1353/csd.2007.0054. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J. & Associates. (2011ß). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kuo, Y. (2011). Language challenges faced by international graduate students in the United States. Journal of International Students, 1(2), 38–42.

  

Do experiences predict sense of belonging?

191

 

 

­

 

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

Le, A. T., LaCost, B. Y. & Wismer, M. (2016). International female graduate students’ experience at a Midwestern university: Sense of belonging and identity development. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 128–152. Lee, J. J. (2011). International students’ experiences and attitudes at a US host institution: Self-reports and future recommendations. Journal of Research in International Education, 9(1), 66–84. doi: 10.1177/1475240909356382. Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Sawir, E. & Forbes-Mewett, H. (2010). International student security. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. McClure, J. W. (2007). International graduate’s cross-cultural adjustment: Experiences, coping strategies, and suggested programmatic responses. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(2), 199–217. Montgomery, C. (2010). Understanding the international student experience. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Mwangi, C. A. G. (2016). Exploring sense of belonging among Black international students at an HBCU. Journal of International Students, 6(4), 1015–1037. NSSE. (2012). National survey of student engagement. Retrieved from http://nsse. indiana.edu/html/about.cfm. Open Doors. (2016). Institute of international education. Retrieved from www.iie. org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data#.WGSMqVMrJyw. Ostrove, J. M. & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363–389. Pascarella, F. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (vol. 2): A third decade of research (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 19(1), 240–245. Ren, J. & Hagedorn, L. S. (2012). International graduate students’ academic performance: What are the influencing factors? Journal of International Students, 2(2), 135–143. Strayhorn, T. L., (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. New York, NY: Routledge. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions with American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 671–687. doi: 10.1353/csd.2004.0074. Trice, A. G. (2007). Faculty perspectives regarding graduate international students’ isolation from host national students. International Education Journal, 8(1), 108–117. Wentzel, K. R. & Muenks, K. (2016). Peer influence on students’ motivation, academic achievement, and social behavior. In K. R. Wentzel & G. B. Ramani (eds), Handbook of social influences in school contexts: Social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes (pp. 13–31). New York, NY: Routledge. Yao, C. W. (2016). Unfulfilled expectations: Influence of Chinese international students’ roommate relationships on sense of belonging. Journal of International Students, 6(3), 762–778. Zhai, L. (2004). Studying international students: Adjustment issues and social support. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 11(1), 97–104.

 

Part III

Educational adaptability – instructional practices and international students



11 Stretching the global imaginaries of internationalisation The critical role of intercultural language learning pedagogies  

Adriana R. Díaz Introduction

­

­

 



 

­

­



­

­

It is in many ways a truism that the current higher education (HE) context can only be conceived in relation to the international landscape (cf. Maringe, Foskett & Woodfield, 2013). Perhaps an extension of this truism is the way in which this international landscape is described. Even a cursory glance at any number of reports and scholarly publications – mine included – would describe it as being characterised by ever-evolving processes of globalisation, an unprecedented rise in population mobility, ubiquitous interconnectedness and the ever-increasing frequency of intercultural encounters in everyday life. All of these factors have made the pursuit of internationalisation a seemingly unavoidable task for higher education institutions (HEIs) and arguably, one of the most difficult tasks HEIs have faced in their many years in existence (Scott, 2003; Preece, 2011). Against this backdrop, however, the actual definition of internationalisation remains contested. Efforts to untangle the multilayered dimensions of this notion are plentiful in the literature. Some of these efforts can be traced in leading internationalisation scholar Jane Knight’s (2012) comprehensive review spanning 50 years of the ever-changing terms used to describe this phenomenon. Yet, for the most part, the literature reveals that most studies continue to rely on variations of Knight’s oft cited – now over two-decades old – definition of internationalisation as the complex process of ‘integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the institution’ (Knight, 1994, p. 7, emphasis added). While it is true that internationalisation processes are ever-evolving, this chapter responds to recent calls from Knight herself (2014), among others (cf. de Wit, 2014; Stein, Andreotti, Bruce & Suša, 2016) to rethink the ‘fundamental values’ (Knight, 2014, p. 76) underpinning this now almost tokenistic, ‘catch-all phrase’ (ibid.). In particular, this chapter engages with converging lines of theoretical and empirical research from (1) emerging research that draws on decolonial theory (cf. Stein et al., 2016) to question the ways in which internationalisation is framed in exactly the ways deployed in the

  

196 A. R. Díaz

­



­



­

­

 



 

introductory paragraph: as a direct corollary of seldom contested characterisations of globalisation as ‘neutral’ and ‘inevitable’ (cf. Altbach, 2004; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010); and (2) a growing body of research urging HEIs to rethink the vital role of (world) languages education in providing a space for students’ critical engagement with the world (cf. Kramsch, 2014; Díaz & Dasli, 2016). Indeed, a clear disconnect between the internationalisation strategies of HEIs and the provision of languages education has emerged as a major gap in the internationalisation rhetoric. As highlighted by Crichton and Scarino (2007) there still remains a gap in the internationalisation literature, in theory, research and pedagogical practice, ‘of a connection between the internationalisation of teaching and learning and the role of language and culture which are integral to conceptualising both learning and the intercultural [dimension]’ (p. 4.2). For the most part, HEIs’ internationalisation strategies have largely overlooked the role of language education in preparing all graduates, regardless of their origin – ‘domestic’ or ‘international’ – for engaging in an intercultural dialogue with and in this ‘globalised’ world we live in. This glaring gap has been underscored in the last five years with particular reference to countries forming Kachru’s Anglophone centre: English-dominant nations such as the United States, Anglophone Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand (cf. Klee, 2009; Bergan & van’t Land, 2010; Cañado, 2010; Pauwels, 2011; Preece, 2011; Warner, 2011; Dlaska, 2012b; Díaz, 2013; Orme, 2015; Coffey, 2016; Stein-Smith, 2016b). As research into this disconnect continues to gain momentum, with this chapter I aim to contribute to advancing its theoretical agenda through linkages with decolonial perspectives on internationalisation (cf. Abdi, Shultz & Pillay, 2015; Andreotti & de Souza, 2012; Andreotti, 2015; Andreotti & Stein, 2015). I argue that relying on the ‘framing’ afforded by the global imaginary described earlier, HEIs around the world, and particularly in the Anglophone centre, continue to support a unidirectional system in which international students from so-called ‘developing’ countries should aspire to be integrated into more ‘developed’ ones (cf. Andreotti, 2015) by learning English as a second language. In so doing, this unidirectional system ignores the reality of both international and domestic students as multilingual transnationals ‘shuttling’ (Canagarajah, 2006) between ‘superdiverse’ (Vertovec, 2009) and rapidly changing communicative contexts (Vasilopoulos, 2015) with a plurality of knowledges, but ultimately operating in an unequal plain. I thus aim to push against the boundaries created by dominant global imaginaries of internationalisation through critical appraisal informed by multiple streams of literature including government and supra-governmental reports from around the world as well as numerous scholarly publications. The chapter proceeds in three main sections. The first section discusses the notion of ‘global imaginary’ in relation to both established and emerging literature on internationalisation, and the ways in which international and domestic students’ adaptation is conceptualised in relation to languages education. The second section examines a growing body of literature urging for a

197

  

Global imaginaries of internationalisation

­

­

­

 

­

­

­

re-conceptualisation of (world) language learning pedagogies and the role of language educators as an ethical and political endeavour. The third and final section is dedicated to exploring new imaginaries rather than ‘implications’ resulting from these discussions. These new imaginaries consider the limitations of policy-making as ready-made, one-size-fit-all solutions and focus instead on re-conceptualising future research agendas and teaching practices. The chapter closes with a brief conclusion that contemplates potential pathways for ongoing dialogue in this area.

Global imaginaries of internationalisation, international and domestic students

­

The notion of ‘imaginary’ has different genealogies. In this context, an imaginary represents a set of unacknowledged yet normalised assumptions which are deep-seated in our consciousness and which delimit the parameters through which reality is perceived, understood and legitimised. Here, political scientist Manfred Steger (2008) reminds us of an important distinction between ‘imaginary’ and ‘ideology’; he considers imaginaries as broader and more deeply rooted than ideologies. Following Charles Taylor’s work (2002, 2004), Steger argues that ‘social imaginaries’ constitute:

 

 

­

the macro-mappings of social and political space through which we perceive, judge, and act in the world. (…) They offer explanations of how ‘we’ – the members of the social whole – fit together, how things go on between us, the expectations we have of each other, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie those expectations. (2012, p. 1)

­

 

 

­

Steger dates the rise of the ‘global imaginary’ – that is, ‘global’ rather than ‘national’ imaginaries that transcend and undermine the normality of the modern nation-state – back to the post-war era. Stein, Andreotti and Suša (2016) date its emergence back to the dual processes of European modernity and colonialism and use a linguistic metaphor to describe imaginaries as ‘the invisible frame[s] and structuring grammar of meaning and understanding’ which not only delimit reality but also ‘the range of possible questions and the answers that can be provided’ (pp. 3–4) about its potential transformation. Current internationalisation processes and the discourses surrounding them can thus be understood as an example of these ‘global imaginaries’, more importantly, they are examples how our imaginaries have been ‘colonised’ to the point of limiting the intelligibility of other potential ways of imagining past, present and future realities (Stein et al., 2016). As such, internationalisation processes in HE can be further conceived as an example of ‘global coloniality’ that Argentinian semiotician and decolonial scholar Walter Mignolo defines as ‘the reproduction of coloniality on a global scale under neoliberal values and principles of education’ (2003, p. 99).

  

198 A. R. Díaz

­

­

 



 

 

 



 

­



The conceptual framework of ‘global imaginaries’ therefore provides a lens through which we can examine internationalisation processes and discourses around, for example, international students’ ‘adaptability’. Recent critique clearly points to the inadequacy of internationalisation studies’ conceptualisation of ‘adjustment’ (or ‘adaptation’) of international students to the ‘host’ country/university/community (cf. Grimshaw, 2011, in the UK context). Studies exploring international students’ experience tend to focus on such variables as the degree of interaction with host nationals, academic achievement, socialisation into the dominant group, positionality and belonging, among other variables (cf. Vasilopoulos, 2015, for a comprehensive review). All these variables seem to assume a ‘move towards a pre-established endpoint (…) reaching a fixed end state such as being at ease, feeling a sense of belonging, or feeling secure’ (Vasilopoulos, p. 297), through socialisation into the host community, generally aided by more experienced community members. At the core of this critique lies the idea that all international students belong to a homogenous group, largely conceived within a deficit paradigm as disadvantaged. In other words, these studies ‘erroneously stereotype and essentialise international student experience as one and the same’ (ibid.); an experience that is only problematised as necessitating ‘remediation’. The ‘English language problem’ is a clear example of this critique. As highlighted by Haugh (2015, 2016) in the Australian context, discourses surrounding this issue maintain that ‘[international students] have inadequate English language skills for participating in academic studies, and graduate with insufficient English language skills for subsequent employment in Australia’ (2016, p. 728). Yet, as argued by Haugh, such discourses neglect ‘the moral and affective complexity of the difficulties facing international students. This neglect leads, in turn, to an impoverished understanding of the English language capabilities of international students’ (p. 727). In this problem-solution stance, we see once again the type of paternalistic approach supported by dominant imaginaries about internationalisation that overlook and ultimately alienate international students’ diverse backgrounds and experiences. As Preece highlights, this ‘institutional othering of multilingual students often exacerbates feelings of stigmatisation and encourages oversimplified view of how to address the language needs of a diverse body of students’ (2011, p. 123, emphasis in original). Here it can be argued that the ‘English language problem’ (also, the ‘English language question’, cf. Murray, 2015) is all but a symptom of a larger issue, namely, the hegemonic, imperialistic dominance of the English language. While the rise and spread of English may be considered by many as ‘normal’ within the current internationalisation ‘global imaginary’. Scholars such Phillipson (2009, 2016) and Preece (2011) would put this into question and argue instead that the pervasive dominance of English ‘has been engineered to serve the wider political and economic forces of capitalism, in which universities, particularly those in the Anglophone centre, are increasingly run as corporate concerns in the marketplace’ (Preece, 2011, p. 124).

  

Global imaginaries of internationalisation

199

­

­

­



 

­

­

­

­



 

­

 



­

­

­



Furthermore, while ensuring the development of English language proficiency for international students is certainly an imperative, giving it such priority at the expense of other areas of language education is a clear indication of the often narrow, one-dimensional conceptualisation of internationalisation processes held not only by many institutions, but also by the national governments (cf. Eisenchlas, Trevaskes & Liddicoat, 2003, discussing the Australian context). This type of one-dimensional perspective perpetuates the ‘monolingual mindset’ embedded in most of the above-mentioned English-dominant nations (cf. Clyne, Pauwels & Sussex, 2007; Díaz, 2013). With the spread of English, HEIs in the Anglophone centre have experienced a rise in the influx of ‘international students’. This has in turn created the conditions for an ongoing diversification of their ‘linguistic ecology’ (Preece, 2011). Yet, HEIs continue to overlook this diversity, not only in the incoming group of students, but also among the ‘domestic’ cohort of students. Indeed, much like the way in which ‘international students’ are homogenously imagined, so are ‘domestic’ students and their needs, particularly in the relation to (world) language education. As highlighted by Gramling and Warner (2016), students entering the language university classrooms in Anglophone countries no longer fit the ‘imagined community of monolingual English speakers’ (p. 79) that policy makers typically address. In fact, language classrooms have long been characterised by students with a wide range of backgrounds and experiences, but perhaps more recently with students that ‘engage on a daily basis with many different and changing ideas and transnational discourses through the media, digital networks and face-to-face’ (Quist, 2013, p. 341). Interestingly, therefore, dominant imaginaries about internationalisation present deeply problematic vis-à-vis international and domestic students’ adaptation to HE understood in relation to languages education. Both groups appear to be homogenously conceptualised and in both cases there a ‘language problem’ that needs to be resolved. On the one hand, in the case of international students, their deficiencies in the English language. On the other hand, in the case of domestic students, there is the ‘problem of languages uptake’ which – within the dominant internationalisation imaginary – ultimately renders these students ‘less competitive’ and which have led many English-dominant nations to consider modern/foreign language education in a permanent state of ‘crisis’ – see, for instance, Stein-Smith (2016a, 2016b) for a recent discussion of the ‘US Foreign Language Deficit’; Clyne et al. (2007) and Martín, Jansen and Backmann, (2016) for a discussion of the Australian case; Hajek and Slaughter (2014) also provide cases from Australia and around the world; Hagger-Vaughan (2016) provides an up-to-date account on the ‘languages for all’ debate in England; and Ricento (2013) considers the Canadian case. For the most part, this literature focuses on ‘modern/foreign languages’, often unproblematically conceptualised within the modern nation-state construct (cf. Makoni & Pennycook, 2007; Lo Bianco, 2014) which prevents us

  

200 A. R. Díaz

­

from acknowledging the growing linguistic diversity in these countries – the US for example, where Spanish may no longer be consider a ‘foreign’ language – as well as ‘indigenous’ languages and so-called ‘minority/heritage’ languages, which would most likely be part of the repertoire of many of these countries’ domestic students. Nevertheless, against this backdrop, over the past five years or so a growing body of literature has emerged urging HEIs to consider the key role of languages education in internationalisation processes.

The critical role of languages education

 

 



 

­

As an extension of Knight’s definition of internationalisation processes presented earlier, current literature suggests that these processes are largely focused on preparing graduates for an increasingly globalised world (EgronPolak & Hudson, 2010). As such, most HEIs’ mission statements and policy documents articulate this rationale, albeit under many guises, as specific graduate attributes. Descriptors of these attributes refer to graduates as ‘global citizens’ with awareness of and sensitivity to other cultures, and the ability to function in global, multicultural environments (Bourn, 2010). While languages are usually assumed to be ‘strategic’ in achieving this goal (Jones, 2010), they seldom feature as key component of these processes. Furthermore, as Pauwels points out, ‘there is greater tension or even disjuncture between rhetoric about the importance and relevance of learning another ‘foreign’ language and its practice’ (2011, p. 248). In this context, modern/foreign languages education – now also referred to as ‘world’ languages in US universities – offers a unique milieu for bringing these strategies to fruition. Indeed, as Dlaska (2012a) highlights, ‘language programmes attract a mix of home and international students from all disciplines and engage them in learning dialogues relevant to mobile learners and future global citizens’ (2012b, p. 2). This is true for HEIs around the world. Language programmes offer a unique opportunity to support and advance the development of all students’ beyond their linguistic deficiencies to consider new ways of perceiving and talking about their world. Here, Osler and Starkey (2015) emphasise opportunities that the inherent characteristics of the language learning classroom offer to open a dialogue across difference – cultural, linguistic, etc.:

 

In particular the language class is a site where education for dialogue is especially developed including skills such as the ability to listen, to reformulate the words of another the better to understand them, to put a different point of view, to produce a valid argument, to concede the strengths of someone else’s position or perspective. (p. 35) Yet, research pushing for languages education to acquire a central role in internationalisation processes (cf. Dlaska, 2000, 2003, 2012b; Klee, 2009;

  

Global imaginaries of internationalisation

201

­

­

­

 

 

­

 



­

­

­

 

­



 

­

 

­

Bergan & van’t Land, 2010; Cañado, 2010; Pauwels, 2011; Preece, 2011; Warner, 2011; Díaz, 2013; Orme, 2015; Stein-Smith, 2016b) may also walk along a tightrope. There is a danger of falling into the abyss of current debates regarding the neoliberal conceptualisation of language learning (cf. Bernstein, Hellmich, Katznelson, Shin & Vinall, 2015; Holborow, 2015). Against this backdrop, it may thus be more useful to consider progressing towards a view of internationalisation and graduates that acknowledge languages’ central role in knowledge (and imaginaries) production and reproduction. Indeed, as Lo Bianco reflects, drawing on Mignolo’s work, language can be conceived as ‘a collective apparatus of normalising and making authoritative Western knowledge systems into projects of colonial domination’ (2014, p. 318). Ultimately, languages education may contribute ‘both to the neoliberal deepening of cultural capital asymmetries, associated with social inequalities, and to the emancipation of silenced, self-effaced, or self-rejected, voices’ (Formosinho, Jesus & Reis, 2016, p. 8). The role of language education should thus be re-conceptualised beyond the instrumentalist – neoliberal – notion of language study as a commodity. Instead, its role should be re-envisioned as a medium for engaging critically in interpretive, meaning making processes that can illuminate and enhance communication ‘across human difference’ (Lee, Poch, Shaw & Williams, 2012, p. 103). This would necessarily entail a shift in the organisational philosophy of the HE sector (Eisenchlas et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2012) and the structural realignment between universities’ mission statements, curriculum goals and everyday teaching practices. In turn, such a shift would entail reimagining the university/community as a ‘multilingual space’ (Preece & Martin, 2009) with a complex ‘ecology of languages’ (cf. Guilherme, 2014) and possibly of an ‘ecology of literacies’ (cf. Creese, Martin & Hornberger, 2008) which not only acknowledges and engages with the linguistic but also the onto-epistemological wealth that our students bring to it. Furthermore this shift would also entail re-conceptualising the meanings and values underlying what it actually means to be a critically aware, intercultural speaker in today’s globalised world, being able to relate to different epistemologies and most importantly, to those knowledges, behaviours, customs, etc., which we do not understand. For languages education this means that ‘a more reflective, interpretive, historically grounded, and politically engaged pedagogy’ (Kramsch, 2014, p. 98) is needed. This need also calls for language educators to re-imagine their roles (cf. Kubanyiova & Crookes, 2016). It calls for us to get our ‘hands dirty’, that is, to truly engage in the potential – quite likely – painful ‘conversations about past and present displacement and devastation that continue to happen locally and globally’ (Ennser-Kananen, 2016, p. 557). It calls for engagement with issues of social justice, ‘not as an incidental, ad hoc part of classroom life, but as a central, driving force to the enterprise of teaching language’ (Wesely, Glynn & Wassell, 2016, p. 564). Finally, and most importantly, this also calls for the ‘professional dialogue between teachers of English,

  

202 A. R. Díaz

 

traditional foreign languages, heritage/community languages, and other categories of language interest are required to foster a new overall understanding of the enterprise of language education’ (Lo Bianco, 2014, p. 312).

