Teaching Abroad: lessons learned about inter-cultural ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Canberra] On: 03 February 2015, At: 17:05 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching in Higher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Teaching Abroad: Lessons learned about inter-cultural understanding for teachers in higher education Peter Bodycott & Allan Walker Published online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Peter Bodycott & Allan Walker (2000) Teaching Abroad: Lessons learned about inter-cultural understanding for teachers in higher education, Teaching in Higher Education, 5:1, 79-94, DOI: 10.1080/135625100114975 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135625100114975

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

Downloaded by [University of Canberra] at 17:05 03 February 2015

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teaching in Higher Education, V ol. 5, No. 1, 2000

Teaching Abroad: lessons learned about inter-cultural understanding for teachers in higher education Downloaded by [University of Canberra] at 17:05 03 February 2015

PETER BODYCOTT* & ALLAN WALKER Hong K ong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping, Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong K ong, and C hinese U niversity of Hong K ong

A BSTRACT The internationalisation of higher education in countries such as Australia and the UK has resulted in increased num bers of South-East Asia students in higher education classrooms. W hile considerable attention has been given to exploring the im plications of internationalisation on students in `Western’ university contexts, there is a paucity of research concerning the effect on teachers of higher education and, in particular, those em ployed in to teach in countries culturally foreign to their own. This paper aim s to initiate such discussion through an exploration of the experiences of two teaching academics working in Hong K ong. Discussion will focus on issues of language and com munication, and social and cultural distance, and the effect of hierarchy and related teaching strategies developed to meet the inter-cultural learning needs of themselv es and their students. It is argued that, the developm ent of inter-cultural understandings must permeate the curricula, and be a shared goal and responsibility of both teachers and students.

The conversation was one-way. Hardly a conversation in the literal sense, but I persevered as usual. It was in the interests of the students, at least this is what I had convinced m yself of. The problem was that these students who had learned English form ally as a second language in schools were, in fact, from non-English speaking backgrounds (N ESB) and, although very pleasant and respectful as individuals, were proving dif® cult to cater for in m y tutorials, but whose problem is this anyway? Is it not the student’ s responsibility to adapt to the language and learning culture created in the classroom ? After all, the teacher has no say necessarily in the m edium of instruction. Although there are m oves, certainly in non-English speaking European countries to adopt a com m on language (m ainly English) in parts of their curricula (Vinke et al., 19 98 ), m any teachers of higher education are em ployed because they, in fact, bring an ìnternational’ , albeit English ¯ avour, to their courses. Even in English speaking institutions of higher education, isn’ t it the student’ s responsibility to engage in the social forum inherent within the institutional context. After all, don’ t these students choose to attend our classes, our institutions, with a full knowledge of the language requirem ents and associated learning expectations? ISSN 1356-2517/00/010079 -16 Ó

2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd

80

P eter Bodycott & Allan Walker


Introduction U nfortunately, teacher attitudes towards students, such as those re¯ ected in the above scenario, are all too com m on in universities and colleges around the world as they pursue aggressive policies of ìnternationalisation’ . Although the increasing m ulticultural com position of university cam puses has brought both ® nancial and social bene® t to institutions and students, respectively, it rem ains beset by a num ber of challenges. Such challenges are found m ost pressingly in university lecture halls and classroom s, where they unavoidably confront both students and teachers. For exam ple, students, especially those from non-English speaking backgrounds, often struggle to learn in a foreign language. Language problem s are accentuated for m any students by unfam iliar approaches to teaching and learning, and by virtue of their transit into a very different societal and organisational culture (Cownie & Addison, 19 96 ; Sm ith et al., 1998). Issues about language, learning and teaching confronting university teachers, not surprisingly, relate directly to the experiences of their students. Teachers face the spectre of how to provide foreign, often N ESB, students from different cultures with a m eaningful education. U nfortunately, as Pailliot et (199 7) notes, m any university teachers often fail to appreciate the m any adversities students’ face in adapting to study in a foreign culture. In this article, we focus on som e of the challenges university teachers m ay face when teaching students from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The issues discussed are drawn from the collective experiences of two academ ics working in Hong K ong in the area of teacher education. The rationale for our exploration is that the experiences and problem s encountered by teachers in `foreign’ universities hold prom ise for inform ing fellow academ ics working in their hom e universities as they attem pt to com e to grips with the internationalisation of their classroom s. Although considerable effort has been com m itted to understanding the effects of internationalisation in both Asian and W estern settings, the bulk of this research has targeted (particularly Asian) students once they have arrived at the overseas university (Zheng & Berry, 19 91 ; V olet, & Renshaw, 19 96 ; Paillio tet, 199 7; Sm ith et al., 19 98 ). However, little research or discussion has investigated the experiences of W estern academ ics teaching in East and South-East Asian higher education settings. This paper aim s to initiate such discussion. Our secondary aim is to re-acquaint colleagues from hom e universities to issues and related teaching strategies that m ay aid their understanding, and inform their teaching of students who are often unfam iliar with the language and culture in which they ® nd them selves. The internationalisation of higher education in countries such as Australia and the U K has m ainly taken the form of vastly increased num bers of overseas students enrolling, with m any com ing from the South-East A sian region. However, in this region, a different variation of internationalisation has becom e evident. This involves the ìm portation’ of foreign academ ics into local higher education institutions. For exam ple, teacher education reform s in post-colonial Hong Kong have led to an increase in the num ber of overseas academ ics being em ployed on both short-term and long-term contracts. The reasons for em ploying international (m ainly English) speaking, non-local staff are varied. Som e are em ployed to replace local staff while


