INVESTIGATING CHINESE MASTER’S STUDENTS
EXPERIENCES WITH ACTIVE LEARNING METHODS
AT A U.S. PUBLIC RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
By
Nathan J. Clason

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education – Doctor of Philosophy
2014

ABSTRACT
INVESTIGATING CHINESE MASTER’S STUDENTS EXPERIENCES
WITH ACTIVE LEARNING METHODS AT A U.S. PUBLIC RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
By
Nathan J. Clason
This study explored how students from China make sense of their experiences of active
learning strategies in U.S. master’s programs. There has been a significant increase over the past
decade in the number of international students enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions. The
influx of international students most recently has been led by a dramatic increase in the number
of students from China. However, faculty perceptions of these students, reports of international
student frustrations, and previous research on teaching and learning among students from China
suggests that more research is needed to understand how these students make sense of their
experiences in U.S. classrooms.
This qualitative study asked seven students from China enrolled in the Master of
Business Administration, Master of Public Policy, and Master of Science in Environmental
Engineering programs at a large research university to describe their experiences with the
various teaching and learning strategies that they encountered in their programs.
Phenomenological research methods were used to better understand the meaning that they attach
to their experiences.
A distinctive finding was the combination of factors that seem to influence how these
students develop preferences and expectations for particular teaching and learning methods.
These students’ educational cultures are influential in shaping how they make sense of their
experiences in U.S. classrooms, but so are their expectations for the outcomes they associate
with graduate level education and the effects of socialization within their master’s programs.

The findings also challenge many prevailing views about Chinese students. The
conclusions that some professors draw from their observations of Chinese students may be
incomplete or altogether inaccurate. The students in this study revealed that relationships with
their professors and classmates – including domestic, Chinese, and international classmates – are
important to managing the learning activities in their master’s programs; they are self-directed in
regards to learning activities based upon their backgrounds and interests; they acknowledge that
culture is a factor in how they view their experiences in U.S. classrooms; they value teaching and
learning strategies that focus on applying course content to realistic problems; and they regularly
encounter barriers to participation related to English language, different ways of thinking, and
domestic classmates who dominate small group and class discussions.

Copyright by
NATHAN J. CLASON
2014

For Erin, Ben, Ellory, and Jillian.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My experience as a graduate student has helped me to more fully understand and
appreciate one important aspect of the essence of the human experience: community. Reaching
this point in my educational journey was made possible by the challenge and support of my
community of family members, friends, professors, colleagues, and peers.
I am deeply grateful to my advisor, John Dirkx, who gave me the perfect introduction to
the PhD program with his seminar on transformative learning. All too often, John helped me to
refocus and make progress when I fell into despair. It wasn’t uncommon for him to receive a
desperate plea from me: “I wonder if we could talk by phone soon. I've been locked in my office
since the end of the semester and it's starting to look like John Nash's garage in here.” He
responded to this particular message to him on New Year’s Eve with an hour-long phone call the
next day – just one example of his generosity and support.
The faculty of the HALE PhD program is among the best in the world. I am especially
thankful for Ann Austin, Roger Baldwin, and Matt Wawrzynski, and for my committee members
Marilyn Amey and Kris Renn. I also appreciate Lynn Paine and her willingness to serve on my
committee. Her seminar on comparative education continues to influence how I view and
participate in the world around me.
Many of my colleagues at Cornerstone University have journeyed with us from the point
of application to the program to celebrating completion. Peter Osborn, John VerBerkmoes, and
Chris Weber set the standard, cast the vision, and made it practically possible for me to be
employed full-time while progressing through the program. In addition, my life will forever be
marked by Bill Knott’s generosity during the trials of dissertation. Also, my head may have

vi

imploded in the first year of the program without my colleague and fellow sojourner, Steve
Argue. We made it!
My education has most certainly been a family affair. I am thankful to my mom, dad,
sisters, and brother for graciously excusing me from the typical obligations of a son and brother.
I am indebted to my sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law for the many hours of free babysitting.
And Erin and I certainly would not have made it without the unconditional love and support of
my parents-in-law, Gary and Wendie Courtright. Thank you, Gary, for reading all of those early
drafts!
Finally, I have been in school all fifteen years of our marriage. It is an understatement to
say that Erin’s commitment to me is the epitome of longsuffering love. Thank you for your
patience and kindness when I prioritized nearly everything else ahead of our relationship. Thank
you for being the parent that our children needed when their father was still at the office. May
God bless the sacrifices that you have endured, and may he bless others through our shared
commitment to pursue his will for our lives.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................ 1
Background of the Study ................................................................................................. 4
Building Capacity through Study Abroad .................................................................... 4
Master’s Programs as Locations for Developing Capacity .......................................... 5
Faculty Perceptions of International Students .............................................................. 8
International Student Frustrations .............................................................................. 12
What accounts for these difficulties? ......................................................................... 14
Problem Statement and Research Question ................................................................... 17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 18
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 18
A Shift in Orientations to Learning ............................................................................... 19
Increased Access and Enrollment .................................................................................. 24
Active Learning Methods Toward Deep Learning Outcomes....................................... 26
Investigating Experiences of Learners from China ....................................................... 30
Learning Experiences and Theories of Learning ........................................................... 32
Summary........................................................................................................................ 33
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................... 35
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 35
Site and Participant Selection ........................................................................................ 36
Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 40
Data Analysis................................................................................................................. 43
Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 45
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS .................................................................. 47
Review of Goal and Research Question ........................................................................ 47
Organization of Chapter Four ........................................................................................ 47
Teaching and Learning Contexts ................................................................................... 48
Master of Business Administration ............................................................................ 48
Master of Public Policy .............................................................................................. 50
Master of Science in Environmental Engineering...................................................... 52
Summary of Program Contexts .................................................................................. 54
Participant Profiles ......................................................................................................... 54
Participant one ............................................................................................................ 55
Participant two............................................................................................................ 58
Participant three.......................................................................................................... 60
viii

Participant four ........................................................................................................... 62
Participant five ........................................................................................................... 64
Participant six ............................................................................................................. 67
Participant seven ........................................................................................................ 69
Clustered Themes........................................................................................................... 71
Relationships .............................................................................................................. 73
Self-Directed .............................................................................................................. 77
Culture ........................................................................................................................ 81
Application ................................................................................................................. 85
Barriers ....................................................................................................................... 91
Overarching Themes ...................................................................................................... 95
Synopsis of overarching themes ................................................................................. 96
The Effects of Educational Culture, Educational Level, and Socialization ................... 97
Educational Culture .................................................................................................... 98
Educational Level ..................................................................................................... 101
Socialization in Program .......................................................................................... 104
Summary of Findings................................................................................................... 107
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................... 110
Review of Goal, Research Question, and Data Analysis ............................................. 110
Organization of Chapter Five....................................................................................... 110
Overview of Findings .................................................................................................. 111
Findings in Relation to the Literature .......................................................................... 112
Deeper Learning Outcomes in Master’s Programs .................................................. 112
English Language ..................................................................................................... 114
Constructivist Orientation to Learning ..................................................................... 114
Preferences for Passive Learning ............................................................................. 119
Findings in Relation to Theory .................................................................................... 123
Deep Learning .......................................................................................................... 123
Constructivism and Educational Culture.................................................................. 125
Power........................................................................................................................ 128
Practical Implications................................................................................................... 132
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 136
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 140
APPENDIX A: Preliminary Participant Information Form ......................................... 141
APPENDIX B: First Semi-structured Interview Protocol ........................................... 143
APPENDIX C: Follow-up Semi-structured Interview Protocol .................................. 145
APPENDIX D: Semi-structured Classroom Observation Protocol ............................. 147
APPENDIX E: Hugo: Synopses of Themes ................................................................ 149
APPENDIX F: Wei: Synopses of Themes................................................................... 156
APPENDIX G: Chun: Synopses of Themes ................................................................ 163
APPENDIX H: Mei: Synopses of Themes .................................................................. 169
APPENDIX I: Huan: Synopses of Themes ................................................................. 175
APPENDIX J: Min: Synopses of Themes ................................................................... 181
APPENDIX K: Cheng: Synopses of Themes .............................................................. 187
APPENDIX L: Photo of “Speak English!” Sign ......................................................... 193
ix

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 195

x

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Mayer’s Matrix of Behavioral and Cognitive Activity ..................................... 23
Table 2 – Content and Format of MPP Courses as Reflected in Syllabi .......................... 52
Table 3 – Demographics of Participants ........................................................................... 55
Table 4 – Recurrence of Individual Themes ..................................................................... 72
Table 5 – References to Students ...................................................................................... 85
Table E1 – Hugo: Self-Directed Synopsis ...................................................................... 150
Table E2 – Hugo: Relationships Synopsis ...................................................................... 151
Table E3 – Hugo: Barrier Synopsis ................................................................................ 152
Table E4 – Hugo: Integrate Synopsis ............................................................................. 153
Table E5 – Hugo: Create Synopsis ................................................................................. 154
Table E6 – Hugo: Culture Synopsis................................................................................ 155
Table F1 – Wei: Application Synopsis ........................................................................... 157
Table F2 – Wei: Barrier Synopsis ................................................................................... 158
Table F3 – Wei: Culture Synopsis .................................................................................. 159
Table F4 – Wei: Integrate Synopsis ................................................................................ 160
Table F5 – Wei: Relationships Synopsis ........................................................................ 161
Table F6 – Wei: Self-Directed Synopsis ........................................................................ 162
Table G1 – Chun: Adjustment Synopsis......................................................................... 164
Table G2 – Chun: Application Synopsis ........................................................................ 165
Table G3 – Chun: Relationships Synopsis...................................................................... 166
Table G4 – Chun: Self-Directed Synopsis ...................................................................... 167
Table G5 – Chun: Prepare Synopsis ............................................................................... 168

xi

Table H1 – Mei: Barrier Synopsis .................................................................................. 170
Table H2 – Mei: Clarify-Solidify Synopsis .................................................................... 171
Table H3 – Mei: Relationships Synopsis ........................................................................ 172
Table H4 – Mei: Self-Directed Synopsis ........................................................................ 173
Table H5 – Mei: Culture Synopsis.................................................................................. 174
Table I1 – Huan: Application Synopsis .......................................................................... 176
Table I2 – Huan: Relationships Synopsis ....................................................................... 177
Table I3 – Huan: Culture Synopsis ................................................................................. 178
Table I4 – Huan: Self-Directed Synopsis ....................................................................... 179
Table I5 – Huan: Future Oriented Synopsis ................................................................... 180
Table J1 – Min: Culture Synopsis................................................................................... 182
Table J2 – Min: Self-Directed......................................................................................... 183
Table J3 – Min: Feelings Synopsis ................................................................................. 184
Table J4 – Min: Relationships Synopsis ......................................................................... 185
Table J5 – Min: Clarify-Solidify Synopsis ..................................................................... 186
Table K1 – Cheng: Relationships Synopsis .................................................................... 188
Table K2 – Cheng: Barrier Synopsis .............................................................................. 189
Table K3 – Cheng: Culture Synopsis.............................................................................. 190
Table K4 – Cheng: Self-Directed Synopsis .................................................................... 191
Table K5 – Cheng: Application Synopsis....................................................................... 192

xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Iterative Process of Data Analysis ................................................................... 44
Figure L2 – Photo of “Speak English” Sign ................................................................... 194

xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Study
In a scene that is common among graduate level courses, a professor dismisses class with
instructions for the week ahead. She says, “We’ll spend the next class session discussing the
assigned readings. Be sure you complete all of the readings before you arrive to class. Also, I
would like two or three of you to start the discussion by describing how the perspectives
represented in the readings compare to your own experience.” One student waves his hand and
interrupts, “Will we need to write a summary of the readings or anything like that.” The
professor offers a hurried response. “No, but I’ll bring a journal article to class next week and
ask you to get into groups and debate the merits of the argument the author presents in
comparison to the assigned readings.” Another student, an international student from China,
furiously scribbles the professor’s directions in the margin of the syllabus. He’s not quite sure
what to make of this assignment. He thinks, “When will the professor have time to teach if
students are talking for the whole class? And what will they possibly talk about for three hours?”
This way of conducting class seemed different from what he had experienced in all of his years
of education in China. He quietly observed his peers in the weeks that followed as he tried to
make sense of this very different approach to education.
This vignette illustrates a conflict that arises often in U.S. higher education institutions
(HEIs). That is, some students have a difficult time making sense of the teaching strategies and
methods that professors are integrating into their courses. Many professors are shifting from
some of the more traditional methods of instruction and assessment, like lecture and exams, to
strategies and methods that focus attention upon each student’s ‘active’ engagement with the
course content. Class discussion, learning journals, case study assignments, and group projects