New imaginaries rather than implications

 

­

 

­



 

 

 

­

­

­

 

The increasing pervasiveness of dominant global imaginaries of internationalisation in HE make their ‘contestation and transformation challenging, even as more people’s lives are significantly affected by it’ (Stein & Andreotti, 2016, p. 229). Indeed, even when contested, both theoretical and empirical studies appear limited by these imaginaries in their tendency to provide onesize-fits-all visions of potential solutions that neglect to acknowledge their complexity of current contexts. Furthermore, suggesting institution-wide policies also tends to neglect the fact that student cohorts change from one semester and one year to the next. How can new, alternative imaginaries be imagined then when we can only imagine (think of ) questions and answers to problems within the limits of these dominant imaginaries? Or as Cushman (2016) exhorts us to consider: ‘to what extent might translingual approaches to language teaching and learning allow for pluriversal splendors of human imagination and creativity to open up?’ (p. 234). I see these questions examples of the small steps needed in order to stretch our current imaginaries, slowly, uncomfortably and possibly without having to uncover an actual ‘solution’. Critique on the ways in which we engage with these educational problems highlights our tendency to come up narrow, instrumental with ‘how-to’ approaches to research and educational reform: e.g. how to help international students adapt; how to attract and retain students; how can institutions provide more support for international students (Stein & Andreotti, 2016). Typically, in the imaginary of the currently internationalised HE scenario, characterised by neoliberal, corporate approach to the provision of education, these approaches to reform are likely be driven by quality assurance (QA) mechanisms (Díaz, 2013). Through these mechanisms HEIs explicitly rationalise learning outcomes and academic achievement standards so they can be subject to comparison within and across institutions, nationally and, more importantly, internationally. While QA processes can be understood as a positive, even imperative aspect of how HEIs operate, they represent another example of the vocabulary tightly linked with ‘the invisible frame[s] and structuring grammar of meaning and understanding’ of global imaginaries about internationalisation. Ultimately, they remain contested practices that lie beyond the scope of this chapter. Nevertheless, it is telling to observe, for instance, that while ‘there is increased recognition within institutions of the fundamental nature of language in learning and academic achievement for all students’ (AUQA, 2009, p. 2), QA efforts continue to be focused on areas of direct economic relevance to universities – both in the Anglophone centre and beyond – that is, the satisfaction of full fee-paying overseas students (cf. Harris, 2013; Heyworth, 2013), in other words, the provision of English language education.

  

Global imaginaries of internationalisation

203

 

 

­

­



­

­

­

 



Based on critical appraisal of the current literature and as Cañado contends, ‘the time is ripe for a necessary reorientation in tertiary language education worldwide’ (2010, p. 408, emphasis added). At risk of countering the argument developed so far against the provision of ready-made solutions, I identify here a few strategies that I have found useful in trying to engage with and map some ‘imaginable’ steps towards the systematic embedding of critical pedagogical practices for languages education as well as the overall engagement with new ecologies of diversity across the curriculum and across disciplines (cf. Lee et al., 2012). While these steps may still be considered ‘intelligible’ within the inherited limits of global imaginaries about internationalisation, they sit at the outer limits, far from being the norm. These steps may entail (1) intentionally prioritising this critical engagement in the curriculum both vertically and horizontally, across programmes and disciplines; (2) explicitly mapping critical engagement in a cyclical, iterative fashion within and across programmes; and (3) purposefully ensuring their enactment in a variety of learning contexts inside and outside the classroom, involving students across realms of ‘difference’. At the micro-level of lesson planning, critical engagement of this sort may be realised as the adopting of a ‘transnational’ perspective in the choice of materials and activities such as firstperson transcultural/translingual ‘migratory’ autobiographies, oral history accounts and language learning memoirs, and celebrating the affective dimension of language learning and encouraging the intertwining of emotion and cognition in responses to materials and activities (cf. Díaz, 2015; Kennedy, Díaz & Dasli, 2016). But beyond the possibility of actual implementation of these tentative steps the key remains being able to provide an environment that may help promote and scaffold the adoption of a critical reflective stance as teachers and learners contest, re-imagine and attempt to enact these critical engagements, whatever shape or form they may take. In so doing, we must continue to remind ourselves of the ‘imperfect’ (Todd, 2015), ‘discomforting’ (Boler, 2014), and even ‘painful’ (Ennser-Kananen, 2016) nature of critical engagement itself, ‘a continuous critical process of looking inward but voicing outward, which can only be hampered by planning its scope or outcomes’ (Kennedy et al., 2016, p. 176). Finally, in terms of advancing the agenda of educational research designs, as the preceding discussion suggests, it is imperative that as we set out to examine the individuality of our students’ experiences while celebrating the diversity they bring to our classrooms, we consider ‘an ontological framework that emphasizes change, difference, interconnection, and unpredictability’ (Vasilopoulos, 2015 pp. 299–300).

Conclusion This chapter’s critical appraisal of current debates regarding internationalisation and languages education through a decolonial perspective has highlighted the analogous limitations and possibilities for HEIs around the world,

  

204 A. R. Díaz

­



­

particularly, in the Anglophone centre. In so doing, this chapter has outlined converging lines of theoretical and empirical research questioning the ways in which internationalisation is framed with a growing body of research urging HEIs to rethink the vital role of languages education in providing a space for students’ critical engagement with the world. Two key concepts served as a springboard for this critical appraisal. On the one hand, the concept of ‘imaginary’ and on the other, the concept of ‘ecology’. The first provided a critical lens through which to engage with the ‘mainstream’ literature on internationalisation while the second helped re-conceptualise the complexities of current linguistic and cultural realities of the university (language) classroom. As discussed through this chapter, contesting global imaginaries of internationalisation poses many philosophical, ethical and political challenges. These challenges permeate disciplines across the curriculum. Languages education is no exception. The time appears ripe to start a conversation through which we may individually and collectively begin to stretch the currently dominant global imaginaries discussed throughout this chapter. In so doing, as Stein et al. (2016) suggest, we can actually use these inherited, dominant imaginaries as springboards for the yet to-be-imagined, even seemingly impossible new institutional and pedagogical realities: if the realm of what is possible to imagine is grounded in existing investments and satisfactions, derived as they often are from the same system that creates the problems we are trying to address, we need conversations that can invite us to engage the realm of the seemingly impossible from within the imaginary we have inherited.

­

 

­

A conversation of this nature must include the voices of a variety stakeholders as well as institution-wide commitment to initiatives that may support a reciprocal, bidirectional understanding of adaptability for all students. Indeed, at the heart of this conversation must be the most important concern: our students. The students – whether ‘domestic’ or ‘international’ – who daily cross the threshold of the university (language) classroom and are part of a new ecology of languages, knowledges, identity allegiances and ideologies (cf. Gramling & Warner, 2016). It is indeed against this complex backdrop that HEIs around the world, and especially those in privileged positions as is the case of those in the Anglophone centre, have the ethical responsibility of rethinking their role in the promotion and enactment of an ‘ethos of personal growth that better represents what humanity might become’ (Gibbs, Angelides & Michaelides, 2004, p. 191), a humanity that is conceived beyond anthropocentrically dominant imaginaries of corporate, neoliberal, performancedriven ways of being, acting and knowing.

  

Global imaginaries of internationalisation

205

References

 

 

 

­

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abdi, A. A., Shultz, L. & Pillay, T. (Eds). (2015). Decolonizing global citizenship education. Rotterdam: Sense. Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education & Management, 10(1), 3–25. Andreotti, V. D. O. (2015). Global citizenship education otherwise. In A. A. Abdi, L. Shultz & T. Pillay (Eds), Decolonizing global citizenship education (pp. 221–228). Rotterdam: Sense. Andreotti, V. D. O. & de Souza, L. M. T. (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education. London: Routledge. Andreotti, V. D. O. & Stein, S. (2015). Higher education, development, and the dominant global imaginary. Association of Commonwealth Universities. Retrieved 29 August 2016, from https://beyond2015.acu.ac.uk/submissions/view?id=142. AUQA. (2009). Good practice principles for English language proficiency for international students in Australian universities: Final report. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: DEEWR. Bergan, S. & van’t Land, H. (2010). Speaking across borders: The role of higher education in furthering intercultural dialogue. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub. Bernstein, K. A., Hellmich, E. A., Katznelson, N., Shin, J. & Vinall, K. (2015). Introduction to special issue: Critical perspectives on Neoliberalism in second/foreign language education. L2 Journal, 7(3), 3–14. Boler, M. (2014). Teaching for hope: The ethics of shattering worldviews. In V. Bozalek, B. Leibowitz, R. Carolissen & M. Boler (Eds), Discerning critical hope in educational practices (pp. 26–39). Oxford: Routledge. Bourn, D. (2010). Students as global citizens. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the Student Voice: Higher Education Perspectives (pp. 18–29). New York: Routledge. Cañado, M. L. P. (2010). Globalisation in foreign language teaching: Establishing transatlantic links in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(4), 392–412. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Learning from multilingual writers. College English, 68(6), 589–604. Clyne, M., Pauwels, A. & Sussex, R. (2007). The state of languages education in Australia: A national tragedy and an international embarrassment. Curriculum Leadership Journal, 5(19). Retrieved from: http://cmslive.curriculum.edu.au/leader/the_ state_of_languages_education_in_australia,19754.html. Coffey, S. (2016). Choosing to study modern foreign languages: Discourses of value as forms of cultural capital. Applied Linguistics, (ahead of print), 1–20. Creese, A., Martin, P. & Hornberger, N. H. (2008). Ecology of language. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 9, pp. i–vi). New York, NY: Springer. Crichton, J. & Scarino, A. (2007). How are we to understand the ‘intercultural dimension’? An examination of the intercultural dimension of internationalisation in the context of higher education in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 4.1–4.21. Cushman, E. (2016). Translingual and decolonial approaches to meaning making. College English, 78(3), 234–242. de Wit, H. (2014). The different faces and phases of internationalisation of higher education. In A. Maldonado-Maldonado & R. M. Bassett (Eds), The forefront of international higher education: A festschrift in honor of Philip G. Altbach (pp. 89–99). Dordrecht: Springer.

  

206 A. R. Díaz

­

 

­

 

­

­

 

 

 

 

­

­

 

 

 

 

­

Díaz, A. R. (2013). Developing a languaculture pedagogy in higher education: Theory and practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Díaz, A. R. (2015). Developing interculturally-oriented teaching resources in CFL: Meeting the challenge. In R. Moloney & H. L. Xu (Eds), Exploring innovative pedagogy in the teaching and learning of Chinese as a foreign language (pp. 115–135). Singapore: Springer. Díaz, A. R. & Dasli, M. (2016). Tracing the ‘critical’ trajectory of language and intercultural communication pedagogy. In M. Dasli & A. R. Díaz (Eds), The critical turn in language and intercultural communication pedagogy: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Routledge. Dlaska, A. (2000). Integrating culture and language learning in institution-wide language programmes. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13(3), 247–263. Dlaska, A. (2003). Language learning in the university: Creating content and community in non-specialist programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 103–116. Dlaska, A. (2012a). The role of foreign language programmes in internationalising learning and teaching in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 260–271. Dlaska, A. (2012b). The role of foreign language programmes in internationalising learning and teaching in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–12. Eisenchlas, S., Trevaskes, S. & Liddicoat, A. J. (2003). Internationalisation: The slow move from rhetoric to practice in Australian universities. In A. J. Liddicoat, S. Eisenchlas & S. Trevaskes (Eds), Australian perspectives on internationalising education (pp. 141–149). Melbourne: Language Australia. Ennser-Kananen, J. (2016). A pedagogy of pain: New directions for world language education. The Modern Language Journal, 100(2), 556–564. Egron-Polak, E. & Hudson, R. (Eds). (2010). Internationalization of Higher Education: Global Trends, Regional Perspectives – IAU 3rd Global Survey Report. Paris: International Association of Universities (IAU). Formosinho, M., Jesus, P. & Reis, C. (2016). Emancipatory and critical language education: A plea for translingual possible selves and worlds. Critical Studies in Education, 1–19. Gibbs, P., Angelides, P. & Michaelides, P. (2004). Preliminary thoughts on a praxis of higher education teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(2), 183–194. Gramling, D. J. & Warner, C. (2016). Whose ‘crisis in language’? Translating and the futurity of foreign language learning. L2 Journal, 8(4), 76–99. Grimshaw, T. (2011). Concluding editorial: The needs of international students rethought–implications for the policy and practice of higher education. Teachers and Teaching, 17(6), 703–712. Guilherme, M. (2014). ‘Glocal’ languages and North-South epistemologies. In A. Teodoro & M. Guilherme (Eds), European and Latin American higher education between mirrors (pp. 55–72). Rotterdam: Sense. Hagger-Vaughan, L. (2016). Towards ‘languages for all’ in England: The state of the debate. The Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 358–375. Hajek, J. & Slaughter, Y. (Eds). (2014). Challenging the monolingual mindset. Bristol: Multilingual matters. Harris, A. J. (2013). Identifying students requiring English language support: What role can a PELA play? Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 7(2), A62-A78. Haugh, M. (2015). International students and the ‘English problem’ in Australian universities: A discursive perspective. In A. Ata & A. Kostogriz (Eds), International

  

Global imaginaries of internationalisation

207

 

­

­

­

 

 

­

 

 

 

 

 

­

education and cultural-linguistic experiences of international students in Australia (pp. 91–104). Samford Valley, Qld: Australian Academic Press. Haugh, M. (2016). Complaints and troubles talk about the English language skills of international students in Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(4), 727–740. Heyworth, F. (2013). Applications of quality management in language education. Language Teaching, 46(3), 281–315. Holborow, M. (2015). Language and neoliberalism. London: Routledge. Jones, E. (Ed.) (2010). Internationalisation and the student voice: Higher education perspectives. New York: Routledge. Kennedy, C., Díaz, A. R. & Dasli, M. (2016). Cosmopolitanism meets language education: Considering objectives and strategies for a new pedagogy. In M. Dasli & A. R. Díaz (Eds), The critical turn in language and intercultural communication pedagogy: Theory, research and practice (pp. 162–179). New York, NY: Routledge. Klee, C. A. (2009). Internationalization and foreign languages: The resurgence of interest in languages across the curriculum. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 618–621. Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints. Research Monograph No. 7. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for International Education. Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl & T. Adams (Eds), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 27–42). London: SAGE. Knight, J. (2014). Is internationalisation of higher education having an identity crisis? In A. Maldonado-Maldonado & R. M. Bassett (Eds), The forefront of international higher education: A festschrift in Honor of Philip G. Altbach (pp. 75–87). Dordrecht: Springer. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296–311. Kubanyiova, M. & Crookes, G. (2016). Re-envisioning the roles, tasks, and contributions of language teachers in the multilingual era of language education research and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 117–132. Lee, A., Poch, R., Shaw, M. & Williams, R. (2012). Engaging diversity in undergraduate classrooms: A pedagogy for developing intercultural competence ASHE higher education report. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass. Lo Bianco, J. (2014). Domesticating the foreign: Globalization’s effects on the place/s of languages. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 312–325. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. (Eds). (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Maringe, F., Foskett, N. & Woodfield, S. (2013). Emerging internationalisation models in an uneven global terrain: findings from a global survey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1), 9–36. doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.746548 Martín, M. D., Jansen, L. & Backmann, E. (2016). The doubters dilemma. Canberra: ANU Press. Mignolo, W. (2003). Globalization and the geopolitics of knowledge: The role of the humanities in the corporate university. Nepantla: Views from South, 4(1), 97–119. Murray, N. (2015). Standards of English in higher education: Issues, challenges and strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Orme, M. (Ed.) (2015). Supporting internationalisation through languages and culture in the twenty-first-century university. Bern: Peter Lang.

  

208 A. R. Díaz

 

 

­

 

­

 

 

 

­

­

­

­

 

 

­

Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2015). Education for cosmopolitan citizenship: A framework for language learning. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics (AJAL), 3(2), 30–39. Pauwels, A. (2011). Future directions for the learning of languages in universities: Challenges and opportunities. The Language Learning Journal, 39(2), 247–257. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. Hyderabad: Orient Black-Swan. Phillipson, R. (2016). Myths and realities of ‘global’ English. Language Policy, 16(3), 313–331. Preece, S. (2011). Universities in the Anglophone centre: Sites of multilingualism. Applied Linguistic Review, 2(May), 121–146. Preece, S. & Martin, P. (2009). Imagining higher education as a multilingual space. Language and Education, 24(1), 3–8. Quist, G. (2013). Cosmopolitan imaginings: Creativity and responsibility in the language classroom. Language and Intercultural Communication, 13(3), 330–342. Ricento, T. (2013). Language policy, ideology, and attitudes in English-dominant countries. The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Retrieved 28 October 2016, from www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.001.0001/ oxfordhb-9780199744084-e-26. Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge. Scott, D. (2003). Participation in tertiary education. Wellington, New Zealand: Tertiary Education Group, Ministry of Education. Steger, M. B. (2008). The rise of the global imaginary: Political ideologies from the French Revolution to the global war on terror. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Steger, M. B. (2012). Social imaginaries. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of globalization (pp. 1–2). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Stein, S. & Andreotti, V. D. O. (2016). Cash, competition, or charity: International students and the global imaginary. Higher Education, 72(2), 225–239. Stein, S., Andreotti, V. D. O., Bruce, J. & Suša, R. (2016). Towards different conversations about the internationalization of higher education. Comparative and International Education/Éducation Comparée et Internationale, 45(1), 2. Stein, S., Andreotti, V. D. O. & Suša, R. (2016). ‘Beyond 2015’, within the modern/ colonial global imaginary? Global development and higher education. Critical Studies in Education, (ahead of print), 1–21. Stein-Smith, K. (2016a). Challenges—getting students interested in foreign languages and keeping them interested, in The US foreign language deficit: Strategies for maintaining a competitive edge in a globalized world (pp. 85–87). Cham: Springer International. Stein-Smith, K. (2016b). The US foreign language deficit: Strategies for maintaining a competitive edge in a globalized world. Cham: Springer International. Taylor, C. (2002). Modern social imaginaries. Public culture, 14(1), 91–124. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Todd, S. (2015). Toward an imperfect education: Facing humanity, rethinking cosmopolitanism. New York, NY: Routledge. Vasilopoulos, G. (2015). A critical review of international students’ adjustment research from a Deleuzian perspective. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 283–307. Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. New York, NY: Routledge. Warner, C. (2011). Rethinking the role of language study in internationalizing higher education. L2 Journal, 3(1), 1–21. Wesely, P. M., Glynn, C. & Wassell, B. (2016). Equity, access, and social justice: From pain to possibility. The Modern Language Journal, 100(2), 564–568.