Teaching Abroad

81

they com plete higher degree studies, others are used to ® ll gaps created through a lack of experience or expertise in specialist areas, while som e em ploy foreign academ ics to enrich the quality of teaching and learning program m es. Em ploying foreign staff under such conditions is not without problem s. In so-called Confucian societies, for exam ple, m any local staff are wary of `foreigners’ , and are concerned with what they see as an invasion of W estern cultural and educational ideologies and values. The academ ics them selves often face dif® culties adjusting to life in their new institutions and countries. Many experience stress related to alienation from fam ilies, and m ust learn to cope with the challenges of living in a foreign culture and working in institutions that are very different from what they are accustom ed to. It is also noticeable that foreign academ ics bring with them preconceived beliefs about their role. Many see them selves as saviour, that is, bringing the best of the W est to a developing country. This attitude is m anifest in overt and covert ways, however, the result is often a broadening of the interpersonal and socio-cultural divide between them selves and their colleagues. Other seek a form of àcculturation’ (Brown, 19 94 ), and try to adapt their established teaching approaches and learning theories to their new culture. To do this requires considerable effort and a reorientation of the individual’ s thinking and, in particular, their approaches to com m unication. W e suggest that insights into how university teachers enculturated in English speaking W estern countries cope with teaching and com m unicating in a foreign culture, in this case Hong Kong, can inform teaching practice in universities and institutions of higher education. Ìnternationalised’ program m es aim to prepare students to develop understanding and, hence, their ability to function in an international and inter-cultural context. However, for m any teachers of higher education the challenge of internationalisation severely tests beliefs about their role as teachers and the approaches they adopt to m eet the needs of a changing student clientele. As beginning teachers of higher education in Australia, we have and continue to face this test. W hen we began teaching òverseas’ , our initial, uniform ed or even arrogant, assertion was that it was the students’ responsibility to adapt to our teaching. However, our recent experiences have caused us to rethink these beliefs. W e now argue that, the developm ent of inter-cultural understandings and related teaching practices m ust begin with the teacher’ s attitude, and the scaffolds created to support student learning. That is, to be an effective teacher in today’ s higher education classroom s, the developm ent of inter-cultural understandings m ust not only perm eate the curricula as designed, but it m ust be a shared responsibility of both teachers and students. In the following sections we establish the context and culture of the working environm ent, discuss two m ajor issuesÐ language and com m unication, social and cultural distance, and the effects of hierarchy. W e also discuss related teaching strategies and lessons learned about developing and/or catering for inter-cultural understandings. W e do not claim to have solved the m any problem s encountered while teaching abroad. R ather, the purpose of the article is to provide a picture of our attem pts to date, and to share what we believe are im portant im plications of our experiences for teachers in higher education.

82



Context Tw o elem ents com prise the context of this article. The ® rst elem ent is the current policy environm ent in Hong K ong as it relates to language of instruction in schools and the quality of teaching in higher education. The second elem ent is the background of the authors whose experience form s the basis of the paper. The last 5 or so years in Hong Kong has seen the introduction of a plethora of educational reform policies. M any of these have been continued or accentuated since the change of sovereignty in July 19 97 . It is not our purpose here to describe the wide-ranging rack of reform s, but som e understanding in at least two areas is necessary to set the context. The ® rst and perhaps m ost controversial of these are recent changes involve language policy and teacher education. The 199 7, the ® rst Chief Executive of the Hong K ong Special Adm inistrative Zone (HKSAR ), M r Tung Chee Hwa, introduced the notion of developing a population who are triling ual (Cantonese, Putonghua and English) and biliterate (Chinese and English). This change to language policy has reverberated throughout the education system . N otably, all but 20% of secondary schools were required to switch from English to Chinese (Cantonese) language as the m edium of instruction. Falling language standards and the developm ent of closer ties with the m ainland are cited as the rationale for this change in policy. As a result, institutions of higher education in Hong K ong have been suddenly thrust into developing or redesigning courses to m eet new language requirem ents and have been encouraged to rethink their own m edium of instruction policies. The second relevant policy thrust has targeted signi® cant changes in the num ber, shape and role of institutions of higher learning. Related reform s as set out in the report Higher Education in H ong K ong (U niversity G rants Com m ittee, 199 6) em phasise the im portance of im proving teacher quality in institutions of higher education. The recom m endations echo m any of the calls in Australian and British universities for im proving teaching quality in that teachers are expected to em brace equity in the delivery and m anagem ent of quality teaching program m es for all students (Taylor & M cW illiam , 199 5). It is against this policy backdrop that two English speaking educators working in their respective ® elds of educational m anagem ent and English as a second language found them selves im m ersed in the Hong Kong culture and education system , teaching students whose m other tongue language is Cantonese. A lthough the students have studied English as a second language, they display few overt signs of com m unicative or productive language pro® ciency, particularly in term s of oral language. The students have few previous expectations placed on them to use English for purposes other than to pass form al exam inations. The students we taught ranged from ® rst-year preservice students to seasoned M asters and D octoral students in their form ative higher education years. As educators, we brought a rich history of teaching experience in prim ary, secondary and tertiary settings. W e each had, in our own way, a ® rm ly established and overt personal ideology, which anchored our approach to teaching and learning in higher education. W e had both researched various aspects of teacher thinking


