Teaching and learning of Chinese students in the UK

Abstract

Education partnerships between the United Kingdom (UK) and China continue to evolve. It is worthwhile reflecting on how teaching and learning of Chinese students in the UK has been functioning, and how it can be improved. This study focuses on short-term continuing professional development (CPD) courses taken by professional student cohorts from China in British Higher Education, and explores the application of constructivist learning approaches in regard to teaching and learning. This study suggests three forms of teaching adaptations as a response to- and accommodation of the short duration of the training programs, the seniority of the delegates, and the delegations’ expectations to learn fixed knowledge. Despite teachers’ willingness to adapt and acculturate CPD courses, divergent educational cultures influence the teaching process and students’ learning and experiences. The changing student body in UK Higher Education calls for more university-level attention and sharing of effective practices.

Keywords

British higher education continuing professional development Chinese students constructivist learning theory reflective practice

Introduction

Education partnerships between the United Kingdom (UK) and China continue to evolve. These consists of the typical Bachelor and Master Degree Programs, as well as bilateral and multilateral education collaboration frameworks (British Council, 2019; Daes, 2019). Following the author’s view that international education creates intercultural understanding, a condition that will foster a more peaceful world, it is worthwhile reflecting on how teaching and learning of Chinese students in the UK has been functioning, and how it can be improved. This paper contributes to ongoing debates about intercultural educational experiences of Chinese and Asian students in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Denmark (Jæger & Gram, 2020; Jin et al., 2020; Li & Campbell, 2008), and the nature and practice of professional development in education. As such, this paper reflects on the author’s teaching experiences (Social Sciences) with Chinese students in British Higher Education (UK HE) in 2019 and focuses on teaching and learning (not the program content itself).

In the context of bilateral partnerships, this study focuses on short-term continuing professional development (CPD) courses taken by professional student cohorts from China in British Higher Education (HE). This paper asks the following research questions: What types of teaching adaptations lead to better outcomes for learning needs of Chinese professionals on short-term CPD courses in British HE? And, are constructivist learning approaches in these training programs culturally relevant and meaningful?

While recognizing the ambiguity of the concept (Friedman & Phillips, 2004), CPD is explained by one professional association as ‘the learning activities professionals engage in to develop and enhance their abilities. It enables learning to become conscious and proactive, rather than passive and reactive’ (The CPD Certification Service, 2019). The delivery of such CPD courses provides an important source of income for HE institutions (Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), 2019c; Universities UK, 2018). Aside of the economic justifications to offer CPD courses, I argue that short-term educational courses provide a fruitful and innovative method to enhance intercultural understanding, and aid a more inclusive and cooperative world.

Constructivist learning theory, the recommended approach for CPD courses (Evidence for Policy & Practice Information & Co-ordinating Centre, 2003; Friedman et al., 2002), supports the learning of new knowledge by drawing on real experiences. The constructivism learning theory supports problem-based and inquiry-based learning approaches (Kay & Kibble, 2016). The constructivist approach, or in different words ‘“[s]tudent centredness” and “active learning” are often used more or less interchangeably in western educational discourse’ (Edwards & Li, 2011, p. 8; Michael, 2006).

In comparison, teaching practices in China tend to be shaped by ‘teacher-fronted, knowledge-dominated, and expository approach’ (Hu, 2005, p. 673; Paine, 1990). Some scholars have assessed the challenges of using constructivist learning approaches in China in unaltered ways. Zhao and Coombs (2012) observed in their teaching practice in China that ‘[w]hile these pedagogical strategies have become familiar in most universities in the English-speaking world, this is not the case in China, and understandably creates potential social and cultural tension in learning and teaching situations’ (p. 251).

Naturally, teaching styles evolve, including in educational environments in China. In fact, China is undergoing a shift from ‘traditional’ (that is a transmission approach, didactic teaching) to ‘modern’ teaching styles (Tan, 2017). Tan (2017) describes a pedagogical reform in China which promotes student-centered learning and aims at quality-oriented education (instead of an exam-oriented paradigm). However, there are significant challenges that Chinese educators who use constructivist views and logics experience in the Mainland, including that it will ‘undermine content mastery in China’, that there is the ‘perceived incompatibility between constructivism and the transmission approach’, and that there is a ‘misalignment between constructivism and the prevailing assessment system in China’ (Tan, 2017, pp. 242–243).

Therefore, while constructivist views are being introduced in Chinese curricula, the socio-cultural context presents challenges to a successful implementation. In comparison, the constructivist learning style is more actively implemented in UK HE due to current views of knowledge (which favors subjective and inter-subjective, instead of objective knowledge in the Social Sciences) and different assessment systems. Considering the growing cohort of Chinese students, and specifically, government officials on CPD courses in UK HE, more research is needed to understand potential barriers to teaching and learning that arises for international students – in this case Chinese professionals – who are faced with constructivist learning approaches during CPD courses in UK HE.

The experience of foreign government officials on CPD courses in British HE is under-researched. Most of the literature on Chinese students in UK HE is based on Bachelor and Master Degree programs, and differentiate student enrolment between first year and other years (HESA, 2019b). There are some studies that assess government officials on study abroad programs, but these are not focused on Chinese officials, British HE or CPD courses. For instance, Noda and Kim (2014) have examined the learning experiences of Japanese government officials on continuing professional education programs, mainly Master degrees, in domestic and overseas universities.