 

Part I

­

Institutional or broader educational policies and practices vis-à-vis international students and stakeholders

  

210 I. Liyanage and L. Gurney



­

­



­

­

­

­

­

­

Sierra, 2013; Dearden, 2014). Many prospective students seek out institutions with long traditions and high standards of teaching in the language. Although opportunities to undertake English-medium higher education are growing outside the BANA nations (Ali, 2013; Barnard, 2014; see also chapters in this volume – Japan, Singapore, China, Hong Kong), pursuing education in an English-speaking context ostensibly provides students with additional opportunities to develop their English language skills socially and vocationally. Aggressive marketing by well-established, internationally recognised tertiary institutions responsive to huge revenues generated by full fee-paying international students, coupled with a concentration of international education agencies operating in key centres for student recruitment around the world, smooth pathways to enrolment and strengthen connections between institutions and prospective students in so-called source countries. From some students’ perspectives, the lure of permanent residency in a host country post-graduation can be compelling but, for most, the prestige in employment markets of degrees from BANA institutions is alone a powerful enticement. For example, studies of Chinese returnees (Xu, 2009) that explore integration into local professional communities of graduates following completion of their studies abroad found international experiences to be highly valued, and degrees obtained in BANA institutions to be symbolic assets conferring greater prestige than locally obtained qualifications. This remains the case despite increasingly competitive employment markets (Hao, Wen & Welch, 2016). In the era following the global financial crisis, in which mass higher education and competition for employment intersect, graduates and prospective students are often acutely aware of the advantages such qualifications bring. To be accepted into tertiary institutions in the BANA nations, international students, like their domestic counterparts, must submit proof of their previous studies. This is a rigorous process that involves presentation of certificates of completion and detailed academic transcripts. For postgraduate courses, specific prerequisite tertiary subjects/degrees are frequently required. Formal acceptance into a course of study conveys institutional validation of an individual’s academic qualifications and confirmation that they are adequately prepared to undertake their chosen course. Students from nonEnglish-speaking backgrounds must additionally demonstrate, via a recognised testing regime such as the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) or a pre-enrolment intensive course in English for Academic Purposes, specified English language proficiencies as a prerequisite for enrolment. Influxes of international students have been welcomed by many stakeholders in host nations, due in no small part to the significant economic contributions they make to local economies. In Australia, for example, international students in 2015 contributed around 20 billion dollars to the education industry and to related service industries, generating income and employment opportunities in universities, language schools, vocational colleges, the travel industry and elsewhere (Deloitte Access Economics, 2016).

  

Reconsidering possibilities for integration

211



The reconciliation of the status and place of international students within local institutions remains a persistent challenge. Two distinct positions characterise contemporary discussions concerning integration of international students into academic institutions. On the one hand, some advocate international students’ obligation to assimilate into the local academic community of practice and to respect local approaches to academic language and literacy, pedagogy and content. On the other hand, international students’ prior involvement in diverse educational settings, which endows them with a rich array of experiences and qualifications (Ryan, 2011; Liyanage, Díaz & Gurney, 2016), is embraced as a resource by educators who value diverse, heterogeneous approaches to learning and communication. These two positions – assimilation and accommodation – differ in their implications for tertiary education policy and practice and, as we explore in this chapter, neither approach has proven sufficiently comprehensive for effective implementation by institutions and practitioners to meet the needs of all involved. Furthermore, both carry challenging implications for the sector. We argue that, rather than advocate for one position over the other, there is a need to progress beyond this binary in future research and practice and to consider possible approaches that offer pragmatic solutions for institutions and practitioners as well as equitable educational experiences for all students.

Assimilation and accommodation: challenges and dilemmas

­

­

­

Assimilationist approaches to the incorporation of international student populations into tertiary institutions stem from a deficient view (Ryan & Viete, 2009) of students’ current knowledge and practices, underpinned by an acceptance of the norms of Western academia as neutral, inevitable and immutable. Assimilationists argue that all students, international and domestic, should conform to the default position of the expectations and practices of the local academy. Significant revision and/or replacement of international students’ current orientations and practices are often required to meet these expectations. Despite having been accepted to enrol on the basis of institutionally determined academic readiness and suitable language proficiency, international students’ subsequent success in higher education is mediated by their ability to identify, understand and reproduce local norms. Academic literacy and associated phenomena, such as construction of texts and appropriate substantiation of arguments, are bound by linguistic and cultural expectations (Canagarajah, 2014). Students who wish to assimilate into a new academic community must negotiate new ways of speaking, reading and writing (Fox, 1994), many of which operate covertly in educational curricula and assessment. Even academic communities in the non-English-speaking West utilise conventions different from those upheld in the BANA nations (Clyne, 1987), pointing to the context-specific, insular nature of academic discourse. Development of control of discipline-specific language and text types necessitates

  

212 I. Liyanage and L. Gurney

 

­

­



­



­

extensive commitment on behalf of any student (Cummins, 2000, 2008) and non-native speakers frequently struggle to keep up with the demands of course reading and expectations for their participation in classroom discourse as listeners or contributors (Choi, 2016). Conceptions of the roles of teachers and learners, of the nature of assessment practices, and of expected levels and characteristics of interaction between staff and students also feature prominently among the relatively unacknowledged differences to which students must adapt in order to succeed (Liyanage, Bartlett, Walker & Guo, 2015). Despite the significant obstacles to assimilation into BANA academic communities encountered by international students, the prevalent deficit view has led to a punitive stance towards instances of non-conformity within and outside the education sector. The dichotomous roles of international students – as significant sources of income but persistently poor academic performers – has generated intensified criticism of the motivations of tertiary institutions, of the pursuit of financial agendas that prioritise international enrolments, and of the discourses of blame that position international student populations as catalysts for falling academic standards in tertiary education. In Australia, these issues have been explored repeatedly by the media; in 2015, for example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s programme Four Corners went so far as to assert that academic standards were declining in an ‘alarming’ manner, and that ‘commercial imperatives are overtaking academic rigour’ in Australian universities (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2015; see also Carrigan, 2017 for a more recent example). Another contentious issue concerns industry recognition of international graduates’ language proficiencies and preparedness for employment in local markets. In blunt terms, the assimilationist approach presents students with a stark choice between conformity and failure, and it is not surprising that many perform poorly in their studies or experience significant difficulties in successfully completing their chosen degrees. The incidence of non-completion or poor academic performance of international students has directed further attention towards university recruitment strategies and criteria for entry, which appear to sit at odds with expectations of subsequent student performance held by the academy. Students may resort, because of underpreparedness and/or fear of failure, to academic misconduct; the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (2015) recently suggested that many international students recruited by universities in that state are so academically and linguistically underprepared that, when combined with financial and family pressures to perform successfully, they are driven to engage in dishonest practices. The commission report warns of the risk that ‘the financial dependence on international student numbers and student success creates pressures on university staff to accept cheating and plagiarism and to re-mark assessments to pass students who otherwise would fail’ (Independent Commission Against Corruption New South Wales, 2015, p. 11). Widely publicised claims of deteriorating standards and compromised educational environments have led to a redoubling of efforts by some BANA institutions



2

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme Why does the number of ‘foreign’ students matter? Kayoko Hashimoto

Introduction



When discussing the standings of Japanese universities in the QS Asian University Rankings, which use incoming and outgoing exchange student numbers as a measure of universities’ global appeal, Japanese Prime Minister Abe was quoted as saying that ‘the number of foreign students at a university will define its success’ (Ince, 2014). Prime Minister Abe’s comment relates to the two major goals of Japan’s ‘Top Global University Project’ (hereafter TGUP) – to ‘improve ratio of foreign faculty and students’ and to ‘increase lectures in English’ (MEXT, 2014; original English). In 2014, TGUP replaced the Global 30 Project, part of the government’s ‘300,000 International Students Plan’, proposed jointly by six ministries in 2008,1 which sought to attract 300,000 overseas students to Japanese universities by 2020 (MEXT, 2008). As the 2014 enrolment figure of just under 140,000 indicates, this was an ambitious target. Since the internationalisation of higher education is now measured by university rankings determined by various organisations around the world, and university rankings are used by international students in their choice of universities, attracting staff and students from outside the country has become an imperative part of strategic planning for most universities. In Europe, the need for a common language to facilitate staff and student mobility has led to the rapid proliferation of courses and programmes delivered through the medium of English (Tollefson & Tsui, 2014), and as Phillipson (2006) observes, in the European context (Bologna Process) internationalisation means English medium higher education. Tollefson and Tsui (2014) further argue that the internationalisation of higher education has impacted on the language of research and scholarship and subsequently on secondary education, in which English needs to be taught at a higher level to prepare students for their university studies. In other words, the increased mobility of staff and students has had an impact on the choice of English as the medium for teaching, learning and research in Europe. This is not necessarily the case in Japan, though, because of the different approaches to domestic and international students within the framework of the internationalisation of higher education, as discussed later in this chapter.

  

214 I. Liyanage and L. Gurney

­

­

­



­

 

 



have failed to achieve acceptable outcomes for students, teachers and tertiary institutions; subsequently, institutions continue to confront dilemmas of reconciliation of academic expectations, financial pressures and students’ needs. Situated within national, policy and institutional contexts that officially embrace principles of multiculturalism and encourage participation of individuals from diverse backgrounds, academic practices in BANA tertiary institutions continue to be monocultural and monolingual. The exclusive provision of such experiences to international students prejudices their chances of performing successfully without extensive efforts to transform themselves by abandoning their existing academic approaches and skills in favour of practices particular to the host country context. Critics of deficit assimilationist views argue the poverty of this position, not simply in addressing students’ needs but more fundamentally as a failure to effectively and productively embrace sustainable internationalisation in the higher education sector. They have advocated for a more pluralistic approach that recognises and values international students as assets rather than ‘problems to be solved’ (Ryan, 2011, p. 631). This approach, as summarised by Ryan and Viete (2009, p. 311), ‘requires a less normative and more positive valuing of different ways of knowing and communicating knowledge. It also requires that having diverse linguistic resources be recognised and valued’, with some advocating in the academic literature (see for example Canagarajah, 2006) for acceptance of non-native varieties of English in academic communication. Under these accommodative models, space is made within curriculum, instruction and assessment for academic practices that fall outside the scope of those traditionally favoured in BANA institutions. Proponents seek to establish more pluralised spaces within academic practice to orient students towards diverse modes of constructing and communicating knowledge and facilitate greater student success, without requiring subordination of international students’ current ways of thinking and communicating. A pragmatic argument for accommodationist approaches is preparation of students for their post-university careers. Large numbers of international students return to their home countries following graduation, and the capacity of these graduates to contribute positively and productively as qualified professionals in their home contexts following study abroad is of paramount importance to local industries and stakeholders, many of whom hold high expectations for the contributions that academic returnees can make (Ghimire & Maharjan, 2015). Returnees’ potential contributions can be compromised by educational experiences abroad that are non-transferable, non-viable or incompatible with their home contexts. Graduates who find it difficult to integrate into professional communities upon return may find themselves as misfits whose values and approaches are incongruent with those of their community of practice – a detrimental outcome for their own professional practice, satisfaction and career longevity (Liyanage et al., 2016). To this end, and in alignment with internationalisation agendas, there has been critical reflection on the extent and nature of internationalisation of educational curricula

  

Reconsidering possibilities for integration

215

­

­

­

 



­

­

­

­



­

 

­

­

and the common reliance on Anglo-American and Eurocentric approaches informing selection of discipline content (see for example Miike, 2010; Breit, Obijiofor & Fitzgerald, 2013). Critical perspectives do not mean ‘replacing Western with non-Western ideas, practices, and values … (but rather) … developing awareness of the diversity of approaches and understandings’ (Breit et al., 2013, p. 131) and assisting both international and domestic student cohorts to become aware of their own positions and unconscious orientations. Proponents argue that these critical lenses have the potential to allow universities to consider the ways in which academic communication is informed by BANA-specific conventions, deriving from particular educational histories. While accommodative approaches to integration of international student populations are well intentioned and aim to respond to several key problems in current higher education practice, significant practical challenges constrain their implementation. The first of these concerns the teaching practice of academics, particularly those who work outside the field of academic language and literacy. Effective diversification of academic practice in higher education requires teachers, already challenged by high staff workloads, casualisation, large class sizes and limited contact hours for face-to-face and/or online interaction (Courtois & O’Keefe, 2015; Hajdarpasic, Brew & Popenici, 2015), to possess knowledge of academic literacies and the ways in which they differ across contexts. Although it is common practice to provide or direct students to self-help resources to assist them in completing assessment, academics typically refrain from explicitly teaching academic conventions and orientations endemic to the study of their discipline, an understandably pragmatic position given the specialised skills needed to teach academic language and literacy (Ghanbari & Rasekh, 2012; Rajabi, Kiany & Maftoon, 2011). Without the ability to explicitly address questions of literacy and communication with students, teaching practice would likely become muddied by unclear expectations and, given that many academics currently teaching across discipline areas feel that the responsibility to introduce students to local academic conventions in order to better prepare them for academic success falls outside the boundaries of their roles (Thies, 2012; Fenton-Smith & Gurney, 2016), garnering sufficient ‘buy-in’ from teaching staff to support diversified literacy practices presents a significant challenge. At the institutional level, accommodation of diversity in assessment practices is a challenging adjustment that would require a transformation of assessment policies to ensure some measure of consistency in outcomes for students. Some argue that the higher education sector is already in need of widespread assessment reform (O’Hagan & Wigglesworth, 2015), and active intervention to standardise responses to international student work has long been a pressing issue ( Janopoulos, 1992; Barron, Gourlay & Gannon-Leary, 2010). To avoid diversification becoming conflated with increased leniency in judgement and much-derided soft-marking practices, significant resources would need to be invested to improve staff professional development and

  

216 I. Liyanage and L. Gurney

­

 

 

 

 

 

­

­

 

 

­



­

­

­

re-centre assessment as an essential component of quality teaching and learning within institutions. Failure to consistently implement diversified assessment practices across an institution would risk compounding students’ academic performance anxieties. Previous studies focusing on the micro level (see for example Liyanage & Walker, 2014a), are beneficial for developing awareness of the multiple approaches to academic literacy which students may hold but, in light of system-level challenges such as high staff workloads and the prevalence of casual employment, are of little utility in assisting tertiary educators to develop practical accommodationist approaches. Effective reform in this area is unlikely to occur without significant coordinated macro-level support implemented above the practitioner level. Perhaps the most daunting obstacle to institution-wide revision of teaching and learning practices in pursuit of accommodationist agendas is the momentum of an ideological ‘epidemic of reform’ (Ball, 2003, p. 215) in education that rests on ‘three interrelated policy technologies; the market, managerialism and performativity’ (Ball, 2003, p. 215) that together provide the conditions for commodification of education services. Performativity is a hegemonic means of self-regulated regulation that has been embraced by managers in the university sector with such enthusiasm as to be globally ubiquitous. Performativity is evident at its most ‘misleadingly objective and hyper-rational … (in) the translation of complex social processes and events into simple figures or categories of judgement’ (Ball, 2003, p. 217) such as university ranking systems. In student recruitment and in promotional materials and activities, BANA tertiary institutions validate claims of programmequality and value with university rankings – replacing, as Ball (2003) argues, values with value – in a clear demonstration of a ‘culture and a mode of regulation that employs judgements, comparisons and displays as means of incentive, control, attrition and change’ (Ball, 2003, p. 216). Currently, rankings are so strenuously pursued and jealously guarded that the fundamental reorientations implied by accommodationist approaches would represent deviation from models of productivity prioritised by ranking systems, likely disrupting an institution’s perceived credibility and the ‘value’ of degrees awarded and thereby threatening institutional legitimacy in the eyes of prospective and actual students as well as industry stakeholders. Rankings, as performance indicators, define value and quality by profit and market share (Marginson, 2007) and have ‘discernible effects on academic identities and practices’ (Amsler & Bolsmann, 2012, p. 290); performativity as an institutional management technology ‘does not simply change what people, as educators, scholars and researchers do, it changes who they are’ (Ball, 2003, p. 215). Although hidden under the guise of ideological objectivity (Amsler & Bolsmann, 2012) backed up by a ‘mainstream public and policy credibility’ (Marginson, 2007, p. 136), ranking systems take a pro-Western position, cement the management of educational institutions as companies driven primarily by financial objectives, and risk ‘opacity rather than transparency as individuals and organizations take ever greater care in the construction and maintenance

  

Reconsidering possibilities for integration

217

 

 

of fabrications’ (Ball, 2003, p. 215). Although critiques of marketisation, managerialism and performativity in higher education abound in terms of the effects it has wrought on educational practice (Gurney & Liyanage, 2015; Roberts & Stewart, 2014), this is nonetheless a significant impediment with practical ramifications for institutions and academics, who are responsible for contributing positively to the university brand in order to construct BANA institutions as destinations deemed attractive by international students while simultaneously experiencing heightened surveillance of output and professional activity (Roberts, 2013). Steps towards accommodation of international students in a more satisfactory way for all participants need to begin with inclusive and consultative critical reflection by institutions, staff and students on ‘who is it that determines what is to count as a valuable, effective or satisfactory performance and what measures or indicators are considered valid’ (Ball, 2003, p. 216).