Teaching Abroad

83

(W alker & Cheng, 1996; Bodycott, 199 7), had prior `cross cultural’ learning experiences and had com e to appreciate the in¯ uence of personal history on the form ation of our respective views. Prior cross-cultural learning experiences acquired from living and working in different countries and in our respective ® elds heightened our individual aw areness of attitudes toward culture, learning and change. Culture, while not directly explored in this paper, is im plicit to the discussion from both sociolinguistic and anthropological perspectives. Students negotiate cultural m eaning (Heath, 198 3) through interactions through the socio-cultural environm ent which is the higher education context. O ur students’ m ode of interaction and the language used in the classroom contains cultural inform ation in the context of academ ic discourse. W e therefore adopt Ogbu’ s (1991) notion of viewing culture from various fram es of referenceÐ these include hierarchical difference, language and social interactionÐ which in our context determ ine the tenor and m ode of teaching in our various ® elds. For exam ple, the teaching strategies used in the higher education classroom s create situations in which students m ust respond and react. D ifferent responses to classroom situations evoke cultural m odels (Holland & Quinn, 19 87 ; Ogbu, 199 1) around which shared understandings; beliefs and/or actions are organised. W hile m uch of the content of these cultural m odels rem ain largely unspoken or unconscious, recurrent student action and reaction provide teachers with an insight into shared views of teaching, language, hierarchy and social relationships. R e¯ ecting on the identi® ed aspects of cultural m odels allows us as teachers to design strategies to m eet, challenge and build on the thinking of students. Our experience in different cultures prom pted us to discuss feelings and critical incidents in our teaching. M ore often than not, these shaped the stories that were shared during m eetings, and subsequently form ed the basis of our learning and teaching experiences and adaptations. Prom inent am ong our discussions were issues related to language and com m unication. Language and Communication W e had both expressed feelings of alienation and frustration as we sat in m eetings and at lunches where the language used was foreign to us. A lthough our experiences were sim ilar to what has been labelled `culture shock’ or `culture stress’ (Foster, 19 62 ; Larson & Sm alley, 19 72 ) they becam e essential to our understanding of the acculturation and education processes. Experiences in the general com m unity, outside the sanctuary classroom , where English was the textbook language and the m edium of instruction, helped us acknowledge that our students regularly confronted the sam e alienation. W e cam e to intim ately understand the stress the students m ust have felt when required to present and discuss in English. Living these cross-cultural experiences highlighted and sensitised us to the fragilit y of our students, and the need to create teaching approaches that lessened feelings of learning frustration and language alienation. The need to consider carefully the language support offered to students by institutions of higher education is essential to the preparation and teaching of all


84


students. W e quickly realised that despite the best of intentions, reliance on English language support units was not the answer to problem s of language and com m unication in our classes. In one of the institutions initially there was no language support unit availab le and at the other institution, sheer physical distance prevented `hands-on’ or direct support. In hindsight, the absence of English language support forced us to deal with issues of language and com m unication, and to seek assistance from colleaguesÐ often in unrelated disciplines. In the early days of our em ploym ent there was a prevailing institutional attitude that as native English speakers, we were also com petent teachers of English and, therefore, an acceptance and expectation that we could address issues of language pro® ciency in our classroom s. A fter all, from the institutional view, we had been em ployed not only to provide an international perspective and further add to the academ ic prowess of our respective departm ents, but also to strengthen the English language foundation of the student body. W hat we found in our classroom s were students who enter higher education having passed entrance tests in the form of A-level exam inations and/or standardised tests of English language pro® ciency. However, these tests, did not always correlate with either language perform ance in class or academ ic success (G raham , 198 7) in our subject areas. The absence of English language support units and low general levels of English language pro® ciency on entry into higher education caused us to rethink our position in regards to language use in our classes. A s teaching professionals, to ignore issues of language and com m unication was not in reality an option that could be considered. In fact, these issues forced us out of our of® ces and into discussions about alternative teaching m ethods that could be adapted for use in the classroom . W hat we discovered was a com m onality of experience. W e both experienced dif® culty in getting students to participate in open and critical discussion at a whole-class level. W hile m uch of this trepidation m ay have been connected to language con® dence or com petence it also appeared related to fear of loss of face or an unwillingness to stand out above others. W e often found ourselves openly cajoling students to com m ent on or challenge our own teaching or the opinions of others. Students rarely volunteered responses and we discovered that often, the only way to obtain a response was to target a speci® c student. Som ewhat to our surprise, this appeared an acceptable way to elicit student responses. Targeting speci® c students though was not as successful when asking students to com m ent on their classm ates’ opinions. For exam ple, if a student recounted the constructs of particular theory, and a classm ate was then asked to com m ent on the accuracy or interpretation included in the answer, he or she was often reluctant to do so and the norm al response was to agree easily with the previous answer. Students appeared extrem ely reluctant to question others’ opinions, perhaps because they worried about m aking the other person, or them selves, loose `face’ . Although students were, on the whole, reluctant to engage actively in wholeclass discussion there seem ed an im plicit order placed on the types of questions which they were prepared answer. In other words, they appeared m ore willing (if not entirely com fortable) with engaging in different form s of interaction. Students were m ost willing to respond to factual-recall type questions. For exam ple, if asked to


