Introduction
Last fall, Kent E. St. Pierre [at the University of Delaware] was teaching an intermediate accounting class with 35 students, 17 of them from China. Within a couple of weeks, all but three of the non-Chinese students had dropped the course. Why did the American students flee? “They said the class was very quiet,” recalls Mr. St. Pierre, who considers himself a 1960s-style liberal and says he’s all for on-campus diversity. But, he agrees, “it was pretty deadly.”
This story vividly illustrates the kind of difficulties faced by Chinese students studying in the United States. While larger socioeconomic factors may cause difficulties and confusions among Chinese students in their everyday lives, one of the biggest challenges in the academic setting is different teaching styles in classroom (Huang & Brown, 2009). It has been reported that Professors at American universities complain about their Chinese students’ ability to participate in class (Hathaway, 2011). Some of them had to make changes to their curriculum because of the increasing presence of Chinese students. For example, Professor Kent E. St. Pierre from the University of Delaware, in order to accommodate Chinese students, decided to weigh less on class participation so that their final grades would not be pulled down too much (Bartlett & Fischer, 2011).
Re-examining the Concept of Chinese Learner
Obviously, language barrier is part of the reason why Chinese students tend to have difficulty adjusting and participating in class, but the issue goes deeper than that. In the West, there is a common perception that students in the Confucius Heritage Culture (CHC) are passive learners who succumb themselves to a teacher-dominated learning environment and use rote learning memorizing vast amounts of information for test taking and as a result are lacking independent and critical thinking skills (Kim, 2007; Li, 2001; Zhao, 2013; Zhou, Lam, & Chan, 2012). These students are sometimes referred to as the “Chinese learners” (Chan & Rao, 2009; Li & Cortazzi, 2011; Watkins & Biggs, 1996, 2001), which means that “Chinese students in CHC classrooms who are influenced by Chinese belief systems, and particularly by Confucian values” (Chan & Rao, 2009, p. 4). CHC is a cultural system that encompasses multiple Asian nations and regions such as mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and Korea (Biggs, 1996), and thus the concept of “Chinese learner” has been expanded to “Asian learner” to reflect the broader influence of Confucian values and traditions.
There are both deficit and surplus views associated with the concept of Chinese learner, thus the so-called “paradox of the Chinese learner.” On one hand, Chinese learners are often described as (1) a passive rote learner who relies heavily on memorization (Gow, Balla, Kember, & Hau, 1996; Li, 2009), (2) lacking critical thinking skills (Ryan, 2010), and (3) reluctant to speak up and ask questions in class discussion (Biggs, 1996; Wu, 2015). Further, the learning environment these learners were exposed to in Asia often seems to be unfavorable in Western standards: large class sizes, expository instructional styles, norm-referenced assessment (i.e., test-driven), and seemingly cold classroom environment (Biggs, 1996; Chan & Rao, 2009). On the other hand, however, the surplus view portrays CHC students as being cooperative, deep learners who are diligent, hard-working, and have a high regard for education (Chan & Rao, 2009; Ryan, 2010). It is also widely recognized that Chinese students are academically successful. For example, Chinese students are among the top performers on standardized international tests such as Program in Student Achievement (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and overseas Chinese students often perform better than their peers residing the same neighborhood (Gow et al., 1996).
Despite the increased interactions between the Western world and the CHC learners enabled by intensified internationalization of education, the paradox of Chinese learner continues to puzzle the Western world. Even Western educators who have taught Chinese students both in and outside China, and Western researchers who have observed these students from a distance tend to base their judgments of “the Chinese learner” largely on those stereotypical assumptions.
To what extent those stereotypical assumptions are true remains an important question. There are fundamental differences with regard to how a learner should act and how a learning process should unfold, and the stereotypical assumptions that Chinese students are rote learners and lack critical thinking skills are not well grounded. Holliday (1999) calls the above-mentioned deficit view of Chinese learner a “large culture” approach, which sees cultures “in their most typical form as geographically (and often nationally) distinct entities, relatively unchanging and homogeneous, and as all-encompassing systems of rules or norms that substantially determine personal behavior” (Clark & Gieve, 2006, p. 55; also see Atkinson, 1999).
The Issue of Rote Learning
First of all, the definition of rote learning does not conceptually fall in line with the CHC because for the CHC, learning by rote really means reflecting rather than a mere mindless act of repeating information (Dahlin & Watkins, 2000; Hay, 2007). In the Confucian tradition, memorization proceeds understanding and leads to deeper understanding (Lee, 1996), and evidence suggests that Chinese students combine memorization and understanding (Biggs, 1996; Gow, Balla, Kember, & Hau, 1996). The Western conception describes the practice of rote learning as surface memorizing without thought (Yu, 2013). The task for the CHC students, however, whether it is performing math problems or learning volumes of new information, involves a disciplined process of deep learning (Kennedy, 2002). In other words, memorization leads to understanding, and understanding can facilitate memorization, (Marton, Dall’Alba, & Tse, 1996). Li and Cutting (2011) call this “Active Confucian-Based Memory Strategies.”