This study addresses this gap by considering the application of constructivist learning approaches in CPD courses for Chinese officials, and challenges that impede learning and teaching. Of specific interest here is the accreditation of a post-1992 university in Scotland to deliver CPD courses in a wide array of subjects (University of the West of Scotland, 2018). The accreditation by the China’s State Administration for Foreign Expert Affairs requires the partner university to organize overseas training for Chinese government officials. Contribution to this program in 2019 led to this paper.

The reflection focuses on three important elements influencing the success of the CPD courses: 1) nurturing of a positive learning environment for Chinese students; 2) assimilating diverse power relations in education; and 3) accommodating knowledge-gathering expectations. This study suggests three types of teaching adaptations, which can accommodate the short duration of the training programs, the seniority of the delegates, and the delegations’ expectations to learn fixed (objectivist) knowledge. The teaching adaptations are discussed from the perspective of culturally relevant and meaningful learning.

This study makes a conceptual contribution that enhances the debate on the nature and practice of continuing professional development in the UK from an intercultural educational perspective. As such, it seeks to improve international educational experiences of Chinese students in the UK. The core lesson put forward in the article is that constructivist learning approaches in the CPD training programs could be culturally relevant and meaningful if teaching about different teaching and learning styles become part of the short-term curriculum. In addition, the paper makes a contribution to the existing scholarship on overseas Chinese Students in British HE. This body of research is discussed next.

Overseas Chinese students in the UK

The UK attracts increasing numbers of Chinese students in HE contexts. The HESA (2019a) in the UK reports a startling number that ‘31% of first year non-UK domiciled students come from China’. Student enrolments in 2016/17 from non-European Union countries of domicile are led by China, and this number is increasing, as it is in 2016/17 already 14% higher than in 2012/13 (HESA, 2019b). The increase of Chinese overseas students coincides with other increasing (that is Hong Kong) and decreasing student bodies (Nigeria and India), although these student groups are smaller in scope. New immigration actions by the UK Government, such as the 2-year post-study work visa for international students, might further boost the number of Chinese students (Gov.UK, 2019). Although, at present, study plans by Chinese might be postponed or cancelled (Baker, 2020).

The increase of Chinese students in HE in the UK has received significant academic attention. This scholarly attention is part of the bigger discussion about international students in the UK (Choudaha, 2017). Based on the research that has been conducted so far, there are several barriers to learning for Chinese students.

Literature on Chinese students in UK HE explained that some of the barriers arise from insufficient international content and access to mobility programs (Cheng et al., 2018). Thus, the ability to pursue a work placement is considered as an important factor for the academic success of Chinese students (Crawford & Wang, 2015). Chinese students’ success is also linked to English language proficiency (Daller & Xue, 2009). Cultural differences in delivering student feedback are identified as another cause for student distress (Tian & Lowe, 2013).

Another barrier is acculturation, referring to the cultural adaptation of Chinese students to a UK HE context (Cross & Hitchcock, 2007; Gu, 2009; Gu & Maley, 2008; Spencer-Oatey & Xiong, 2006; Wang et al., 2012; Wong, 2004; Zhou et al., 2008; Zhou & Todman, 2008). Many of these articles speak against the stereotype of the ‘Chinese learner’, by emphasizing the myriad processes of acculturation to the UK context and student’s sense of ‘self’ (Clark & Gieve, 2006). The barrier to learning is thus insufficient reflective practice of teachers to differentiate between Chinese students. This also arises from incorrect assumptions about plagiarism by Chinese students (Ballantine et al., 2018; Ehrich et al., 2016; Martin, 2012).

This study adds to the literature on Chinese students in UK HE by investigating the learning of Social Sciences subjects, which has not been studied as widely. As of 2014, Chinese students have been primarily enrolled in science, engineering and business degrees, and they are mostly securing places at Russell Group Universities (Iannelli & Huang, 2014). In terms of this student enrolment, Chinese students on business degrees receive more attention in the scholarship than other degrees (for example, Turner, 2006).

Literature on Chinese students in the United States HE brings to the surface many similar issues and arguments. For instance, analyses focus on international study experiences (Heng, 2017), and the inaccuracy of Chinese students’ stereotypes (Heng, 2018). A notable departure from the UK context is the examination on identity formation of Chinese students in US Universities, following the tense China-US relations (Zhao, 2019). These relations differ from the UK and China context, which are assumable strong (Gov.UK, n.d.).

There are various methodologies offered by academics to overcome different education cultures and behaviors. In fact, many of these aforementioned articles provide practical advice for teachers in UK HE. This paper seeks to extend this approach by identifying challenges of applying constructivist learning approaches in teaching CPD courses that attract Chinese government officials, and by suggesting teaching adaptations. The section below clarifies the conceptual framework of constructivism learning theory.

Conceptual framework: Constructivism learning theory

Constructivism learning theory, the recommended approach for CPD, elicits student engagement and enables student ownership of learning. Kay and Kibble (2016) explain and contrast the constructivism learning theory as follow: ‘Previous instructional strategies wherein the teacher was the most active agent in the learning process shifted to student-centered instruction designed to actively engage the student in constructing personal knowledge’, and teachers adopting this theory ‘design instruction to encourage student ownership of the learning process’ (p. 21). The teacher’s role is to facilitate student learning by providing the tools and resources necessary to this process (Kay & Kibble, 2016).