Teaching Abroad

85

recount the various constructs of a particular theory that had been covered in class, especially those supported by readings, they appeared quite com fortable in providing an answer if called upon. M ost students also seem ed willing to respond to queries calling on direct experiences in school. For exam ple, if asked to provide an exam ple of how participation worked in their schools they were, again only if called upon, willing to provide a recount in narrative term s of their experience. The ® rst tactic we used to address issues of language and com m unication was to ensure that the m aterials used, including content, problem cases and stim ulus questions, were m atched to the context within which we were teaching. In this way, we were assured that our teaching m aterials, subject content and teaching m ethods were in sync with the needs of students. W e endeavoured whenever possible to provide tasks for students to engage in activities that involved stated shared goal setting, direct instruction and varied opportunities for students to dem onstrate their understandings. In this way, students were better prepared and seem ed m ore willing to offer opinion in class. One particularly effective strategy was shared experience. Shared Experience Strategy Students responded m ore easily to factual-recall or direct experience questions than to open-ended questions calling for personal opinion, understandings or critique. W e therefore devoted additional class tim e to discuss the personal history of students through activities that required the direct recall of speci® c past experiences. For exam ple, leadership courses m ight begin with an exam ination of students’ past experience of schools or stories of the principalship (Q uong et al., 199 9). Preservice ESL students beliefs of were exam ined together with oral and written vignettes of how students had learned their second language (Bodycott, 199 7). The aim of this strategy was to m ake explicit the im plicit experiences of our students and to use these experiences as a stim ulus for content discussion. Students responded positively to personalised activities and we noted an alm ost im m ediate change in both the am ounts of English language being produced and the con® dence in which the students discussed their personal experiences. The sharing of `concrete’ real-life experiences appeared to reduce the social distance (Schum ann, 19 76 ) and cultural distance (W ard & Kennedy, 19 96 ) we had observed within groups. The activities also bene® ted us as teachers as we becam e better inform ed about the realities of life in Chinese culture. The stories the students shared appeared to bond the group socially through a m ilieu of com m on experience. In these sessions, there were no wrong answers and, in fact, the students seem ed em powered by the whole process. W e further developed the level of sharing in our classroom s by encouraging students to draw on their experiences in order to articulate personal and group goals about the various topics being studied. To do this, students were given tim e to jointly explore the topics included in the syllabus and com bine this with past experiences to produced a set of learning/understanding goals for the speci® c unit. For exam ple, in a bilingualism unit, the goals included the developm ent of an understanding of how linguistic and extralinguistic features shape second language


86


acquisition and learning. A s topics and courses progressed, students used such goals to revise their collective and individual understanding of the topics. This notion of shared experience and goal setting resulted in a m uch clearer understanding about the nature of the speci® c unit of study, and subsequently, of assessm ent requirem ents. The goals provided an on-going reference for group and individual re¯ ection, and assessm ent. Because students had a clear sense of direction they seem ed m ore willing to discuss individual progress and personal experience with the class. Student stories also becam e an integral com ponent of our teaching and course design, and provided the opportunity for students to share opinion and experience in a less threatening context. Through teaching about narrative and the sharing of personal stories we found students not only exchanging opinionsÐ in EnglishÐ but students who were willing to explore deeper issues relating to theory. W e found students becam e m ore inclined to question our stories and the content of study in light of their own understandings. The shared experience strategy had initiated student involvem ent and language use, and to an extent helped som ewhat overcom e problem s related to language and learning. The planned use of shared experiences, related to speci® c contexts and topics, in a classroom environm ent where course content and delivery takes into account learner characteristics and needs, has proven a powerful heuristic for both our own and student learning. Following sharing sessions, there would be som e debate concerning who has learned m ore, the students or we. W hile the students appeared to becom e em powered, language and subject wise, we had gained valuable insights into personal and cultural perceptions of key concepts. For exam ple, through shared and lived experiences we have learned striking lessons about the Asian perception of m eetings. From a W estern perception, m eetings m ay be regarded as an opportunity to discuss and resolve issues, whereas our experiences in Asia reveal the purpose of m eetings to be an opportunity for alliance building/developing and statusaf® rm ation. W e collectively believe that the tim e taken to share, away from that typically ascribed to subject content is tim e well spent. Related bene® ts were the developm ent of personal stories and journal entries that reveal changes in us as teachers of higher education. W e have becom e m ore sensitive to learner differences, particularly as they relate to language. In class, we have becom e m ore tolerant and even encouraging of m ixed-code com m unication, especially when conceptual understandings are being addressed, and provide m ore dem onstrations and explanations of language related criteria in our course delivery. For exam ple, our assum ptions about student understandings concerning the structure of essays, have given way to m ore inform ed sharing sessions about the purpose and process of essay writing as a form of com m unication. Our new found professional awareness bought on via the re-exam ination of our teaching practices has com e about as a result of a com m itm ent to understanding the language and socio-cultural needs and abilities of all students. A n aw areness that will continue to inform and in¯ uence our approach to teaching in higher education, in whatever context we ® nd ourselves plying our trade. The process of re¯ ecting we believe is essential for teachers of higher education. A s professionals, teaching staff

