Debating the Capabilities of “Chinese Students” for Thinking Critically in Anglophone Universities

Abstract

There are media and research reports of international students from the People's Republic of China as being deficient in the capabilities for thinking critically. This paper argues for a shift in the frame for researching their critical thinking, moving the focus from the ethno-national label of "Chinese students" to "multilingual students" and their full linguistic repertoire. This opens up possibilities for exploring definitions of modes of critical thinking in Zhongwen (the official language of China) and English, and the importance of critical thinking in higher education in Australia, China and elsewhere. Attention then turns to constructions of "Chinese students" as uncritical, with explanations for their learning deficit including poor English language proficiency, lack of relevant knowledge, inappropriate assessment and deficiencies in China's educational system. This paper concludes by suggesting research into post-monolingual education may find a theoretic-pedagogical framework that sees multilingual students use their full linguistic repertoire to develop modes of critical thinking while dealing with the tensions posed by English-only monolingual education.

A Case Study of Chinese Students’ and IEP Faculty Perceptions of a Creativity and Critical Thinking Course

“…This study supports other research that shifts the rhetoric from Chinese students who experienced an education that emphasized rote and passive learning and do not publicly express their views in class to a discourse of difference that recognizes Chinese students" perspectives, accounts for their background characteristics, personal histories, abilities, attitudes, and behavior (Evens, Verburgh, & Elen, 2013;Lu & Singh, 2017;Tan, 2017). While Chinese students" and first-generation Asian American students" language and dispositions display a deference to authority that may be interpreted as dualistic in Perry"s theoretical framework (Thomas, 2008), they often display a complexity of thought and critical views sometimes expressed through less threatening and more culturally appropriate formats, such as essay writing and small-group discussions (Tan, 2017).…”

“…memorizing without understanding); (ii) instruction is repetitious and synonymous with surface learning; and (3) Chinese students should perform poorly academically as a result of classroom instruction (Watkins, 2000, as cited in Shuk Ching Mak, 2013Sanavi & Tarighat, 2014). However, data from international assessments suggests that students from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore outperform their Western counterparts (Shuk Ching Mak, 2013;Lu & Singh, 2017). Further, in contrast with U.S. students who are allowed to choose their areas of study in college after sufficient exploration of their interest, Chinese students enter college with predetermined majors without questioning their own decisions or considering alternative majors to pursue (Zhang, 1999).…”

21st-century competences and learning that Technical and vocational training

“…When repairing electric vehicles, this stage is used to analyze the damage that has occurred and why (Lai et al, 2011). Students who can think logically and thoroughly, analyze the information they receive, find solutions to problems, and understand how their world and things have changed are critical thinkers (Lu & Singh, 2017). This era of globalization demands that everyone must have good communication skills, ranging from the ability to master international languages and how to communicate effectively both orally and in writing.…”

Tensions and Rewards: Behind the Scenes in a Cross-Cultural Student–Staff Partnership

“…Broad terms, such as “Chinese international students,” “Mainland Chinese,” and “Western” are necessary to communicate this research, however, these terms are used here with hesitation. It is worthy to note that international education scholars such as Lu and Singh (2017) have questioned the net value in such “ethnic labelling” and categorizing cultures in an education context. They suggest that the attempt to label and compare across cultures only affirms and progresses harmful “otherizing” in a university community.…”