Prosser and Trigwell (2014) identified two forms of student approaches: 1) ‘Student-focused, student activity with the intention of students developing their own conceptions’, and 2) ‘Student-focused, student activity with the intention of students changing their conceptions’ (p. 786). The second process is more transformational, in the sense that it encourages students to develop their understanding, while also encouraging alternative views, and new ways of knowing the world. This emphasis on student ownership of the learning process corresponds with the principles of the constructivism learning theory.

The benefits of student ownership are manifold: ‘persons are able to learn what is relevant for them in ways that are appropriate’ [and] ‘waste in human and educational resources is reduced as it suggested learners no longer have to learn what they already know or can do, nor what they are uninterested in’ (Edwards, 2001, p. 37). O’Neill and McMahon (2005) describe the change to student-centered learning because of the ‘changing demographics of the student population and the more consumer/client–centred culture in today’s society’ (p. 37).

Despite the benefits of student-centred learning, teachers following the constructivism learning theory face some challenges. Of particular concern, as described in this paper, is the notion that student-centred learning is viewed ‘as a Western approach to learning and may not necessarily transfer to the developing countries’ (O’Neill & McMahon, 2005, p. 36; based on O’Sullivan, 2004). Student-centred learning involves students taking ownership of their learning, with lecturers facilitating the process. The constructivist learning approach is not necessarily fit for purpose for every student cohort. This then requires ‘the development of inter-cultural understandings’ (Bodycott & Walker, 2000, p. 81), critical reflection on teaching practices, and the need to adapt constructivist approaches to meet learning needs.

Method: Critical reflection teaching practice

The critical reflection set forth in this paper considers the teaching programs that I delivered to Chinese delegations in 2019. The morning sessions consisted of a lecture, whilst the afternoon sessions involved an interactive workshop using case-studies. Each delegation was comprised of 15 to 20 participants guided by a (senior) group leader. A rotation of qualified translators supported the delivery of the training programs. A comprehensive translation of the program content was delivered on the spot. The delegations came from different places in China, including Shenzhen, Zhejiang, Jinan and Jiangsu. Each of the groups stayed in Scotland and England approximately two to three weeks to undertake several courses and training sessions.

During their stay, the delegations were exposed to a variety of learning opportunities including classroom sessions, as well as visits to organizations in the private and public sector. I only reflect on the learning processes in the classroom. The training objectives were based on the learning needs of the attendees. The topics discussed in the classroom ranged from smart government system, urban image enhancement, flood risk management and press-release systems. The CPD courses that I delivered examined these topics from a communication perspective, and considered practices both in China and the UK. This approach allowed me to teach relevant program content, and to build on my research expertise, thus strengthening the research-teaching nexus (McLinden et al., 2015).

The critical reflection approach was adopted to assess my own teaching practice because it is a ‘tool for creating culturally relevant teaching practices’ (Dewey, 1933; Howard, 2003, p. 195). Following the changing demographics of the traditional classroom in Anglo-Saxon Universities, Howard (2003) argues that ‘teachers must be able to construct pedagogical practices that have relevance and meaning to students’ social and cultural realities’ (p. 195; see also Turner, 2006). Critical reflection encourages teachers to consider the ‘moral, political, and ethical contexts of teaching’ (Howard, 2003, p. 197), as well as the value of diverse backgrounds for learning.

Critical reflection is considered useful for ‘improving practice, rethinking philosophies, and becoming effective teachers for today’s ever-changing student population’ (ÅKerlind, 2003; Howard, 2003, p. 201). Moreover, critical reflection supports effective change in terms of adapting teaching approaches to coincide with changing student cohorts (Smyth, 1992; Yost et al., 2000). The critical reflection approach aligns well with the constructivism learning theory as it privileges the examination of learning processes, as well as ontologies of ‘becoming’ for both student and teacher (Giddens, 1991; Halse, 2011).

The intended purpose of the critical reflection is to provide some useful insights into the adoption of constructivist learning approaches in CPD training programs with Chinese professionals, and ultimately, to contribute to university-led discussions on improving intercultural educational experiences. A personal reflection on teaching can be of value for other educators dealing with similar issues (see also Lou, 2013). Specifically, the article highlights one lesson that the author believes to be at the core of improving intercultural educational experiences. It is believed that constructivist learning approaches in the CPD training programs could be culturally relevant and meaningful if teaching about different teaching and learning styles become part of the short-term curriculum. Altogether, the author hopes for a fluent connection between reflection and action (Mälkki & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012).

The reflection is guided by the question of whether constructivist learning approaches in these training programs are culturally relevant and meaningful. Specifically, the reflection focused on what it meant to nurture a positive learning environment for government officials, assimilate diverse power relations in education, and accommodate knowledge expectations.

Results

Nurturing a positive learning environment for government officials

To nurture a learning environment for Chinese government officials that is culturally relevant and meaningful is challenging when there is lack of prior knowledge about the group, though this cannot always be avoided. The classification of ‘Chinese officials who are on CPD courses in the UK’ as an all-encompassing group is, of course, incorrect. The groups varied in terms of the delegates’ age, gender, seniority and profession. The attendees consisted of senior engineers, human resource personnel and media staff, thus bringing to the class a wide array of work experiences and educational expectations.