Second, unlike what has been commonly perceived in the West, the Chinese teacher with an authoritative manner does not necessarily hinder the learning process. In the CHC, the authority of the teacher is accepted, which facilitates productive learning both inside and outside the classroom (Watkins & Biggs, 2001). Further, Chinese students tend not to see authoritative teaching practices as controlling as American students do (Li, 2005; Zhou et al., 2012). Li (2005) reports that Chinese students believed in initially committing new material to memory and applying their understanding to real-life situations before approaching their teachers for answers. Li (2005) and Rosemont and Ames (2016) further clarify that the respect for teachers does not mean that students are blindly following, but rather are expressing their humility toward the student–teacher relationship.
Third, learning by heart and a teacher with authoritative manner may actually help to intrinsically motivate students to learn and at the same time foster students’ independent and critical thinking skills. The values of learning in a CHC learning system focus on self-cultivation, and this self-cultivation involves perseverance and the process of enduring learning activities guided by teaching authorities (Li, 2005; Rosemont & Ames, 2016).
Similarly, Tan (2016) asks the question of whether good education must necessarily be learner-centered, as defined in the Western context (O’Neill & McMahon, 2005). Even though traditional Chinese teaching only satisfies one out of the three criteria of student-centered learning as students have a very low level of choice over the curriculum and the power resides primarily with the teacher, students are far from being passive learners. In fact, they are actively engaged in obtaining deep understanding and moral cultivation. Tan (2016) calls this approach “teacher-directed and learner-engaged” (p. 308) which challenges the assumption that good pedagogy has to be learner-centered.
The Issue of Critical Thinking
The definition of critical thinking has two dimensions, namely, the reasoning skills and critical spirit. The former refers to the capability for logic analysis and consistency, and the latter refers to the disposition to challenge and question existing dominant social and intellectual frameworks (Siegel, 1988; Walters, 1994).
According to Nussbaum (2017), what is crucial about course instruction is ample opportunity for interchange between faculty and students, many writing assignments, as well as feedback on assignments. Therefore, it is not necessarily discussion itself that is essential, but the interaction and feedback one may gain during the discussion. The common perception is that critical thinking is a Western construct and Chinese are lacking in critical thinking. However, what is considered good reasoning may not be universal (Lloyd, 1996; Moore, 2004). If critical thinking is equated with “logical analysis and argumentation that prevail in Western educational institutions” (Tan, 2017, p. 332), one may see a dearth of critical thinking in non-Western context. However, this definition of critical thinking is culturally biased and circular, according to Tan (2017). In her elaboration on the Confucian concepton of critical thinking, Tan (2017) defines critical thinking as “judgment” which is manifested in the “Confucian ideal of li” which require individuals to think and act “normatively, autonomously and judiciously in every situation” (p. 334). As Yang (2016) concludes: “It would be a serious error to assume that critical thinking is the preserve of Western cultures” (p. 29).
Contrary to the common stereotype that traditional Chinese way of teaching and learning does not foster independent and critical thinking, the Chinese pedagogic tradition helps to cultivate those skills and develop students’ motivation to learn. An important pedagogic approach in the traditional Chinese way of learning is having students keep intellectual diaries of their readings which are regularly reviewed by their teachers and tutors.
Typically, in the diary of readings, the student wrote down what had been learned from the texts and also questions raised by the reading. The teacher/tutor would go over the diaries carefully with the student. They usually “reinforce astute observations the student had made on the texts, and corrected misunderstandings in the student’s notes… [They were] vigilant in overseeing each student’s diligence and depth of understanding” (Keenan, 1998, p. 40). This pedagogy not only fosters a close student–teacher relationship, but also enhances self-defined learning of the learner. In this learning process, students “had not only discovered this capacity [to learn] in themselves, and had thereby fostered their own self-confidence as independent learners for life” (Keenan, 1998, p. 42). In fact, as Zhao (2013) demonstrated through comparing Confucius’ educational thought with that of such theorists in critical pedagogy as Paulo Freire and John Dewey, there are common threads between Confucian concepts of education and critical pedagogy, and Confucius is thus called “a critical educator.”