1

are just a few of the instructional methods that are replacing traditional forms of instruction. This
shift is part of broader efforts to help enhance the quality of the formal educational experience by
focusing on the ways in which students interact with course content.
Marton and Säljö’s (1976) work has been particularly influential in focusing attention on
the qualitatively different ways that people set about learning, and the qualitatively different
levels of outcome. They introduced the concept of ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ learning as a way of
distinguishing between students that direct their attention toward comprehending the material,
and students that direct their attention toward learning to the test. The concept of ‘deep’ learning
has evolved over time, resulting in more than a few definitions (e.g., Leveille, 2006; National
Research Council, 2000; Ramsden, 2003; Tagg, 2003; Weimer, 2002). For instance, Hart (2001)
describes the shift to qualitatively deeper levels of learning outcomes in terms of shifting from
information to transformation. From this perspective, deep learning is more desirable and
important because it “develops the capacity for ethical and intelligent choices and wise action”
(p. 132). Fink (2003) uses the term ‘significant’ learning to describe outcomes that go beyond the
cognitive domain to include, “learning how to learn, leadership and interpersonal skills, ethics,
communication skills, character, tolerance, and the ability to adapt to change” (p. 29). The
common theme here is a level of understanding that promotes perspective change among
students, or, as Ramsden (2003) puts it, “a qualitative change in a person’s view of reality” (p.7).
Thus, teachers in colleges and universities are exploring how to teach in ways that result in
deeper, more significant kinds of learning.
Master’s programs provide opportunities for more narrowly focused, in-depth study, and,
as such, they are ideal locations for achieving deeper learning outcomes. Still, many students
struggle in the transition into graduate education. Some studies indicate that these students

2

struggle because they lack the academic skills (e.g., reading and writing, analyzing, working in
groups, problem solving) that are foundational to graduate education. International students are a
particular segment of students that seem to experience difficulties and frustrations in graduate
education. The growing population of international graduate students is challenging educators to
consider the opportunities and difficulties involved in using the methods that are intended to
foster deep learning. Some faculty are concerned that many international students are not
prepared to engage the learning activities that they employ. Many international students
experience anxiety and frustration when they encounter those activities. However, evidence
suggests that some international students don’t struggle because they lack the prerequisite
academic skills; rather, the difficulties are related to the cultural dimensions of teaching and
learning (Li, 2002, 2003; Tweed & Lehman, 2002; Wang & Li, 2003). That is, international
students might struggle in the transition into graduate education because they hold very different
beliefs, values, and expectations about teaching and learning.
The purpose of this study is to better understand the cultural dimensions associated with
the methods used to foster deep learning by examining international students’ experiences in
U.S. master’s programs. Professors employ particular strategies and methods that they expect
will foster deep learning among their students. Gaining insight into the experiences of
international students with such strategies and methods offers an opportunity to learn how to
better serve this growing population of students. In addition, it might reveal why some domestic
students that demonstrate academic preparedness still struggle in the transition into graduate
education. An ideal population for this study is graduate students from China. U.S. higher
education institutions are experiencing dramatic enrollment growth among students from China,
many of whom are enrolling in master’s programs as a part of China’s capacity building efforts.

3

Many students from China demonstrate that they do not lack the academic skills that are
foundational to graduate education. Thus, examining the experiences of graduate students from
China provides an opportunity to focus on the cultural dimensions associated with how deep
learning is fostered.

Background of the Study
Building Capacity through Study Abroad. U.S. HEIs are enrolling students from abroad
at record levels. There were 32% more international students enrolled in U.S. HEIs in 2010/11
than there were a decade ago (IIE, 2011a). The increase from 2009/10 to 2010/11 was led by a
23% increase in the number of students from China (IIE, 2011a). As evident in the case of China,
many governments are encouraging and supporting students to complete master’s and doctorate
degrees at HEIs in more developed countries in order to help build domestic capacity (Collins &
Rhoads, 2008; Dollar & Collier, 2001; Vincent-Lancrin, 2004; World Bank, 2002). Such
education “provides not only the high-level skills necessary for every labor market but also the
training essential for teachers, doctors, nurses, civil servants, engineers, humanists,
entrepreneurs, scientists, social scientists, and myriad personnel” (World Bank, 2002).
In 1978 Deng Xiaoping, the Vice President of China, and Jiang Nanxiang, the Minister of
Education, developed a plan to shore up the fields of science and technology in China by sending
students to study in developed countries (Yang, 2008). Deng had determined that, in order to
recover from the devastating effects of the decade-long Cultural Revolution, China needed to
“modernize” in four strategic areas: agriculture, industry, science and technology, and national
defense (Marti, 2002). Like many sectors of Chinese society, universities had suffered severe
setbacks during the Cultural Revolution. Thus, building the capacity needed to quickly set China

4

on a new path required sending students to developed countries for advanced education. Before
the end of that year an oral memorandum of understanding was established with a U.S.
delegation that included sending 500-700 scholars and students from China to the U.S., and 50
students from the U.S. to China (Yang, 2008). By the 2000/01 academic year nearly 60,000
students from China were enrolled in U.S. HEIs (IIE, 2011d).
In 2006 Ji Zhou, the Chinese Minister of Education, himself a student sent to the U.S. for
master’s and doctorate degrees in the early 1980’s, described plans to continue increasing
support for students abroad. The rationale he provided, again, reflects the desire to continue
building capacity in China in strategic areas: “To speed up the training of high-level education
administrators, academic leaders, and creative talent, the development of key universities and
academic programs, the raising of universities’ knowledge-refreshing and research levels, and
the cultivation of more talent for the western regions’ [of China] bid to achieve quantum leaps in
education, research, and industry…” (Ji, 2006, p. 255). As a result, China was the leading
sending country of international students with over 157,000 students enrolled in U.S. HEIs in
2010/11 (IIE, 2011d).
Master’s Programs as Locations for Developing Capacity. Master’s programs in the
U.S. in particular are designed in ways that accommodate the various goals associated with
developing capacity. However, this hasn’t always been the case. The degree has evolved over
time through roughly four phases, and has recently emerged as the largest and fastest growing
part of the graduate education enterprise (Allum, Bell, & Sowell, 2012; Council of Graduate
Schools, 2009). It is through this process of evolution that the master’s degree has expanded to
meet the breadth of goals for capacity building. In the first phase the master’s degree primarily
provided the preparation and credential for teaching (Glazer-Raymo, 2005). The second phase

5

coincides with the rise of the Ph.D. in the U.S., which resulted in the characterization of the
master’s degree as the path to the Ph.D. or “consolation prize” for those who failed to advance to
Ph.D. candidacy or completion (Conrad, Haworth, & Millar, 1993; Glazer-Raymo, 2005). A
widely held view in the higher education literature was that the master’s degree was “second
class” or a “steppingstone” to the doctoral degree (Glazer, 1986; Green, 1987; Stewart & Spille,
1988). The third phase is characterized by criticism over the lack of standard requirements, the
variable use of degree titles, and concern that institutions were propagating master’s programs
primarily “in their quest for financial stability as well as for national and international
prominence” (Glazer-Raymo, 2005, p. 29). In his scathing review of the master’s degree, Barak
(1987) states, “If there is a skeleton in higher education’s closet, surely it is the poor quality of
master’s degrees that have been consistently neglected over the years” (p. 32). That sort of
criticism was certainly valid in some cases. However, as Conrad et al. (1993) suggest, part of the
strong criticism in the 1970’s through the 1990’s resulted from misunderstandings about the
evolution of the master’s degree.
The master’s degree in the U.S. was historically an academic degree, but evolved in
response to critique and market forces. Some critics misunderstood the evolution beyond the
singular academic focus as evidence of substandard rigor, purposes, and outcomes. Thus, the
fourth phase is characterized by the evolution from an academic degree to one that might be
primarily oriented as either academic, emphasizing highly specialized theoretical knowledge;
professional, emphasizing theoretical and applied knowledge and skills; or connected,
emphasizing specialized theoretical knowledge and applied knowledge and skills (Conrad et al.,
1993). Glazer-Raymo (2005) explains the evolution of the degree, saying, “The master’s degree
is becoming fully professionalized as the professions themselves become more entrepreneurial,

6

competitive, and socially accountable… the master’s degree will continue its inexorable path to
professionalization and will predictably take its place as the academic degree of choice by
students, employers, and the state” (p.111). As such, the master’s degree serves the variety of
goals for capacity building.
In addition, master’s programs in the U.S. have been shifting from a focus on equipping
graduates with knowledge that is specific to a particular context to a broader focus that includes
some of the cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal components that are applicable across
contexts. This is especially important for students who go on to apply their educational
experience to the capacity building efforts in a country that is very unlike the U.S. context.
Different disciplines have been emphasizing the need for this expanded view of learning. For
instance, the redesign of Master of Business Administration programs has been informed by
research like the large qualitative study by Andrews and Tyson (2004). The shift toward
fostering deeper learning is readily apparent in their recommendations: “Business schools must
move beyond their current focus, equipping people with knowledge, and instead furnish them
with skills and attributes, the means by which knowledge is acted upon… to nurture integrity,
judgment, and intuition” (p. 3). They emphasized the need to develop attributes like integrity and
self-confidence, and to cultivate the motivation and abilities needed for lifelong learning.
Similarly, other studies have suggested the need to foster more significant learning experiences
for students in master’s programs related to adult and continuing education (Brookfield, 2000;
Wilson & Hayes, 2000), management (Boyatzis & Saatcioglu, 2008), and history (Katz, 2005).
Still, others have documented that deeper learning indeed takes place in a variety of master’s
programs (Conrad, Duren, & Haworth, 1998; Conrad et al., 1993; Haworth & Conrad, 1995;
Kasworm & Hemmingsen, 2007). The emergence of master’s programs that foster learning

7

beyond time-bound knowledge and context specific outcomes is especially important for meeting
the capacity building goals of students from abroad.
Faculty Perceptions of International Students. Some faculty in the U.S. and other
Western countries (that is, culturally Western English-speaking countries) that receive students
from developing countries perceive that most international students struggle and underperform in
relation to their domestic peers (Kingston & Forland, 2008; Watkins, Reghi, & Astilla, 1991).
However, international students typically achieve academic success, measured by grades and
graduation rates, at the same rate as their domestic peers (Kingston & Forland, 2008; Stevenson
& Lee, 1996). Still, some faculty perceive that many international students are ill prepared to
satisfactorily participate in the more active learning experiences that faculty expect will foster
deeper and more meaningful learning outcomes.
First, some faculty are concerned that many international students have not developed the
skills needed for autonomous study (Kingston & Forland, 2008). Faculty members in master’s
programs often see their role as a “guide” or the colleague of a practicing academic who is more
independent. Some faculty believe that many international students are not able to participate in
the activities that are designed to foster deeper learning outcomes because they prefer or require
step-by-step directions (Wang & Li, 2011), explicit instruction, and do not possess the research
skills needed to work independent of a faculty supervisor (Adrian-Taylor, Noels, & Tischler,
2007; Kingston & Forland, 2008; Strang, 2007). However, as Adrian-Taylor et al. (2007)
suggest, there might be a self-serving attribution bias (Bernstein, Stephan, & Davis, 1979)
involved in which faculty and students attribute problems to external factors in order to protect
one’s self esteem. That is, faculty and students might point to external sources that have little or
nothing to do with the problems they encounter. Adrian-Taylor et al.’s study of conflict between

8

international graduate students and faculty supervisors revealed that supervisors and students
most often pointed to an external source of conflict. This raises the question of whether there are
other confounding factors (e.g., different beliefs about distinct roles and responsibilities) that are
inaccurately attributed to underdeveloped academic skills.
Second, some faculty members perceive international students as unable to participate in
collaborative learning experiences largely as a result of an inadequate level of English language
proficiency (Andrade, 2010; Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007; Brown, 2007; Fallon & Brown, 1999,
Kingston & Forland, 2008; Trice, 2003, 2005; Xu, 1991). Andrade (2010) studied faculty
perspectives on the English language competence of international students for whom English is a
second language. Her findings suggest that faculty members believe that international students
possess language competency adequate enough for reading assignments and understanding class
instructions, but an inadequate level of competency needed for meaningful participation in
classroom discussion and comprehensible oral presentations. Faculty identified language
difficulties more than any other challenges in Trice’s (2003) study of faculty perceptions of
graduate international students, and 87% of faculty respondents identified language capabilities
as problematic in Fallon and Brown’s (1999) study of faculty perceptions of “non-UK students in
their lecture and seminar rooms” (p. 42). However, the results of studies like Fallon and Brown’s
(1999) and Goodwin and Nacht’s (1983) also suggest that faculty members who speak a foreign
language or have experience teaching abroad are much more likely to view international students
as contributing positively to the academics of their programs. In addition, a significantly smaller
percentage of international students report that English language is a source of conflict than their
faculty supervisors report (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007). Studies have demonstrated that language
proficiency often masks other problems related to background, context, and culture (Gu &