The need for new approaches

­

­

­

International students bring with them knowledge of the English language and of their disciplines, and understandings of academic conventions and orientations that shape the ways in which they understand, communicate and negotiate knowledge in higher education. As successful products of their previous educational systems, these students have developed sophisticated understandings of how to interpret, conceptualise, communicate and discuss their learning within the norms and expectations of their prior academic settings. Difficulties, frustration and confusion in adapting to academic expectations post-enrolment in BANA institutions are more the outcome of misalignment of academic expectations and students’ capabilities than of deficiencies in students’ previous educational experiences. Efforts to assimilate and accommodate international students offer advantages and disadvantages, as well as challenges in terms of practice and ideology. However, as it stands, neither approach is sufficiently comprehensive in addressing questions of how to effectively integrate international student populations into BANA institutions in the current higher education climate. Assimilationist approaches permit institutions to take a (deceptively) simple approach that perpetuates and valorises local practices, conventions and expectations of student performance, but which in practice risks fostering a damagingly punitive, conformity-driven stance that alienates and homogenises diverse international student populations. While seeking to address these issues, accommodationist positions remain extremely difficult to implement without significant transformations at the ideological, system, institutional and practitioner levels. Placing the entire responsibility to shape teaching and learning practices to more equitably accommodate international students on academic teaching staff is unrealistic and ignores the contextual restraints experienced by educators working in large, profit-oriented institutions. Requiring academic teaching staff to develop more diverse practices while promoting standards set

  

218 I. Liyanage and L. Gurney

­

 

­

­

 



 

by the university, teaching heterogeneous cohorts of students, collaborating with or forming part of the changing casual workforce to deliver content and mark assessment, and all the while experiencing pressure to contribute positively to the university’s image to aid student recruitment agendas, is a misplaced directive, and one that will become increasingly difficult for academics to pursue. Furthermore, it is highly likely to compound existing staff stress, compromising wellbeing and professional longevity (Ball, 2003; Poyatos Matas & Muurlink, 2011). Considering the direction in which tertiary education and student mobility are evolving, these issues are unlikely to diminish in importance. For the sake of integrity and equality, institutions must ensure that the decision to accept international enrolments involves respect for students’ pasts as well as consideration of how their educational experiences will benefit them in future. Featuring significantly on many university agendas are priorities to foster all graduates’ future readiness and capacity for global citizenship. Unspoken privileging of a Westernised approach to academic literacy and knowledge dissemination specific to BANA settings works contrary to the goal of preparing students to interact effectively with individuals from different cultural and educational backgrounds and in a multiplicity of contexts, and contributes to the development of unconscious intellectual biases. Where students are inducted into a community of practice that is both resistant to outside influences and positions itself as neutral, the likelihood that they will develop awareness of or respect for practices which fall outside this framework is compromised. Under such a framework, the concept of global citizenship itself is imbued with meaning informed by a Western worldview. Indeed, as Roman (2003, p. 270) argues, ‘conceptions of global citizenship often beg questions of global justice and governance, including the role of the public university in educating for ‘global citizenship’, in the face of harsh global inequalities between and among so-called ‘advanced’ and ‘developing’ nations’. Even though ‘education which aims at creating global perspective in learners is a distinctly culture-bound exercise’ (Schweisfurth, 2006, p. 42), academic discourses should nonetheless empower students in an equitable manner, rather than dealing in disempowering discourses which privilege certain orientations and silence others. Uneven distribution of the benefits of globalisation in a range of areas (Altbach, 2001; Meschi & Vivarelli, 2009; Azzimonti, De Francisco & Quadrini, 2014), including in higher education (Altbach & Knight, 2007), should be a key concern for academic institutions situated in developed countries and purporting to contribute to equitable development agendas via cultivation of graduates’ capacities. However, the question as to how to achieve these outcomes remains to be answered. As we have argued, the responsibility to better accommodate international students cannot lie with individual practitioners, who are bound by institutional and system-level constraints. Rather, a concerted response from institutions in the BANA nations, which collectively define the norms of the system, is warranted.

  

Reconsidering possibilities for integration

219

References

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

­

Ali, N. L. (2013). A changing paradigm in language planning: English-medium instruction policy at the tertiary level in Malaysia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 73–92. Altbach, P. G. (2001). Higher education and the WTO: Globalization run amok. International Higher Education, 23, 2–4. Altbach, P. G. & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. Amsler, S. S. & Bolsmann, C. (2012). University ranking as social exclusion. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(2), 283–301. Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154. Arambewela, R. & Hall, J. (2013). The interactional effects of the internal and external university environment, and the influence of personal values, on satisfaction among international postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 38(7), 972–988. Arthur, N. & Flynn, S. (2011). Career development influences of international students who pursue permanent immigration to Canada. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 11(3), 221–237. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2015). Degrees of deception. Retrieved 2 September 2015, from www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/04/20/42177 41.htm. Azzimonti, M., De Francisco, E. & Quadrini, V. (2014). Financial globalization, inequality, and the rising public debt. The American Economic Review, 104(8), 2267–2302. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. Barnard, R. (2014). English medium instruction in Asian universities: Some concerns and a suggested approach to dual-medium instruction. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 10–22. Barron, P., Gourlay, L. J. & Gannon-Leary, P. (2010). International students in the higher education classroom: Initial findings from staff at two post-92 universities in the UK. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(4), 475–489. Beine, M., Noël, R. & Ragot, L. (2014). Determinants of the international mobility of students. Economics of Education Review, 41, 40–54. Besser, L., Cronau, P. & Cohen, H. (2015, April 20). Underperforming nursing students ‘could endanger public safety’, say university academics. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 1 November 2016, from www.abc.net.au/news/2015-0420/weak-nursing-students-endangering-public-safety/6405996. Bhandari, R. & Blumenthal, P. (2013). International students and global mobility in higher education: National trends and new directions. International Studies, 1(11), 316–317. Breit, R., Obijiofor, L. & Fitzgerald, R. (2013). Internationalization as deWesternization of the curriculum: The case of journalism at an Australian university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2), 119–135. Canagarajah, S. (2006). The place of world Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication, 57(4), 586–619.

  

220 I. Liyanage and L. Gurney

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

 

 

­

­

­

­

­

 

Canagarajah, S. (2014). EAP in Asia: Challenges and possibilities. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (Eds), English for academic purposes (EAP) in Asia: Negotiating appropriate practices in a global context (pp. 93–102). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Cao, C. (2008). China’s brain drain at the high end: Why government policies have failed to attract first-rate academics to return. Asian Population Studies, 4(3), 331–345. Carrigan, F. (2017, April 11). University lecturers should forget rules and start teaching. The Australian. Retrieved 20 April 2017, from www.theaustralian.com.au/ opinion/university-lecturers-should-forget-rules-and-start-teaching/news-story/5fb 8ab78fdb84e3c31394811338ad608. Choi, L. J. (2016). Revisiting the issue of native speakerism: ‘I don’t want to speak like a native speaker of English’. Language and Education, 30(1), 72–85. Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 211–241. Courtois, A. & O’Keefe, T. (2015). Precarity in the ivory cage: Neoliberalism and casualisation of work in the Irish higher education sector. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 13(1). Cummins, J. (2000). Putting language proficiency in its place: Responding to critiques of the conversational/academic language distinction. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 54–83). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 2, pp. 71–83). New York, NY: Springer. Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. Retrieved 1 October 2014, from www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/ knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education/report-english-mediuminstruction. Deloitte Access Economics. (2016). The value of international education to Australia. Retrieved 1 February 2017, from https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/ research-papers/Documents/ValueInternationalEd.pdf. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). Good practice principles for English language proficiency for international students in Australian universities. Retrieved from www.industry.gov.au/highereducation/ResourcesAnd Publications/HigherEducationPublications/OtherPublications/Pages/GoodPractice Principles.aspx. Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. (2012). English language standards for higher education. Retrieved 13 October 2014, from www.aall.org.au/sites/default/files/FinalEnglishLanguageStandardsMay2012. pdf. Devos, A. (2003). Academic standards, internationalisation, and the discursive construction of ‘the international student’. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(2), 155–166. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (Eds). (2013). English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fenton-Smith, B. & Gurney, L. J. (2016). Actors and agency in academic language policy and planning. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(1), 72–87. Findlay, A. M. (2011). An assessment of supply and demand-side theorizations of international student mobility. International Migration, 49(2), 162–190.

221

  

Reconsidering possibilities for integration

­

­

­

­

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman’s ‘Stigma’ tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 77–86. Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Ghanbari, B. & Rasekh, A. E. (2012). ESP practitioner professionalization through apprenticeship of practice: The case of two Iranian ESP practitioners. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 112–122. Ghimire, A. & Maharjan, K. (2015). Student returnees and their reflection on contribution to Nepal: Use of knowledge and skills. Migration and Development, 4(1), 90–107. Gu, Q. & Schweisfurth, M. (2015). Transnational connections, competences and identities: Experiences of Chinese international students after their return ‘home’. British Educational Research Journal, 41(6), 947–970. Gurney, L. J. & Liyanage, I. (2015). Managerialist vis-à-vis learning and development goals for EAL teachers: A case study of an in-service professional development provider. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 10(01), 38–46. Hajdarpasic, A., Brew, A. & Popenici, S. (2015). The contribution of academics’ engagement in research to undergraduate education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4), 644–657. Hao, J., Wen, W. & Welch, A. (2016). When sojourners return: Employment opportunities and challenges facing high-skilled Chinese returnees. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 25(1), 22–40. Harris, A. (2013). Identifying students requiring English language support: What role can a PELA play? Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 7(2), A62-A78. Independent Commission Against Corruption New South Wales. (2015). Learning the hard way: Managing corruption risks associated with international students at universities in NSW. Retrieved 1 February 2017, from www.icac.nsw.gov.au/documents/ preventing-corruption/cp-publications-guidelines/4595-learning- the-hard-waymanaging-corruption-risks-associated-with-international-students-at-universitiesin-nsw/file. Janopoulos, M. (1992). University faculty tolerance of NS and NNS writing errors: A comparison. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 109–121. Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66(4), 486–494. Jordan, R. R. (2002). The growth of EAP in Britain. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 69–78. Lee, E. J., Ditchman, N., Fong, M. W., Piper, L. & Feigon, M. (2014). Mental health service seeking among Korean international students in the United States: A path analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 42(6), 639–655. Liyanage, I., Bartlett, B., Walker, T. & Guo, X. (2015). Assessment policies, curricular directives, and teacher agency: Quandaries of EFL teachers in Inner Mongolia. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 251–264. Liyanage, I., Díaz, A. & Gurney, L. J. (2016). Re-envisioning Teacher Education Programs (TEPs) for international students: Towards an emancipatory and transformative educational stance. In C.-M. Lam & J. Park (Eds), Sociological and philosophical perspectives on education in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 165–178). Singapore: Springer.

  

222 I. Liyanage and L. Gurney

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

 

­

­

 

 

 

Liyanage, I. & Walker, T. (2014a). Accommodating Asian EAP practices within postgraduate teacher education. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (Eds), English for academic purposes (EAP) in Asia: Negotiating appropriate practices in a global context (pp. 1–12). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Liyanage, I. & Walker, T. (2014b). English for academic purposes: A Trojan horse bearing the advance forces of linguistic domination? In P. W. Orelus (Ed.), Affirming language diversity in schools and society: Beyond linguistic apartheid (pp. 165–175). New York, NY: Routledge. Lobo, A. & Gurney, L. J. (2014). What did they expect? Exploring a link between students’ expectations, attendance and attrition on English language enhancement courses. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(5), 730–754. Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 131–142. Melles, G., Millar, G., Morton, J. & Fegan, S. (2005). Credit-based discipline specific English for academic purposes programmes in higher education: Revitalizing the profession. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 4(3), 283–303. Meschi, E. & Vivarelli, M. (2009). Trade and income inequality in developing countries. World Development, 37(2), 287–302. Miike, Y. (2010). An anatomy of Eurocentrism in communication scholarship: The role of Asiacentricity in de-Westernizing theory and research. China Media Research, 6(1), 1–11. Min, Y. K. (2016). Rethinking ESL service courses for international graduate students. TESOL Journal, 7(1), 162–178. Misra, R., Crist, M. & Burant, C. J. (2003). Relationships among life stress, social support, academic stressors, and reactions to stressors of international students in the United States. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(2), 137. O’Hagan, S. R. & Wigglesworth, G. (2015). Who’s marking my essay? The assessment of non-native-speaker and native-speaker undergraduate essays in an Australian higher education context. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1729–1747. OECD. (2013). Education at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. Retrieved 5 January 2015, from www.oecd.org/edu/Education-at-a-Glance-2013.pdf. OECD. (2014). Education at a glance: OECD indicators Retrieved 5 January 2015, from www.oecd.org/edu/Education-at-a-Glance-2014.pdf. Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism, and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 253–269. Poyatos Matas, C. & Muurlink, O. (2011). A higher degree of stress: Academic wellbeing. In C. Morris, L. Marshall & G. Wisker (Eds), Wellbeing in higher education: Reflections from the University of Brighton. Brighton, UK: University of Brighton Press. Rajabi, P., Kiany, G. R. & Maftoon, P. (2011). The impact of ESP in-service teacher training programs on Iranian ESP. The Iranian EFL Journal, 7(3), 202–226. Roberts, P. (2013). Academic dystopia: Knowledge, performativity, and tertiary education. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 35(1), 27–43. Roberts, P. & Stewart, G. (2014). Looking beyond neoliberal tertiary education policy from Taoist and Maori perspectives. Knowledge Cultures, 2(2), 93–93. Roman, L. G. (2003). Education and the contested meanings of ‘global citizenship’. Journal of Educational Change, 4(3), 269–293. Ryan, J. (2011). Teaching and learning for international students: Towards a transcultural approach. Teachers and Teaching, 17(6), 631–648.

  

Japan’s ‘super global universities’ scheme

27

­

­

­

 



 

case in point, along with Hong Kong and Sri Lanka. Japan’s emphasis on ‘cultivating identity as a Japanese and spreading Japanese culture to the world’ (Dearden, 2014, p. 12) in relation to the promotion of courses offered in English seems to have shaped TGUP in a particular way. Although it has been pointed out that successful internationalisation is not the same as Englishisation (Kirkpatrick, 2017), Englishisation of university curricula has been encouraged by authorities in many parts of Asia, including Korea, where the government supports universities’ recruitment of international students in order to narrow the gap between the numbers of inbound and outbound students (Kim, 2017). Under TGUP, as discussed later in this chapter, the numbers of ‘foreign international students’ and ‘Japanese students who have studied overseas’ are used as numerical targets for universities in the quest for internationalisation, but reciprocal relationships between the inbound and outbound students are not a concern. This chapter discusses how TGUP itself embodies the contradictions and problems surrounding the seemingly universal goals of the internationalisation of higher education – to attract students from overseas and to offer courses in English – highlighting the particular nature of ‘English courses’ within university curricula and the expectations and treatment of ‘foreign’ students. The chapter is based on an analysis of government publications and relevant documents that relate to TGUP using Critical Discourse Analysis as an analytical tool. I refer to both the Japanese originals and their official English translations where available, examine any differences between them, and discuss the implications. The chapter comprises three parts. First, it examines the framework of TGUP as well as the current problems TGUP gives rise to for participating universities. Second, it revisits the ‘300,000 International Students Plan’ and the post-project evaluation of the Global 30 Project in order to identify the core values that are being re-addressed in TGUP. Third, it examines the first follow-up review of TGUP, which highlights expectations and assumptions about the scheme.

Top global university project, not so ‘super global’

­

The official Japanese name of the scheme is スーパーグローバル大学創成 支援 (lit. creation and support of super global universities), and 37 universities – 13 Type A ‘top type’ and 24 Type B ‘global traction type’ (original English) – were selected to participate in the scheme. Type A institutions (11 national and two private) are ‘world-class universities that have the potential to be ranked in the top 100 in world university rankings’, and Type B institutions (ten national, two prefectural and 12 private) are ‘innovative universities that lead the internationalisation of Japanese society, based on continuous improvement of their current efforts’ (MEXT, 2014). The official English title of the scheme is ‘Top Global University Project’, but the media and many of the participating universities use SGU (the acronym for Super Global Universities), even though MEXT has advised universities not to use



13 An investigation into the knowledge, education and attitudes of male and female international students in Australia to the International English Language Testing System (IELTS)1  

Abe W. Ata







Much has been written about International English Language Testing’s (IELTS) methods of operations, validity of assessing the candidates’ readiness to move to higher education, and its contribution to the learning process in university environments (Coleman, Starfield & Hagaen, 2003). The current study extends the research further to focus on the benefits and drawbacks as perceived by male and female international students in Australia. Highly significant growth in IELTS candidature in Australia, particularly from South Asia and the Middle East, clearly illustrates how mutually beneficial and recognizable IELTS has become to stakeholders in these regions (Phillimore & Koshy, 2010). Chinese and Gulf Arab learners are now the fastest growing group of international students in Australia (Phillimore & Koshy, 2010). Huge population, rapid economic growth and strong aspiration of studying have all contributed to such an upsurge in studying IELTS in preparation for enrolments at accredited universities. It is for these main reasons that these students constitute the largest proportion of international students studying IELTS in this country. Other reasons such as flexibility, affordability, reputation and accessibility to courses clearly play additional roles in attracting them to this country (Lo Bianco, 2005; Marginson, 2011; Ata, 2015). Although it is widely debated that students’ attitudes towards a certain language proficiency test may affect their performance on that test, research on attitudes of these groups towards IELTS is still absent (Coleman et al., 2003). And crucially, how such attitudes might affect their overall band score in a standardized test such as IELTS is lacking. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between Chinese and Arab candidates’ attitudes and their performance on IELTS and address significant gaps in this area of research study (Ata, 2015). The influence of initial motivation and attitudes upon success in language learning is widely acknowledged. Early pioneer research such as those by

225

  

International students and the IELTS



­



 







Holmes (1992), Van Lier (1991) and Byram et al. (1991) pointed out that if people feel positive towards those who use the language, they would be more successful and also more highly motivated towards learning it. Byram fell short of proposing that culture and societal gender equality, or lack of it, are key triggers behind potential discrepancies in attitudes between male and female students – an issue that will be examined in this chapter. Groundbreaking research by Mantle (1995) examined the language and culture attitudes of middle school students participating in a foreign language exploratory program. Mantle’s findings show that students who enter their first language class with misconceptions about language learning will have their progress or persistence in language study decreased. However, his findings did not substantiate that gender played an important role in this area of investigation. Subsequently, one could assume that if second language learners, both male and female, initiate their language learning while they have negative attitudes towards the target language and the people using that language, they are not expected to make considerable progress in their process of language learning. This assumption is also held by Truitt (1995) who found in a study regarding attitude of language learners that students’ beliefs and attitudes about language learning may vary based on cultural background, previous experiences and gender orientation. Thus, it can be argued that positive or negative attitudes do not develop accidentally but that there are reasons for their emergence (Ata, 2015). Malallaha (2000) investigated the attitudes of Arab learners towards English and discovered that they have positive attitudes towards the English language and their proficiency in tests was positively related to this. Hence, it can be argued that having positive or negative attitudes towards a certain language can exert considerable effect on the learners’ performance on a language test. Other studies on the relationships of causality summarized below are equally crucial. One of these focuses on the relationship between IELTS preparation programs and candidates’ performance on the actual IELTS test. Read and Hayes (2003), for instance, investigated the impact of IELTS preparation programs on international students’ academic performance on tertiary study in New Zealand. Their study revealed that there were a number of substantial differences between the performance of the group that had undergone preparation programs and the group that had not. In 2007 Lewthwaite found that among United Arab Emirates (UAE) IELTS candidates, the nature and type of activities used to prepare for their test was a major determinant of the balance of positive and negative attitudes. Others, like Elder and O’Loughlin (2003), investigated the relationship between intensive English language study and band score gain on IELTS. The results of their study revealed that students made variable progress in English during the threemonth period with an average gain of about half a band overall. Attitudes that have been explored in relation to language learning range from anxiety about the language and the learning situation, through to

  

226 A. W. Ata



­







 





attitudes to speakers of the second language, the country in which it is spoken, the classroom, the teacher, other learners, the nature of language learning, particular elements in the learning activities, tests and beliefs about learning in general (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). According to Brown (2000), second language learners benefit from positive attitudes; negative attitudes may lead to decreased motivation. Nevertheless, he believes negative attitudes can be changed, often by exposure to reality – for example, by encounters with actual persons from other cultures. Unlike Lambert (1972) and Bista (2013), who found a positive relation between attitude and linguistic abilities, Rasti (2009) found that candidates who have a positive attitude towards IELTS do not differ from other groups in their performance on the test. Rasti concludes that merely having a positive attitude towards this test does not guarantee gaining a good score and no formal study has shown this either. She notes that candidates should learn effective strategies to approach the test and that attending IELTS preparation programs can be a good and effective step. While students saw the benefits of having a speaking component to the exam, they felt anxious about it. This finding contrasted with those of Read and Hayes (2003) who reported overall ‘positive attitudes about IELTS amongst teachers and strong motivation amongst learners’. Merrylees (2003) conducted a study investigating two IELTS user groups: candidates who sit the test for immigration purposes and candidates who sit the test for secondary education purposes. He believed that with the increase in candidature of both user groups, there is an increasing need to investigate and analyse how each group is performing on the test in terms of nationality, age, gender and other factors, instead of making broad comparative analysis. It is equally essential that consideration is directed towards the broader issue of the role of the publications in preparing students for the IELTS and in the development of language skills in general, with particular reference to preparation for further study. Ata (2009), for example, found that poor lexical or specific cultural knowledge of English by Arab-speaking students can be the cause of several negative interferences. His study produces a significant recommendation – one that implies that IELTS preparation materials should include more texts and tasks that would contribute to the social and academic acculturation of students. And finally, Terry (2003) claims that the strong motivation and the serious purpose of IELTS candidates are taken for granted. However, he believes that publishers need to respond more to the growing market for IELTS preparation and to start investing in colourful, attractive, motivating publications that can help promote learning for IELTS candidates in the way they have for students preparing for other exams.