The work experience of the government officials produced content-informed discussions. Coinciding with Bodycott and Walker’s (2000) observations, ‘the planned use of shared experiences, related to specific contexts and topics, in a classroom environment where course content and delivery takes into account learner characteristics and needs’ (p. 86) proved very successful. Relating program content with the officials’ experiences achieved more engagement.

The officials were encouraged to engage in peer and class debates. A specific approach that worked in class involved the provision of a set of specific instructions to structure the workshop, and subsequently, a hands-of approach (see also Chan, 1999). Silences were filled-in quickly by the officials, when the ‘gaze’ between teacher and the delegates was disrupted. Moreover, silences were often a signal of reflection and thinking (Sit, 2013).

The training programs were not leading to any form of assessment, thus the aforementioned literature about the behavior and success of Chinese students seem to be unrelated. However, even though formal assessment was not applicable, there might have been internal assessments at work on a group level that I was not aware of (for instance, participation resulting in promotion). Moreover, the officials expected feedback to their workshop contributions, thus, validation of their personal class contributions was important.

Student-centered learning processes are normally nurtured over a period of time, often spanning between an eight-week term and the duration of a semester. For single-day sessions, additional teaching strategies have to be implemented to facilitate an environment conducive to learning. In building a connection with the students, I mentioned my research interest and visits to China. This helped to establish rapport with the government officials. However, the short duration of the programs impeded the literal application of constructivist learning approaches.

Assimilating diverse power relations in education

My experience in teaching comparative governance and public administration in Asian contexts shaped my prior assumptions of the officials’ behaviors and expectations, specifically with regards to hierarchy and leadership in government organizations (Cheung, 2011). This compelled me to ‘unlearn’ and be open-minded and wholehearted in my teaching, as well as to take responsibility in my teaching practice and teaching development (Dewey, 1933).

This does not mean that power relations in these delegations were necessarily ‘flat’ so to speak. Some behavior reinforced a culture of hierarchy, for instance, when the group leader spoke on behalf of the entire group. This process suggests some validity of the collectivist Chinese society and collaborative learning (Tang, 1996), and resembles observations of teaching Asian students abroad (Bodycott & Walker, 2000; Zhao et al., 2012). Hierarchy within the group influenced the openness and contribution of the officials, and collective expression was more the norm than individual expression was.

Power relations in the classroom were also shaped by the group’s composition. There were power relations between the officials that made up each delegation, and between the delegations and me (in the role of the teacher). The translation process also influenced the power relations in the classroom; the translators often took the liberty to translate knowledge not only verbatim, but also in agreement with Chinese culture and beliefs. I learned of this process directly from the translator and when the translation seemed much longer than my own verbal communication.

In terms of the group level, performances of hierarchy correlated with gender and age demographics as well as professional position. Delegations with senior staff invoked more hierarchy and power display in class. On several occasions, the power relations in the training programs were much more subtle. Delegations with a high number of women, especially younger women, created more debate and the presentation of different (but not competing) ideas. This confirmed Bodycott and Walker’s (2000) observation that ‘the more hierarchically homogeneous the group of students, the less the issue of hierarchy emerged’ (p. 88).

Accommodating knowledge expectations

Self-motivation is an important ingredient for student-centered learning. The Chinese delegations showed an abundance of this attribute; this then aided student ownership of the learning process. The officials’ being in the classroom was shaped by their mission to learn from best practices in the UK and academic expertise.

The type of teaching expertise expected from the lecturers and the training programs resembled academic consultancy. An eBook on academic consultancy explains the practice as involving ‘an individual working in their own capacity and using their expertise in a number of ways’, including by ‘providing expert insights’ and ‘analysis of and opinions on research, policies and practice’ (McLean & Rudd, n.d., p. 5).

The delegations’ desire for fixed answers in the context of applied learning was often not possible to fulfill. The delegates desired precise answers to their specific questions, and this sharpened with those delegates with engineering backgrounds. Unfortunately, this practice does not necessarily fit with a student-centered approach to learning, coincide with the scope of a teacher’s knowledge, or agree with Social Sciences teaching styles.

The delegations presented an active approach to knowledge inquiry, especially when teaching material was interesting or different to their own ideas and experiences. The short-term training programs, as of now, do not allow for the students – the delegates – to prepare material in advance. Similarly, teachers cannot prepare to the full extend fixed knowledge, which complicates the Chinese idea of teachers ‘as the fonts of all knowledge’ (Bodycott & Walker, 2000, p. 88). The want of certainty, as regards to knowledge, caused at times the impression that the program material was not complete.

Teaching suggestions

Based on this critical reflection of Chinese government officials on CPD courses in the UK HE, the author suggests three adaptations to constructivist approaches to teaching to meet the students’ learning needs (i.e. ‘bridging strategies’ for UK teachers, see Xiao, 2006, p. 3). Noticeably, there is no single best approach to successful student-centered learning processes when using the constructivist teaching style. Each suggested teaching adaptation to the constructivist learning approach places different demands on the teachers, and promote different types of learning. Moreover, these approaches vary in terms of delivering culturally relevant and meaningful programs. The variations affect the creation of a positive and inclusive learning environment for the Chinese officials, for dealing with power relations in education, and for accommodating knowledge expectations. Adaptations 1 and 2 remain student-centered, while adaptation 3 combines student-centered and teacher-centered learning.