The Need for a Purpose
Overcoming the stereotypical assumptions about the Chinese learner takes concerted efforts from both international students and their host societies. A fundamental issue in overcoming those barriers in understanding, however, calls for a shift in mindset as a common challenge faced by both the East and West is the lack of purpose in today’s education. The purpose of education is not to compete or divide, but to unite, to collaborate, to improve understanding, and to make changes for the better, which, in other words, is to cultivate a Cosmopolitan spirit among students and citizens. Having a good understanding of this purpose not only helps with international students’ adaptation, but can also contribute to building a more equitable and just world.
In addition to learning facts, mastering techniques such as reasoning, education means something more: “It means learning how to be a human being capable of love and imagination” (Nussbaum, 2017, p. 224). Without this “something more,” students could only have what Harry R. Lewis, the former Dean of Harvard College, calls “excellence without a soul” (Lewis, 2006). They are merely what Williams Deresiewicz, who graduated from Columbia, and taught for a decade at Yale, calls “excellent sheep” (Deresieqicz, 2015).
With the deepening of the globalization process, boundaries between nations are fading, and nation-state is weakening as the principal site of identity construction. To the extent that there are anti-globalization movements and trends in some countries that try to reassert national identities, the cosmopolitan ideals and the ideal of global citizenship may be needed more than ever in a globalized world. As Rizvi (2009) states: “this new interest in cosmopolitanism is based upon a recognition that our world is increasingly interconnected and interdependent global, and that most of our problems are global in nature requiring global solutions” (p. 253). In this regard, education plays an important role in “connecting the facts of cosmopolitan encounters and the values that cosmopolitanism espouses” (Rizvi & Beech, 2017, p.126). In responding to the increasing global connectivity, Rizvi (2009) proposes a view of cosmopolitan learning, which is “a particular way of learning about our own social identities and cultural trajectories, but always in ways that underscore their connectivity with the rest of the world” (p. 264).
Becoming a cosmopolitan means being liberated from prejudice and isolation which can lead to loneliness and anxiety. Hansen (2010), the Columbia professor who has done extensive research on cultivating Cosmopolitan values through education, calls it a “cosmopolitan-minded education” which can “help people recognize …common features [of human life] as a renewed basis for mutual understanding and cooperation” (p. 2).
Cultivating Cosmopolitan Spirit
A sojourn refers to a “temporary stay” which could vary between 6 months and 5 years, and sojourners are those who “voluntarily go abroad for a set period of time that is usually associated with a specific assignment or contract” (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001, p. 21), and they are usually expected to return home after the completion of their assignment, contract, or studies. International students are one major group of international sojourners, and other groups include international business people, missionaries, and military personnel.
Research has shown that international sojourning such as education abroad can be a learning experience that results in growth in intercultural sensitivity and global competence (Campbell & Walta, 2015), and thus the development of cosmopolitan spirit and global citizenship (Braskamp, 2009; Davies & Pike, 2009). As Schattle (2008) argues, “traveling abroad to participate in educational programs has served a pivotal step in the lives of many self-described global citizens” (p. 15). Furnham and Bochner (1986) state that “sojourning makes a person more adaptable, flexible, and insightful” (p. 47). Similarly, Kim (2001) argues that “[d]espite, or rather because of, the difficulties crossing cultures entails, people do and must change some of their old ways so as to carry out their daily activities and achieve improved quality of life in the new environment” (p. 21). As Gu (2009) pithily summarizes: “when successful, intercultural experience can be a transformative learning process which leads to a journey of personal growth and development” (p. 40).
Of course, the transformation to global citizenship does not happen automatically through international travelling and sojourning. As Caruana (2014) states: “Encountering otherness abroad may involve rejection or narrow selection rather than openness, since the ‘surrender’ to openness is situational and dependent on the nature of intercultural contact” (p. 90). In fact, Allport (1979) argues that prejudice can only be reduced by intergroup contact that goes beyond the surface level and the groups involved enjoy equal status and common goals. Extensive research has been conducted since the original publication of Allport’s influential intergroup contact theory in 1954. While the meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory conducted by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) largely supports Allport’s conditions, conclusions regarding the effect of intergroup contact seem to be mixed and there are conflicting views. Even though there is still insufficient knowledge and understanding of how intercultural sensitivity and global competence are developed during the sojourn of international students (Savicki & Selby, 2008), Cheng and Yang (2019) reveal that international sojourning could potentially serve as an effective pathway to global citizenship because this type of sojourning may help international students develop relevant knowledge and understanding, skills, as well as values and attitudes through the mechanisms of non-vanity motives, a proactive mindset, exposure to different perspectives and experience with disadvantages.
