Participating and interacting

The reality that the dialectic culture of teaching dominates the classroom discourse at the host institution figured prominently in this study. According to Ho et al. (2004, p. 7), the complete authority of the teacher and transmission of knowledge are celebrated in the dialectic classroom. However, the reactions of international students who come from individualist cultures that favour a dialogic approach to teaching which tends to be more student-centred and to emphasise interaction and the social construct of knowledge are more likely to be sceptical when they encounter more rigid spoon-feeding methods of teaching.

More ‘reading’ than ‘speaking’

The interactive and communicative approach that underpins the pedagogy across the Western world gives priority to students’ involvement within classroom activity, which, to some extent, explains the participants’ preference for verbal participation and practices in the language classroom:

Maybe one thing I would say about our classes which haven’t met my expectations would be, in our oral classes, there should be a lot of speaking, should be conversations in our lesson, but a lot are still reading, just reading out the texts, so we get an essay, you have to read aloud, we have some conversation practices, a little bit, but not enough. Because I would expect that

maybe we have a debate and a discussion in class, just more conversation, more actual speaking. (Struan)

As far as this point is concerned, a common perception amongst the participants was that the teachers tend to take ‘teaching by reading’ for granted, imparting textbook knowledge without debate and argument. In this regard, Michelle had had a similar experience to Struan:

There is no discussion, it’s just we read that article, and she then explains the article, there is no argument or debate about the article, whether we think the article is right. It would help as well if the teachers seem to check that we knew what was going on, that we understood what we were taught, something like that in class, but she just taught us, and didn’t question or test us. (Michelle)

Research elsewhere has shown that the Chinese education system does not emphasise study skills, and, therefore, that Chinese students tend to be weaker at skills such as critical analysis, oral presentation, and problem solving (Davey & Higgins, 2005; Davey & Yuenong, 2005). Here, Michelle’s account seems to imply a perceived paradox of the Confucian-Western dichotomy. This paradox indicates a contradiction between rote learning and criticality. Rote learning features a teacher-dominated mode of teaching in which traditional pedagogical approaches like the grammar-translation method and audio-lingualism predominate. That mode offers teachers maximum planning, control, and opportunities to transmit knowledge and this mode is favoured by most Chinese teachers, and was, according to students’ reports, the style of teaching that was used in their classrooms at University X. However, this style of teaching was apparently alien to most of the international participants, as it did not accord with their inherited reference frame which conceived of both communication and interaction as effective learning channels and desirable skills to acquire. Discussion of the differences in these two approaches to teaching and learning usually triggered the participants’ reflection upon different cultural practices and values around learning and teaching strategies:

Because a lot of the times in the classroom, the teachers will read the vocabulary, but I don’t really feel like they are teaching us, so I would have to preview all the text and lessons, and look up all the words that I don’t know in the readings by myself first, and then do it earlier than what my teacher will teach it in order to catch up with the way they were teaching. So, it’s sort of like I am already teaching myself anyway, but I just need maybe a one-on-one tutor or something to fix my pronunciation, or explain why something is said in a certain way. (Marilyn)

This finding provides evidence to support a previous report that disclosed the deficiencies in the current Chinese education system when it made special reference to “too much reading aloud and individual reading by students” without sufficient teacher explanation and practice which may result in students’ poor reading and comprehension abilities (Beijing Report, 2006, pp. 79-

80). In this regard, some participants stated their belief that oral practice was not essential in Chinese learning culture, and, explicitly, that expressing one’s ideas was not encouraged either:

But the method of learning is…we have our textbook, and the focus is getting through the textbook, reading and finishing the textbook. So, the teacher always says we now have no time for speaking because we are going to read these new words, it would be better to make along the words from the book, but I am not sure reading at text is that an important issue, speaking and actually using the words is not. (Struan)

According to Struan, the best way to learn a language or new words is actually to use it/them, but what he found frustrating in terms of talking to a Chinese person was that he did not actually know how to use the words he had learned as a result of insufficient communication practice in class. In Chinese learning culture, class time is too precious to be wasted on an individual’s idiosyncratic understanding of an issue, and precious class time should be effectively used for the teacher to deliver structured knowledge. However, such an environment seems incompatible with what Davies and Ecclestone (2008) defined as a learning culture celebrated across Western countries. That culture features a complex environment made up of the interplay of teachers, learning tasks, students, and their backgrounds. Rather than emphasising courses or programmes, this approach foregrounds the significance of the interactions and practices that take place within this culture.

Limits of textbook knowledge

In addition to noting what they saw as excessive emphasis on reading and transmission of textbook knowledge that downplays the importance of interaction and students’ participation, the interviewees also consistently criticised the textbooks, which were inadequate in meeting the international students’ intercultural communication needs outside the classroom. To varying degrees, some of the participants thought that the textbooks did not assist their daily interaction with locals sufficiently. In the interviews the participants tended to use words such as ‘outdated’, ‘lagged behind’ and ‘not useful’ to describe their perceptions of the textbooks, as exemplified in the following accounts:

In addition, our textbooks are very outdated, because I think the Chinese language has changed a lot; we can study all the grammar points, and it’s still never to understand what Chinese people say in their everyday life. There is still disparity between the modern Chinese language and the language in the textbook, which seems to be 10 years [lagged] behind. (Matthew)

Some of the books are not updated, as my friend in the intermediate course says they’re still using a really old book being published 10 years ago or

something, some really outdated words that you wouldn’t use in everyday life now. (Marilyn)

The above accounts suggest that the international participants cast doubt on the practicality of the textbook they used in class in terms of its connectedness to and facilitation of daily conversation outside the classroom. In support of such a viewpoint, George gave a detailed interpretation:

But in general, you know Chinese is about a lot more than that, it is not just the words you have learned recently, it is not just the grammar you have learned recently. Again I understand that they want to include those things, that I feel like if you stick too rigidly to the textbook, it is not a very original, it means that… you should encourage people to try and learn Chinese outside of the textbook, because the textbook, for example, the Chinese there it can be a bit outdated, it can be a bit…you know that the Chinese you read in the textbook, it’s not necessarily how you would speak to your friends or to other people of your age. (George)

According to Hutchinson and Torres (1994), textbooks are not just classroom materials packaged in a particular format. Rather, they provide a structure for the management of the lesson as a social interaction and a basis for negotiation between all the relevant parties. Generally speaking, learners get used to taking the textbook as a 'framework' or 'guide' that helps them to organise their learning both inside and outside the classroom. However, the finding of this study seems to cast doubt on the ability of textbook knowledge to reinforce international participants’ intercultural communication outside the classroom.