Adaptation 1: This teaching approach is the least adapted to meet the students’ knowledge needs. The teacher promotes the learning of alternative knowledge, bringing about knowledge co-existence. The teaching material is culturally relevant for the UK but not necessarily translatable to other contexts. The teacher introduces the students to social practices in the UK, without making any form of international or bilateral comparison. Teacher’s inability or reluctance to provide fixed knowledge makes the class less meaningful to the government officials. The power relation between the teacher and students is flat.

The teaching facilitation in this adaptation promotes critical thinking conform a constructivist teaching learning approach. Debate is promoted and feedback is given to the students. The teacher restrains him/herself from critically reflecting on the group’s own knowledge and experiences. Instead, the teacher only raises questions about the UK situation. To achieve a learning environment that is culturally relevant and meaningful is challenging when students are only probed to reflect on the UK context. Nevertheless, in this way, the teacher can adopt the constructivist learning style without making the Chinese officials uncomfortable in class by reflecting on their own culturally embedded knowledge and ways of thinking.

Adaptation 2: This teaching approach is more adjusted than adaptation 1. The teacher fosters the co-creation of knowledge. This approach requires a much more active contribution from the students vis-à-vis the teachers, and culminates in the production of new knowledge. The teaching material is therefore more culturally relevant. However, teacher’s inability or reluctance to provide fixed knowledge makes the class still less meaningful to the government officials. The power relation between the teacher and students is flat.

Teaching facilitation seeks to bridge between educational practices in the UK and China in terms of the learning styles (meeting the students so to speak ‘half-way’). Bridging Western and Asian learning paradigms affect both ontological and epistemological assumptions. This teaching approach demands a careful balancing act from the teacher. All content should be weighted for validity and cultural sensitivity (d’Hooghe et al., 2018). The promotion of critical thinking should be part of the teaching, but the creation of a culturally sensitive classroom should override any uncomfortable situation. Students will develop their own conceptions (in the best-case scenario), but it will not be transformational, as in students changing their conceptions (Prosser & Trigwell, 2014).

Adaptation 3: This teaching approach is the most adapted to the students’ knowledge needs. The teacher delivers a form of academic consultancy. The teaching material contains evidence for best practices in the UK, and links are made with research/practices/policies in the Chinese context. The provision of fixed knowledge deviates from the critical thinking education model used in UK HE, but enhances student satisfaction in this case. The power relation between the teacher and students is less flat, with the teaching of fixed knowledge creating a form of hierarchy (e.g. knowledge hierarchy).

High student satisfaction (in this case by the Chinese officials) is highly important for a University’s national and international status in the political and the commercial sense, and offering a form of academic consultancy will contribute to this outcome. Adaptation 3 will contribute to a more culturally relevant and meaningful learning experience, which is taught in the students’ familiar learning style (didactic). The international exchange is then mainly dedicated to knowledge exchange, not introducing students to another learning style. This teaching adaptation produces potentially discomfort for teachers as it is inconsistent with the constructivist and critical thinking education model.

These three teaching adaptations will produce different student experiences and degrees of satisfaction. With each of the approaches, the teacher will be more or less confronted to adapt his or her teaching style and program content. Also, the demand to provide fixed knowledge is not always possible when teachers consider ideas to be socially constructed, and thus subject to interpretation and discussion. Not one of these approaches is necessarily perfect for both the students (the Chinese governments officials) and the teacher. The next part discusses these teaching adaptations in more detail.

Discussion

This paper asked the two questions: What types of teaching adaptations lead to better outcomes for learning needs of Chinese professionals on short-term CPD courses in British HE? And, are constructivist learning approaches in these training programs culturally relevant and meaningful? Of the three teaching adaptations, number 3 will potentially lead to better outcomes for the learning needs of Chinese professionals. Adaptation 3 expects the teacher to provide fixed knowledge about best practices in the UK, which are then translated to the Chinese context, delivered in the form of academic consultancy. However, this approach does not introduce students to another learning style which could be expected from an international exchange, and produces potentially uneasiness for teachers.

In searching for appropriate adaptations, it begs the question, ‘who should adapt to whom’ (Thompson, 1997)? This paper agrees with Tran (2011) who proposes ‘reciprocal adaptation’ from both students and staff (p. 80). It is believed that constructivist learning approaches in the CPD training programs could be culturally relevant and meaningful if teaching about different teaching and learning styles become part of the short-term curriculum. At the same time, the paper agrees with Bodycott and Walker (2000) who caution against the use of a single learning theory (p. 91), because other learning theories have value too. Recognizing culturally sensitive topics, and creating a culturally sensitive classroom is challenging when the teacher is not fully informed of another’s culture. Thus, teachers should also gain knowledge of their students’ culture of learning (Eaves, 2011; Xiao, 2006).

Misunderstanding or lack of familiarity with the constructivist learning approach might make foreign students uncomfortable and displeased with the teaching. Having said that, this teaching style is not unique to UK HE. Constructivist learning styles should not be replaced in the UK to circumvent a mismatch between teaching and learning styles because the constructivist approach is also being introduced in China (Bell, 2020; Tan, 2017). While some Chinese students might be unfamiliar with this learning style, a CPD course allows students to gain familiarity with it. Successful adaptation to different teaching styles has been observed elsewhere (Kennedy, 2002; Wong, 2004), which emphasizes the importance of nurturing a safe learning environment, and ‘well-informed teaching processes’ (Eaves, 2011, p. 687).