  

International students and the IELTS

227

Rationale and significance of this research







 

­

­

­

­



The main premise underlying the literature reviewed earlier is this: students at large, irrespective of gender orientation, have positive or negative attitudes towards the language they want to learn and the people who speak it. Having positive attitudes towards tests is also claimed to be one of the reasons that make students perform better on the tests (Malallaha, 2000). Studies that have investigated the relationships between attitudes and proficiency in the language clearly show that attitudes and other affective variables are as important as aptitude for language achievement (see for example, Bachman, 1976; Gardner, 1985; Malallaha, 2000; Coleman et al., 2003). It is widely accepted among IELTS researchers that, because the IELTS exam is now taken by candidates from over 170 countries, the rubric should be as culture-free, gender-free and as international as possible; and that where possible, culturally nuanced ‘situated’ contexts should be adapted to many IELTS rubrics. At a recent IELTS conference a participant noted that Task 1 in the academic writing test often reflects an Anglo-centricity because graphs often reflect aspects of North American or European life, and as such students would not have the necessary socio-cultural experience to argue for, for instance, the freedom of the press. Hence it is likely that candidates from China and the UAE would not be ready for such a question, or others such as: ‘What are the characteristics of good or inferior journalism?’ Another participant mentioned that female students from both the Gulf and India are much more reticent in voicing their opinion and knowledge in the presence of their male student compatriots. The possibility that they, female students, have comparatively limited national or worldview knowledge perpetuated in their native cultural setting was not ruled out. Lewthwaite (2007), for example, found a strong overlap between what the IELTS writing tasks required and what UAE students and staff thought was needed in a writing course, and that those who are really motivated and interested will read more widely. It might not be that the exam ‘encourages’ such reading, he stressed, but it might mediate it or at least facilitate it. As regards the nature of the questions inviting personal opinion, some personal reflection on and prior assessment of various issues by necessity come into the fore of a good written response. This chapter presents relevant evidence to support or refute these premises and fill in the gaps in the overall discussion about students’ attitudes to IELTS. One of these premises for example is that IELTS developers commit to engage in a research agenda that explores a range of international English language issues such as specific lexical or cultural knowledge that might disadvantage test takers. Another premise is that IELTS is not only a proficiency test to evaluate linguistic competence but it is also a comprehensive test that measures other components such as communicative competence. Implications from conducting this research can be drawn to benefit all the stakeholders, including candidates intending to sit the test, centres running

  

228 A. W. Ata

­





 



IELTS preparation programs, teachers wishing to teach such programs and IELTS test administrators. The aim of this study is twofold: (1) to seek access to viewpoints of male and female Chinese, Indian/Malaysian and Arab (Gulf ) students in critically evaluating their attitudes, perception and knowledge of IELTS, and to make comparative analysis to identify potential differences among them; and (2) to reveal the effects of positive attitudes, or their lack of, on the overall test results. The joint-funded IELTS research programmein 2011 states that one of the areas of interest for IELTS external research purposes is to investigate the attitudes and perceptions towards IELTS among users of test scores (test takers). The aims of this study squarely and fully reflect this objective. This survey was not administered to IELTS educators as Coleman et al. (2003) did years earlier. In his study, Coleman et al. found that the IELTS students in their sample were generally more knowledgeable than staff about the form and function of the IELTS and the meaning of test scores.

Methodological procedures

­



­

­



­

­



This study used a structured questionnaire to examine the differences and association between a wide range of variables administered to male and female international students in three Australian universities. The questionnaire was devised to collect data relating to their attitudes, perception and knowledge of IELTS and its speaking, reading, listening and writing components. The design of the questionnaire was specifically introduced to detect patterns of responses, and verifiable shifts marking differences or similarities between female and male IELTS candidates. Survey questionnaires were administered to a total of 240 candidate students at Monash, Melbourne and Deakin university language centres. They were drawn from three national backgrounds, namely, Chinese, IndianMalaysian and Arab from the Gulf-Saudi region. The two male and female subsamples were selected randomly towards the end of three IELTS test sessions over a period of two months. A sizable proportion of post-IELTS test candidates was drawn from bridging pathway classes at the languages centres mentioned earlier. (Such classes have a high concentration of post-IELTS test candidates.) A number of statistical methods were adopted in making simultaneous comparisons of significance between two or more means in measuring internal consistency and in determining whether a significant relationship exists between the selected variables. These methods included factor analysis with Vairmax rotation, Anova, analysis of variance, t-test, cross tabulation and Pearson’s correlation.

  

International students and the IELTS

229

 

Table 13.1 Demographic characteristics Sex Male Female

134 106

Religion Muslim Hindu Sikh Buddhist Christian Other N/A

82 4 4 36 12 74 28

Birth place Gulf/Middle East China Other N/A

76 88 70 6

Have you lived/studied in an English-speaking country? Yes No N/A

88 140 12

Which country have you studied/lived in? Home English Speaking Country N/A

22 70 148

Language spoken at home Arabic Chinese Other N/A Language spoken with friends at Language Center Arabic Chinese English Arabic and English Chinese and English Other N/A

56 92 80 12 4 14 136 22 32 12 20

Findings and discussion It is widely proposed in social debate that international students at large in Australia and beyond bring a very different cultural, social and intellectual experience from that which awaits them. The suggestion being that attitudes to knowledge, to styles of learning and study can lead to a shock for both students and educators alike.

  

230 A. W. Ata

A number of questions were presented to find out how male and female students differ in the way they perceive the IELTS tests at large (Figure 13.1). The findings show that male students had stronger attitudes on the following three variables:

•

I prefer IELTS to other English Language tests. I found the announcements and administration of the text itself distracting. In my country our socio-cultural experience. such as the freedom of the press, limits my ability in performing well in the IELTS tests. ­

• •

Proportion who agreed with the statement (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Male

Critical

Limit

Distract

Pref.

Attit.

Familiar

Families

Time

Surround

Perform

0

Female

 

Figure 13.1 Male and female students’ attitudes to IELTS. Notes Perform = Fear of taking the IELTS test affecting my performance. Surround = The surroundings such as lighting, temperature, floor, desks, affected my performance. Time = The time taking the IELTS test effected my performance. Families = Being familiar with the place where I took the IELTS test helped my performance. Familiar = Being familiar with the design, structure and format of the test helped my performance. Attit. = My attitude to the IELTS test is largely positive. Pref. = I prefer IELTS to other English Language tests. Distract = I found the announcements and administration of the text itself distracting. Limit = In my country our socio-cultural experience, such as the freedom of the press, limits my ability in performing well in the IELTS test. Critical = In my country students are not encouraged to develop critical thinking as in Australia.

  

International students and the IELTS

231



Comments by female students ranked significantly higher when related to anxiety and time affecting their performance; being familiar with the design, structure and format of the test; and being forthright that in their country students are not encouraged to develop critical thinking as in Australia. There was no difference between males and females on the following statements: • •

The surroundings such as lighting, temperature, floor, desks affected my performance. My attitude to IELTS test is largely positive.

­

 

However the ratio of females to male was almost two to one, indicating an awareness, perhaps a subdued criticism, of the reality that students in their country of origin were ‘not encouraged to develop critical thinking as in Australia’. Psycholinguists such as Yeh and Inose (2010) found that social connectedness, liberal thinking, freedom of movement and social support satisfaction in Western countries are major factors behind it. The negative link between gender and the response to the former statement was not found with regards to (the absence of ) freedom of the press as a sociocultural factor in the country of origin and the way it limits one’s ability to perform on the IELTS test. Clearly both male and female international students are equally impacted notwithstanding being a minority with a 30 per cent response. Listening section

­

­

The findings in Figure 13.2 present responses to what was disliked about the listening section of IELTS with males showing a stronger ranking on one statement relating to lack of opportunity to wear headphones during the test. Females however ranked higher or the same on all other statements. The widest range in attitudes showing a strong difference relates to the statement ‘[the] Test does not really evaluate listening comprehension’. It is not possible to make a conclusive statement explaining this variation. One may reason that male students feel less restricted in mixing with both genders of other nationalities – English-speaking or otherwise. Frequenting movies and other Australian cultural-social events, eateries and the like, particularly in evening hours, provides a wider exposure and accessibility to spoken English. Reading section See Figure 13.3.

  

232 A. W. Ata

Proportion who agreed with the statement (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Male

lik e9 is Ld

lik e8 is Ld

lik e7 is Ld

lik e6 is Ld

lik e5 is Ld

lik e4 is Ld

lik e3 is Ld

lik e2 is Ld

Ld

is

lik e1

0

Female

 

Figure 13.2 Attitudes to the listening section of IELTS. Notes Ldislike1 = Non-familiarity with the Australian accent. Ldislike2 = Tempo or speed. Ldislike3 = Lack of opportunity to wear headphones. Ldislike4 = Poor quality of the voice. Ldislike5 = Responding at the same time whilst listening. Ldislike6 = Performance deteriorated as the test moved forward. Ldislike7 = Not enough time for the answers to be transferred to the answer sheet. Ldislike8 = Test does not really evaluate listening comprehension. Ldislike9 = Test is not useful for my future studies.

Response from both groups were uniform on the following four statements (Rdislike) Test is not useful for my future studies (30 per cent). (Rdislike) Texts became more difficult towards the end of the reading section (53 per cent). (Rdislike) Knowledge of vocabulary and grammar is not important (56 per cent). (Rdislike) Reading a lot of English texts before the exam (20 per cent). However, two statements drew a higher response from females (59 per cent) than males (20 per cent), revealing that they ‘disliked the variety of question

  

International students and the IELTS

233

Proportion who agreed with the statement (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Male

7 R

di

sl

ike

6 R

di

sl

ike

5 R

di

sl

ike

4 R

di

sl

ike

3 ike sl di R

R

R

di

di

sl

sl

ike

ike

1

2

0

Female

 

Figure 13.3 Attitudes to the reading section of IELTS. Notes Rdislike1 = Reading is immediately after listening. Rdislike2 = Disliked the variety of question types. Rdislike3 = Lengthy passages. Rdislike4 = Test is not useful for my future studies. Rdislike5 = Texts became more difficult towards the end of the reading section. Rdislike6 = Knowledge of vocabulary and grammar is not important. Rdislike7 = Reading a lot of English text before exam.



 



types’ (Rdislike2); with a narrower gap (60 per cent females; 50 per cent males) reflecting a similar dislike to this section having ‘lengthy passages’ to read (Rdislike3). The statement ‘reading a lot of English texts before the exam’ drew the highest degree of dislike (60 per cent). A difficulty experienced with reading is largely the result of constraint from prior cultural and learning experience. Infrequent exposure, absence of published material in English in the curriculum, libraries and the market are the principal sources of difficulties experienced in this area. It is of interest that researchers, including Esmaeili (2006), found that both writing and reading tasks are strongly connected in a thematic way such that the processes and performance of one task was dependent on the other. It was found that when the two tasks – writing and reading – were related in a

  

234 A. W. Ata thematic way, students’ recall of what they read enhanced what they produced in writing. Writing section

 

Several variables were introduced to assess the reasons and degree behind dislike for the writing section (Figure 13.4). Males and females recorded, in almost equal proportions at 55 per cent, the highest dislike to the first five variables, agreeing to the following reasons behind it: •

Tired in this section because of their performance on the first two sections. Lengthy topics cause difficulty in concentration. Knowledge of vocabulary and grammar is crucial in this section.

• •

Proportion who agreed with the statement (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Male

lik e6 W

di s

lik e5 W

di s

lik e4 W

di s

lik e3 di s W

W

W

di

di s

sl

ike

lik e2

1

0

Female

 

Figure 13.4 Attitudes to the writing section of IELTS. Notes Wdislike1 = Tired in this section because of the performance in the first two sections. Wdislike2 = Lengthy topics cause difficulty in concentration. Wdislike3 = Knowledge of vocabulary and grammar is crucial in this section. Wdislike4 = Not enough knowledge of the world or information related to the given topic. Wdislike5 = Being given more than one task. Wdislike6 = Test is not useful for my future studies.

  

International students and the IELTS

•

Not enough knowledge of the world or information related to the given topic. Being given more than one task.  

•

235

 



­

 

­

The sixth variable (Wdislike6) ‘test is not useful to my future studies’ drew a smaller agreement response from both sexes (30 per cent). This is, in a way, encouraging, though not corroborated universally by educators from differing disciplines. Lewthwaite, for example, believes that the writing task is ‘nonacademic’ in the sense that a personal opinion was asked for and respondents are not able to, and are not expected to, draw on empirical evidence, statistical data or the academic expertise of published material (2007, p. 8). This would explain why Arabic-speaking candidates in particular scored highest (65 per cent) on the variable ‘Wdislike4’ – that there was ‘not enough knowledge of the world or information related to the given topic’ – a common observation made about the school curriculum and rote learning styles in schools in the Middle Eastern countries. As an IELTS examiner and academic, the writer has found that IELTS tasks required more use of prior knowledge than university tasks did. As Lewthwaite’s (2007) experience in teaching IELTS to UAE students shows, IELTS tests had more limited rhetorical functions (an emphasis on hortatory at the expense of other functions such as explanation, comparison, summarisation) and focused much more on “real world” contexts compared with the greater emphasis on abstract ideas in university tasks.



­

­

­





­

Although written in 1999, an article by Moore and Morton suggested that Task 2 ‘may be more akin to public non-academic genres (newspapers, magazines) than characteristic of university assignments’ (see also Lewthwaite, 2007). The limitation or lack of knowledge of the world or information related to a given topic (variable Dislike4) clearly shows that different dimensions of assessment of literacy may need to be prioritized: (1) for different disciplines, such as language testing, where knowledge of what it means to know and use a language is surely essential; (2) within particular academic and professional domains, where language requirements may vary; and (3) with particular users such as students, parents, school administrators, teachers or test developers whose need for and use of information are highly diverse depending on the nature and the level of their involvement in the assessment process (Taylor, 2009). This greater focus on assessment brings with it the need for assessment literacy, defined variously as having the skills needed for test development and validation, the knowledge required to make informed and principled scorebased decision-making, and the ability to read and make sense of assessmentrelated research data (Newfields, 2006). A few students mentioned that the unrealistic time limit of (recommended) 20 minutes for the exam task caused difficulty when concentrating on lengthy topics (Figure 13.4, variable Wdislike2). This reaction was corroborated by

  

236 A. W. Ata



58 per cent of male and 54 per cent of female candidates The response of these groups to being given more than one task in a short time was almost the same (Figure 13.4, Wdislike5). While it might reflect one type of university writing – writing exams under time constraints – it was unclear whether this was helpful to another major form of university writing, that of research activity. Speaking section The direction of the results for the speaking part is more pronounced than the writing part. That is, feedback about difficulties experienced in the speaking section was stronger, varied and more pronounced than the writing part. Both females and males recorded the highest agreement response to the following two items:

Proportion who agreed with the statement (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Male

lik e8 is Sd

lik e7 Sd

is

lik e6 is Sd

lik e5 Sd

is

lik e4 is Sd

lik e3 Sd is

is Sd

Sd

is

lik e1

lik e2

0

Female

 

Figure 13.5 Attitudes to the speaking section of IELTS.



Notes Sdislike1 = The examiner’s gender affected their performance. Sdislike2 = Test examines one’s listening ability, not one’s speaking abaility. Sdislike3 = Interviewer’s accent (females 63 per cent; males 45 per cent). Sdislike4 = Having stress or lacking confidence at the time of interview (females 63 per cent; males 49 per cent). Sdislike5 = Being asking too many questions in rather a short time. Sdislike6 = Being recorded would add to their test anxiety. Sdislike7 = The questions in this section were not related to each other. Sdislike8 = This test is not useful in my future studies.

  

International students and the IELTS

• •

237

(Sdislike4) Having stress or lacking confidence at the time of interview (females 63 per cent; males 49 per cent). (Sdislike3) Interviewer’s accent (females 63 per cent; males 45 per cent).



 

Another factor that affected performance for the two groups relates to the gender of the examiner, with 40 per cent agreement between both sexes that this affected their performance. Such a relatively high response in an exam environment is not easy to explain. One linguist surmised that that the teacher, male and female alike, is placed in the driver’s seat – a position of primary influence in terms of the teacher’s beliefs, attitudes, educational level and experience, and personality (Spratt, 2005, pp. 17–23) Other factors that may contribute to this finding are: lack of motivation, so if the learners do not want to interact, they will not; and insufficient understanding of language, so if the learners do not understand enough of English language, it will be difficult for them to interact (Howarth, 2006).