9

Schweisfurth, 2006; Huang & Brown, 2009). This raises the question of whether language
proficiency is the barrier to engaging in more active and collaborative learning experiences that
some perceive it to be, or if it is merely the variable that is easiest to identify when problems
arise.
Third, some academics believe that many international students are unable to
satisfactorily participate in the kinds of active learning experiences that are designed to foster
deeper learning outcomes because they rely upon surface approaches to learning. There are now
more than 70 models that are designed to distinguish between “learning styles” and “approaches
to learning” that result in deep or surface learning outcomes (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, &
Ecclestone, 2004). Models like Entwistle’s (1997) Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for
Students categorize memorization as a component of a surface approach to learning. That is, rote
learning for the purpose of reproducing information, without an understanding of the holistic
structure of knowledge, is an approach that leads to limited, surface learning outcomes. Thus,
students who consistently rely upon memorization in the process of learning are often regarded
as incapable of achieving deeper learning outcomes (Beattie, Collins, & McInnes, 1997; Conrad
& Dunek, 2012; Hart, 2001; Michael, 2007; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001).
Many researchers and faculty members at institutions that receive students from
developing countries perceive learners from Asian countries as heavily dependent upon
memorization (Harris, 1995; Marton Dall’ Alba, & Tse, 1996; Phillips, 1990; Samuelowicz,
1987). As an example, Harris (1995, p. 78) articulates a prevalent stereotype:

10

One consequence of full-cost fees is that many overseas students now originate in
Pacific Rim countries, whose educational cultures characteristically value a highly
deferential approach to teachers and place considerable emphasis on rote learning. This
approach, of course, promotes surface or reproductive learning, which is at variance not
only with the more intellectually robust and egalitarian ambience of many arts and social
science faculties in UK universities, but with officially encouraged teaching innovations
which utilise participative methods and problem-solving strategies to ensure deep
transformational learning.
Some of the assumptions expressed in a statement like this are true. Indeed, there are a number
of educational cultures that are rooted in an emphasis on rote learning. In fact, the historical
development of memorization as a key component for learning in China is well documented
(Chang, 1923; Chen, 1974; Feng, 1994; Hu, 1984; Lee, 2000; Miyazaki, 1976; Soothill, 1910;
Wang & Mao, 1996). However, the belief that students from China employ memorization as the
primary component of a surface approach to learning is not always true. Many Western
observers have characterized students from China and nearby countries as passive, surface
learners who employ rote memorization for the purpose of reproducing uncontested knowledge
on an examination (Ballard & Clanchy, 1984; Cosh, 2000; Hofstede, 1980; Shi, 2006; Watkins,
Reghi, & Astilla, 1991). However, Confucius, a significant historical influence in Chinese
culture, also promoted deep learning. Lee (1996) argues that a series of “Confucian confusions”
among Western observers ignores the fact that, for Confucius, “the purpose of learning is to
cultivate oneself as an intelligent, creative, independent, autonomous being” (p. 34). By holding
in view the emphases on memorization, examination, and purposeful learning, Dahlin and
Watkins’ (2000) study of Chinese learners distinguished between memorization without
meaning, and memorization as a part of a long process of understanding. Similar studies have
supported their findings, suggesting distinctly different forms like “rote memorization,”
“memorizing as rehearsal,” and “memorization with understanding” (Au & Entwistle, 2001;
Entwistle & Entwistle, 2003; Kember, 1996; Marton, Wen, & Wong, 2005; Meyer, 2000; Tan,

11

2011). Thus, teachers in U.S. HEIs might initially identify international students’ orientation
toward memorization as a challenge to engaging them in the more active learning methods that
are expected to foster deeper learning outcomes.
International Student Frustrations. Studies often report that international students are
satisfied with their study abroad experiences (Campbell & Li, 2008; Harman, 2003; Montgomery
& McDowell, 2009; Trice & Yoo, 2007; UKCOSA, 2004). Still, many international students
experience frustrations related to the activities that faculty members expect will foster deep
learning. Classroom discussion, in particular, is widely regarded as an instructional method that
is effective for fostering deeper learning outcomes (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Carini, Kuh, &
Kleni, 2006; Chickering & Gamson 1987; Felder, Woods, Stice, & Rugarcia, 2000; Gupta, 2004;
Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005; McKeachie, 1972; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). However,
some international students, especially students from Asian countries, report frustration and
dissatisfaction with classroom discussion. Some students prefer more structured discussions in
which the professor is more active (Pinheiro, 2001). For some, their hesitation and frustration is
grounded in a norm in which the teacher teaches and the student listens (Campbell & Li, 2008).
Other students prefer to distinguish between simple participation and meaningful participation
(Tatar, 2005). As Pinheiro discovered, “participation was perceived by the students to be merely
a matter of students reading articles and saying disconnected things in class” (2001, p. 7).
Durkin’s (2008) study of master’s level students from Asian countries revealed frustration
related to a seeming lack of manners and collegiality in classroom discussions. A more
conciliatory approach was preferred over heated debate. Furthermore, some international
students experience frustration because certain students dominate discussions (Tatar, 2005).
Unfortunately, that frustration is present in many classrooms. For instance, Howard, Short, and

12

Clark (1996) observed 231 class sessions and found that 89 percent of the comments were made
by 28 percent of the students. Nunn (1996) also found that only 25 percent of students in a given
class participate in classroom discussion.
Classroom discussion is just one among a number of instructional methods that provoke
stress and feelings of frustration among international students. International students often
experience a high level of anxiety about the academic challenges they expect to encounter, and
the stress they experience does not necessarily decrease over time (Brown & Holloway, 2008).
However, domestic students also experience high levels of stress and frustration during the
transition into graduate education (Griffiths, Winstanley, & Gabriel, 2005). Griffiths et al.
suggest that such feelings result from being exposed to unfamiliar and diverse teaching
strategies, especially the more active and collaborative teaching methods. Still, some research
suggests that international students experience greater difficulties than their peers during the
initial transition (Hechanova-Alampay, Beehr, Christiansen, & Van Horn, 2002). In particular,
Ward and Masgoret (2004) report that students from Asian countries studying in New Zealand
experience greater academic adjustment problems than their peers from Europe, South America,
North America, and Australia. In Badur’s study (2003), graduate students from East Asian
countries reported difficulties in adjusting to the more active and student-centered approaches to
teaching and learning. In addition, they indicated that they were initially confused and frustrated
by the continuous and more holistic methods of assessment. Campbell and Li (2008) affirm these
findings and, in agreement with Wong’s findings (2004), further assert that students from Asian
countries experience such difficulties because professors expect them to be familiar with
academic conventions that are not explicitly taught in class.

13

What accounts for these difficulties? One explanation that might account for why
international and domestic students struggle in the transition into graduate education is that they
lack the academic skills that they should begin to develop in high school and further cultivate in
college. The results of UCLA’s national survey of first-time, full-time, first-year students at
universities and four-year colleges in the U.S. suggest that an alarming number of high school
seniors are disengaged from their academic work (Pryor, DeAngelo, Palucki Blake, Hurtado, &
Tran, 2011). About 60% of first-year college students report that they spent less than 6 hours a
week studying or doing homework in their last year of high school. At the same time, a very high
percentage of students report that they graduated from high school with an ‘A’ average. This
suggests that high school students are getting high grades with minimal effort. Thus, many
students are not well equipped with the study habits and academic preparation needed to succeed
in postsecondary education.
It stands to reason that colleges have a more difficult time cultivating the academic skills
needed for a successful transition into graduate education when students are ill equipped for
college. In addition, there is increasing concern that colleges must do more to increase the
quality of the undergraduate experience. Bok (2006) describes American colleges and
universities as “underachieving,” and suggests a number of issues that institutional leaders must
address in order to enhance the quality of college education. A number of empirical studies
indicate that the quality of the undergraduate experience has diminished (Kuh & Hu, 2001; Kuh,
2003). Some point to the decreasing amount of time that students spend on their studies and the
increasing amount of time spent on social and recreational activities (Babcock & Marks, 2010;
Brint & Cantwell, 2010; Brint, Douglass, Thomson, & Chatman, 2010). Students might not have
practiced writing, analyzing, or problem solving (Kuh, 2003). They might have survived college

14

without doing much of the required reading (Brint et al., 2010), relied upon peer group members
to pull them through major projects (Kuh, 2003), have little experience with classroom
participation (Brint & Cantwell, 2011), and faced low performance expectations that weren’t
challenging (Brint, Cantwell, & Hanneman, 2008). In the end, a lack of academic skill
development in secondary and undergraduate education could account for some of the
difficulties that domestic students experience as they transition into graduate education.
This argument, however, does not seem to be valid for many international students. The
experiences of students from China, in particular, are not consistent with this account of
secondary and undergraduate education. In fact, Compton’s film, 2 Million Minutes: A
Documentary Calculating the Educational Divide, presents the striking contrast between
American and Chinese high school experiences. The students from China were imaged as deeply
engaged in their academic work, if not at an unhealthy level, compared to their American peers.
Rigorous debate about the significance of the observed differences has ensued (Compton et al.,
2009). Still, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the lack of academic engagement and
basic academic skill development is not a plausible explanation for why students from China
might struggle in the transition to graduate education in the United States (Bakken, 2000; Bond,
1991; Chen & Stevenson, 1995; Ho, 1994; Rao, McHale, & Pearson, 2003; Salili, 2001;
Stevenson & Lee, 1990).
A more fitting explanation that has been advanced for why students from China struggle
in their adjustment to U.S. higher education centers on the contrast between Confucian and
Socratic cultures of learning. Scholars argue that Socrates’ (469-399 BC) influence on academic
learning in the United States is evident, and Confucius’ (551-479 BC) influence on academic
learning in China is equally evident (Jin & Cortazzi, 1998; Kim, 2003; Lee, 1996; Lloyd, 1996;

15

Marsella, DeVos, & Hsu, 1985; Scollon, 1999; Tweed & Lehman, 2002; 2003; Woo, 1993). That
is, the influence of these two exemplars on academic learning is evident to the degree that their
beliefs, values, and expectations about teaching and learning are reflected in modern beliefs and
values that are more broadly shared in the respective cultures. Tweed and Lehman (2002; 2003)
summarized each in terms of five categories of a framework. Socrates placed great emphasis on
questioning his own and others’ beliefs; evaluating others’ knowledge through repeated
questioning; individually finding truth rather than accepting prescribed or socially negotiated
truth; doubting as an initial step in attaining knowledge; and searching for knowledge rather than
holding right opinions without knowing the justifications for such beliefs. In contrast, Confucius
placed great emphasis on putting forth best efforts; personal reform as a central goal of
education; applying what has been learned to a career; acquiring foundational knowledge rather
than articulating individual hypotheses; and submitting oneself to the authority of a collectively
recognized exemplar. They summarize the differences, saying, “In the modern context,
Confucian-oriented learning as defined within our framework involves effort-focused
conceptions of learning, pragmatic orientations to learning, and acceptance of behavioral reform
as an academic goal. Socratic-oriented learning as defined within our framework involves overt
and private questioning, expression of personal hypotheses, and a desire for self-directed tasks”
(Tweed & Lehman, 2002, p. 93).
Indeed, there is a stark contrast between these two approaches to learning. However, it is
important to be cautious about what can be drawn from this. Students from Asia, East Asia, or
even China are not a homogenous group. The differences between Chinese students approaches
to learning, for instance, are sometimes greater than the similarities that might define them as a
single group (Smith, 2001). Holliday (1999) cautions against imposing a “large culture” view

16

that exaggerates characteristics of a cultural group and misses the variations and variability
within the group. Furthermore, Clark and Gieve (2006) argue that such explanations are overly
dependent upon historical heritage. The cultural group is too easily locked into the past (Shi-xu,
1997), which deemphasizes or ignores contemporary developments in political, economic, and
social spheres. In the case of China, much has changed in recent decades as a result of the forces
of globalization (Venturino, 2000), the development of new information and communication
technologies (Richards, 2004), and new realizations of old social policies like the one-child
policy (Veeck, Flurry, & Jiang, 2003). Thus, culture is an important component to consider, but
must be investigated at a more granular level.

Problem Statement and Research Question
The research literature in higher education assumes that students struggle in the transition
into contexts that increasingly rely upon active and collaborative teaching methods because they
are not academically prepared, or because they enact a ‘passive’ or ‘surface’ approach to
learning. There are indications that teaching and learning in higher education is imbued with
cultural assumptions. Cultural differences have been acknowledged in relation to language
learning (e.g., Clark & Gieve, 2006), critical thinking (e.g., Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Lloyd,
1996), and the like. Yet there is no framework for understanding the cultural dimensions
associated with the strategies and active learning methods that are being used in U.S. graduate
programs. This research study sought to better understand the cultural dimensions associated
with the active learning methods used in graduate programs. The question guiding this study
was: Within higher education classrooms in the United States, how do master’s students from
China make sense of their experiences of active learning strategies?

17

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this literature review is to offer a conceptualization of the problem within
the context of research and recent developments in U.S. higher education. First, the various
strategies, methods, and activities that faculty employ are born out of particular orientations to
learning (i.e., behaviorist, humanist, constructivist, etc.). An orientation to learning is not an
independent construct, rather, the outworking of a particular view of reality. In this case, the
particular views of reality are distinctly Western. An overview of prevalent orientations to
learning and their underlying assumptions will provide necessary background for investigating
the cultural assumptions associated with the methods used to foster learning. Second, it is
important to highlight some of the factors that have supported increased access and enrollment in
higher education. By challenging the ‘universal’ assumptions of prevalent theories of growth and
development, scholars and practitioners have been transforming U.S. HEIs into more welcoming
environments for women, people of color, and other constituents who were largely excluded in
the past. This highlights the need for continuing the work of challenging cultural assumptions
about teaching and learning that are increasingly evident as students from abroad are integrated
into U.S. HEIs. Third, an understanding of the ways in which ‘deep’ learning is commonly
conceptualized provides important background for investigating student experiences with the
active learning methods that they encounter. Finally, the research problem is clarified through an
overview and critique of common ways that the experiences of learners from China are
investigated and described. This literature review supports the need for more studies that
investigate the experiences of learners from China from the students’ perspectives.