The transmission of fixed knowledge that is culturally-relevant and meaningful, offered through adaptation 3, might not be attainable for two reasons. First, Rogier Creemer explains how ‘official voices [in China] often claim that it is impossible for ‘foreigners’ or ‘the West’ to understand China’ (Creemers, 2015, p. 314). If that is the case, then the teaching material should be primarily UK focused, but knowledge needs of the students might not be met. Second, if the teacher normally applies a constructivist learning style, then the transmission of fixed or objectivist knowledge during CPD courses is unlikely. As Tan (2017) explains, ‘Constructivism as a theory of knowing presupposes that there is no fixed body of truths from the real world that are discovered by scholars, contained in textbooks, mastered by teachers and subsequently transmitted to the learners’ (p. 239). To enhance mutual cultural awareness, teachers should address the issue of fixed knowledge and make explicit why the co-creation of knowledge is of value to the learning process (leading to adaptation 2).

Achieving a positive and inclusive learning environment in a short period of time is challenging because each group of students is unique in terms of gender, age, and homogeneity between students (professional capacity). Also, the learning environment is shaped by the extent that a teacher can relate to the students (by gender, age, level of professional standing, cultural experiences). None of the three adaptations address the short period in which the CPD are delivered. However, for a positive and inclusive learning environment to be nurtured, teachers should try to link the content to students’ own experiences through peer and class discussions. This then reaffirms Xiao’s (2006) finding that ‘classroom materials and the topics for group discussion should be carefully selected to stimulate Chinese students’ interest and help them to express themselves freely without embarrassment when they make a mistake’ (p. 6). Discussing material that is culturally relevant and familiar will aid a positive and inclusive learning environment.

The 3 adaptations do not address power relations in the class satisfactorily for both teacher and students. A horizontal approach to power relations in the class, promoted in a constructivist learning approach, disagrees with Chinese observance of hierarchy and harmony. This observation accords with the literature: ‘Students owe respect to those who provide knowledge and the authority of teachers is such that only they – and not the students – should initiate interactions in class’ (Edwards & Li 2011, pp. 8; Biggs, 1994; Chan, 1999). This, then, makes adaptations 1 and 2 ineffective as another learning style is known and/or preferred. Adaptation 3 promotes power asymmetry through the performance of a knowledge hierarchy (e.g. the teacher transmits knowledge to the students). This can still be a problematic practice if it perceived by students as reproducing a hierarchy of cultures (i.e. Western knowledge more legitimate). Explicitly defining the role of the teacher as a mentor or a facilitator (conform a constructivist learning approach) at the start of a CPD course could contribute to a better relation between teacher and students (Ho & Crookall, 1995).

Part of the issue of using constructivist learning approaches in CPD courses in UK HE is the marketing and sales of CPD courses; are international training courses ‘sold’ because of their content? Or, do these courses present opportunities for students to gain an intercultural educational experience that encompasses a different teaching style? Also, is it purposeful if students learn and reflect on different teaching and learning styles in short-term courses? Moreover, to what extent is critical reflection by teachers of different teaching styles encouraged, and put into action in ensuing CPD courses? It is argued that engagement in these type of questions on a university-level would benefit the delivery of the teaching and enhance the quality of student experiences of CPD courses.

Conclusion

One significant message for teachers in the UK HE from this critical reflection is that the short duration of training programs, the seniority of delegates, and the expectation to learn fixed knowledge make specific demands on educational practices. Despite teachers’ willingness to adapt and acculturate CPD courses to the specific contexts, divergent educational cultures influence the teaching process and students’ learning and educational experiences. It is therefore believed that constructivist learning approaches in the CPD training programs could be culturally relevant and meaningful if teaching about different teaching and learning styles become part of the short-term curriculum.

While this study offered a teacher perspective on the situation, further research is required to gain a better understanding of how Chinese officials experience CPD courses in the UK, and what their views are of the constructivist learning approach. A natural progression of this work is to implement the three teaching adaptations, and then document and compare experiences of both teachers and government officials. This will result in empirical evidence that could provide the foundation for improved teaching strategies for CPD courses in UK HE.

This critical reflection on teaching Chinese government officials who are on CPD courses in the UK contributes to a larger scholarly discussion about Chinese students in the UK. The changing student body and variety of educational courses in UK Higher Education calls for more university-level attention and sharing of effective practices in teaching Chinese students. This requires open discussions about different teaching styles, and understanding learning expectations and educational backgrounds of international students. This type of institutional discussions will contribute to international students’ experiences of UK HE. We need to make sure we provide the best educational experience for Chinese students so that they continue coming to the UK.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank her former line manager, Dr Maria Sapouna, for her support in developing this research paper. The author would also like to thank Chao Guo (Luna) for inviting her to contribute to the CPD courses for Chinese government officials at the University of the West of Scotland in 2019.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

ÅKerlind

G. S.

(2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher–variation in meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 375–390.

Baker

(2020). More than half of Chinese students ‘could still cancel UK study plans’. The World University Rankings. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/more-half-chinese-students-could-still-cancel-uk-study-plans

Ballantine

Guo

Larres

(2018). Chinese authorial identity: A model for scoring the student authorship questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2385–2397.

Bell

(2020). Adapting to constructivist approaches to entrepreneurship education in the Chinese classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 45(8), 1694–1710.

