Recapitulando la batalla de Sacramento: hacia una interpretación del paisaje

International students’ learning is mediated and shaped by their own cultural scripts for learning, which affects how students view their and others’ roles, and expected behaviours (Welikala, 2013). Block (2007) describes that when participants attend classes at universities abroad, they find that the experience is very different from what they have been accustomed to back home; they are learning not only about the content of their course, but also about the local educational and cultural norms. Correspondent with the disputed theoretical discussion of the conceptualisations of culture, there have been very different opinions in the literature about the impact of cultural influences on international students’ learning and classroom experiences. The first trend of research reflects the essentialist view of culture and attempts to summarise different dimensions of cultural norms and interpret how they may influence students’ learning or cause difficulties and conflicts. This is a prevailing explanatory factor for students’ and instructors’ interaction patterns and the interpretation of their perceptions of classroom participation (Dippold, 2015). By contrast, taking the critical and

27

constructivist view, the second group of studies recognises the changes in cultures and see learning as a social and interactive process. They challenge the notion of culture as providing a unified description of international students’ characteristics or as the determining factor behind their participation difficulties.

The prevalent discussion in the first strand of studies is to compare the East and the West, contrasting Confucian philosophy with Western ideologies. For example, Tweed and Lehman (2002) describe that in many Western cultural contexts, learning and classroom activities are grounded in Socratic tradition. By contrast, East Asia is more influenced by Confucian ideologies. Ballard and Clanchy (1991, p. 34) distinguish “fundamentally differing cultural approaches to knowledge and education” and they come up with the concepts of the “reproductive approach to learning” and the “ultimately speculative approach” to refer to the memorisation learning styles of Asian countries as opposed to the critical method of the West. Exploring Chinese students’ unwillingness to use English in conversations, Wen and Clément (2003) argue that the issue is rooted in Confucian philosophy in terms of the social nature of self and traditional teaching customs of Confucian ideologies: great respect for the teacher as knowledge transmitter, rote learning and uncritical acceptance of information. Carson and Nelson (1994) apply a collectivism cultural framework to explain why Japanese and Chinese students struggle to do group work in ESL writing, pointing out that it is supposed to be inappropriate to make critical comments on others’ writing, as this may disrupt the harmony of the group. Through differentiating Western and non-Western cultural dimensions of learning, the existing studies tend to emphasise the dominance and supremacy of the Western educational philosophies, leading to the stereotypes of international students (Ryan and Louie,2007).

In addition to distinguishing Eastern from Western cultural learning theories, the first trend of studies tends to apply a priori cultural dimensions to interpret teaching and learning practices. For example, Parrish and Linder-Vanberschot

28

(2010) compile a learning framework to describe the spectrum of cultural differences, citing eight dimensions: equality and authority, individualism and collectivism, nurture and challenge, stability seeking and uncertainty acceptance, logic argumentation and being reasonable, causality and complex systems, clock time and event time, and linear time and cyclical time. Under the theoretical framework of cultural individualism and collectivism, Lee (2007) carries out a survey among 131 East-Asian students at a US university to test the influence of language and culture on students’ participation. There is an underlying assumption that there are uniform distinctions between individualism and collectivism. Applying the concept of learning style differences, De Vita (2001) investigates the ineffectiveness of traditional methods of instruction among students of different backgrounds. De Vita’s research assumes that students from different cultures would have different approaches to learning and overlooks the contextual factors. By contrast, the other group of studies recognises the changes in educational cultures and sees learning as a social and interactive process. The second strand of studies problematises the application of linear and neat categories of different learning theories or cultural framework to explain students’ learning activities. Shi (2006) argues that Confucianism is a multidimensional concept and it is deterministic to single out one of the claims to explain all phenomena. She presents that students in a Shanghai suburb express their preference for having equality with the teacher, are critical of teachers’ knowledge and welcome interactive classroom activities, all of which contradicts the traditional understanding of Confucian doctrine. Marlina (2009) concurs with Shi’s view and argues that Confucianism has changed from 770 BC to 21st _{century to meet new}

political and social demands. Thus, application of traditional and partial understandings of Confucian ideology to interpret current education issues is accompanied by the risk of overgeneralisation and bias. Welikala and Watkins (2008) reveal that students from different cultures reflect diverse cultural scripts, as they do not leave their learning habits at home. Instead, they regard learning

29

in the new environment as a negotiation between their previous learning habits and those of the new learning environment. They summarise three main activities: talking, writing and reading; and they identify three different relationships of learning: peer-interaction, the teacher’s role and status, and participation in sessions, as presented in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1 Cultural scripts for learning (Welikala & Watkins, 2008)

Instead of prescribing cultural dimensions of learning, this framework provides reference to relevant activities and relationships to investigate within the process of learning. With the development of educational and sociocultural theories, researchers should be more aware of developments and changes in society and education. Following the framework of cultural scripts for learning, this study takes a close look at those aspects as presented in Figure 3-1 to explore international students’ negotiation of learning in the new context of intercultural classrooms.