Findings and conclusions





 







While the findings below are preliminary, based as they are on a small sample of respondents drawn from a single institution, they clearly suggest some lessons that might be learned about the assessment of literacy of test users in the higher education context (which may also be applicable to other language use domains). The fact that test users, savvy as they appear to be, are neither particularly knowledgeable nor interested in learning about IELTS language tests and others – the premises behind how, why and what they test, such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), suggests that information provided to them by test developers should be carefully targeted, limited in scope and accessible when needed. There appears to be two broad attitudes underpinning these findings: the first is widespread acceptance of the quality of the language tests used for selection as well as satisfaction with and trust in the information provided. Also, if we were to rank in order the unfavourable attitudes for both sexes relating to the four IELTS sections, the following primary patterns emerge: Reading section: Prior learning experiences are likely to be a major influence in the ease or difficulty of language acquisition. Findings largely corroborated the premise that difficulties experienced with reading are mainly the result of constraint from prior cultural and learning experience. A total of 60 per cent of females and 40–50 per cent of males disliked this section as a result of reading lengthy passages and the variety of questions they needed to read. Sawir (2005) notes that, although prior learning experiences are likely to be a major influence in the ease or difficulty of language acquisition, the responsibility of addressing these difficulties lies equally with the institutions at which they are studying in the host country. Listening section: Females students recorded a stronger dislike response to most of the variables than males, barring a key attitude where the opposite

  

238 A. W. Ata

­

­





­









­

­

­

­

ranking was found. This was related to lack of opportunity to wear headphones during the test. One could attribute the relative freedom of movement as the reason behind the overall gender response differences. International male students reportedly feel less restricted in mixing with both genders of other nationalities – English-speaking or otherwise. Frequenting movies and other Australian cultural-social events, eateries and the like, particularly in evening hours, provides a wider exposure and accessibility to listen to native speakers. It is possible that ‘talk-to speaking’, when teachers speak constantly during class time to explain grammar and vocabulary but do not give students opportunities to participate, factors in when explaining these results. Arnold (2003) suggests teachers should use talking with and realspeak to develop interactive speaking skills. This makes the practice of structures and expressing students’ ideas essential in personalized contexts. Speaking section: Both males and females registered an average of 35 per cent dislike on the majority of indicators except for two: females (60 per cent) ranked higher than males (50 per cent) on the statement ‘Having stress or lacking confidence at the time of interview’; and 60 per cent of females compared with 45 per cent of males did not feel too positive towards the interviewer’s accent. Writing section: This section drew a wider unfavourable response from both sexes on five out of six variables, averaging 55 per cent, with narrow differences. However, only 30 per cent of participants believed that the IELTS test was not useful for their future studies. It is proposed that learning contexts and familiarity of information and issues lead to a greater fluency and accuracy of communicating one’s views and thoughts (Mehnert 1998). If that premise holds true then the writing tasks related to women’s issues, questioning parental attitudes, organ donation, freedom of thinking and rote memory learning at school, and the like, would disadvantage students from traditional cultures. The constraints of how the spontaneity of addressing these tasks mirror task requirements later on in tertiary institutions requires further investigation. On the basis of the overall response for this section, one could safely surmise that the relative acceptance and trust in what benefits students will gain as a consequence are not to be underestimated. This however does not translate into a general understanding of or interest in language proficiency test content, scoring procedures, cut-off scores and cross-test equivalences or associated validity evidence, as perceived by the respondents to meet their needs. The broader response to several questions relating to core issues surrounding IELTS remains inconclusive. Questions relating to bilingual and English language learning by international students have been raised by numerous researcher, including Dooey (2010) and Lasagabaster (2008). There is a deep division, for example, as to whether current cut-off scores are appropriate. Others raise questions regarding: the principled basis for the setting of minimum entry standards; the overemphasis on language test scores as the basis for selection decisions based on language test scores without

  

International students and the IELTS

239





­



reference to other relevant factors which might have a bearing on students’ chances of academic success; and does achieving the specified minimum IELTS score imply that students’ English proficiency is sufficient to successfully complete rather than commence their courses? These conclusions are largely subject to a number of caveats. The findings, for example, apply to particular cohort groups in a particular learning social context – one where the extent of its applicability to other groups in other contexts is unknown. Another obvious limitation, due to self-reporting, is embedded in the analysis of the data itself. It also seems important to test for the degree to which the developers of language tests may communicate complacency about their own levels of expertise and understanding about the qualities of tests, the meaning of test scores and the informational needs in these contexts. In order to test for a high predictive validity of the nature of IELTS test score in relation to university requirements of acceptable language proficiency, this study needs to be extended further to include perceptions of teachers themselves. How the two groups, educators and students, differ in their attitudes would accurately indicate the relationship between the language skills reflected in IELTS scores and abilities required by the universities to succeed. The chasm as to how staff and students differed in their perception of predictive nature of IELTS test scores in determining the languages abilities at tertiary institutions was widely demonstrated in one of the IELTS Research Reports by Coleman et al. (2003).

Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the support of William Angliss Trust Fund.

Note

1 This research was funded by Deakin University and William Angliss Charitable Fund (Victoria).

References  

Arnold, J. (2003). Speak easy: How to ease students into oral production. Humanising Language Teaching, 5(2), 1–13. Ata, A. W. (2009). Grammatical interference from Arabic to English can pose big challenges for students. El gazette (Britain), April, 22–23. http://mag.digitalpc. co.uk/olive/ode/elgazette. Ata, A. W. (2015). Knowledge, education, and attitudes of Chinese, Arab (Gulf Region) and other candidates to IELTS: A case of Australia. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 488–500. Bachman, N. (1976). Two measures of affective factors as they relate to progress on adult second language learning. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 10, 100–122.

  

240 A. W. Ata

 

 

 

­

 

 

 

Bayliss, A. & Ingram, A. (2006). IELTS as a predictor of academic language performance. Australian International Education Conference, 2006. Bista, K. (2013). Internalization in higher education: Needs and resources. Review of Global Studies Literature, 4, 26–29. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman. Byram, M., Esarte, S. & Taylor, A. (1991). Young people’s perception of other cultures. In D. Buttjets & M. Byram (Eds), Mediating languages and cultures. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Coleman, D., Stratfield, S. & Hagan, A. (2003). The attitudes of IELTS stakeholders: Student and staff apperception of IELTS in Australian, UK, and Chinese tertiary institutions. IELTS Australia Research, 5, 20–34. Dooey, P. (2010). Students’ perspectives of an EAP pathway program. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 184–197. Elder, C. & O’Loughlin, K. (2003). Investigating the relationship between intensive EAP training and band score gain on IELTS (IELTS research reports Vol. 4). Canberra: IELTS Australia, 207–254. Esmaeili, H. (2002). Integrated reading and writing tasks and ESL students’ reading and writing performance in an English language test. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 58(4), 599–620. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Holmes, J. (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman. Howarth, C. (2011). Representations, identity and resistance in communication. In D. Hook, B. Franks & M. W. Bauer (Eds), The social psychology of communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan. IELTS Annual Review. (2003). Cambridge: The University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, the British Council, IDP Education Australia. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom (2nd Edition). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42. Lewthwaite, M. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes to IELTS writing tasks: Positive or negative washback? Action Research Report, UGRU Journal, 5, 1–23. Lo Bianco, J. (2005). Globalization and national communities of communication. Language Problems and Language Planning, 29(2): 109–133. Malallaha, S. (2000). English in an Arabic environment: Current attitudes to English among Kuwait University students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(1), 19–43. Mantle, B. C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 372–380. Marginson, S. (2011). It’s a long way down: The underlying tensions in the education export industry. Australian Universities’ Review, 53(2), 21–33. Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83–108. Merrylees, B. (2003). An impact study of two IELTS user groups: Candidates who sit for the immigration purposes and candidates who sit for secondary education purposes. IELTS Australia Research, 4, 27–39.

  

International students and the IELTS

241

 

 

­

Moore, T. & Morton, J. (1999). Authenticity in the IELTS academic module writing test: A comparative study of task 2 items and university assignments. In R. Tulloh (Ed.). International English Language Testing System (IELTS) research reports 1999, Volume 2. Canberra: IELTS Australia, 74–116. Newfields, T. (2006). Teacher development and assessment literacy. Authentic Communication: Proceedings of the 5th Annual JALT Pan-SIG Conference, 48–73. Phillimore, J. & Koshy, P. (2010). The economic implications of fewer international higher education students in Australia. Perth: The John Curtin Institute of Public Policy. Rasti, I. (2009). Iranian candidates’ attitudes towards IELTS. Asian EFT Journal, 11(3), 110–155. Read, J. & Hayes, B. (2003). IELTS Research Reports, Volume 4, 153–205. Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects of prior learning experience. International Education Journal, 6(5), 567–580. Spratt, M. (2005). Washback and the classroom: The implications for teaching and learning of studies of washback from exams. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 5–29. Taylor, L. (2009). Developing assessment literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 21–26. Terry, M. (2003). IELTS Preparation Materials. ELT Journal, 57(1), 66–76. Truitt, H. (1995). Beliefs about language learning: A study of Korean University students learning English. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 2(1), 1–14. Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness. Autonomy and Authenticity. London: Longman. Yeh, C. & Inose, M. (2003). International students reported English fluency, social support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 15–28.

 



14 “Is plagiarism a learned sin?”  

­

Textuality, meaning-making, and the rules of the academic game  

 

Tomas Zahora and Barbara Yazbeck

 

Background notes



­

In August 2010, Stanley Fish wrote a brief opinion piece titled “Plagiarism is not a big moral deal,” in which he made two points, namely that plagiarism is a learned sin, and that plagiarism is not a philosophical issue (Fish, 2010b). Rather than moralizing or philosophizing plagiarism, Fish suggested we observe that plagiarism is the result of disciplinary practices and rules that presuppose specific kinds of originality and authorship. The rules of acceptable textual borrowing differ widely among fields and disciplines: a musician or a novelist may sample or allude to another work without reference—the “deceptive” or cryptic nature of the borrowing providing a source of pleasure at its discovery by the reader or listener—but a scientist copying a paragraph from another article would be crossing the boundaries of proper academic behavior. The rules surrounding plagiarism, Fish suggests, are more like the rules of golfing: complex, opaque, and laborious to master. They are the rules of the game played by a specific group of professionals “underwritten by the assumed value of originality and failure properly to credit the work of another is a big and obvious no-no.” They are valid and enforced by those who play the game—but they are not universal or imbued with special moral or philosophical meaning. The flurry of responses to his article, which compelled Fish to write another piece on the subject, brought out a range of opinions and convictions regarding plagiarism, but also made apparent the deep association of plagiarism with morality (Fish, 2010a). Some readers were simply uncomfortable with the claim that plagiarism is not a moral issue. Some saw Fish as an apologist for plagiarism. Most of his detractors were disturbed by his assertion that plagiarism not only needs to be treated separately from morality, but that engaging morality in teaching about academic integrity and plagiarism is counterproductive to effective learning. Knowing that stealing is bad is one thing; understanding the disciplinary complexities of accepted textual borrowing is another—and Fish’s recommendation is to focus on the latter if we are to become better practitioners and teachers in disciplines that depend on conventions of source attribution and utilize the notion of plagiarism.

  

“Is plagiarism a learned sin?”

243

­



 

­

­

­



The core ideas expressed by Fish are not new (Ede & Lunsford, 2001; Paldy, 1996; Price, 2002). But they touch on a stubbornly sensitive issue faced by those who acculturate students to the practices of academic decorum in the early years of the university. Charged with the task of training students in the golf-like rules of academic integrity, they face students of differing skill sets, academic maturity, and cultural backgrounds (Newton, 2016). With the proportion of international students in Western universities increasing, teachers are faced with another layer of complexity: translating the intricate (and sometimes arbitrary) rules of academic integrity to an audience with a range of habituated practices of dealing with sources, and varying levels of ability to read and understand them (Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Zwagerman, 2008). In addition, teachers have to deal with real-life implications of student plagiarism. The rules may be abstract, but intentional plagiarism may result in actual expulsion and possible deportation. Maintaining a high level of disciplinary practice within a pedagogically sound framework, and alerting students to the very real consequences ensuing from academic misconduct without discouraging or confusing them is a well-documented challenge accompanied by its own “plagiarism anxiety” (Anderson, 2009, p. 839). This challenge is made more acute by the persistence of practices which may be well intentioned, but which result in contradictory or confusing messages that further complicate student learning (Howard, 1995; Roig, 2001; Anderson, 2009). In this chapter we explore the continuing conflation of moral and pedagogical issues surrounding academic integrity and plagiarism across four dimensions of practice: the institution, the discipline, culture, and the individual learner. Using the vantage point of our own practice as Learning Skills Advisers based in a university library, we present a case study that highlights how “the problem that won’t go away” (Paldy, 1996) continues to inhibit student learning even when many problematic aspects have been addressed. What we argue is that students do not conceptualize the rules regarding plagiarism and academic integrity as a free-standing and freely applicable block of knowledge, but incorporate them into their own understanding of institutional, disciplinary and cultural practices they encounter. We suggest that an awareness of those dimensions, along with abandoning the punitive tone of dealing with plagiarism during students’ formative experience, may go a long way toward improving student textual practice.

Games we play: the institution, the discipline, culture, and the individual

­

In the years since Fish wrote his articles, student academic integrity and plagiarism have been the subject of extensive research (Macfarlane, Zhang, & Pun, 2014). On one hand, we now have more detailed documentation of actual student practices, in particular the culturally specific practices of native and non-native English speakers (Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Ahmad, Simun, & Mohammad, 2008; Hu & Lei, 2015; Macfarlane et al., 2014). At the same

  

244 T. Zahora and B. Yazbeck

­

­

­

­







time, the discussion of plagiarism and academic integrity is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary. Teachers and researchers in linguistics, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), and composition studies are more engaged with their colleagues in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) fields as well as in medicine and health sciences (Colton & Surasinghe, 2014; Holt, 2012). A good gauge of recent developments is the language of Turnitin, which expanded its focus from a site for “plagiarism detection” to a site that delves into the complexities of textual use and related pedagogy. Turnitin.com was launched in 2000 as a plagiarism prevention service. By 2002 it moved to grading, and rapidly expanded its database of sources. By 2010 it combined its services together with peer review and has since been expanding its products to include Revision Assistant. The company’s growth trajectory was accompanied by an evolution of approach to plagiarism. In the first iteration, Turnitin aided in “plagiarism prevention.” By 2010 it referred to “originality checking,” implying a shift from punitive to positive description (Turnitin, 2016a). Turnitin’s back-to-school programmefor K-12 students and their teachers, “Rethink Feedback,” introduced different kinds of plagiarism as part of a broader context of receiving and understanding feedback, and analyzing what integrity and plagiarism mean in different settings (Turnitin, 2016b). “Feedback studio,” aimed at the tertiary education market, promotes itself as “More than just checking for Plagiarism,” fostering critical thinking, going beyond grading, and supporting writers (Turnitin, 2016c). The most recent products further expand this positive focus: The Revision Assistant aims to help students “practice more and improve their essays along the way, empowering students and acting as a support for existing teaching practices.” Thus, while identifying textual similarity remains at the core of Turnitin’s success (even “Feedback Studio” is designed to help “avoid academic misconduct” and “safeguard your institution’s reputation”), the overall focus is on the bigger picture of education (Turnitin, 2016c). In bricks-and-mortar tertiary institutions, a key role in the teaching of the conventions of textual use is played by university libraries (Davis-Kahl, 2013; Gunnarsson, Kulesza, & Pettersson, 2014; Lofstrom, Trotman, Furnari, & Shephard, 2015). At our institution, Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, the library is responsible for a significant portion of academic integrity teaching (University, 2016a), done by Librarians and Learning Skills Advisers who draw on library resources, as well as expertise in pedagogy, composition and linguistics. As Learning Skills Advisers we collaborate with individual faculties (in our case Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences) to teach information research and communication skills, including skills relevant to source and text use and academic integrity. Apart from teaching into the curriculum, we participate in curriculum development and work at the research and learning point, a designated area in the library where students can access expertise with writing and academic integrity on a “drop in” basis.

245

  

“Is plagiarism a learned sin?”

Our professional practice has given us a unique opportunity to observe how students come to terms with the “rules of the game”: the conventions of tertiary education, academic life, and professional communication with a range of stakeholders. For international students, in particular, the process entails more than a cumulative accrual of rules about textuality, originality, ownership, and integrity. It requires them to recognize and effectively work across the different dimensions in which these rules are enacted. Each dimension, often entirely new to students with different educational experiences, brings its own, sometimes quite idiosyncratic, expectations and context. Here we focus on four dimensions of the discourse of academic integrity and plagiarism as perceived by the student: the institution, the discipline, culture, and individual learning.

 

1 The institution: do not cheat and behave appropriately

 

­

­



­

­





Upon enrolment at Monash, a student agrees to follow the guidelines of the Student Charter, which defines the university as a learning community and sets out “key expectations of students and by students to foster this learning community.” The list is quite comprehensive: the student pledges to maintain honesty and integrity, credit others’ work, refrain from plagiarizing and infringing on copyright and intellectual property, use resources and services responsibly, fulfil attendance and assessment requirements, read correspondence, and inform oneself about university policy. In exchange, the university promises to communicate its requirements and provide feedback and access to resources, respect student copyright and “assist students to understand rights and obligations in relation to copyright and intellectual property generated by their own and others’ research” (“Monash University Student Charter,” 2016). How does this type of assisting work? The Charter refers students to a detailed webpage outlining the procedures of dealing with plagiarism and collusion (“Student Academic Integrity,” 2016), where they can find out that the university supports “the development of student academic integrity skills” within the discipline and through the library. In fact, the library is the main source of both information and teaching materials on “the practical and cognitive skills to ensure integrity.” The library’s Academic Integrity and Referencing site is a major resource that deals with different types of plagiarism, collusion, the consequences of academic misconduct, as well as with providing additional support (University, 2016b). Because references to this library resource, together with extracts from university policy documents, are often copied verbatim into the unit guides (in a practice that paradoxically resembles “patchwork” or “cut-andpaste plagiarism”), they frame both the generic and discipline-specific orientation of the student to institutional rules. The library tutorials are an extensive and well-thought-through onlinelearning resource. Yet their interaction with the contractual language of the

  

246 T. Zahora and B. Yazbeck

­

Student Charter—interaction further reinforced by presence of chunks of the Charter and other policies in the unit guides—means that a student learning to work with sources of information encodes that activity in a context that is heavily procedural, legalistic, and above all punitive. The message may be clear (do not cheat and behave appropriately) but the binary of punishmentsupport means an international student struggling with new information written in unfamiliar language may find oneself not so much with a messy draft but with an accusation that borders on criminal, with repercussions that could result in expulsion and even deportation. The process of learning how to engage with others’ ideas is thus inevitably trailed by a dark shadow.