International Sojourning as a Pathway to Cosmopolitanism
Every cosmopolitan argues for some community among all human beings, regardless of social and political affiliation (Kleingeld & Brown, 2013), and the main conception of cosmopolitanism is moral cosmopolitanism because of its strong emphasis on universal and cosmopolitan ethic (Delanty, 2006). But there are strong and weak conceptions of cosmopolitanism, as Delanty (2006) put it, or strict and moderate forms, as Kleingeld and Brown (2013) claim. The strict conception, represented by Nussbaum’s liberal cosmopolitanism, emphasizes a firm commitment to universalism and requires some kind of exile of individuals from “the comfort of local truths, from the warm, nestling feeling of patriotism, from the absorbing drama of pride in oneself and one’s own” (Nussbaum et al., 1996, p. 15). Appiah’s rooted cosmopolitanism (Appiah, 2005), in comparison, adopts a more moderate approach and it acknowledges the importance of local context and local origins (Delanty, 2006; Tan, 2019).
It should be pointed out, though, that cosmopolitanism is not confined to western civilization. As Appiah (2008) argues: “this ideal [cosmopolitanism], or something very like it, was independently invented in other continents at other times” (p. 85). For example, the concept of ta t’ung, or the greater unity, in Confucianism refers to “the world commonwealth in which all men once strove for general welfare and harmony and which … should be restored” (Heater, 2004, p. 9), and it is quite similar to cosmopolitans’ allegiance to the humankind.
Appiah (2005), in his defense of “rooted cosmopolitanism,” states that cosmopolitans are people who construct their lives from whatever cultural resources to which they find themselves attached. Appiah’s rooted cosmopolitanism is quite similar to Confucian cosmopolitanism which “calls for an expansion of family love to the world community so that universal harmony can be achieved” (Chen, 2016; Neville, 2012; Tan, 2019, p. 71), and his version of cosmopolitanism provides practical guidelines for how to implement cosmopolitanism in everyday life.
Appiah (2005) is not the only one who links cosmopolitanism with Confucianism. Ivanhoe (2014) provides two conceptions of Confucian cosmopolitanism. The first one is an ideal visitor or guest who “comes to another’s country, temple, home, or life with an attitude of open curiosity, a characteristically Confucian ‘love of learning,’ and a desire for and anticipation of experiences that will deepen not only their knowledge about but appreciation of what it is to be human” (pp. 35–36). The other conception is cosmopolitanism as the attitudes of seeing other as part of one’s family. This conception, however, does not require one to love strangers as much as one does siblings. As Ivanhoe (2014) states: “Confucian insists that our first and primary duties always remain focused on families. We extend our feelings beyond our families and out to those in the uttermost circle, but our love for them (our allegiance to them) is much less direct or intense” (p. 26).
Strict cosmopolitanism requires that we treat all members in the humanity equally. Love your neighbors as much as you do your family. In Confucian ethics, however, one would extend human compassion from one’s family members and neighbors to “all within the Four Seas” (Mencius). As Mencius says: “Treat with the reverence due to age the elders in your own family, so that he elders in the families of others shall be similarly treated; treat with the kindness due to youth the young in your own family, so that the young in the families of others shall be similarly treated.” The call for extending our love for family members to the world community is similar to Nussbaum’s metaphor of “concentric circles” (Nussbaum et al., 1996, p. 9), where we will “see ourselves as existing in an innermost circle around which are larger and larger circles representing close family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, and ultimately everyone in the world” (Ivanhoe, 2014, p. 26). Her view, which calls on us to “treat strangers more like distant neighbors” however, is more demanding than Confucian cosmopolitanism which asks us to “treat strangers on the model of our family” (Ivanhoe, 2014, p. 27).
Concluding Remarks
While running the risk of increasing global inequality, transnational mobility also provides opportunities for people around the world to build solidarity and instill in them a cosmopolitan spirit. During the process of international sojourning, there is potential for students’ knowledge to be enhanced as regards themselves and other cultures and their understanding of the common predicament and vulnerability of humanity, potential for their skills to be fostered in thinking, analyzing, and performing tasks, and potential for their values to be cultivated in open-mindedness, empathy, and compassion, respect for diversity and difference. As a result, they could be potentially better equipped for the challenges and hardships during the process of adaptation. Further, they could potentially develop concern for others, and the ability to relate to others, to feel others’ pain and joy, and to understand the common predicament and vulnerability of humanity. Their life experiences may be greatly enriched and enhanced this way. A society full of citizens with cosmopolitan ideals would make it a more just and equitable, and thus better place to live in.
Just as intergroup contacts do not necessarily lead to reduced prejudice, international sojourning experiences do not necessarily lead to a higher level of global competencies or consciousness. It is the realization that all human beings share universal vulnerability and predicaments that ultimately makes one feel the affinity with humanity, and international sojourning experiences have the potential to wake up individuals to such a realization. As Rifkin (2010) states: “… the central human quality …was empathy for one another” (p. 8).