Teaching Abroad

87

in higher education need be m ore sensitive and aware of the needs of students. To enhance intercultural understanding, in them selves and their students, teachers need to rethink and confront their beliefs and biases, and to reconstruct their view of the role of teacher and teaching in higher education.


Social and C ultural Distance and the Effect of Hierarchy Another, perhaps m ore com plex issue of perceived social or cultural distance (Schum ann, 19 76 ; W ard & K ennedy, 19 96 ) confronted us on a daily basis. W ard and Kennedy, in a com parative study of Malaysian students in Singapore and N ew Zealand found that socio-cultural adjustm ent problem s were greater for students who undertake large cross-cultural transitions. In our context, we, as teachers were experiencing cultural differences between our hom e university teaching and that of our current host teaching institution. However, for us, the concept of social or cultural distance could also be applied to differences between various groups and individuals within those groups. Having com e from sim ilar `W estern’ backgrounds our cultures, linguistically, socially and educationally, at a super® cial level, are sim ilar. By com parison, our cultures are very different from that of our Chinese students. Consequently, we all experienced the positive and negative affect of differences between individual student and lecturer attitudes could have on the use of English language, and involvem ent in classroom activities. Som e students viewed English language as an im portant part of the learning and their higher education experience. O thers, however, resented the im position of English as the m edium of instruction. Such students, when in the m ajority, presented signi® cant dif® culties in term s of course presentation and m aterial preparation. For exam ple, if the opportunity arose these students would present/discuss in Chinese despite having an English speaking lecturer. In som e cases, this placed them at odds with course requirem ents. Others would `vote with their feet’ staying away from elective subjects with English speaking staff. In one extrem e case, a student actually refused to subm it written work in English. Our experiences of problem s created by perceived social and cultural distance have im plications at both personal and institutional levels. As W estern, English speaking staff we have been `m arked down’ on student evaluations and suffered falling num bers in elective m odules because of our insistence on using English as the m edium of instructionÐ an equity issue overlooked in literature calling for Englishm edium content courses (for exam ple, see Vinke et al., 199 8). Institutionally, m edium of instruction policies have been found wanting and challenged. For exam ple, when the institution acting in accordance with policies relating to internationalisation insists on English speaking staff running a m odule with smaller num bers of studentsÐ our experience is that local teaching staff have been known to becom e som ewhat resentful. W e can only surm ise the effects of sim ilar institutional behaviour in hom e universities, but without doubt, such practises m ay well induce som e form of trade union action. The issue of equity of work place practices in


88


institutions that choose English-m edium instruction in selected content courses by native speakers of English is an area worthy of future investigation. Another related issue was the perceived status of academ ic staff and resultant student expectations. The students in our classes seem ed to view us, as teachers, as the fonts of all knowledge and to accept what we told them without question. Very few students seem ed willing to question any of the ideas we presented in lectures either in classroom or individual settings. W e found it som ewhat daunting that the general expectation of students was that we have the answers to all questions. Our previous higher education experience had m ade us m uch m ore accustom ed to student challenges, and calls for further justi® cation or explanation. The way students appeared to construct our role presented us with a num ber of problem s. First, since whatever we said was so readily accepted, we began, perhaps unfairly, to question student m otivation to learn. Secondly, we were faced with the alm ost endless problem of how to elicit student opinion and critique. Thirdly, the lack of critique sti¯ ed discussion of depth issues. Although som e students would com m ent on what we taught, the com m ents were norm ally supportive or con® rm ing of what we had said. Fourthly, student reluctance to contribute forced us to consider what effect such easy acceptance of our views m ight have on our teaching and beliefs about our knowledge and ability. W hen students do not challenge a teacher’ s views, there m ay well be a risk that the teachers them selves start to believe that their own opinions are, indeed, irrefutableÐ that they `have all the answers’ . Another further phenom enon was an obvious hierarchy am ong som e student groups. To a certain extent, these inform al con® gurations in¯ uenced student involvem ent, openness and contribution. Perhaps the m ost obvious exam ple of this was in classes that included educators drawn from across the school hierarchy, ranging, for exam ple, from classroom teacher, to Head of D epartm ent (HoD) to principal. In such classes, students who considered them selves `lower’ down the hierarchy appeared reluctant to challenge ideas presented by students who were older, m ore experienced or in higher level positions. For exam ple, it was often dif® cult to get school teachers to disagree with a point put forward by a principal or, indeed, to get a teacher to provide an initial opinion in case it contradicted that of a principal or HoD (for further discussion see W alker et al., 199 6). A related problem was the reluctance of som e principals to express an opinion in case it was `wrong’ ; the result of which was the potential to cause them to lose `face’ with people who, within their school system , were subordinate. W hereas this fear of loosing face was not exclusively linked to hierarchy, it appeared to be accentuated by one’ s position within form alised power structures outside the classroom . Consideration of hierarchy and issues of `face’ , we believe, often interfered with open learning and discussion through m aking various class m em bers reluctant to contribute openly to class activities and discussion. Perhaps not surprisingly, issues of positional status were not apparent in pre-service, undergraduate courses where students were on equal footing, but it did surface in postgraduate and in-service upgrading courses. In other words, the m ore hierarchically hom ogeneous the group of students, the less the issue of hierarchy em erged.