 

 

2 The discipline: transparent, reusable texts



 



­

­

The health sciences have not engaged with the “death of the author” discourse to the same extent as the humanities (Zwagerman, 2008; Anderson, 2009), and text is commonly represented as a signifier of ideas or results that lie beyond the written word. It is the findings or their implications, rather the precise words in which those findings are expressed, that constitute original research in these fields (Roig, 2009; Andreescu, 2013). The content-asindependent-of-text approach is further reinforced in students’ everyday practice of mastering the complex terminological, conceptual, and procedural vocabulary of the field that demands memorization and assimilation. During exams, students display their comprehension of material not by citing the sources but by repeating or applying definitions and principles that they have assimilated. As they progress, this vocabulary becomes part of their own domain knowledge whose sources do not need to be continuously referenced (Pennycook, 1996; Chien, 2014). This focus on content rather than text poses a significant hurdle for students coming to grips with the notion of referencing and academic integrity. As they learn to find their way through the quantity of published research available on specialized databases, they build on the experience of assimilating their lecture and textbook material. In this context, “original” or “novel” research implies a new finding or the discovery of a new technique, rather than a new way of expressing them: what is important is that which is signified (the finding) rather than the signifier (the language or mode of expression). This approach is not unreasonable, and in fact does reflect the way scientific research functions. Focus on content allows for consistency and rapid mastery of the current body of knowledge to be assimilated—and for relatively easy identification of “original” or “novel” research, in particular in domains that operate within an identifiable dominant paradigm (Csikszentmihalyi 1997, p. 39). Yet at the same time, written expression gets to play a decidedly secondary role as the act of “writing up” the content. A further factor that reinforces the notion of relative transparency of the text—and its potentially acceptable reuse as the mere messenger of an identifiable core message—is the formulaicity of scientific writing. As students often

  

“Is plagiarism a learned sin?”

247

­

point out, there are only so many ways to describe current trends, a particular method or a recognizable pattern of results in a lab report or in an Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD)-type paper. Multiple pub lications by the same groups of researchers based on a single research project, sometimes with very similar wording, seem to confirm such an inference (Andreescu, 2013). Thus, although some degree of language reuse is considered a developmental stage in building one’s own expressive mastery in the field (Flowerdew & Li, 2007), dependence on formulaic language even in published literature could make one question the need to rewrite yet again, in one’s own words, what is well established. Given the proliferation of multiple scientific publications that refer to the same project, and the prevalent practice of partial text reuse, students witness a visible disjoint between the textual practices they have pledged to follow and the variety of disciplinary practices.

 

3 Culture: writing voices

 



­

­

­

­

The formulaic nature of scientific writing poses an additional challenge to non-native writers of English. As learners in a foreign language, they are more likely to rely on pre-existing patterns or idiomatic expressions than to craft sentences by individually selecting each word (Vetchinnikova, 2015). If they come from cultures that heavily rely on memorization, they can become quite adept at memorizing language patterns and making them part of their own personal idiom (Oakley, 2016). Whether or not they rely on their memory, various studies have shown that non-native writers of English are more likely to engage in a range of textual misappropriations (Abasi, Akbari, & Graves, 2006; Flowerdew & Li, 2007). A practice called “patchwriting” is a particularly common strategy (Li & Casanave, 2012; Pecorari, 2003). Thus even as they may be working to develop their own “writing voice” and nominally follow all the recommendations outlined above, students may inadvertently be accused of plagiarizing if their assignment crosses a benchmarkallowed similarity on Turnitin. This relatively technical issue is further complicated by cultural differences in the notion of originality and the fact that Western understanding of ownership of ideas and of plagiarism, first codified in the seventeenth century, is neither universal nor unchanging (Zahora, 2012). A student brought up in an Anglophone environment fostering a particular kind of individuality may find even receiving advice from a peer problematic (Spigelman, 1998), while a student from a culture in which tradition, authority, and collective work is presented as more acceptable, may be used to reusing text as a way of noting its significance or authority (Pennycook, 1996). In a similar way, some cultures may be more sensitive to a metaphoric approach to texts, in which the content is appropriated and expressed in an individualized way; or to a metonymic approach, in which multiple textual chunks or “voices” engage on differing levels of authority and need for referencing ( Jarratt, 1998; Anderson, 2009).

  

248 T. Zahora and B. Yazbeck

­



These cultural considerations make the punitive language of plagiarism and its conflation with morality particularly problematic in a cohort that is also likely coming to terms with comprehending and living a foreign culture, not to mention the additional potential of facing financial stress and exploitation from employers. Reading an e-mail stating they have “committed” plagiarism can cause significant distress—or flippant attitude to stick one to an unfair, foreign, barely comprehensible system (Shafaei, Nejati, Quazi, & von der Heidt, 2016).

 

4 Individual learning



­

Given the existing institutional, disciplinary, and cultural dimensions of dealing with textuality, “writing in one’s own words” as an expression of individual learning, is far from a simple task. As Learning Skills Advisers we deal with students genuinely questioning the meaning and rationale of some of the conventions. Why should one use one’s own words when someone else has said it better? How can a novice student “say something new” when original research is the product of years of learning, mastering lab techniques, and experimentation? Isn’t everything that is written in the early years of the university merely recycled, like the cut-and-paste references to university plagiarism policy in the unit guide? With the confounding of pedagogy and policing, the process of writing, promoted as a way of empowering students, can easily become something that confuses and potentially interrupts the learning process. Recommendations to keep Turnitin similarity scores to below 10 percent potentially send even more misleading cues about what to do. When the students ask how many words need to be changed, or which words need to change, they are asking the wrong questions.

 

The plagiarist: a case study



 



 

An intern in a health science programmecame to the research and learning point in a state of panic. Her problem was that she had been asked to resubmit an assignment. Ironically, the assignment required students who had previously plagiarized in their course work to consider the role academic integrity plays in professional integrity, to use the code of conduct relevant to the field, and reflect on the importance of ethics in professional life. When asked why she thought she was struggling with this task (which was by plagiarizing on an essay about plagiarism) she claimed to understand the “rules of the game.” She knew, for instance, that copying verbatim or closely to the original is unacceptable. She knew she had to paraphrase. She also knew that all information taken from a source had to be cited and acknowledged. She knew she had to follow a citation style and she knew where to find the library’s citation styles and how to use them. When asked to explain the inappropriate textual practices dotting her work, she was at a loss. An examination of her previous attempts showed a

  

32 K. Hashimoto

 



would be achieved by cultivating Japanese people’s views on diversity, rather than focusing on the number of international students and improving entry procedures. The ‘Outline of the 300,000 International Students Plan’ proposed five measures, and the issue of employment on the completion of study came last on the list:





1 2







3 4 5

Invitation to study in Japan. Improvement of administrative procedures for entrance examinations, university admission and entry permits. Promotion of globalisation of universities. Creating an environment that accepts foreign students. Promoting the acceptance of foreign students after the completion of their study. (MEXT, 2008; Author’s translation)

­

These measures relate to the way in which Japanese society should prepare for the targeted number of international students. The lack of any understanding of why international students come to Japan to study and what they want to achieve during their stay is apparent throughout the document. The first measure, ‘Invitation to study in Japan’, was explained as a way to motivate international students to study in Japan, and to provide a one-stop service for prospective students. Five points were listed under this measure, and two of these relate to promoting Japan in the world:  

 

1. Invitation to study in Japan By disseminating Japanese culture and expanding Japanese language education, it aims to increase the number of Japan fans and stimulate their interest in Japan and Japanese universities, which will encourage them to study in Japan.… ­





(1) To establish the national brand of Japan as part of an image-creating strategy by actively disseminating information on Japanese culture, society and higher education.… (5) To strengthen information dissemination by cooperating with the ‘Visit Japan Campaign’ (MEXT, 2008; Author’s translation)

­

The discourse of ‘Japan fans’ is well established among policy makers. At a cross-ministerial policy meeting on intellectual property strategies in 2014, a representative of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) stated that it aimed to create many ‘Japan fans’ who appreciate authentic Japanese culture by inviting them to Japan through the ‘Visit Japan’ campaign organised by the Japan Tourism Agency (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 2014). Similarly, it was stated in the ‘Basic policy concerning intellectual

  

250 T. Zahora and B. Yazbeck

­

to the reader (Pecorari, 2006). This suggests a need to unpack and make explicit our assumptions about the way that academic writers use the material of other writers. This, making it explicit, takes time and is an ongoing practice that requires opportunity and feedback. Content specialists and writing instructors need to keep in mind that our practices are nuanced and may be applied differently in different situations for different purposes. For instance, here is a response to another student, concerned with over-citation in her work. It demonstrates just how complex textual practices can be and how much explanation may be required to convey the way the conventions operate.



 

Hi Linda, very good question. I agree that it can look odd referencing every sentence, especially when it’s from the same source. Here, I suggest that you think about how your ideas relate to the information from the sources you’ve been reading. So, guideline no. 1) try not to rely too heavily on one source. Of course, there are exceptions. For example, if you are telling us about a study that was done, perhaps you’ve included a brief methodology and a brief summary of findings. That probably takes up a whole paragraph. It is OK to provide the citation at the end of the paragraph, and probably at the beginning where you first introduced the reader to the study (i.e. A study undertaken by X (2000) looked at …) as long as it’s quite clear to the reader that the whole paragraph is referring to a single study. But in other cases, where your aim is to survey the literature, or show the reader how thorough your research has been, you really shouldn’t be relying heavily on one source. This doesn’t mean you have to do X,Y,X,Y,X,Y, but you may incorporate a few sources to support the same point.



 

­

Needless to say, instructional material often lacks this level of detail. It is not uncommon, as we have seen, for policy documents, instructional material such as faculty “how to” guides and library citation style guides to oversimplify the complexities of source material use in academic writing to a point where the emphasis is on the mechanics of citation, (such as formatting and punctuation) rather than the process of making meaning through engagement with texts. We do our students a disservice when we overlook the intricacies of the way that text relates to ideas and content. It became evident in working with the student in the case study that as she developed a better understanding of the process of meaning making through engagement with texts, her ability to manage the technical aspects of citation came together seamlessly. Hence what began as a disciplinary issue was recast as a pedagogical one. The case study presented above points to the way that writers use their own understanding of institutional, disciplinary, and cultural aspects of textual use to construct meaning through writing and engaging with existing texts:

  

“Is plagiarism a learned sin?”

251

­



­

that is, transform their writing in an exercise in meaning-making. The student in the case study begins as an identified plagiarist, albeit a penitent one, looking for meaning through the act of writing a “hair shirt” essay on the values underpinning academic integrity and professionalism. With each draft, she begins to approximate the accepted textual practices of her discipline until (finally) she is not only able to demonstrate application of the conventions of textual borrowing but able to do so while relating it to her own understanding and experience. One final note on the case presented here. It is often assumed that in the writing of non-native speakers of English, it is the language that creates problems with the use of text and that what is required is practice with using techniques such as paraphrasing and summarizing. This was not the case here. The student had a competent command of the language but it is the expectations of the discursive practices of her field that presented her with difficulty. Once she understood what she was being asked to convey through the use of an authoritative text and just how writers use source material to make meaning and generate meaningful connections that her use of source material begins to approximate more accurately the disciplinary expectations of her field.

Conclusions and pedagogical implications

­



Our case study and the examination of the broader context surrounding student textual use confirm the point made by Zwagerman (2008), Fish (2010a, 2010b) and others: that a primarily punitive approach to student textual misappropriation may not be the most effective way of dealing with the problem. In fact, a punitive approach implying that deterrence and policing are more important than student learning may itself contribute to the behaviors it claims to discourage (Bartlett, 2009). While we agree that clear university policies on proper and unacceptable behavior are essential, and that cheating is not an acceptable practice, communicating textual use and punishment as inextricably linked is counterproductive to good learning, particularly when dealing with new students from divergent cultural and educational backgrounds. What we need is a climate that deals with unorthodox textual misappropriations, especially early in undergraduate degrees as problems of teaching and learning, not morality. Second, when teaching students how to use sources and maintain academic integrity as thinkers and writers, we need to be more explicit in communicating the meaning-making function of writing. This is particularly the case in technical and scientific disciplines. As long as students perceive the text as merely a device to get to the “real meaning” (e.g., numbers, data, conclusions) which is beyond words, they will be tempted to treat text as a transparent and reusable means to get to an end. Directives focusing on an externally quantifiable gauge such as Turnitin percentages (e.g., make sure you lower your similarity score down to 10 percent or less) do not solve the

  

252 T. Zahora and B. Yazbeck

­

­



­

­

problem; quite the contrary. What we need is a pedagogy that is sensitive to the complexities of textual education for academic purposes—a pedagogy that makes the rules of textual use apparent while respecting the institutional, disciplinary, and cultural dimensions that comprise the students’ meaningmaking activities. Before being assessed or threatened, students need to be given the time and support to understand why they are invited to contribute to meaning-making. Without that step, they are less likely to perceive the different shades of originality and authorship in both their own work and in the work of others. To make this work, our curriculum and teaching resource design needs to be informed by an awareness of the extent to which we ourselves rely on a cut-and-paste approach to policy, regulations, or tacitly assumed osmosis-like process of academic acculturation. We need to accept that the rules of academic integrity are not universal, simple, or unchanging. We need to be more explicit in laying out the skills and processes required to develop a habit of practicing rules and conventions acceptable in particular disciplines. This could involve the submission of drafts for feedback, writing groups that focus on developing technical skills in disciplinary context, or judicious use of matching software (such as Turnitin) to facilitate writing skills development (for instance by asking students to analyze, review, and discuss each other’s originality reports and explain how the assignments use sources). It could involve sharing the teaching of writing and communication between content and skills specialists. Above all, our approach needs to acknowledge that although practicing academic integrity may not be exactly analogous to playing golf, treating it as a practice might just be the thing to get students to get into the right habit.

References

 

­

Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102–117. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.05.001. Ahmad, Z., Simun, M., & Mohammad, J. (2008). Malaysian university students’ attitudes to academic dishonesty and business ethics. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(2), 149–160. doi: 10.1080/02188790802040721. Anderson, V. (2009). Response to Sean Zwagerman’s “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism, and the Rhetoric of Academic Integrity.” College Composition and Communication, 60(4), W122–W128. Andreescu, L. (2013). Self-Plagiarism in Academic Publishing: The Anatomy of a Misnomer. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 775–797. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s11948-012-9416-1. Bartlett, T. (2009, 2009/03/20/). Cheating Goes Global as Essay Mills Multiply. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55. Chien, S.-C. (2014). Cultural Constructions of Plagiarism in Student Writing: Teachers’ Perceptions and Responses. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(2), 120–140.

  

“Is plagiarism a learned sin?”

253

­

­

­

 

 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. Davis-Kahl, S. (Ed.). (2013). Common ground at the nexus of information literacy and scholarly communication. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries. Ede, L. & Lunsford, A. A. (2001). Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship. PMLA, 116(2), 354–369. Fish, S. (2010a, 16 August 2010). The Ontology of Plagiarism: Part Two, Opinion Pages, New York Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes. com/2010/08/16/the-ontology-of-plagiarism-part-two/?_r=0. Fish, S. (2010b, 9 August 2010). Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal, Opinion Pages, New York Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ 08/09/plagiarism-is-not-a-big-moral-deal/. Flowerdew, J. & Li, Y. (2007). Language Re-use among Chinese Apprentice Scientists Writing for Publication. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 440–465. Gunnarsson, J., Kulesza, W. J. & Pettersson, A. (2014). Teaching International Students How to Avoid Plagiarism: Librarians and Faculty in Collaboration. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(3–4), 413–417. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. acalib.2014.04.006. Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806. doi: 10.2307/378403. Hu, G. & Lei, J. (2015). Chinese University Students’ Perceptions of Plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior, 25(3), 233–255. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2014.923313. Jarratt, S. C. (1998). Beside Ourselves: Rhetoric and Representation in Postcolonial Feminist Writing. JAC, 18(1), 57–75. Li, Y. & Casanave, C. P. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism? Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 165–180. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.002. Lofstrom, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Shephard, K. (2015). Who teaches academic integrity and how do they teach it? [Article]. Higher Education, 69(3), 435+. Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J., & Pun, A. (2014). Academic integrity: a review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 339–358. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012. 709495. Monash University Student Charter (2016). Newton, P. (2016). Academic integrity: a quantitative study of confidence and understanding in students at the start of their higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 482–497. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1024199. Oakley, B. (2016, 15 September 2016). How I Rewired My Brain to Become Fluent in Math. Nautilus. Paldy, L. G. (1996). The Problem that Won’t Go Away: Addressing the Causes of Cheating. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(1), 4–5. Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.004. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing Others’ Words: Text, Ownership, Memory, and Plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201–230. doi: 10.2307/3588141. Price, M. (2002). Beyond “Gotcha!”: Situating Plagiarism in Policy and Pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 54(1), 88–115. doi: 10.2307/1512103. Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and Paraphrasing Criteria of College and University Professors. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 307–323. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1103_8.

  

254 T. Zahora and B. Yazbeck

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

 

 

Roig, M. (2009). Plagiarism: Consider the Context. Science, 325(5942), 813–814. Shafaei, A., Nejati, M., Quazi, A., & von der Heidt, T. (2016). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Do international students’ acculturation attitudes impact their ethical academic conduct? [journal article]. Higher Education, 71(5), 651–666. doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9928-0. Spigelman, C. (1998). Habits of Mind: Historical Configurations of Textual Ownership in Peer Writing Groups. College Composition and Communication, 49(2), 234. Student Academic Integrity (2016). Turnitin. (2016a). About us Retrieved 20 December, 2016. Turnitin. (2016b). Back to School Retrieved 20 December, 2016, from http://turnitin.com/en_us/about-us/media-center/press/item/back-to-school-2016. Turnitin. (2016c). Turnitin Higher Ed Retrieved 20 December, 2016, from http:// turnitin.com/en_us/higher-education. University, M. (2016a). Academic integrity, plagiarism and collusion (Vol. 2016). University, M. (2016b). Referencing and Academic Integrity Retrieved 20 December 2016, 2016, from www.monash.edu/rlo/research-writing-assignments/referencingand-academic-integrity/academic-integrity. Vetchinnikova, S. (2015). Usage-based recycling or creative exploitation of the shared code? The case of phraseological patterning. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), 223–252. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2015-0019. Zahora, T. (2012). Thomist Scholarship and Plagiarism in the Early Enlightenment: Jacques Echard Reads the Speculum morale, Attributed to Vincent of Beauvais. [Article]. Journal of the History of Ideas, 73(4), 515–536. Zwagerman, S. (2008). The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism, and the Rhetoric of Academic Integrity. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 676–710.