18

A Shift in Orientations to Learning
The behaviorist orientation to learning was prevalent in education for many years in
America. It has its origin in John B. Watson’s (1913) article, Psychology as the Behaviorist
Views It. Behaviorism was developed through the work of people like Skinner (1953, 1958),
Pavlov (1960), Thorndike (1913), Hull (1952), and Tolman (1932). In any school of thought
there is a variety of perspectives over time, and within the particular school of thought at any
given time. However, there are three foundational assumptions about the process of learning that
frame the behaviorist orientation: 1) the focus of study is observable behavior rather than internal
thought processes; 2) behavior is shaped by elements in the environment, not by the learner; 3)
two essential principles of the learning process are contiguity (two events must occur in close
temporal relationship) and reinforcement (Grippin & Peters, 1984). As Pratt and Nesbit (2000)
say, “The tools to this approach were well specified… Through task analysis we could discover
what skills, knowledge, and attitudes were needed; through instructional design we could
translate that into learning objectives; and by matching outcomes with objectives we would
know whether teaching was successful” (p. 119). In this context, students listen to the teacher
lecture, copy the teacher’s notes, and watch the teacher demonstrate the skills they should learn
(Smerdon, Burkam, & Lee, 1999, p.7).
The roots of behaviorist assumptions are evident in the Western philosophical thought of
realism. Putnam’s definition of realism, the definition that philosophers generally agree upon
(Alcoff, 1996), includes three components: “The world consists of some fixed totality of mindindependent objects. There is exactly one true and complete description of ‘the way the world
is.’ Truth involves some sort of correspondence relation between words or thought-signs and
external things and sets of things” (Putnam, 1981, p. 49). Braver (2007) adds “passive knower”

19

as one more important assumption of realism, saying, “The mind must be passive and in some
sense featureless so as not to distort what comes into it” (p. 22). Thus, realist assumptions
provide the foundation for a behaviorist orientation to learning as it asserts certainty about what
can be known and the extent to which learning can be predicted and measured. The behaviorist
orientation to learning places the teacher at the center as the one who identifies the content,
arranges the conditions for learning, and assesses whether learning has taken place (Pratt &
Nesbit, 2000).
Other orientations to learning that place emphasis on the learner rather than the teacher
began to take hold in higher education in America in the 1980s (Pratt & Nesbit, 2000). For
instance, the humanist, cognitive, social cognitive, and constructivist orientations to learning
shift the attention from the teacher to the learner (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007).
The contrast to behaviorism is clear with, as an example, the constructivist orientation to
learning. The basic tenet of constructivism is that learning is a process of constructing meaning.
Individuals create new understandings for themselves based upon the interaction of prior
knowledge and the ideas or phenomena they encounter (Resnick, 1989; Steffe & Gale, 1995).
The core commitments of a constructivist position assume that knowledge is not transmitted
directly from a teacher to a learner. Rather, the learner actively builds up knowledge. The shift
from an orientation like behaviorism to one like constructivism involves a shift from an emphasis
on the teacher to an emphasis on the learner. This is often described in terms of a shift from a
content or teacher-centered approach to a learner-centered approach to education.
The roots of constructivist assumptions are evident in the Western philosophical thought
of anti-realism. In 1963 the British philosopher, Michael Dummett, first described as “antirealist” (1978, p. ix) a number of philosophical positions that compete with realism, reaching

20

back to Kant’s idealism. Kant was the source of the idea that ties together anti-realists: the mind
actively organizes experience (Braver, 2007, 2012). Unlike realists, anti-realists assert that the
world cannot exist independently of the mind. An anti-realist like Kant “does not necessarily
hold that the natural and social worlds are unreal or nonexistent, but that there is… no direct
understanding of the world. The world is always interpreted through mind” (Schwandt, 2007, p.
143). Anti-realist assumptions provide the foundation for orientations to learning like
constructivism as they assert the active role of the learner in constructing knowledge of the
world.
Constructivism is a common orientation to learning within higher education, and often
serves as the foundation out of which active learning methods are conceptualized. The scholarly
and practitioner-oriented literature on constructivism is enormous and growing rapidly, related to
seemingly every aspect of education (e.g., Enonbun, 2010; Payne, 2009; Petraglia, 1998; Tobias
& Duffy, 2009). Even though, as Phillips (1995) says, “constructivism has become something
akin to a secular religion” (p. 5), it is by no means a unified theory of learning (Phillips, 1995,
2000; Richardson, 1997, 2003; Steffe & Gale, 1995). However, there are three general views of
constructivism: social constructivism, psychological constructivism, and psychological
constructivism with a social focus (Phillips, 1995, 2000; Richardson, 2003). The central
assumption within all three is that knowledge is actively constructed in the human mind.
Psychological constructivism focuses on the cognitive processes involved as individuals
construct knowledge within their minds. Social constructivism focuses on the development of
knowledge as social in nature. This is viewed as a “rational” process because “it proceeds
deliberately according to methodological rules and criteria that are consciously held within a
sociocultural group” (Phillips, 2000, p. 9). Finally, psychological constructivism with a social

21

focus attempts to account for “the individual contributions that are then negotiated among the
group” (Richardson, 2003, p. 1625).
There are a few distinctions about constructivism that are important background for
investigating students’ experiences with constructivist teaching methods. First, constructivism is
a theory of learning, not a theory of teaching. As a result, there is considerable controversy
concerning the specific instructional practices derived from constructivism (e.g., Kirschner,
Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Baviskar, Hartle, & Whitney, 2009; Mayer, 2009). The principles of
contiguity and reinforcement provided relatively unambiguous direction for teaching methods for
behaviorists. Constructivism, on the other hand, does not prescribe specific teaching methods
(Kirschner et al., 2006; Mayer, 2004, 2008, 2009; Richardson, 2003). Instead, there are five
characteristics of approaches to teaching that are grounded in a constructivist orientation to
learning, according to Richardson (2003, p. 1626):
1. attention to the individual and respect for students’ background and developing
understandings of and beliefs about elements of the domain (this could also be described
as student-centered);
2. facilitation of group dialogue that explores an element of the domain with the purpose
of leading to the creation and shared understanding of a topic;
3. planned and often unplanned introduction of formal domain knowledge into the
conversation through direct instruction, reference to text, exploration of a Web site, or
some other means;
4. provision of opportunities for students to determine, challenge, change or add to
existing beliefs and understandings through engagement in tasks that are structured for
this purpose; and
5. development of students’ metawareness of their own understandings and learning
processes.
The elements of these five characteristics could play out quite differently in a classroom
depending upon the characteristics of the students, the discipline, the social context, and teaching
style. Notice that Richardson suggests that the lecture, “direct instruction,” is a perfectly
appropriate teaching method for the constructivist orientation to learning. She notes that, for

22

some, assembling a constructivist teaching theory has focused on admonitions, which usually
include anything that could be considered didactic or transmission teaching. She argues that this
has been one of the chief difficulties with developing constructivist teaching methods.
Mayer (2009) provides important reminders about the constructivist orientation to
learning for researchers and practitioners who are developing constructivist teaching methods.
He says, “According to constructivist theories of learning, active learning occurs when learners
engage in appropriate cognitive processing during learning, resulting in the construction of
cognitive representations” (Mayer, 2009, p. 185). He suggests that when cognitive and
behavioral activity is taken together, there are four kinds of instructional methods (see Figure 1).
As such, teaching from a constructivist orientation to learning might include practices in which
students are behaviorally passive (e.g., lecture) or active (e.g., experimentation). A teaching
method is consistent with the constructivist orientation to learning, according to Mayer, as long
as learners are engaged in high cognitive activity (first and third quadrants).

Table 1 – Mayer’s Matrix of Behavioral and Cognitive Activity
High cognitive activity

Low cognitive activity

High behavioral activity

1. Guided discovery

2. Pure discovery

Low behavioral activity

3. Principled presentations

4. Unprincipled presentations

(Adapted from Figure 10.1 in Mayer, 2009, p. 186)

In summary, a major shift took place in America around the 1980s, from the behaviorist
orientation to learning to other orientations that place the emphasis on the learner rather than the
teacher. The assumptions associated with the behaviorist orientation to learning are evident in the

23

Western philosophical thought of realism. Constructivism, an orientation to learning that has
become common within higher education in America, has assumptions that are evidently
grounded in the Western philosophical thought of anti-realism. Unlike behaviorism,
constructivism does not prescribe specific teaching methods, but the idea of keeping students
cognitively active serves as a guiding principle. Still, these orientations to learning are distinctly
Western, which is an important factor to consider in an investigation of the cultural assumptions
associated with the methods that are used to foster learning.

Increased Access and Enrollment
Empirical research suggests that orientations to learning that place emphasis on the
learner are particularly meaningful for students who have historically been marginalized in
formal education, and has increased access to education. For instance, a historical perspective
reveals that constructivist approaches have helped close the achievement gap for females,
students of color, and economically disadvantaged students by affording them opportunities to
explore new methods of problem solving that are typically more limited to them outside of the
classroom (Au & Jordan, 1981; Belfiore, Auld, & Lee, 2005; Burkam, Lee, & Smerdon, 1997;
Lee & Burkam, 1996; Oakes, 1990; Smerdon, Burkam, & Lee, 1999; Vaughan, 2002).
As reflected in reports from the National Center for Education Statistics (Snyder &
Dillow, 2012), U.S. HEIs experienced dramatic growth in enrollment from 1985 to present
among students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, first generation college students,
women, people of color, and people over 24 years old. Such growth has been supported by the
willingness of HEIs to consider the unique needs and perspectives of these populations of
students. For instance, in her book, Beyond the Open Door: New Students to Higher Education,

24

Cross (1971) argued that U.S. HEIs needed to prepare for an influx of new students, students that
had not previously gone to college in representative numbers. In the 1980s, Gilligan (1982) and
Josselson (1987) raised concerns that some issues that are important to women’s lives were being
treated as problematic to learning and development. They argued that the prevalent theories of
growth and development based upon male experiences were inadequate guides for serving
female students. Atkinson, Morten, and Sue (1979) investigated the same issue and suggested
that such theories were also inadequate for American minorities. In addition, Cass (1979, 1984)
and Evans and Wall (1991) raised concerns about how U.S. HEIs could serve gay, lesbian, and
bisexual students amidst a heterosexual bias in the broader American culture. The work of these
scholars initiated a transformation of U.S. HEIs into more welcoming environments for
constituents that have historically been excluded.
As reflected in reports from the Institute of International Education (2011a), U.S. HEIs
are experiencing dramatic growth in enrollment of students from abroad. Integrating more
international students into U.S. higher education is also challenging researchers and practitioners
to consider the cultural assumptions that are associated with what Americans believe about
education. Richard Nisbett (2003) provides an excellent illustration of this in the introduction to
his book, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently… and Why.
He describes an encounter with a student from China who commented on how people from
China and people from the West think differently about life. The encounter prompted Nisbett to
reconsider some of his assumptions. He says, “I had been a lifelong universalist concerning the
nature of human thought. Marching in step with the long Western line, from British empiricist
philosophers such as Hume, Locke, and Mill to modern-day cognitive scientists, I believed that
all human groups perceive and reason in the same way” (Nisbett, 2003, p. xiv). His student’s

25

“chance comment” launched him into a new line of research that now “allows us to answer many
questions about social relations and thought that have long puzzled educators, historians,
psychologists, and philosophers of science” (p. xviii). Others, including Sharan Merriam, have
carried out similar work. She organized a symposium in 2005, Challenging the Hegemony of
Western Views of Learning, out of which she edited a helpful book, Non-Western Perspectives
on Learning and Knowing (Merriam & Associates, 2007).

