Though ‗academic language… is no one‘s mother tongue‘ (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1994: 8), academic literacy and discursive issues have been more prominent among international students, especially students from non-English speaking countries, because the wholesale transfer from first language literacy to second language literacy is always problematic (Bell, 1991). Furthermore, academic terminology itself ‗is a potential source of alienation‘ (Aspland & O‘Donoghue, 1994: 71) and may put certain groups of students in a disadvantaged position.
Academic literacy and discursive issues have been a major theme in the literature of international students‘ intercultural communication and academic writing. From the perspective of contrastive rhetoric, Kaplan (1966) identified the structure of Chinese writing as circular, in contrast with the linearity of English. This discursive difference naturally finds its way into academic writing. In essay-writing tasks, CHC students may use a more circular style of prose, contextualize, and use a lot of background historical information instead of Western linear and direct styles (Biggs & Watkins, 1996; Gay, 2000; Jia, 2005; McLoughlin, 1995; Samovar & Porter, 2004). Therefore, some Western academics see the Asian preferred academic style as ‗waffling‘ or ‗not getting to the point‘ (McLean & Ransom, 2005: 57). Conversely, Jin and Cortazzi (1999) suggest that Asian students see the Western style as ‗giveaway‘: because the most important point is revealed in the first topic sentence of each paragraph. In other words, Western academic style is more overtly linear in its logic and more explicit, whereas in Asian academic writing the meaning is negotiated by using inferences (Wilkinson and Kavan, 2003). However, some scholars point out that modern Chinese academic writing has much in common in structure with that of Western academic norms (Huang, 1997; Kirkpatrick, 1997; Mohan & Lo, 1985). There exists the tendency to exaggerate the differences while overlooking the similarities between the two academic literacy systems.
71
English for Academic purposes (EAP) approach, contrastive rhetoric approach (CR), social process approach, transcultural model (Zamel, 1996; 1997), and contact zones (Pratt, 1991) 14 and argued for a more critical orientation to teaching academic writing so that students can gain critical voice through appropriating the dominant discourse:
Students shouldn‟t be satisfied with just switching discourse…, or fusing discourses as Zamel encourages, but appropriating dominant discourses according (to) their interests and values in order to gain voice. Through discursive struggle, students adopt creative strategies to reshape academic conventions to represent their interests and values.
(Canagarajah, 2002: 40) However, many specialists in the field of EAP adopt a pragmatic or instrumental attitude toward academic writing discourse (Johns, 1990; Reid, 1989; cited in ibid: 33) and reduce discourse features to skills for students to practice and master. Others argue from a discipline perspective and view academic writing as an acculturation process for all students in the disciplines: ‗it can be extremely difficult for students to reference effectively until they have spent considerable amount of time reading around the discipline to understand its key concepts, theoretical underpinnings, values and controversies‘ (Schmitt, 2005: 69). In addition, the notion that general language skill trained in preparatory English language courses could be easily and successfully transferred to discipline-specific tasks is also challenged, for ‗all academic work is socially situated‘ (Spack, 1997: 50). This applies to all students, not just CHC or other international students. Dong‘s case studies of three Chinese sojourning doctoral students indicate that the major problem facing them is ‗lack of membership‘ (Dong,
14
According to Canagarajah (2002), EAP approach adopts the normative attitude that the discourses of academic communities are not open to negotiation or criticism; Contrastive rhetoric approach displays the openness or relativism to treat the features of academic communities as results of students‘ unique linguistic and cultural traditions; social process approach takes the view that each discourse suits its social practice and historical experiences, so there is no discursive paradigm of any community can make a superior claim to truth; transculturation model, originated from postmodern culture, allows merging of boundaries and moving between discourse communities; contact zones, referring to a meeting point of disparate discourses, ‗takes into account of the struggles and conflicts in negotiating power while retaining the agency of writers to cross boundaries‘ (2002; 39).
72
1996: 453) in their academic discourse community. As novice members of a discourse community, they are not acquainted with the conventions that shape its genres, therefore, a hands-on approach from the supervisor was more effective than ‗probing in the dark and learning from mistakes‘ (Braine, 2002: 64), though some studies suggest that some non-native postgraduate writers may resist the assimilation of another cultural discursive practice if they perceive that it entails alienating themselves from their own culture (Kiley, 2003; Shen, 1989).
Perhaps as a counter-balance to the prevailing expectations, Kumaravadivelu (2003) suggests it is ethnocentric to judge literacy skills according to one cultural framework and we should respect and value the linguistic and cultural peculiarities of our students rather than suppress them. According to Kumaravadivelu, awareness of different writing values and styles can enhance rather than restrict writing competence and students should use their own cultural background as a springboard to mastering academic discourse.