Biggs

(1994). The Chinese Learner. Comparative Education Research Centre.

Bodycott

Walker

(2000). Teaching abroad: Lessons learned about inter-cultural understanding for teachers in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 79–94.

British Council. (2019). UK-China programme to provide seed funding to grow partnership opportunities for British institutions in China, ASEAN and African countries. https://www.britishcouncil.cn/en/programmes/education/seeding?_ga=2.91222426.1274272735.1574777117-1196143171.1574777117.

Chan

(1999). The Chinese learner – A question of style. Education and Training, 41(6/7), 294–304.

Cheng

Adekola

O. A.

Shah

Valyrakis

(2018). Exploring Chinese students’ experience of curriculum internationalisation: A comparative study of Scotland and Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 43(4), 754–768.

10.

Cheung

A. B. L.

(2011). NPM in Asian countries. In Christensen

Laegreid

(Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to new public management (pp. 147–160). Ashgate.

11.

Choudaha

(2017). Three waves of international student mobility (1999–2020). Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 825–832.

12.

Cross

Hitchcock

(2007). Chinese students’ (or students from China’s) views of UK HE: Differences, difficulties and benefits, and suggestions for facilitating transition. The East Asian Learner, 3(2), 1–31.

13.

Clark

Gieve

S. N.

(2006). On the discursive construction of ‘The Chinese Learner’. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 54–73.

14.

Crawford

Wang

(2015). The effect of work placements on the academic performance of Chinese students in UK higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(6), 569–586.

15.

Creemers

(2015). Never the twain shall meet? Rethinking China’s public diplomacy policy. Chinese Journal of Communication, 8(3), 306–322.

16.

Daes

(2019, June 4). Keeping up with China: A shift from bilateral to multilateral education collaboration. British Council. https://education-services.britishcouncil.org/insights-blog/keeping-china-shift-bilateral-multilateral-education-collaboration?_ga=2.87555736.1274272735.1574777117-1196143171.1574777117

17.

Daller

H. M.

Xue

(2009). Vocabulary knowledge and academic success: A study of Chinese Students in UK higher education. In Richards

Daller

H. M.

Malvern

D. D.

Meara

Milton

Treffers-Daller

(Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 179–193). Palgrave Macmillan.

18.

Dewey

(1933). How we think: A restatement of the relations of reflective thinking to the educative process. D.C. Heath.

19.

d’Hooghe

Montulet

de Wolff

Pieke

F. N.

(2018). Assessing Europe-China collaboration in higher education and research. The Leiden Asia Centre.

20.

Eaves

(2011). The relevance of learning styles for international pedagogy in higher education. Teachers and Teaching, 17(6), 677–691.

21.

Edwards

(2001). Meeting individual learner needs: Power, subject, subjection. In Paechter

Preedy

Scott

Soler

(Eds.), Knowledge, power and learning (pp. 37–46). Sage.

22.

Edwards

(2011). Confucius, constructivism and the impact of continuing professional development on teachers of English in China. http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/25973/1/Confucius_constructivism_and_CPD_for_Chinese_teachers_of_English_British_Council_ELT_paper.pdf

23.

Ehrich

Howard

S. J.

Bokosmaty

(2016). A comparison of Chinese and Australian university students' attitudes towards plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 231–246.

24.

Evidence for Policy & Practice Information & Co-ordinating Centre. (2003). The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom teaching and learning. How does collaborative Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for teachers of the 5-16 age range affect teaching and learning? http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/CPD_rv1.pdf

25.

Friedman

Phillips

(2004). Continuing professional development: Developing a vision. Journal of Education and Work, 17(30), 361–376.

26.

Friedman

Watts

Croston

Durkin

(2002). Evaluating online CPD using educational criteria derived from the experiential learning cycle. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 367–378.

27.

Giddens

(1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford University Press.

28.

Gov.UK. (n.d.). China and the UK. https://www.gov.uk/world/china/news

29.

Gov.UK. (2019, September 12). UK announces 2-year post-study work visa for international students. British Embassy Beijing. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-2-year-post-study-work-visa-for-international-students–2

30.

(2009). Maturity and interculturality: Chinese students’ experiences in UK higher education. European Journal of Education, 44(1), 37–52.

31.

Maley

(2008). Changing places: A study of Chinese students in the UK. Language and Intercultural Communication, 8(4), 224–245.

32.

Halse

(2011). Becoming a supervisor: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors' learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 557–570.

33.

Heng

T. T.

(2017). Voices of Chinese international students in USA colleges: ‘I want to tell them that … ’. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 833–850.

34.

Heng

T. T.

(2018). Different is not deficient: Contradicting stereotypes of Chinese international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 22–36.

35.

Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2019a). Where do HE students come from? https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/where-from

36.

Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2019b). Higher education student statistics: UK, 2016/17 – Where students come from and go to study? https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/11-01-2018/sfr247-higher-education-student-statistics/location

37.

Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2019c). Table 2b – Continuing professional development (CPD) and continuing education (CE) courses for business and the community by HE provider. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/providers/business-community/table-2b

38.

Crookall

(1995). Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner autonomy in English language teaching. System, 23(2), 235–243.

39.

Howard

T. C.

(2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.

40.

(2005). “Professional Development of Secondary EFL Teachers: Lessons from China.” Teachers College Record 107 (4): 654–705.

41.