Active Learning Methods Toward Deep Learning Outcomes
Investigating student experiences with active learning methods that are intended to foster
deep learning requires an understanding of the ways in which deep learning is commonly
conceptualized. An overview of three seemingly very different ways that deep learning is
conceptualized demonstrates that many views rely heavily on an image of learning that focuses
on the cognitive dimensions of a rational process, and that an expanded understanding of how
deep learning is fostered is needed.
An overview of L. Dee Fink’s (2003) model of deep, or his preferred term, “significant”
learning is especially helpful for two reasons. First, he describes the need for educators to foster
learning that goes beyond Bloom’s (1956) cognitive taxonomy of knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. He draws upon the work of Dolence and Norris
(1995), to argue that additional kinds of learning are needed as society transitions from the
Industrial Age to the Information Age. Such learning, he suggests, includes “learning how to
learn, leadership and interpersonal skills, ethics, communication skills, character, tolerance, and
the ability to adapt to change” (Fink, 2003, p. 29). Like other prevalent models of deep learning,
Fink describes learning outcomes that are cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. He

26

proposes a new taxonomy of learning with six categories: foundational knowledge, application,
integration, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn.
The second way that Fink’s model is helpful for understanding how deep learning is
commonly conceptualized is in his own description of this new model for learning. He argues
that the transition to the Information Age creates “a need for new kinds of learning, kinds that go
well beyond the cognitive domain of Bloom’s taxonomy and even beyond cognitive learning
itself” (p. 29). Yet, each of his six kinds of learning rely heavily upon the cognitive dimensions
of learning. Learning in terms of foundational knowledge is the ability to understand and
remember information; application includes engaging in critical, creative, or practical thinking
and developing particular skills, like playing the guitar or communication; integration is
identifying and understanding connections between ideas, realms of ideas, people, or realms of
life; human dimension includes arriving at new conclusions about oneself or others; caring is the
development of new feelings, values, or interests that results from some other learning
experience; and learning how to learn is knowledge of the process of learning and acquiring
skills that are essential for future learning, like the scientific method (Fink, 2003). Fink’s
taxonomy is distinctly different from Bloom’s taxonomy because it is not hierarchical. Instead,
Fink argues, the interactive nature of the taxonomy means that achieving learning in any one
kind of learning can enhance student achievement in the other kinds of learning. Still, the model
of deep, or ‘significant’ learning does not “go well beyond the cognitive domain… and even
beyond cognitive learning itself.” Fink’s model assumes that learning is a function of cognition,
and a rational process that is within the realm of the learner’s awareness.
Transformative learning, a theory made popular by Jack Mezirow (1978, 1991; Mezirow
& Associates, 2000), is very different from Fink’s model of significant learning, but it relies

27

upon a similar image of the process of learning. This theory of transformative learning assumes
that learning could be incremental or take place all at once like an avalanche. Transformative
learning takes place when a learner arrives at a new mind-set or view of the world “by
elaborating existing frames of reference, by learning new frames of reference, by transforming
points of view, or by transforming habits of mind” (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 19). The
theory of learning is ultimately grounded in cognitive and developmental psychology, informed
especially by the work of psychiatrist Roger Gould (1978). Reflection, critical reflection, and
critical self-reflection are essential components in the process. Mezirow himself describes critical
reflection (Dirkx, Mezirow, & Cranton, 2006), and others categorize his conceptualization of it
“as a cognitive and rational process under full awareness and rationalizing the impact of
emotions on the learning process” (van Woerkom, 2010, p. 339). Thus, like Fink, Mezirow
conceptualizes deep forms of learning as those that proceed rationally and emphasize the
cognitive dimensions of the process.
However, there are other ways that ‘deep’ learning is conceptualized that do not rely so
heavily upon rational, analytical, cognitive processes. For instance, Yorks and Kasl (2006)
conceptualize deep or “transformative” learning in terms of “a wholistic change in how a person
both affectively experiences and conceptually frames his or her experience of the world” (p. 45).
This view of learning acknowledges the role of rational, cognitive processes that are within an
individual’s awareness. Like Mezirow, they assert that deep forms of learning take place when
learners bring into consciousness and critique assumptions that they had previously taken for
granted. However, relying upon Heron (1992), they assert that this propositional way of knowing
must be connected to experiential knowing through expressive ways of knowing. Here they
understand experiential knowing as “prelinguistic and often subconscious in character… deriving

28

from precognitive encounters with phenomena” (p. 48). By expressive ways of knowing, they
mean “those forms of expression that engage a learner’s imaginal and intuitive processes” (p.
47). Expressive ways of knowing, in this view of learning, “are a powerful and, we would assert,
critical dimension in these kinds of learning situations” (p. 59). Expressive ways of knowing are
essential because they provide a bridge between knowing that is derived from precognitive
encounters with phenomena and the rational, analytical cognitive processes of propositional
knowing. Thus, ‘deep’ learning is sometimes conceptualized in ways that do not just rely upon
the cognitive processes and experiences that are within the immediate awareness of the learner.
The methods that teachers might use to foster deep learning from this perspective include
expressive activities, like music, art, poetry, guided visualization, or storytelling. In the same
way that class discussion puzzled the learner in the opening vignette, starting every class session
with a guided visualization might be equally puzzling. Learners might perceive such methods as
a non-essential, “touchy-feely” preface to “real” learning (Yorks & Kasl, 2006, p.44).
The contrast between the ways that Fink and Mezirow conceptualize deep learning and
the way that Yorks and Kasl conceptualize deep learning suggests that it is not a ‘universal’
precept. To echo Nisbett (2003), all human groups do not necessarily conceptualize and
experience deep learning in the same way. It stands to reason that people from different cultural
backgrounds might understand and experience deep learning differently. Thus, it is reasonable to
expect that students from different backgrounds might not make sense of the strategies that
teachers employ in the ways that they are intended.
In the end, the various orientations to learning, the ways of conceptualizing deep
learning, and the teaching methods that follow are born out of a system of beliefs that are
generally shared by a particular group of people at a certain point in time. They are cultural

29

phenomena. This is evident in the connection between the behaviorist orientation to learning and
the realist assumptions of Western philosophy that undergird it, and the anti-realist assumptions
of Western philosophy that undergird the constructivist orientation. However, they often seem to
be taken as ‘universal’ (a la Nisbett). Thus, when learners struggle, the focus is typically on the
ways in which the learner is deficient (e.g., he’s a surface learner). Instead, it is possible that an
elaborated understanding of how deep learning is fostered is needed. Gaining insight into how
learners from other cultures make sense of learning activities that are intended to foster deep
learning is an important step in that direction.

Investigating Experiences of Learners from China
Learners from China, described by many as ‘the Chinese learner,’ are often characterized
using a “large culture” approach (Holliday, 1999) that relies upon dichotomous categories that
emerge from the study of education in Western contexts. The Confucian heritage culture is
regularly offered as an explanation for why students from Asian countries consistently struggle
in Western education contexts (e.g., Harris, 1995). Some researchers have combined this large
culture view with categorizations from Western research (e.g., student-centered versus teachercentered) to describe ‘the Chinese learner’ as a passive learner who lacks critical thinking,
depends upon the authority figure, and relies upon inadequate strategies for learning (Atkinson,
1997; Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Carson, 1992; Flowerdew, 1998; Fox, 1994; Hammond & Gao,
2002; Liu, 1998). However, research suggests that Western educational observers may not
adequately understand the impact of Confucianism on learners in China and other Asian
countries (Biggs, 1996; Cheng, 2000). An emerging line of research offers a different view of

30

learners from such backgrounds as open-minded and actively engaged in learning and reflective
thinking (Cheng, 2002; Clark & Gieve, 2006; Lee, 1996; Watkins & Biggs, 2001).
Edward Saïd’s seminal work, Orientalism (1978) offers a critical perspective on
approaches to studying ‘the Chinese Learner.’ Saïd, the founding figure of the critical theory of
post-colonialism, was heavily influenced by anti-realist philosophers like the poststructuralist
philosopher Michel Foucault and postmodernist Jacques Derrida. Saïd’s seminal work is a
critique of the ways in which authors, artists, and politicians in the West (the Occident)
constructed an image of people in the East (the Orient). He says, “The relationship between
Occident and Orient is a relationship of power, of domination, of varying degrees of a complex
hegemony” (1979, p. 5). He goes on to say, “I myself believe that Orientalism is more
particularly valuable as a sign of European-Atlantic power over the Orient than it is as a veridic
discourse about the Orient (which is what, in its academic or scholarly form, it claims to be)” (p.
6). Saïd’s argument is that Western descriptions of people in the East did not necessarily
correspond with, in realist terms, ‘the way the world is’ in the East. Rather, Orientalism was just
one among many ways to organize experiences, but was particularly organized through a lens of
power relations that perpetuate Western domination of the East.
Saïd makes an important point about how such constructions are made. He says, “To the
Westerner, however, the Oriental was always like some aspect of the West; to some of the
German Romantics, for example, Indian religion was essentially an Oriental version of
Germano-Christian pantheism” (1979, p. 67). His point is well taken when considered alongside
descriptions of ‘the Chinese learner.’ For instance, students from China and surrounding Asian
countries have been considered to be passive learners who employ rote memorization for the
purpose of reproducing uncontested knowledge on an examination (Ballard & Clanchy, 1984;

31

Cosh, 2000; Hofstede, 1980; Shi, 2006; Watkins, Reghi, & Astilla, 1991). However, they
consistently outperform their peers in cross-national studies (Mullis, Martin, Gonzales, &
Chrostowski, 2004; Mullis, Martin, Kennedy, & Foy, 2007). The combination of these two facts
caused Western observers to pursue a line of inquiry known as the “paradox of the Chinese
learner” (see Watkins & Biggs, 1996). That is, they questioned how students could be so
successful when they employed strategies for learning that Western educators consider
ineffective. One result was that extensive research demonstrated that memorization could be an
essential component to a long process of understanding (Au & Entwistle, 2001; Entwistle &
Entwistle, 2003; Kember, 1996; Marton, Wen, & Wong, 2005; Tan, 2011). This illustrates Saïd’s
point. Western education researchers typically investigate Chinese learners according to the
degree that they are like some aspect of learning in the West. In this case, Western observers
initially determined that learners from China were like the underachieving students in the West.
Other researchers have sought to describe learners from China in terms of effort versus ability,
intrinsically versus extrinsically motivated, inquiry-based versus rote learning, student-centered
and learning oriented versus teacher-centered and content oriented. These dichotomous
categories seem to make sense in the Western context of education, but, Saïd might argue, they
are not fitting for learners from China. It is worth noting again that Western observers most often
describe ‘the Chinese learner’ in terms of the less desirable characteristics (e.g., extrinsically
motivated rote learner from a teacher-centered and content-oriented background).

Learning Experiences and Theories of Learning
Theorizing about learning starts with the collection of information and descriptions of
lived experiences that are grounded in the practice of teaching and learning (Merriam, Caffarella,

32

& Baumgartner, 2007). Examining such information and descriptions often gives way to
frameworks for understanding what is going on and why. When further tested and investigated,
some frameworks give way to theories that explain some aspect of learning by describing the
interrelationships in ways that account for the complex dynamics involved.
In the history of higher education in America, theories that dominated the field were
sometimes found wanting. For example, the growth and development theories that were based
upon the experiences of male students were found to be inadequate in the 1980s for serving
female students (Gilligan, 1982; Josselson, 1987). Thus, collecting information and descriptions
of the lived experiences of female students was an important starting point for developing
theories that explain the interrelationships and complex dynamics of learning among women
within U.S. higher education contexts. Similarly, theorizing about learning among international
students in U.S. higher education contexts must begin with the foundational labor of generating
and collecting information and descriptions of the lived experiences of international students.

Summary
The perspectives described in this review of the literature are important to
conceptualizing this current study because aspects of each helps to understand some of the
underlying assumptions about how learning is best fostered, and to understand some of the ways
that Chinese students’ experiences in U.S. HEIs have been studied. This research study offers an
excellent opportunity to better understand the cultural dimensions associated with the active
learning methods that are increasingly relied upon to foster ‘deeper’ learning outcomes. The
study sought to address the following question: Within higher education classrooms in the

33

United States, how do master’s students from China make sense of their experiences of active
learning strategies?

34

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN
Introduction
The goal of this study was to better understand the cultural dimensions associated with
the active learning strategies that teachers often use by examining international students’
experiences in U.S. master’s programs. The research question guiding this study was: Within
higher education classrooms in the United States, how do master’s students from China make
sense of their experiences of active learning strategies? Gaining insight into international
students’ experiences with the strategies, methods, and activities that professors employ offers an
opportunity to learn how to better serve this growing population of students. In addition, it might
reveal why some domestic students struggle in the transition into graduate education.
As Creswell (2009) suggests, the nature of this research problem and the associated
research questions called for a qualitative research design. That is, this study explored student
experiences from the students’ perspectives in order to “build an understanding based on what is
heard” (Creswell, 2009, p. 26). A qualitative approach is fitting because the intent was to
consider the ‘messiness’ of students’ experiences, acknowledging the multiple dimensions and
layers of complexity (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005), which couldn’t be easily accomplished using any
other approach. A qualitative approach is especially appropriate in educational settings when
‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are the basis of the study; the focus is to understand an educational
phenomenon and not to predict the future; multiple sources of evidence are included; and when
the aim is to understand processes rather than ends. (Creswell, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2007;
Glesne, 2011). Each of these descriptors accurately represents this study.
The focus was not on the methods that professors employ, but on how students construe
their experiences with the active learning methods that they encounter in their programs. Thus,

35

using a qualitative research design informed by phenomenological methods was fitting
(Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenological research methods focus on human consciousness and seek
to understand the meaning that individuals attach to their experiences. Studying the experiences
of a small number of participants using phenomenological methods of in-depth engagement
provides the opportunity to describe the patterns and relationships of meaning (Moustakas,
1994).