  

34 K. Hashimoto

­



a knowledge of Japan in order to make them more employable in Japan when they graduate. This echoes the view that foreign nationals need to integrate into Japanese society if they are in employment. In the current international market, however, students choose universities and courses because of the specialised skills and knowledge they will give them, which will increase their employability or opportunities for further study. Perhaps this mismatch of objectives explains the steep decline of interest in participating in Programs in English at Komaba (PEAK) at Tokyo University (Huffington Post, 2015). As part of the post-project evaluation, MEXT conducted a survey of students enrolled in degree courses offered in English. Participating universities were asked to nominate ten undergraduate and ten postgraduate students to complete the survey questionnaire. A total of 225 students responded. Although the information sheet said that the survey did not exclude Japanese students, the questions seem to have been compiled with international students in mind. The questionnaire consisted of 35 questions, and Question 8 related to the student’s reason for choosing to study in Japan: Q. 8 Why did you decide to come to Japan to study? Up to two answers permitted:















1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Wanted to live in Japan; Interested in Japanese subculture (manga, anime and fashion); Geographically close; Degree courses offered in English; Wanted to work in Japan or find job in Japanese company; Obtained a scholarship; Other. (MEXT, 2015; Author’s translation)

­

It is interesting to note that interest in pop culture was listed second. This could relate to the image of Japan fans and a popular belief that foreigners study Japanese language because of an interest in anime and manga. Contrary to expectations, the availability of degree courses offered in English was ranked first by both undergraduate and postgraduate students, although obtaining a scholarship was ranked equal first for postgraduate students. It is striking that the excellence of academic programs or research reputation were not included in the multiple choice options. Again, this is consistent with the main aim of the 300,000 International Students Plan, which is to attract Japan fans and equip them with Japanese language skills and cultural knowledge for future employment. The next section examines the first follow-up review on TGUP in order to explore how the issues addressed in the evaluation of the Global 30 Program have evolved.

  

256 Index Australian Broadcasting Corporation 212 Australian Human Rights Commission 125, 126, 138, 139 Australian Research Council 124 Baas, M. 11 Bakhtin, M. M. 4 Ball, S. J. 216–17 BANA (Britain, Australasia, North America) nations 5, 15, 16, 209–18; see also Australia; Canada; New Zealand; United Kingdom; United States Beck, J. 7 Beck, U. 97, 98, 99, 100 belonging, sense of 181–9, 185, 186, 187 belonging motivation for adaptation 68–9, 72, 73–5 Berry, J. W. 71 Bicultural Involvement and Adjustment Scale (BIAS) 168 bilingualism 15, 16 Bista, K. 226 Blair, Tony 48 Bochner, S. 71 bogus college scandal, UK 49, 52 Boler, M. 203 Bologna Process 25, 30 Bolsmann, C. 216 Bourdieu, Pierre 67 branding strategies: Japan 32–3, 34, 40; Singapore 105; UK 48, 49–50 Breit, R. 215 British Council 48, 53, 54 Brown, H. D. 226 Buber, Martin 143–5, 146, 156–8 Buchmann, C. 90 Burke, P. J. 98 Byram, M. 225

Christianity, in Singapore 118 Clark, G. 51 Clyne, M. 199 Coalition government, UK 47, 48–50, 52, 54 cognitive engagement theories 66 Coleman, D. 228, 239 colonialism 197 committed students 71 Common European Framework 17 Commonwealth Ombudsman, Australia 125, 139 community-school factors in mobility of Myanmar students 92–5, 93 Complexity Scale 169 Cong, Y. 66 Conservative government, UK 47, 52, 54 conservative international students 71, 72, 74–5 coping styles 70 core motivators 68–70 cosmopolitanism 85, 88, 97, 99–100, 111, 112, 127 Council of Europe 17 Crichton, J. 196 Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) 65 critical thinking skills 55, 94, 230, 231, 244 cross-border delivery of higher education 162 cross-cultural adaptation 164; see also Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study culture, plagiarism and 247–8 Curtin, N. 182, 188 Cushman, E. 202 customer right approach 127

Cameron, David 52 Canada 45, 196, 199, 209–18 Cañado, M. L. P. 203 Carpenter, J. 169 Carter, D. F. 182 Casey, Anton 116 Catholic Church 4 Chapple, J. 26 China 40, 53, 87, 142, 143; Pakistani students in 142, 143, 145–59, 147, 148, 149; see also Hong Kong Chinese students see attitudes to International English Language Testing System in Australia

Day, Graham 118 Deakin University, Australia see attitudes to International English Language Testing System in Australia Dearden, J. 26–7 decolonial theory 195–6 deficit model of international students 47, 51–2, 54–5, 198; see also assimilationist approaches to integration Delanty, Gerard 118–19 democratic reforms, Myanmar 90, 93 Department of Business Innovation and Skills, UK 50, 53

  

Index Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) 169 Derrida, Jacques 127 dialogical relationships 143–5; and Pakistani students in China 145–59, 147, 148, 149 Diener, E. 169, 170 discrimination: Australia 126–7; Singapore 107–20 Dlaska, A. 200 Dooey, P. 238 Driscoll, P. 169 DTZ 51 Dupagne, M. 169 Earl, K. 66 economic resources, international students as 47, 50–1 education policies: Hong Kong 86–8; UK 45–56 education rights, Australia 129–33 Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act, Australia 124, 125, 139 Education UK 45, 48, 49–50 educational assets, international students as 47, 51–2 EduFrance 45 Elder, C. 225 elections: Myanmar 90; Singapore 108–9 emotion-focused coping 70 employment rights 10–11; Australia 11, 134–6 English for Academic Purposes courses 210 English language problem 16, 198–9 English language proficiency 16; adaptation and 69, 71; Chinese lecturers 150, 158; integration and 210, 213; Japanese university requirements 36, 37, 38; UK requirements 49; see also attitudes to International English Language Testing System in Australia; Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study English medium instruction 15–17; Europe 17, 25, 30; Japan 25–7, 35–6, 37, 38; of Pakistani students in China 145–59, 147, 148, 149 Ennser-Kananen, J. 201, 203 Esmaeili, H. 233 ethnic conflicts, Myanmar 90–1 Europe 4, 16–17, 25, 30

257

European Association for International Education 125 family-individual factors in mobility of Myanmar students 95–6 Feedback Studio programme 244 Fish, Stanley 242–3, 251 flexible strategists 72, 73–4, 75 Flowerdew, J. 249 Fogg, B. J. 68 Forbes-Mewett, H. 125 foreign language instruction: Japan 25–7, 35–9, 37, 38; see also English medium instruction Formosinho, M. 201 Foucault, Michel 46 France 30 Fredricks, J. A. 73 Fukuda, Yasuo 29 Gareis, E. 181, 183 gender see attitudes to International English Language Testing System in Australia General Elections: Myanmar 90; Singapore 108–9 genuine international student concept 47, 51–2 Germany 30 Gibbs, P. 204 Glass, C. R. 69 Global 30 Project, Japan 25, 26, 28, 33–4, 35–6 global charter for international students’ rights 125 global imaginaries of internationalisation 197–200, 202–3, 204 Global Schoolhouse initiative, Singapore 104, 105–7 Goh, Gilbert 107 government scholarships: Hong Kong 87, 96; Singapore 106 Gramling, D. J. 199 Guilherme, A. 145 Gulf Arab students see attitudes to International English Language Testing System in Australia Hagger-Vaughan, L. 199 Hajek, J. 199 Hannum, E. 90 Harrison-Walker, L. J. 170 Haugh, M. 198 Hayes, B. 225, 226

  

258 Index hierarchy of needs 68 Highly-Trusted sponsor status, UK 49 Hiroshima University 37, 39 Hodgson, D. 98 Holmes, J. 225 Holy Roman Empire 4 Home Office, UK 50 Hong Kong 27, 85–100; education policies 86–8; Myanmar students in 88–97, 89, 93, 99, 100; options for future of higher education 97–9 Hong Lim Park, Singapore 107 hostility 9–10, 46; Singapore 107–20 housing rights, Australia 133–4 human capital approach 87–8, 97 human core motivators 68–70 human rights 9–10, 14, 97, 98–9, 124–7; see also international student rights in Australia Hurtado, S. 182 hybrid students 71 Hyland, F. 54 IELTS see International English Language Testing System (IELTS) I-It relationships 143–4, 149–55, 157, 158 Immigration & Checkpoints Authority, Singapore 116 immigration policies, UK 48–50, 52 Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study 164–77, 165, 166, 168–70, 171, 172, 173, 174 Ince, M. 25 Independent Commission Against Corruption, New South Wales 212 India 9, 53, 87 Indian students see international student rights in Australia Indian-Malaysian students see attitudes to International English Language Testing System in Australia indigenous languages 200 Indonesia 36 Initiative for International Education, UK 48 Inose, M. 231 integration 209–18; accommodationist approaches 211, 214–18; assimilationist approaches 211–14, 217; see also adaptation Intention Scale 168 intention to stay in host country after graduation see Importance-

Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study interactionalist theory of student departure 182 international distance education 162 International Education Strategy, UK 49–50, 52, 54 International English Language Testing System (IELTS) 36, 37, 38, 71, 188, 210; attitudes of international students in Australia 224–39, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 236; listening section 231, 232, 237–8; reading section 231–4, 233, 237; speaking section 236–7, 236, 238; writing section 234–6, 234, 238 International Student Mobility Charter 125 international student rights in Australia 124–40; to accommodation 133–4; to be listened to and make a complaint 137–9; to education 129–33; to employment 11, 134–6; to public transport concessions 136–7 International Student Strategy for Australia: 2010–2014 124–5 internationalisation of higher education 6–8, 10, 162–3, 195–204, 214–15; global imaginaries of 197–200, 202–3, 204; languages education and 196, 199–204; in Malaysia 163–77, 165, 166, 168–70, 171, 172, 173, 174 intersubjectivity 3 IPMA see Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study Ipsos Mori 55 I-Thou relationship 143–5, 151 Jakubowicz, A. 126, 127 Japan 25–41; 300,000 International Students Plan 25, 29–33, 34; Global 30 Project 25, 26, 28, 33–4, 35–6; medium of instruction 25–7, 35–9, 37, 38; Top Global University Project (TGUP) 25, 26, 27–9, 35–40, 37, 38 Japan fans discourse 32–3, 34, 40 Japan Society for the Promotion of Science ( JSPS) 28, 35, 39–40 Japan Tourism Agency 32 Johnson, D. R. 182 Jones, C. 66 Kam, A. J. Y. 163 Kawaijuku 29

  

Index Keane, B. 11 Kennedy, A. 169 Kennedy, C. 203 Kiley, M. 71, 75 Kleinginna, A. M. 67 Kleinginna, P. R. 67 Knight, Jane 195, 209 Kramsch, C. 201 Kulik, C. T. 168, 175

Martin, P. 201 Marx, S. 158 Maslow, Abraham 68 Mays, N. 64 media usage see Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study medium of instruction: Japan 25–7, 35–9, 37, 38; see also English medium instruction Melbourne University, Australia see attitudes to International English Language Testing System in Australia Meld magazine 136 Merrylees, B. 226 metaphoric approach to texts 247 METI see Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan metonymic approach to texts 247 MEXT see Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Mignolo, Walter 197, 201 migration policies, UK 48–50, 52 Miller, N. J. 51, 53 minimum wage, Australia 11, 135 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan 32 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan 25, 26, 27–8, 29, 31, 32, 33–4, 36, 39 Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), Japan 29, 31 Ministry of Manpower, Singapore 106 minority/heritage languages 200 MOFA see Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), Japan Monani, D. 126, 127 Monash University, Australia 244–51; see also attitudes to International English Language Testing System in Australia monologue 144 Moore, T. 235 morality, plagiarism and 242–52 Morgan, J. 145 Morton, J. 235 motivations for mobility of Myanmar students: community-school factors 92–5, 93; family-individual factors 95–6; sociopolitical factors 90–2 Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) 168 multilingualism 15, 16  

Labour government, UK 47, 48, 52 Lambert, W. E. 226 language assistance programmes 15, 213 Language Proficiency Scale 168 language proficiency tests: Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) 36, 237; see also International English Language Testing System (IELTS) languages education 196, 199–204 languages other than English (LOTES) 15, 16 Lasagabaster, D. 238 Latin 4 Lawton, W. 53 Lee, A. 201 Lei, L. 158 Lent, R. W. 170 Lewthwaite, M. 225, 227, 235 Li, Y. 249 Liberal Democrats, UK 49 Linell, P. 3 linguistic deficit 15, 199 linguistic I-It relationships 149–55, 158 Lo Bianco, J. 201, 202 local model of higher education 98 Long, S. M. 182 Lovibond, P. F. 169 Lovibond, S. H. 169 McCowan, T. 98 Malallaha, S. 225 Malau-Aduli, B. S. 66 Malaysia 45, 53; internationalisation of higher education 163–77, 165, 166, 168–70, 171, 172, 173, 174 Mandarin language 106–7 Mantle, B. C. 225 Marginson, S. 126, 127, 134, 137, 216 market approach to rights 127 marketing of higher education 175, 210; see also Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study Martín, M. D. 199

259

  

260 Index Myanmar students in Hong Kong 88–97, 89, 93, 99, 100 Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore 105, 108 narrative review method 64 national branding: Japan 32–3, 34, 40; UK 48, 49–50 national identity-based communities, international students in Singapore 117–19 National League for Democracy (NLD), Myanmar 90 National Strategy for International Education 2025, Australia 124–5 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 184–9, 185, 186, 187 National University of Singapore (NUS) 105, 108 neoliberalism 6–8, 85, 87–8, 97, 99, 201 Neri, F. 70 Neumayer, E. 95 New Labour government, UK 47, 48, 52 New Zealand 196, 209–18, 225 Nikkei 40 Noels, K. A. 67, 68 Norman Sicily 4 objectification 143–4, 157, 158 O’Loughlin, K. 225 ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative, China 142 openness to reciprocity 12–14 Osler, A. 200 Ostrove, J. M. 182 ‘Outline of the 300,000 International Students Plan’, Japan 31, 32 Oxford Regional Health Authority 65 Pakistani students in China 142, 143, 145–59, 147, 148, 149 Paldy, L. G. 243 Parsons, J. 76 part-time employment 10–11, 134–6 patchwriting 247 Pauwels, A. 200 pedagogical I-It relationship 149–51, 157, 158 Pejic, D. 127 People’s Action Party (PAP), Singapore 104, 108–9 perceived academic satisfaction see

Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study perceived complexity see ImportancePerformance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study perceived psychological well-being see Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study perceived stereotype image see Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study performativity 216–17 Perkins, R. 95 Perry, W. G. 71 Pham, L. 67–8, 69 Phillipson, R. 25, 198 plagiarism 242–52 policy discourses 8–12 Pray, L. 158 Preece, S. 198, 199, 201 Prime Minister’s Initiative (PMI), UK 48, 51, 54, 55 problem-focused coping 70 psychological adaptation see ImportancePerformance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study Psychological Well-being Scale 170 public transport concessions, Australia 136–7 Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, UK 54, 55 quasi-citizenship status 127 Quist, G. 199 racism 9–10, 114, 115, 126–7 Rasti, I. 226 Read, J. 225, 226 reputation creation, international students and 51 Rethink Feedback programme 244 Revision Assistant 244 Ricento, T. 199 rights 9–10, 14, 97, 98–9, 124–7; see also international student rights in Australia Rohingya minority, Myanmar 91 Roman, L. G. 218 Roman Empire 4 Rosenberg, M. 169 Rudd, Amber 50, 52 Ryan, J. 214 Said, E. 144 Salmon, P. 71

  

Index Sanderson, G. 144 Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) 169 Sawir, E. 237 Scarino, A. 196 Schweisfurth, M. 218 self-censorship, international students in Singapore 115–17 self-contained system of higher education 98 Self-Esteem Scale 169 sense of belonging 181–9, 185, 186, 187 SGU (Super Global Universities), Japan 27–8 Sicily 4 Singapore 45, 104–20; anti-foreigner sentiment 9, 107–20; Global Schoolhouse initiative 104, 105–7 Singapore Economic Development Board 105 Singapore Government Scholarships for Southeast Asians 106 Slaughter, Y. 199 SmartPLS see Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study Social Darwinism 97 social media: national identity-based communities 117–19; self-censorship 115–17; Singapore 107–8, 115–19 social networks, adaptation and 68–70 social support see ImportancePerformance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study sociocultural adaptation see ImportancePerformance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS) 169 sociopolitical factors in mobility of Myanmar students 90–2 soft power 47, 52, 53 South Korea 27, 87 Spanish language 200 Sri Lanka 27 Starkey, H. 200 Steger, Manfred 197 Stein, S. 197, 202, 204 Stein-Smith, K. 199 Stereotype Image Scale 169 strategists 71, 72; flexible 72, 73–4, 75; surface 72, 74, 75 student academic integrity 242–52 Student Charter, Monash University, Australia 245–6

261

student engagement 181–9, 185, 186, 187 ‘Study in Japan Comprehensive Guide’ website 29, 31 Sun Xu 108, 116 surface adaptation 71, 74 surface strategists 72, 74, 75 Swaidan, Z. 168 Szapocznik, J. 168 Taiwan 36 Tartakovsky, E. 168 Taylor, Charles 197 Taylor, L. 76 teacher–student relationships, Pakistani students in China 149–51, 157 Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) 15, 244 Teaching Excellence Framework, UK 54 Terry, M. 226 Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) 36, 237 Tham, S. Y. 163 Thanapal, Sangeetha 114 Thein Sein 90, 91, 93 Tin, H. 94 Tinto, V. 182 Todd, S. 203 Tokyo Olympics 41 Tokyo University 34, 37 Tollefson, J. W. 25 Top Global University Project (TGUP), Japan 25, 26, 27–9, 35–40, 37, 38 transformative international students 71, 72, 73, 75 Transitioning.Org 107 Trice, A. G. 183 Truitt, H. 225 Tsui, A. B. M. 25 tuition grants, Singapore 106 Turner, Y. 54 Turnitin 244, 247, 248, 251 typology of international students 70–6, 72 UK Council for International Student Affairs 54 United Arab Emirates 225 United Kingdom 8, 11–12, 45–56, 196, 199; adaptation concepts 52–6; education policies 45–56; immigration policies 48–50, 52; integration 209–18; representations of international students 50–2

  

262 Index United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 93 United States 40, 196, 199, 200; integration 209–18; sense of belonging 181–9, 185, 186, 187 University Grants Committee (UGC), Hong Kong 86, 88 university rankings 25 Urry, John 118–19

Ward, C. 169 Warner, C. 199 Wesely, P. M. 201 word of mouth see ImportancePerformance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) study Word of Mouth Scale 170 World Bank 106 World Trade Organization (WTO) 162

Van Lier, L. 225 Vasilopoulos, G. 198, 203 Velayutham, Selvaraj 114 Viete, R. 214 Ville, S. 70 visa violations 11 Visit Britain 49–50 Visit Japan campaign 32 vocational education and training (VET) institutes, Australia see international student rights in Australia Volet, S. 66

xenophobia see anti-foreigner sentiment Yang, R. P.-J. 67, 68 Yangon University, Myanmar 93 Yaron, K. 144, 157 Yeh, C. 231 Yonezawa, A. 36 Young, M. F. D. 7 Zeus, B. 98 Zimet, G. D. 168 Zwagerman, S. 251