Iannelli

Huang

(2014). Trends in participation and attainment of Chinese Students in UK higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 805–822.

42.

Jæger

Gram

(2020). Enduring not enjoying? Emotional responses to studying abroad among Danish and Chinese students. Intercultural Education, 31(1), 1–15.

43.

Jin

Foley

Cooley

(2020). Participant Chinese teacher and student perceptions of an international teaching practicum with Australian pre-service teachers. Intercultural Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2020.1783796

44.

Kay

Kibble

(2016). Learning theories 101: Application to everyday teaching and scholarship. Advanced Psychology Education, 40(1), 17–25.

45.

Kennedy

(2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult Hong Kong–Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5), 430–445.

46.

Campbell

(2008). Asian students’ perceptions of group work and group assignments in a New Zealand tertiary institution. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 203–216.

47.

Lou

(2013). When Aristotle meets Confucius: Liberal arts education for sustainable development; Reflections from teaching a first year seminar in a U.S. college. International Journal of Chinese Education, 2, 31–53.

48.

Mälkki

Lindblom-Ylänne

(2012). From reflection to action? Barriers and bridges between higher education teachers’ thoughts and actions. Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 33–50.

49.

Martin

D. E.

(2012). Culture and unethical conduct: Understanding the impact of individualism and collectivism on actual plagiarism. Management Learning, 43(3), 261–273.

50.

McLean

Rudd

(n.d.). Preparing for academic consultancy: What you need to know. https://www.jobs.ac.uk/media/pdf/careers/resources/preparing-for-academic-consultancy-ebook.pdf

51.

McLinden

Edwards

Garfield

Moron-Garcia

(2015). Strengthening the links between research and teaching: Cultivating student expectations of research-informed teaching approaches. Education in Practice, 2(1), 24–29.

52.

Michael

(2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiological Education, 30, 159–167.

53.

Noda

Kim

M. M.

(2014). Learning experiences and gains from continuing professional education and their applicability to work for Japanese government officials. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 927–943.

54.

O’Neill

McMahon

(2005). Student-centred learning: What does it mean for Students and Lecturers. In G. O’Neill, S. Moore, B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching (pp. 27–36). AISHE.

55.

O’Sullivan

(2004). The reconceptualisation of learner-centred approaches: A Namibian case study. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(6), 585–602.

56.

Paine

L. W.

(1990). The teacher as virtuoso: A Chinese model for teaching. Teachers College Record, 92, 49–81.

57.

Prosser

Trigwell

(2014). Qualitative variation in approaches to university teaching and learning in large first-year classes. Higher Education, 67(6), 783–795.

58.

Sit

H. H. W.

(2013). Characteristics of Chinese students' learning styles. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 62(8), 36–39.

59.

Smyth

(1992). Teacher’s work and the politics of reflection. American Education Research Journal, 29(2), 267–300.

60.

Spencer-Oatey

Xiong

(2006). Chinese students' psychological and sociocultural adjustments to Britain: An empirical study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 37–53.

61.

Tan

(2017). Constructivism and pedagogical reform in China: Issues and challenges. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(2), 238–247.

62.

Tang

(1996). Collaborative learning: The latent dimension in Chinese students’ learning. In Watkins

Biggs

(Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural psychology and contextual influences (pp. 183–204). Comparative Education Research Centre and the Australian Council for Educational Research.

63.

The CPD Certification Service. (2019). CPD explained. https://cpduk.co.uk/explained

64.

Thompson

T. C.

(1997). Learning styles and teaching styles: Who should adapt to whom? Business Communication Quarterly, 60(2), 125–127.

65.

Tian

Lowe

(2013). The role of feedback in cross-cultural learning: A case study of Chinese taught postgraduate students in a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 580–598.

66.

Tran

L. T.

(2011). Committed, face‐value, hybrid or mutual adaptation? The experiences of international students in Australian higher education. Educational Review, 63(1), 79–94.

67.

Turner

(2006). Chinese students in a UK business school: Hearing the student voice in reflective teaching and learning practice. Higher Education Quarterly, 60(1), 27–51.

68.

Universities UK. (2018, September). Patterns and trends in UK higher education 2018.

69.

University of the West of Scotland. (2018, April 11). China’s 1st official training partner in Scotland.. https://www.uws.ac.uk/news/official-chinese-training-partner/

70.

Wang

Harding

Mai

L.-W.

(2012). Impact of cultural exposure on young Chinese students’ adaptation in a UK business school. Studies in Higher Education, 37(5), 621–639.

71.

Wong

J. K.-K.

(2004). Are the learning styles of Asian international students culturally or contextually based? International Education Journal, 4(4), 154–166.

72.

Xiao

(2006). Bridging the gap between teaching styles and learning styles: A cross-cultural perspective. Tesl-Ej, 10(3), 1–15.

73.

Yost

D. S.

Sentner

S. M.

Forlenza-Bailey

(2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39–49.

74.

Zhao

Coombs

(2012). Intercultural teaching and learning strategies for global citizens: A Chinese EFL perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(3), 245–255.

75.

Zhao

(2019). Made in contemporary China: Exploring the national identity of Chinese international undergraduate students in the US. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1615046

76.

Zhou

Jindal-Snape

Topping

Todman

(2008). Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 63–75.

77.

Zhou

Todman

(2008). Chinese postgraduate students in the UK: A two-way reciprocal adaptation. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1(3), 221–243.