Site and Participant Selection
The population of interest was students from China who were enrolled in master’s
programs in the United States. In particular, this study focused on students who completed their
undergraduate education in China. These students have the ability to compare and contrast their
experiences in a U.S. HEI with their experiences in a HEI in China. Most international students
are hosted by just 7% of U.S. HEIs, the majority of which are doctorate-granting universities
(IIE, 2011c). I selected Michigan State University (MSU) as the research site because it is among
the top ten host institutions (IIE, 2011a). Students from China represent 36% of the international
graduate student population enrolled at MSU in the fall semester of 2012, which made it an ideal
site for this study.
The focus of this study was to understand how students make sense of the active learning
methods that are often relied upon to foster learning that goes beyond acquiring knowledge of
facts and figures. Research suggests that such strategies are implemented most often in
disciplines in which there is low consensus about the knowledge and methods in the field (Laird,
Shoup, Kuh, & Schwarz, 2008). Based upon Biglan’s (1973) disciplinary categorization, fields
like business and education have a low degree of consensus, while fields like engineering, math,

36

and most of the sciences have a high degree of consensus. Engineering programs particularly
have the reputation of being dominated by passive teaching and learning methods. As Felder and
Brent (2005) note, “A single approach has dominated engineering education since its inception:
the professor lectures and the students attempt to absorb the lecture content and reproduce it in
examinations. That particular size fits almost nobody: it violates virtually every principle of
effective instruction established by modern cognitive science and educational psychology” (p.
57). However, educators in many of the high consensus fields, including engineering, have been
intentional about integrating active learning methods into their programs. For example, a review
of the 2002 conference proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)
yielded 395 papers that included a discussion of “active learning.” Research and discussion
continues regarding best practices and guidelines, as reflected in the 2013 ASEE proceedings.
Paper topics ranged from forms of active learning that show the most promise in engineering
education to the use of active learning to address program accreditation learning objectives. This
suggests that students in engineering programs are likely encountering active learning methods
more often.
Students from China most often enroll in U.S. programs in business/management,
engineering, math/computer science, physical/life sciences, social sciences, fine/applied arts,
intensive English, education, and health professions (IIE, 2012a). Thus, students were recruited
into this study from business/management and social sciences programs because they are the
highest enrolling “low consensus” programs. Again, research suggests that students in these
programs are more likely to encounter active learning methods. In addition, students were
recruited into this study from engineering because it is the second highest enrolling area, and

37

developments in the field of engineering education suggest that students are increasingly
encountering active learning methods.
Participant selection was based upon the availability of students enrolled in
business/management, engineering, and social sciences master’s programs. Recruiting
participants started with an identification of programs that fit two criteria: 1) a large enough
population of students from China that would provide an adequate number of research
participants, and 2) in which at least one professor had been acknowledged by his or her peers
for excellence in teaching (e.g., Distinguished Faculty Award, Teacher-Scholar Award). This
second criterion was intended to provide some assurance that students are experiencing
professors who use active learning methods, which has become equated with teaching
excellence. The MSU website provided valuable leads to a qualified professor in the Master of
Business Administration (MBA), the Master of Public Policy (MPP), and the Master of Science
in Environmental Engineering (MSEE) programs. The two professors in the MBA and MSEE
programs were responsive to emails and phone calls and subsequently recommended students in
their courses who were prospective participants in the study. The professor in the MPP was not
available, but the MPP program website at MSU features profiles of students, which include
educational background and a valid email address. Students in the MPP program were asked to
participate directly via email.
The researcher asked for a 5-10 minute initial meeting with prospective participants in
order to explain the research project, verify qualifications for participation in the study, present
and explain the informed consent form, ask for copies of syllabi for current courses, and collect
preliminary participant information (presented in Appendix A). Study participants were selected
purposefully, which is consistent with qualitative research studies like this one (Patton, 2002).

38

Participants included Chinese citizens who completed undergraduate education in China and
were currently enrolled in the respective master’s program. Three other criteria guided
participant selection in order to gain insight across a relatively diverse set of experiences. The
researcher selected participants based upon gender, seeking equal representation in the group.
Respondents that had not completed at least one full semester of coursework in the master’s
program were excluded from the study, in order to ensure that participants had an adequate level
of experience with teaching and learning methods at a U.S. HEI. Finally, the researcher selected
students who graduated from different colleges and universities in China. Many of the students
who have completed higher education in the U.S. have returned to China to assume positions of
leadership (Mohrman, 2010). Many of those that have returned to teaching and administrative
positions in HEIs have implemented the insights they gained from their studies abroad. Thus,
some higher education experiences in China are very similar to higher education experiences in
America. Selecting students from a variety of institutions in China helps to account for this
aspect.
There does not seem to be an agreed upon number for a sample size for this type of study
(Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). However, some qualitative researchers suggest that novice
researchers should interview three to six individuals (Corbin & Strauss, 2009; Creswell, 2007).
With a smaller sample size the researcher can seek a deep and rich description of experiences
from multiple perspectives without producing an overwhelming amount of data. Ten students
were initially recruited into the study. One student had an unexpectedly busy schedule that
ultimately did not allow him to meet for the first full interview. A second student asked to
discontinue participation in the study because he wanted to devote more time to his studies. A
third student was excluded from this study because the interviews did not produce quality data. A

39

combination of inexperience on the part of the researcher related to interviewing international
students, and an abundance of nervousness on the part of the participant are likely to blame. The
initial aim was to recruit ten to fifteen students with the expectation that some participants might
drop out before the final interview, and that some interviews might not produce the rich
descriptions that are essential to the study. In the end, seven student participants were used for
this study.

Data Collection
The methods of data collection included in-depth interviews, classroom observations and
document collection. For the MBA and MSEE student participants, the researcher observed
multiple classroom experiences and conducted a 60-90 minute interview with the professor of
one of their courses. Each student participant was then engaged in an initial 60-90 minute, oneon-one, semi-structured interview. Following a review of the first interview and a second
classroom observation, the researcher conducted a follow-up 60-90 minute, one-on-one, semistructured interview. The classroom observations were helpful in focusing the interview
questions, supporting and challenging interview data, adding thick description, and increasing
the trustworthiness of the study (Glesne, 2011). The classroom experiences also provided
common reference points for the researcher to pose questions, and for participants to describe
their experiences with reference to specific events (e.g., “You remember last week when the
professor asked us to…”). The follow-up interview provided the opportunity for the researcher to
seek clarity about what participants said in the initial interview and what was observed in class.
In addition, the period between the first and second interviews provided participants the

40

opportunity to think further about their experiences. Participants seemed to be able to more
clearly describe their experiences after a period of reflection.
The methods of data collection for the MPP students were the same, with the exception of
the classroom observations and interview with a professor. Instead, the researcher relied upon the
vast amount of information available on MSU’s website regarding the MPP program. For
instance, a syllabus was available for nearly every course in the program. The researcher used
the syllabi as a way of gaining familiarity with the courses and finding a starting point in the
initial interviews with student participants. In addition, more questions were integrated into the
first interview, such as, “Please describe to me what I would see if I was a visitor sitting in the
back of that class.”
Interview protocols guided the first in-depth interview (presented in Appendix B) and the
follow-up in-depth interview (presented in Appendix C). A semi-structured observation protocol
guided the classroom observations (presented in Appendix D). As Glesne (2011) suggests, the
researcher made notations throughout the observational period and then reviewed, clarified, and
expanded them to add reflective thoughts and ideas immediately following the class sessions.
The development of all three protocols was informed by Creswell (2009) and by Moustakas’
(1994) helpful book on phenomenological research methods, especially chapter 6: Methods and
Procedures for Conducting Human Science Research. In addition, the interview protocols were
used in a small pilot study and then revised for this research study. The content of the questions
in the observation and interview protocols was informed by the research literature on teaching
methods that was presented in the literature review. For example, the researcher categorized the
distinct teaching methods and activities according to Mayer’s (2009) matrix of high/low
cognitive activity and high/low behavioral activity.

41

The second interviews with student participants produced the richest set of data for this
study. In many ways, the initial meeting and first interview were simply setting up the second
interview. Students provided access to syllabi and course descriptions in the initial meeting,
which were used as a primary starting point in the first interview. Students were asked to
describe their classroom experiences in the first interview, with particular attention given to
questions about the teaching and learning methods they had encountered. The researcher then
compiled a list of teaching and learning methods for each student, such as lecture, small group
discussions, class discussion, research papers, projects, and presentations. In the second
interview, each student was asked to categorize each method using a card sort system. Students
assigned each teaching and learning method to one of three categories: 1) methods that work
well in helping me to learn, 2) methods that work moderately well in helping me to learn, 3)
methods that have limited effectiveness in helping me to learn. Surprisingly, very few methods
were assigned to the third category. However, the actual category assignment was not the most
relevant aspect for this study. Instead, it was the rationale that students provided for their
assignment. For example, one student assigned “lecture with PowerPoint” to the second
category. He was subsequently asked two questions: 1) Why is it only moderately helpful? 2)
What would have to be different in order for you to assign it to the first or third categories? His
answers to these questions revealed insights into how he made sense of the teaching and learning
methods he encountered in his program at MSU.
Each interview was conducted in English, which was a potentially limiting factor for the
study. Participants might have been able to more accurately and clearly express their perceptions
in their first language. However, each student demonstrated a relatively high degree of English
language proficiency in the initial meeting, and by virtue of admission to an English instruction

42

program. Conducting two interviews with a period of reflection between them was intended to
provide the opportunity for participants to formulate their thoughts and anticipate the request to
express those thoughts in English. Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim
as soon as possible after the conclusion of the interview. The researcher included notations of
pauses, hesitations, and non-verbal expressions. In addition, the researcher recorded notes
immediately following each interview, reflecting on the interview and noting observations such
as visual cues that might be missed in the audio recording. Finally, the researcher collected
documents as needed in the process of the study. Documents included syllabi, handouts, and
program marketing materials.

Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using an iterative process that included gaining familiarity with
each participants’ perspective, identifying significant statements, clustering statements into units
of meaning, crafting textural descriptions, identifying themes, and crafting a composite textural
description (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994). A visual presentation of this iterative process is
provided in Figure 2. To begin, the transcribed interviews, classroom observations, documentary
evidence, and notes for each participant were read in their entirety before reading succeeding
transcripts. The intent was to reduce the possibility of confusing participants’ thoughts with one
another. The researcher listened to the audio recordings simultaneously when initially reading a
transcript in its entirety, and refrained from pausing or taking notes.

43

Gain	
  Familiarity	
  

Craft	
  Composite	
  
Textural	
  
Description	
  

Identify	
  
Signi2icant	
  
Statements	
  

Identify	
  Themes	
  

Cluster	
  
Statements	
  

Craft	
  Textural	
  
Descriptions	
  

Figure 1 – Iterative Process of Data Analysis

In subsequent readings the researcher recorded thoughts, reflections, and questions and
identified statements that are significant to the research questions. Using the process of
‘horizonalization,’ all statements that participants made were carefully considered individually
(Moustakas, 1994). The researcher used the MAXQDA computer software designed for
qualitative research projects to manage the process of coding each statement, commenting, and
grouping them into clusters of related meanings. For instance, statements like, “It makes me feel
nervous,” and “Because I like that feeling just talk about and discuss and have some new idea,”
were coded as “feelings.” The process of identifying units of related meaning required multiple
iterations of re-coding and re-clustering. As Moustakas suggests, each theme was validated
against the complete transcripts, classroom observation notes, and documentary evidence to be
certain that it was compatible or explicitly addressed by participants.

44

In the next phase the researcher wrote an “individual textural description” for each
participant (Moustakas, 1994, p. 121). Each description provided an idea of what participants
experienced, including their beliefs, emotions, and examples (Creswell, 2007). As often as
possible, participants’ exact words were used. The textural descriptions were then validated by
comparison to the transcripts, classroom observation notes, and documentary evidence.
The researcher analyzed the validated individual textural descriptions to identify
overlapping themes that represented broader meaning categories. The meaning units from all
participants were compared to each other and consolidated into broader categories of themes that
accurately represent each participant’s experience. For example, the theme of “self-directed”
resulted from combining units of meaning that were initially clustered separately as “personal
responsibility” and “internal motivation.” The themes were again validated by comparison to the
transcripts, classroom observations, and documentary evidence and then used to inform the
crafting of a “composite textural description.” The individual textural descriptions were
integrated into a single description of “the meanings and essences of the experience” that
represents the group as a whole (Moustakas, 1994).