Teaching Abroad

89

As teachers, the social distance and the effects of hierarchy further effect the success of our own acculturation process and the learning that occurs in our classroom s. A s N ESB students the use of English as a target language severely affects the rate of language learning and conceptual understandings. The pedagogical challenges were to reduce the social and individual distance between learners, their peers and usÐ their teachers. For exam ple, we found we had to be careful when asking younger students present positions or opinions contrary to their older classmates. If we pushed too hard or at the wrong tim e, and the `junior’ student gave such an opinion we risked causing either party being alienated from their peers. Consequently, it becam e m ore dif® cult to solicit open discussion in later sessions. Social and cultural distance and the effects of hierarchy are not con® ned to Asian learners and we have each experienced aspects of these when teaching relatively hom ogeneous groups in our hom e universities. The introduction of international students onto cam puses only serves to heighten the probability of the effects in the higher education classroom . Teaching abroad, where the cultural distance and acculturation process is aim ed m ore at us than the students has taught us valuable lessons about not only the classroom pragm atics and discourse patterns in our classroom s, but the bene® ts that can be gained from effective use of individual and sm all group work. Individual and Sm all Group Work Strategies Contrary to som e of our preconceived notions, the Asian students in our classes appeared to learn best in sm all groups. In fact, their willingness to contribute in class was directly related to whether they worked in individual or group situations. This appeared true regardless of the exercise given, whether it be a case study, a structured scenario or som e other exercise. This indicated to us that the form of the learning, in sm all groups, was m ore in¯ uential in eliciting openness than the content involved. Although a large part of the students’ willing ness to contribute m ay be attributable to the fact that they could use their m other tongue, it seem ed at least equally dependent on the that fact that the opinions subsequently provided to the whole class cam e from the collective, rather than the individual. In supporting our observation that sm all group work was effective within our Hong K ong higher education classroom s, students expressed satisfaction in the com panionship and security attained from working closely with a sm all num ber of peers. Socio-cultural environm ents and a com m on language appeared to enhance this sense of belonging, bonding and fam iliarity . This seem s to concur with Sm ith & Bond’ s (1993 ) assertion that work groups in Asian contexts becom e m ore effective when language and purpose are shared; to use their words these act as a ùnifying force for group cohesion’ (p. 17 9). In line with the apparent ef® cacy of co-operate learning, we have experim ented with a num ber of different approaches to co-operative learning. These included group form ation for speci® c exercises, group assignm ents, `block’ co-operative activities (the form ation of shifting groups for 2- or 3-week periods) and co-operative groups working together for an entire course. Research speci® cally into co-operative learning in Asia also lends support to our


90


observation of the power of group work and the link between culture and learning. For exam ple, Bond (199 6) and Hofstede (1994 ) claim that people in Chinese Societies tend to be collectivist rather than individualistic and Tang (199 6) links this to co-operative learning. She states: `Given these cultural characteristics, it would seem likely that sm all groups involving collaboration and co-operation would be a natural way to structure learning for ethnic Chinese learners’ (p. 18 4). W e support Tang’ s assertion and through our own experiences have discovered additional intricacies when working with sm all co-operative groups. The ® rst of these relates to the shifting from group to whole class interaction, while the second, relates to possible dynam ics hidden within the group workings. W hen reporting group responses in co-operative learning situations, we found that the sam e person was usually charged with reporting even when we openly encouraged this responsibility to be shared for different tasks. N ot surprisingly, this person was usually the m ost com petent in English. W hen we encouraged groups to conduct their discussions in their `m other tongue’ (Cantonese), interaction appeared m ore vibrant, and answers m ore intricate and com plete. G roups also seem ed m ore willing to challenge others’ opinions, even when using English, when it was a group rather than an individual exercise. Since m ost co-operative group work and discussion was subsequently conducted in Cantonese it was dif® cult for us to determ ine the dynam ics of groups at work, for exam ple, to judge the quality or spread of discussion within the groups. W e were therefore unsure whether the responses we received were the true result of group discussion or the opinions of only one or two persons. G iven our discussion on hierarchy it is possible that within certain groups, in certain classes, that discussion was stilted or restricted. This aside, it appeared to us that co-operative group work was m ore productive in term s of opening discussion and eliciting opinion than individual work. As indicated, we cam e to teach in Hong K ong with preconceived ethnocentric views about how Asian students learn. A lesson we learned was that it was our responsibility to work through our personal views and to assist our students to work through their own. However, this endeavour m ust be a shared responsibility, for students also hold ethnocentric views about students from other cultures. A s V olet & A ng (199 8) discovered, both international and native (A ustralian) students held ethnocentric views about each other’ s willing ness to participate with the other in sm all group work. However when placed in culturally m ixed groups, students were forced out of their com fort zone and into the realm of inter-cultural understanding. The bene® t to both groups of students was new knowledge and an ability to function in an international and inter-cultural contextÐ one goal of the internalisation of higher education.