Critical thinking
Despite the fact that there is no ‗general agreement between academics across disciplines in regards to what they believe critical thinking is‘ (Egege and Kutieleh, 2004: 79), the assumption is critical thinking is ‗not only desirable, beneficial and attainable but they are universally valued. Critical thinking is seen as the epitome of good thinking‘ (Egege & Kutieleh, 2004: 79). As critical thinking is regarded as the distinguishing feature of Western universities, it has become the indicator to distinguish Western learning culture from non-Western, especially CHC learning cultures (Cadman, 2000). The view is prevalent among Western academics that Chinese-speaking students have neither analytical skills nor the critical enquiry that are required in Western universities (Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Samuelowicz, 1987; Swoden, 2003). ‗In many Asian countries … the intellectual skills of comparing, evaluating different points of view, arguing and presenting one‘s point of view are not developed‘ (Samuelowicz, 1987: 124). ‗Masked by language problems lie the much
73
deeper problems of adjusting to a new intellectual culture, a new way of thinking and of processing knowledge to meet the expectations inherent in the Anglo education system (Ballard, 1996: 150). This deficit approach to Chinese learners was criticized by Biggs (1997) as ‗conceptual colonialism‘, which means Western academics take their own limited teaching and learning experiences as standard paradigm and depreciate other ways of learning as deficits or deviations by arguing that Chinese-speaking students are successful in their overseas learning and even outperform their western counterparts (Biggs, 1996; Kember, 1996). But, such research does not provide convincing evidence that Chinese students outperform their western counterparts in analytical and critical thinking (see Section 3.2.1 about the paradox of the Chinese learner). On the contrary, their outperforming may well challenge Western academic assessment system which boasts its critical thinking. Chinese students‘ disengagement with critical approach to learning is usually explained from a cultural perspective, that is, for fear of destroying social harmony (Carson & Nelson, 1996; Durkins, 2004, 2008; Turner, 2006). But Jones‘ (2005) findings showed that Chinese speaking students were no more reluctant to engage in critical thinking than their local peers as defined by the task. The similarities between these Chinese students and Australian students‘ perceptions of the critical thinking task suggest that ‗despite it being a new learning experience, these international students were adept at determining what the task involved‘ (Jones, 2005: 351). Hence, it is teaching context, rather than cultural background, that plays a vital role in shaping students‘ understanding the nature of critical thinking:
What teachers do, the way they teach and assess, their styles of thinking, and the ways in which the discipline is constituted by the teacher all have a powerful influence on the ways in which students approach their learning.
(Jones, 2005: 351) Therefore, the scaffolding provided in the first year will benefit all the students, for transition to tertiary education is an issue for all the students, international as well as
74
local (McInnis & James, 1994). However, research in the UK (Durkin, 2004; Turner, 2006) argues that even if the Chinese students engage in critical learning, these changes tend to be temporary and superficial.
These researchers advocate making explicit the cultural assumptions, biases and values of Western critical thinking so that the international students would not feel academically deficient or culturally compromised in engaging this approach (Egege & Kutieleh, 2004). But again, we need to realise that critical thinking is a high order cognitive skill as well as a cultural way of learning. To make a differentiation, Ennis (2000) states that critical thinking consists of a set of cognitive dispositions and abilities. Abilities, as the first level in the model above, refer to the cognitive skills, while dispositions emphasize the attitudes or inclinations of minds towards critical thinking. Smith (1992) also claims that critical thinking requires knowledge, authority, and a willingness to doubt. These distinctions will be useful to explain the data of this study, for it shows concerns about both cognitive abilities and social-affective interpersonal relations and socio-cultural appropriacy of engaging critical thinking.
Assessment
Dahlin, Watkins and Ekholm (2001) state there are two different views on the relation between assessment and learning, an external or an internal relation. By an external relation, the assessment is an external device to measure, check and control the students‘ learning; internal relation, on the other hand, view assessment as ‗a learning experience in its own right. 15. In terms of the relation between assessment and learning, Chinese learning culture features the external relation between the two. Assessment mainly takes the form of closed-book examination where definitions of concepts, multiple choice, and norm-referenced short answer questions are the main
15
Between these two types of conceptions, there is a third view that ‗basic knowledge‘ is seen as something students have to acquire or internalise before more sophisticated learning strategies can be usefully applied. To show their disapproval, they called this point of view ‗double-tongued‘ (Dahlin, et al., 2001: 69). But this view is rather prevalent in Chinese mind, both in folk pedagogy theories and formal education systems.
75
testing items to measure and check students‘ achievements or learning outcome. Western assessment is assumed to focus on students‘ independent thinking and problem solving skills, which are new to students from CHC countries who are used to ‗being assessed by tests and examinations that are based on the lessons or texts covered in class, rather than from a variety of sources. The teacher and textbook are seen as the prime authorities and therefore New Zealand teaching modes violate Asian students‘ expectation (Li, et al., 2002: 10). Considered as a most effective way of learning, writing essays is the major method of assessment in Western tertiary institutions, intending to encourage students to adopt deeper strategies —‗understanding, reflecting, interpreting, analysing, and relating‘ (Dahlin, et al., 2001: 69).