Limitations
As a qualitative study informed by phenomenological methods, this research was
designed to gain insight into the essences and meanings that some learners attach to the teaching
methods that they encounter in the classroom. There are a few factors that limit the study. First,
the study is heavily dependent upon the researcher. Specifically, the study is limited to the
degree that the researcher is unable to set aside his own beliefs and judgments about the
experiences themselves, and focus on what participants reveal about how they make sense of

45

their experiences. As Moustakas suggests, “I can intend an open and fresh approach to my
knowledge of something but the problem of language and habit still exist; my own rooted ways
of perceiving and knowing still enter in” (1994, p. 61). Second, conducting the in-depth
interviews in English is a limiting factor. Participants demonstrated a level of English language
proficiency that is deemed necessary for admission to a master’s program in a U.S. HEI.
However, that level of proficiency may not have included the language that is needed to fully
and clearly express the ways in which they construe their experiences.
A third limiting factor is related to the perceived social pressures involved in instances
where individuals are asked to reveal their thoughts and perspectives about themselves and
others. As an example, a participant may have consciously or unconsciously withheld a
description of how he or she actually makes sense of a teaching method in an effort to respect the
teacher or avoid a negative appearance to the researcher. Finally, the results of this research
project are the product of studying fewer than seven people’s experiences. It is reasonable to
expect that a study of seven other students might produce different results.

46

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS
Review of Goal and Research Question
The goal of this study was to better understand the cultural dimensions associated with
the active learning strategies that teachers often use. The research question guiding this study
was: Within higher education classrooms in the United States, how do master’s students from
China make sense of their experiences of active learning strategies? I examined the experiences
of seven students from China enrolled at a U.S. public research university in three different
master’s programs: Master of Business Administration, Master of Public Policy, and Master of
Science in Environmental Engineering.

Organization of Chapter Four
The primary findings of this study will be presented in five main sections. The first
section presents and discusses a general description of the teaching and learning contexts for
each of the three programs represented in the study. The second section provides individual
profiles for of each of the student participants. In the third section, the five themes that resulted
from clustering the themes across the group will be presented in detail. The overarching themes
for the group will be presented in the fourth section, which resulted from analysis of the five
recurrent themes together. Finally, a look across the themes, including the various nuances of
each, provides a view of three ways that the students in this study seemed to develop preferences
for particular teaching and learning methods. That is, the final section provides a view of the
influences that seemed to orient these students toward or away from active learning strategies.

47

Teaching and Learning Contexts
This section will provide a thumbnail sketch of each of the three programs represented in
this study in order to better understand the academic context in which the students are engaged.
The significance of some of the details of the programs will become increasingly apparent in the
description of the clustered themes and the discussion of the research findings. For instance, the
bifurcation of foundational and advanced courses is evident in the way that each of the programs
seem to be designed, which is also reflected in the ways that students describe their experiences.
Also, the emphasis on developing expert practitioners and the amount of freedom that each
program affords students to choose their academic path are significant in regards to how students
seem to make sense of their experiences in their programs.
Master of Business Administration. Part of the research for this study included a review of
the online and print program information and marketing materials, a 90-minute interview with
the professor of a course in the core curriculum, multiple classroom observations in his course,
and a review of the syllabus. The 60-credit Master of Business Administration (MBA) program
is advertised as a program that “equips you with a holistic understanding of the fast-paced,
multicultural world of business and instills the roll-up-your-sleeves work ethic sought by top
employers” (Michigan State University, 2013b). The core curriculum accounts for half of the
coursework, which the College of Business refers to as “foundational learning.” A quarter of the
coursework is intended to help students gain subject matter expertise in one of four particular
concentrations, and a quarter of the program allows students to select courses in other areas of
business that they want to pursue.
A review of the program reveals that experiential learning is heavily emphasized, which is
explicit and evident in the extra-curricular activities. One type of extra-curricular activity, case

48

competitions, seems to be highly valued by students. First-year students compete in four-person
teams within the college. Students can also choose to apply to represent Michigan State
University at a case competition against MBA programs from eleven peer institutions. Also,
students can choose to compete in a business plan competition. The thrust of the MBA program
is apparent in these extra-curricular opportunities, as is evident in this description of the business
plan competition: “This competition is designed to foster creativity, leadership and learning
through the process of creating new innovative business ventures. The competition is constructed
to help you to turn an innovative idea into a business proposal, and to prepare you for successful
business creation, business development and to fund your business” (Michigan State University,
2013c). In a second type of extra-curricular activities students are given access to three industrylevel laboratory settings. These labs allow students to practice applying their knowledge and
skills in a simulated environment. The emphasis, again, is giving students opportunities to apply
what they are learning to real-world situations in preparation for a career in business.
Experiential learning also seems to occupy a central role in the curriculum. The course in
which I interviewed the professor and observed classes is not the template for all courses in the
MBA program. Still, it provides insight into a pedagogical approach that students encounter in
the College of Business, and a description of a specific course that all students encounter in the
MBA program. For this professor, nearly every class session follows the same format: a 10minute, 10-question quiz over the reading at the start of class; two teams of students present a
case analysis for the two case studies assigned the previous week; a period of open question and
answer; and a 20-minute lecture by the professor as a preview of the reading and cases assigned
for the following week. Students who are not presenting that week are required to submit a onepage summary of their analysis of one of the cases. The professor (PR1) describes this format as

49

grounded in active learning theory. He says, “I try to be as experiential as is feasible, and that’s
kind of what drove me to do cases… They learn how to interact with other people in decisionmaking problem-solving, which is an accurate presentation of what probably 80% of them are
going to be doing when they graduate” (PR1: 2). Later in the interview the professor described
some of the recent and upcoming upgrades to classrooms in the College of Business that, as he
says, are “pitched rooms from the ‘60s and ‘70s,” which limit faculty to “straight lecturing”
(PR1: 20). He suggests that these upgrades are evidence that the MBA program, and the College
of Business in general, is embracing an active learning approach by providing students with
venues and opportunities to attach the knowledge they are gaining in the reading and lectures to
real-world scenarios. Of course, student participants in this study report that they sometimes
encounter the “straight lecture” course in which they can manage the demands of the course by
simply regurgitating information from lectures and reading assignments on a mid-term or final
exam.
Master of Public Policy. The 39-credit Master of Public Policy (MPP) program is jointly
administered by the Department of Economics and the Department of Political Science. The
program requires 24 credits of core coursework, six credits in an area of concentration, and nine
credits of coursework in areas of public policy that students choose to pursue. In addition to
interviews with two students in the program, part of the research for this study included a review
of eleven syllabi, the web pages related to the program, and documents related to extra-curricular
activities that are offered to MPP students.
The students in this study described each course in the program as belonging to one of
two possible categories. In the first category are the courses that are “basic” and “number driven”
(P7.1: 147). That is, they say that there isn’t much to do in the course other than read, listen to

50

the professor explain when and how to use certain calculations, practice using the calculations on
homework assignments, and demonstrate competence on relatively straightforward exams. The
format for courses like these, as reflected in the review of syllabi described in Figure 3, primarily
consists of lecture, some lab work, and the occasional seminar approach or limited class
discussion. One of the student participants argued that the Public Finance course was
administered in this way, but that the format was not fitting for the content.
The second category of courses the students described is characterized by the complex
nature of the content. In this category of courses, students cannot simply commit a set of
calculations to memory along with a basic description of when each calculation should be used.
Rather, professors introduce students to the multi-layered and intersecting problems that
practitioners in public policy have to address. The following excerpt from one of the syllabi
represents the type of complexity that characterizes this category of courses.
A finance-related economic crisis like the one that erupted in 2008 had not been seen in
the United States since the Great Depression. From significant excess borrowing in the
run-up to the crisis to significant loss of household wealth that constrains economic
recovery, this crisis puts in stark relief the centrality of the financial system and financial
policymaking to the economy. The debt and banking crisis in Europe that threatens the
U.S. and global recovery makes this point even more starkly. The objective of this course
is to introduce students to the economics and public policy of finance in the United States
and in the world. The course will include several specific topics regarding financial crisis,
including causes, trends, and possible policy interventions. Simultaneously, the course
will develop methodological and analytical tools that are helpful for understanding the
intersection of finance and public policy more generally. In addition to exposure to policy
issues and their related data, a goal of the course is to build and apply technical skills that
will be useful in public-policy analysis, generally (Finance & Public Policy, p. 1).
The student participants in this study describe, and the syllabi reflect, the format for courses in
this category as primarily consisting of discussion-oriented lecture or seminar along with a major
project or paper, and sometimes a series a small papers or student presentations.

51

Table 2 – Content and Format of MPP Courses as Reflected in Syllabi
Content

Format

Quantitative Methods 1

Lecture, Seminar, Lab work

Quantitative Methods 2

Lecture, Lab

Quantitative Methods 3**

Lecture, Lab

Microeconomic Theory

Lecture

Policy Evaluation

Lecture, Seminar, Major Project

Public Policy

Seminar, Major Research Paper

Public Finance

Lecture w/ class discussion

Policy Analysis Workshop

Independent Study, Major Project

Finance and Public Policy

Lecture w/ class discussion, Major Research Paper

Education Policy Public Policy

Seminar, Major Project

Issues in Public Policy
**Elective course

Seminar, Major Project

Master of Science in Environmental Engineering. The stated purpose of the 30-credit
Master of Science in Environmental Engineering (MSEE) program is to “to train students for
professional practice as environmental engineers in consulting firms, corporations, and
governmental organizations… and in organizations with broader missions such as international
development, technology development, policy, public health and business” (Graduate Handbook,
p. 1). Students are required to complete the 19-credit core curriculum, at least 7 credits of
coursework of their choosing, and either a thesis or a capstone project.
The emphasis within the program is explicitly on training practitioners who can manage
new problems that arise over the span of a career. In fact, the Graduate Student Handbook for the
Environmental Engineering Program, which is a guiding document for the program, begins with
a defining quote from the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors:
“Environmental engineering is the application of scientific and engineering principles to assess,
manage and design sustainable environmental systems for the protection of human and
ecological health” (Graduate Handbook, p. 1). Thus, the program is intended to equip students

52

with the knowledge and skills to address real-world problems that they will encounter in their
professions.
In addition to coursework, students are strongly encouraged to get involved in two types
of extra-curricular activities. First, students are encouraged to get involved in research projects
with their professors or upper-level graduate students. As one student participant in this study
explained, these opportunities help newer students gain an understanding of the possibilities that
they could pursue for their own projects. They also give newer students an understanding of how
some of the “fundamental” knowledge and skills embedded within the entry-level courses are
needed for addressing complex problems. Students are also encouraged to get involved in a
second type of extra-curricular activity, professional organizations. In the context of professional
organizations, students work on projects (e.g., concrete canoe, steel bridge projects) that allow
them to apply what they have been learning in the classroom. In addition, the student
organizations are avenues to participating in community projects that are relevant to their field,
visiting related sites (e.g., power plants, wind energy farms, wastewater treatment facilities), and
engaging guest speakers who are accomplished engineers.
The emphasis on applying theoretical knowledge to solve difficult problems is evident in
the way that some professors carry out the curriculum. Part of the research for this study
included a review of the online and print program information and marketing materials, a 90minute interview with the professor of a course in the core curriculum, classroom observations in
his course, and a review of the syllabus. The professor (PR2) explained that the overarching goal
of the program is to teach students “how to learn new things when you need to know those
things” (PR2: 2). He carries this out practically in the research-oriented course that he teaches in
the MSEE core curriculum by aiming to help students learn how to 1) identify a problem, 2)

53

develop rationale for solving it, 3) identify a method for solving the problem, and 4) evaluate and
adjust the approach in the process of implementing the method. The professor further described
the emphasis within the broader program as seeking to engage MSEE students in experiments
and projects as a means to developing them as expert practitioners in environmental engineering.
Summary of Program Contexts. Each of the three programs shares a few characteristics.
The curriculum is roughly divided into introductory or foundational courses and advanced
courses. The introductory courses include relatively straightforward presentations (e.g., lecture)
of essential knowledge and skills with relatively simple and straightforward means of evaluating
competency (e.g., mid-term and final exams). The more advanced courses introduce students to
the complexities of the content through a variety of means (e.g., seminar, laboratories) with
realistic projects or assignments that simultaneously serve as learning exercises and evaluations
of learning progress.

Participant Profiles
This section will, first, provide an overview of the student participants and individual
profiles that reflect demographic information gathered from participants. An important starting
point in understanding how the students make sense of their experiences in U.S. classrooms is to
get a better grasp on how they think about learning in general. Thus, the profiles include an
overview description of their beliefs about learning. In particular, each student participant was
asked, “What does it mean to learn something? How do you know when you have learned
something?” The individual themes that emerged from analysis of the transcripts will follow and
a summative description is provided for each of the unique themes. The recurrent themes will be

54

discussed in depth in the following section of this chapter. Synopses of the statements from the
interviews that substantiate each theme are provided in the Appendices.
This study purposefully included a small number of participants so that their experiences
could be investigated in greater depth. Still, the group represents a relatively well-rounded
representation of master’s students from China enrolled at Michigan State University at the time
of the study. The sample of participants spans three different schools: Business, Social Science,
and Engineering. Both genders are well represented, although unevenly given the odd number of
participants. The sample includes a relative range of grade point averages, ages, and hometown
provinces. Wei and Cheng had completed three semesters in their programs at the time of our
interviews. All of the other participants had completed just one semester. A graphic summary of
the participants’ self-reported demographic information by is provided in Figure 4.