Develop ing Inter-cultural U nderstandings On the whole, our students have generally supported our experim entation with various teaching strategies. W e consider the strategies em ployed to date to be


Teaching Abroad

91

worthwhile in a num ber of ways. First, when students share experiences the level of discussion appears m uch m ore vigorous and intense. Students still appear m ore willing to debate and share ideas within their groups than they do as individuals at a whole-class level; however, there has been a m arked increase in the quantity and quality of English language being used in group work. Secondly, the level and sophistication of responses and opinion has increased. In co-operative learning sessions, we’ ve found that when opinions are supported by the collective, group spokespersons appear m ore willing to present alternate points of view and even to debate, to a certain degree, with others’ opinions. Thirdly, shared accountability appears to have lessened social and cultural distance between students, and led to higher quality preparation of position papers and deeper reading of m aterials. W hereas we have been relatively satis® ed with the success of our interventions to date, we continue to search for additional understanding and strategies that suit the needs of students, and can enhance student interaction and participation in class. W e now design, wherever possible, activities that require students to interact with people from different cultural backgrounds within the Hong Kong educational com m unity. For exam ple, the creation of learning experiences that require interaction with both pupils and staff of local international schools who use English as the m edium of instruction. O ur em phasis, in these type of activities, is on creating learning environm ents that are som ewhat student-centred, and in which students feel it is appropriate to speak up and participate in the various activities. W e use the term `som ewhat’ deliberately in that just as we are developing knowledge of Asian learners and learning approaches, they too are involved in a process of inter-cultural learningÐ be it from com m unication with us or through the activities we design. In the early stages of im plem entation, we faced som e student resistance to our activities. W hile students were com pliant, the level of engagem ent was m inim al. W e were frequently confronted with blank faces, which seem ed to be questioning why we were doing certain things. A s experienced educators we used such opportunities to develop a deeper understanding of the purpose of activities, linking this to related shared experiences, and the theoretical and/or pedagogical underpinnings. This process m oved all concerned, teachers and students, toward inter-cultural understandings about com m unication, practices and beliefs. Finally, we continue to be conscious that our students, like students globally, have preconceived notions of good and bad teaching. Our inter-cultural experiences have revealed that Asian student interpretations of these constructs are generally congruent with transm ission m odels of teachingÐ where inform ation is transferred from teacher to students. W e view it as part of our professional responsibility to engage students in a range of teaching and learning approaches. However, we would caution against the adoption of a single learning theory or related approaches to teaching in higher education, especially when teaching students from different cultural contexts. Our m ost recent experiences have heightened our aw areness of the bene® ts that can be gained from direct experience of what we once perceived as inappropriate, outdated approaches to teaching and learning.

92



Conclusions W e have discussed in this article som e of the lessons that have been learned about teaching and learning in higher education while living and working abroad. As stressed throughout the article, these lessons have im plications for all teachers, and especially to those challenged by m ovem ents toward internationalisation. The presence of international students on cam puses and in classes provides opportunities for the enhancem ent and developm ent of inter-cultural understandings. The internationalisation of cam puses the world over provide, as Volet & A ng (1998 ) argue, à unique social forum for enhancing all students understandings and appreciation of other cultures’ (pp. 20± 21). For us, living abroad has required a reassessm ent of our deep-rooted beliefs about teaching and learning. Choosing to teach in a foreign culture and develop knowledge of that culture is in m any ways analogous to conducting ethnographic research. W e are im m ersed in a foreign culture, conscious of the fact that, without the local language, we can never be fully im m ersed and yet we have the luxury of `looking in’ at our own culture from the outside. It is these cross-cultural experiences and the com parisons we m ake which are the foundation of inter-cultural learning. W hat we have learned has sensitised us to the needs of both students and colleagues working in the ® eld of higher education. In hom e universities, the onus is often placed on students to adapt to the cultural context in which they are studying. However, we believe that such an em phasis increases the likelihood of ethnocentric views about cultures prevailing, at the expense of inter-cultural learning. Subsequently, the quality of teaching and learning can suffer, or at worst, becom e irrelevant. The issues we have confronted in our classroom s appear to be grounded in a com plex and alm ost indistinguishable m ix of language and culture. The explicit and hidden differences students bring with them to our classroom s challenge m any of our traditional notions of teaching. These challenges com e in the form of oral and written com m unication, the perception of us as teachers, the social organisation of the classroom and cultural beliefs about involvem ent. W hen faced with these often-unsettling issues we were forced to return to our underlying beliefs about teaching and learning and attem pt to refram e them in light of the culture students brought with them to class, and in which we were working. The end-result of this personal re¯ exive thinking has been the adaptation of speci® c teaching strategies, which assist us to m eet student needs and help to solve the problem s associated with language and culture that we have experienced while teaching in cultures very different to our own. W e are com m itted to a belief in the need for teachers in higher education to think seriously about the changing face of university students, and developing strategies that scaffold and enhance intercultural learning in their classroom s. For us, the lessons learned from our journey to date will continue to evolve as everyday brings about new challenges and issues. The lessons learned we hope will stim ulate other teachers of higher education working abroad and in hom e universities to investigate and share their own experiences of inter-cultural learning and teaching.