The students in Li‘ et al. (2002) felt uncertain whether the answers they provided were appropriate or not due to the fact that the assessment criteria were not clear to them. This uncertainty confronted by international students and the implicitness about assessment criteria both in Western academics‘ expectation and in academic discourse have been noted by international educationalists. They have come to realise that ‗the hidden codes or ‗prompts‘ contained in the assessment task are often only apparent to students familiar with the academic discourse‘ (Ryan, 2005: 99) and called for a more explicit approach to teaching international students (Turner, 2006). Though most research points out Chinese students are not proficient in the skills of writing for Western criteria, studies also show that students benefit and value the explicit, constructive and encouraging comment or the written feedback on their essays (Cronin & Sparrow, 1999, cited in McLean & Ransom, 2005).
Dahlin, et al.‘s (2001) study also emphasises the ‗backwash effect‘, referring to the phenomenon of influence of assessment forms on learning strategies (Crooks, 1988; Biggs, 1995; Watkins & Biggs, 2001). Elton and Laurillard once claimed that ‗the quickest way to change student learning is to change the assessment system‘ (1979: 100). Therefore, in view of the directive force of ‗backwash effect‘ of assessment, we
76
have good reasons to expect Chinese students, with strong achieving motivation (Biggs, 1987) to be successful academically as reviewed in earlier sections, will adjust their learning approaches responsively to meet the requirements of the new assessment modes, an issue which will appear in later chapters.
Cultural perspective on plagiarism
The issue of plagiarism is another frequent theme related to overseas CHC students, and it is perceived more from a cultural perspective than an academic one in recent literature (see Jiang & Zhang, 2001; Jin & Cortazzi, 2006). Holmes (2004) identifies three key reasons why Chinese students might plagiarize: a) cultural differences in the attitude to knowledge; b) a mismatch between the educational experiences of students who are new to the learning environment and teachers who may not be making explicit the expectations of learning tasks and the academic rules that accompany them; and c) the unfamiliarity associated with working in the discourse of a specialized language or in another language. With respect to this third factor, students may favour a strategy that closely approximates the words and ideas of the source, a strategy that risks unintentional plagiarism. Biggs and Watkins (1996) also point out that CHC students may often feel their own paraphrasing to be quite inadequate in English, especially when they have not mastered the language.
Pickering, viewing cultural differences as a part of the plagiarism issue, explains that plagiarism and intellectual property-rights have been of only low priority in Chinese universities until recently (Pickering, 2004, cited in Ho, Holmes and Cooper, 2004: 36). Jin & Cortazzi (2006) also note that some Chinese students will encounter issues in acknowledging sources and giving references in writing, because individual authorship, origination and originality, ownership and plagiarism are given less attention in the Chinese context. As a part of solution to the issue, Pickering (2004) suggests a ‗cultural approach‘ for educators to explore students‘ values and beliefs in dealing with plagiarism. For instance, Chinese students who value honour and respect of teachers and authority could be shown how disrespectful plagiarism is to authors
77
and teachers.
Jiang and Zhang (2001) did a general survey in the University of Luton, UK, about students‘ perceptions of plagiarism. Despite the small sample, Chinese students‘ perceptions of the four chosen scenarios were significantly different from those of their British counterparts and other international students‘ as well. Chinese students tend not to consider translated work as plagiarism and work produced from memory tends to be considered as the learner‘s own knowledge.
From a developmental perspective, drawing upon the experiences of 10 Chinese students on a pre-sessional course and subsequently their postgraduate studies, Gu & Brooks (2008) investigated the change in these students‘ perceptions of plagiarism when studying in a British academic context over time. Recognizing that perceptions of plagiarism are culturally conditioned, they argue for a holistic and developmental perspective to understand the dynamic nature of this change of perception in a cross-cultural context and a culturally sensitive stance in teaching notions of ownership of ideas to students from different learning cultures. Their findings also provide evidence supporting Howard‘s (1993; 1999) assertion that ‗patchwriting‘ —copying small pieces of another‘s writing—‗is one of a series of developmental stages that (all) writers pass through‘ (Gu & Brooks, 2008: 347).
Similarly, ‗plagiphrasing,‘ one of the four stages of development in students‘ writing (Wilson, 1997, cited in Schmitt, 2005: 69)16, is taken as a legitimate way of learning or a learning strategy, and an important stage on the way to developing the appropriate academic writing style. It demonstrates that students are beginning to speak with their own voices, so this hybridized style should not be suppressed or condemned.
Finally, in contrast to the cultural approach to plagiarism, some scholars argue that cultural conditioning is not the major culprit for plagiarism (Liu, 2005; Phan, 2006) — ‗it is much too easy to attribute the differences observed in Chinese students to the
16
These four stages are: repetition, which involves extensive copying without citation; patching, which also involves extensive copying but with appropriate citations; plagiphrasing, in which students blend copied sections, quotations, paraphrases, and their own words; and conventional academic writing.
78
consequences of Confucian heritage culture‘ (Gu & Brooks, 2008: 340). Though perceptions of what constitutes plagiarism are not the same across cultures, CHC students‘ propensity to cheat is not supported empirically. On the contrary, CHC methods of learning are less likely to lead to cheating behaviour (Brennan & Durovic, 2005). Learning and writing in a new language and other contingent factors, such as constraint of time, may also contribute to plagiaristic behaviour, as shown in the ‗shadowed data‘ 17
of this thesis.