Teaching Abroad

93


REFERENCES B O D YCO TT , P. (1997) The in¯ uence of personal history on preservice Malay, Tam il and Chinese teacher thinking, Journal of E ducation for Teaching , 23(1), pp. 57± 68. B O N D , M.H. (Ed.) (1996) The H andbook of Chinese Psychology (Hong Kong, Oxford U niversity Press). B R OW N , H.D . (1994) Principles of Language L earning and Teaching , 3rd edn. (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall Regents). C O W NIE , F. & A DD ISO N , W . (1996) International students and language support: a new survey, Studies in H igher E ducation , 21(2), pp. 221± 231. F O STER , G. (1962) Traditiona l C ultures (New York, Harper and Row). G RA HAM , J. (1987) English language pro® ciency and the prediction of academic success, TE SOL Q uarterly , 21, pp. 445± 462. H E ATH , S.B. (1983) W ays W ith W ords (Cam bridge, Cambridge University Press). H O FSTED E , G . (1994) Cultural constraints in m anagem ent theories, International Review of Strategic M ana gem ent , 5, pp. 27± 48. H O LL AND , D. & Q U INN , N. (1987) C ultural M odels in Language and Thought (Cambridge, C ambridge U niversity Press). L A RSO N , D. & S M ALLEY , W. (1972) Becom ing Bilingual, A G uide to L anguage Learning (South Pasadena, W illiam Carey). O G BU , J. (1991) Low school performance as an adaptation, in: M. G IBSON & J. O GB U (Eds) M inority Status and Schooling (New York, G arland Press). P AILLIOTET , A.W. (1997) Ì’ m really quiet’ : a case study of am Asian, language m inority preservice teacher’ s experiences, Teaching and Teacher E ducation , 13 (7), pp. 675± 690. Q U O NG , T., W ALK ER , A. & B O D YCO TT , P. (1999) Exploring and interpreting leadership stories, School Leadership and M ana gem ent , 19(4), pp. 441± 453. S CH UM AN N , J. (1976) Social distance as a factor in second language acquisition, Langua ge L earning , 26, pp. 391± 408. S M ITH , P.B. & B O N D , S.H. (1993) Social P sychology Across C ultures Ð ana lysis and Perspectives (New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf). S M ITH , S.N ., M ILL ER , R.J. & C R ASSINI , B. (1998) Approaches to studying of Australian and overseas Chinese university students, H igher E ducation Research & Developm ent , 17(3), pp. 261± 276. T AN G , C. (1996) Collaborative learning: the latent dimension in Chinese students’ learning, in: D. W ATK IN S & J. B IG G S (Eds) The C hinese Learner: cultur al psychology and contextual in¯ uences , pp. 183± 204 (Hong Kong, Com parative Education Research Centre and the Australian Council for Educational Research). T AYLO R , P. & M C W ILL IAM , E. (1995) Ragged edges: delivering quality tertiary teaching in post-colonial tim es, British Educational Research Journal , 21(5), pp. 577± 585. U N IV ERSITY G RA NTS C O M M ITTE E (1996) Higher E ducation in H ong K ong (Hong Kong, Governm ent Printer). V IN K E , A.A., S NIPPE , J. & JO CH EM S , W . (1998) English-medium content courses in non-English higher education: a study of lecturer experiences and teaching behaviours, Teaching in H igher E ducation , 3(3), pp. 383± 394. V OL ET , S.E. & A N G , G. (1998) Culturally mixed groups on international cam puses: an opportunity for inter-cultural learning, Higher E ducation Research & Developm ent, 17(1), pp. 5± 23. V OL ET , S.E. & R E NSH AW , P. (1996) C hinese students at an Australian university: Adaptability and C ontinuity, in: D. W ATK INS & J. B IG GS (Eds) The C hinese L earner: cultur al psychology and contextual in¯ uences , pp. 205± 220 (Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research C entre and the Australian Council for Educational Research). W AL KE R , A., B RID G ES , E. & C HA N , B. (1996) Wisdom gained, wisdom given: instituting PBL in a Chinese culture, Journal of Educational Adm inistration , 34(5), pp. 12± 31. W AL KE R , A. & C HE NG , Y.C. (1996) Professional developm ent in Hong Kong prim ary schools: beliefs, practices and change, Journal of Education for Teaching , 22(2), pp. 197± 212.

94



W ARD , C.A. & K E NN ED Y , A. (1996) Crossing cultures: the relationship between psychological and socio-cultural dim ensions of cross-cultural adjustment, in: J. P A ND EY , D. S INHA & D. P. S. B H AW U K (Eds) Asian C ontributions to C ross-cultural P sychology (New Delhi, Sage). Z H EN G , X. & B ERRY , J.W . (1991) Psychological adaptation of Chinese sojourners in Canada, International Journal of P sychology , 26(4), pp. 451± 470.