Table 3 – Demographics of Participants
Undergrad
GPA

Current
GPA

Inner Mongolia AR

3.6

3.9

Engineering

Henan

3.3

3.9

Engineering

21

Jiangxi

NR

4.0

Engineering

Female

35

Guangdong

3.7

3.33

Business

Huan

Female

29

Hunan

3.1

3.72

Business

P6

Min

Female

24

Guangdong

3.58

3.3

Social Science

P7

Cheng

Male

23

Beijing Municipality

NR

3.5

Social Science

Pseudonym

Gender

Age

P1

Hugo

Male

24

P2

Wei

Male

24

P3

Chun

Female

P4

Mei

P5

Hometown Province

School

Participant one. Hugo was a 24-year-old male student in the Master of Science in
Environmental Engineering program. He graduated from a high school in his hometown,
Hohhot, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. He subsequently completed an undergraduate
degree in Environmental Engineering at Dalian University of Technology in China, having

55

achieved a 3.6 cumulative grade point average. At the time of our interviews he was completing
his second semester at Michigan State University, having achieved a 3.9 grade point average in
his first semester.
Hugo made a distinction within the interviews regarding the difference between
memorizing content for an exam in contrast to learning the content so that “you can remember
them and speak out with your own way” (P1.2: 377). He believes that memorizing content for an
exam can help students to achieve high scores, but that he prefers, by contrast, to “really
understand it, not just remember the words” (P1.2: 383). For Hugo, learning that is more useful
and durable starts by grasping the “basic knowledge,” which he refers to throughout the second
interview as the “basement” for advanced ideas and concepts (P1.2: 70; 164; 626). It is through a
grasp on the “basement,” or foundational concepts, that a person is then able to learn in a way
that includes understanding. He explains, “It’s just the basic knowledge underneath. If you know
that, you will understand why people can choose this way not that way, or why-, or the basic
logic lie behind that. It will help you to understand further. Probably you cannot understand the
name of the different segments, but you will understand why they do this, why they do that”
(P1.2: 385).
Throughout the interviews Hugo made it very clear that he is fully responsible for his
learning in the master’s program. That is, he chooses his courses, project topics, and level of
participation in course activities. In addition, he is responsible for monitoring his level of
comprehension and competency and determines what he needs in order to advance. He seems to
describe a transition from high school, in which the teacher directed his learning, to greater
independence in college and being more fully independent and responsible in the master’s
program. For example, in describing his first year of college he says, “I don’t know how to learn

56

in a college because it’s not the same thing, because in college you have to learn by yourself. In
high school most of the things the teacher will tell you how to do it, but in college… you have to
learn all by yourself” (1.1: 256). This sense of being self-directed contributed to how he made
sense of the learning activities in his master’s program.
After analyzing 137 potentially significant segments of 1,380 lines of transcript and an
accompanying 348 initial codes, I discovered six themes regarding how Hugo makes sense of the
teaching and learning strategies that he encounters in his master’s program: 1) self-directed 2)
relationship management is important, 3) confronts barriers, 4) activities are integrative, 5)
creates or produces something, 6) cultural differences are a factor. The fifth theme, “create,” was
somewhat evident among the other participants, but certainly not to the degree that it was for
Hugo. He seemed to believe that creating or producing something is an important aspect of
effective learning methods at the master’s level. He made it very clear that writing is an essential
way that he participates in each of his courses. He writes notes while the teacher lectures, which
seems to be very important to him. However, writing notes is simply a starting point for
“creating.” That is, he re-creates the teacher’s lecture in his notes so that he can review and
remember the content. In the end, he does this so that he can create in three different ways. He
creates a personalized understanding of the content, typically demonstrated on an exam: “I like
to see that you can remember them and speak them out with your own way” (P1.2: 375). For
papers, he does not simply compile information; rather, he expects that he should synthesize
what he finds in order to “create some new ideas” (P1.2: 425). In the second interview he
demonstrated this value when contrasting research papers that did not require him to “put too
much my own ideas or new ideas on that” (P1.2: 413) to papers that require more of him. “I
think if you write a paper you have to create some new ideas” (P1.2: 425). Hugo assigned high

57

value to projects and assignments that allowed or required him to produce something. With
projects, he takes a considerable amount of personal responsibility for his work, combining
personalized understanding with creating new ideas in order to produce, as he says, “the core
knowledge for your research or for your project” (P1.2: 489).
Participant two. Wei was a 24-year-old male student in the College of Engineering. He
graduated from a high school in his hometown, Zhengzhou, Henan Province. He subsequently
completed an undergraduate degree in Environmental Engineering at Southeast University in
China, having achieved a 3.4 cumulative grade point average. At the time of our interviews he
was completing his fourth and final semester at Michigan State University, having achieved a 3.9
grade point average in his first three semesters.
Wei responded to questions about what it means to learn something by emphasizing the
importance of using the knowledge or skill. “Well, I only know that I’ve learned something
when I use that, when I have a chance to use it. Before that, I don’t know actually I’ve learned it
or no, or not” (P2.1: 336). He went on to say that there is plenty of other “learning” that takes
place, such as learning that comes from reading a journal article or the news, but that it never
gets put to the test. “In other case I may not know if I learn it or not. For me to use it, it’s more
important.” Interestingly, he later reported that getting positive feedback that confirms that he
has successfully learned something is rewarding and motivates him to apply himself toward
further learning.
The recurring comments in the interviews with Wei seem to suggest that he believes that
the primary purpose of the master’s program is to be equipped to function independently, work
collaboratively, and apply sophisticated solutions to real problems. He relies upon teachers to
expertly design learning activities that engage students in ways that integrate the course content

58

toward applying “academic knowledge” (P2.2: 266) to realistic situations. Although Wei reports
a variety of difficulties that he encounters when attempting to participate in teaching and learning
strategies, he demonstrates a high level of persistence and responsibility for his learning
progress.
After analyzing 126 potentially significant segments of 1,430 lines of transcript and an
accompanying 364 initial codes, I discovered six themes regarding how Wei makes sense of the
teaching and learning strategies that he encounters in his master’s program: 1) activities are
oriented toward application 2) encounters barriers, 3) culture is a factor, 4) activities are
integrative, 5) relationships, and 6) self-directed. The fourth theme, “integrate,” was relatively
unique to Hugo and Wei. The theme was evident throughout the interviews with the other
participants, but Hugo and Wei seemed to place great emphasis on it. That is, they demonstrated
a belief that “deeper” learning takes place in activities that are intentionally designed to integrate
the concepts, ideas, and skills that are explored throughout a course. Wei made three clear
distinctions about projects, presentations, and class discussions as active learning methods that
are integrative. First, he believes that projects and presentations are opportunities to “dig into a
topic” and “collaborate all information we need and present it” (P2.1: 139). That is, Wei believes
that such activities prompt students to review and make connections across the content of the
course. Second, he makes a distinction between “academic knowledge” and “practical
applications” (P2.2: 266). In particular, he seems to believe that active learning methods are
necessary in order to help students make sense of their learning in ways that are practical and
useful. Third, he describes such active learning methods as being intentionally designed by
professors in ways that encapsulate the course content as students “solve” the project “based on
own understanding of, of how the topics he has given” (P2.1: 164). These strategies require more

59

from students than simple recall: “we need to think of what kind of knowledge we need to use”
(P2.1: 199). It is important to note that Wei believes that these methods are particularly
important for helping students to learn more advanced concepts and content.
Participant three. Chun was a 21-year-old female student in the College of Engineering.
She graduated from a high school in her home province, Jiangxi Province. She subsequently
completed an undergraduate degree in Environmental Engineering at Beijing Forestry University
in China. She did not report her final grade point average. At the time of our interviews she was
completing her second semester at Michigan State University, having achieved a 4.0 grade point
average in her first semester.
Chun’s response to questions about what it means to learn and how she knows that she
has learned something seem to be similar to Wei’s emphasis on “using it.” Chun said, “I have to
know some knowledge about these systems so that I can apply those knowledge into, like,
certain kind of case study in the reality. And if you have, you know nothing about it, I think you
cannot, like, solve those problems in the reality” (P3.1: 380). In a broad sense, she defined
learning as “to improve myself” and “to improve the environment” (P3.1: 376).
In the interviews, Chun indicated that the program at Michigan State University is not
what she initially expected. Thus, she had to adjust her expectations, and she had to adjust to a
different set of demands. In addition, her transition from high school and college into a master’s
program seemed to include refocusing on practical usefulness. In the end, she expresses
appreciation for the active learning strategies in her master’s program for the demand that it
places on students to “not just take it here and substitute some numbers in it – we have to think
about it and solve it” (P3.1: 146).

60

After analyzing 100 potentially significant segments of 834 lines of transcript and an
accompanying 300 initial codes, I discovered five themes regarding how Chun makes sense of
the teaching and learning strategies that she encounters in her master’s program: 1) required to
adjust to new learning situation 2) high value on application, 3) relationships, 4) self-directed,
and 5) preparation required. Two of the themes, “adjustment” and “prepare,” were unique to
Chun.
The adjustment theme emerged from repeated descriptions of the ways in which she
believed that she needed to adjust to the learning methods that she encounters in her master’s
program. Chun described two categories of adjustments that were required of her as she
transitioned into her master’s program. First, she had to adjust her expectations about the nature
and level of interaction with her professors. Prior to starting the program she seemed to believe
that she would engage her professors on a more regular and individual basis. She also indicates
that she had to adjust to a greater demand for student autonomy and less teacher direction. For
example, she says, “Actually we have those kind of lab things in undergraduate studies, but this
course is kind of different from the other courses because for this course, we have to choose
some topics we really interested in and then and design the experiment ourselves” [emphasis
hers] (P3.1: 56). Second, Chun describes ways in which she had to adjust to the more active role
that is required of her in some of her courses at Michigan State University. This more active role
includes behavioral activity, such as longer student presentations and participating in class
discussion. The more active role also includes being more active in constructing her
understanding of the course content. For instance, she says, “Um, I don’t know, maybe it’s also
because of the Asian. They are not really used to this kind of active things. And they prefer to
just receive those knowledges from the teachers” (P3.2: 403-405). She describes a period of

61

adjustment for courses that require students to go beyond passive reception, to “not simply recite
those things. You have to understand how it works or some general ideas or-, but you have to
like write your own idea about certain questions” (P3.1: 362). An aspect of the greater demand
for more cognitively active engagement is, for Chun, being mindful of how concepts and ideas
might be useful in the future.
The other theme that was unique to Chun, prepare, resulted from statements that suggest
that she focuses on being well prepared to participate in active and collaborative learning
methods. She seems to believe that she cannot and should not participate in such activities if she
has not adequately prepared. She seemed to demonstrate a belief that she must have a high
degree of certainty about what the teacher is discussing before posing questions or responding to
discussion prompts. Her transcripts suggest that she would observe silently if she determines that
1) she does not understand the topic or content, 2) she isn’t certain that she knows the answer to
a discussion-prompting question, 3) she does not believe she has prepared well for class, or 4)
she has not already tried “to first figure it out yourself” (P3.2: 186). She says, “If you were, you
were not sure about what the teacher is talking about, how can you get a question about it and
how can you discuss it with it” (P3.2: 496).
Participant four. Mei was a 35-year-old female student in the College of Business. She
graduated from high school in her hometown, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province. She
subsequently completed undergraduate and master’s degrees in Biology at Sun Yat-sen
University in China, having achieved 3.7 and 3.9 cumulative grade point averages, respectively.
At the time of our interviews she was completing her second semester at Michigan State
University, having achieved a 3.33 grade point average in her first semester.

62

Mei is different from the other participants in this study because she completed her
undergraduate degree and a master’s degree in China. Similar to some of the other participants,
she was employed in a career track position prior to starting her program at Michigan State
University. This may be helpful in understanding her orientation toward her coursework. That is,
Mei’s transcripts reveal that she is less concerned with the details of the course content and more
concerned with grasping a general sense of each area, developing leadership qualities, and
expanding her professional network. She seems to evaluate the relationships with her peers,
various teaching and learning activities, and the value of a course according to how well it
functions in “creating a leader” (P4.1: 347).
In fact, Mei described being formed as a leader as the primary way of defining what it
means to learn in the MBA program. She said, “Well, maybe for MBA program you don’t really
know every detail for every subject. It’s a program for creating a leader in the future” (P4.1: 347)
When asked how she knows that she has learned something in the MBA program, Mei says that
she decides whether or not she has learned something based upon whether or not she can do the
assignment with confidence. She explains, “But usually that’s how I understand, you know, if I
can do the assignment by my own and very confidently. So that means I understand that” (P4.1:
326). It became apparent to me as I read her transcripts that she assumes that projects and
assignments are carefully and intentionally designed in ways that require students to have
learned. Still, she describes three levels of learning. The first level of learning is “shallow,”
which she describes as quickly forgotten (P4.1: 398). The second level learning is more durable,
but that durability is dependent upon whether or not “you have a chance to apply or not” (P4.1:
402). Mei describes riding a bike and driving as examples of the third level of learning. That is,
the third level is defined as learning that lasts forever. She goes on to clarify, “So, like, MBA

63

program or most of the school classes, education-, I think is second level. It really depends-, and,
sometimes it’s the first level. It just know it, and then you forget it if you don’t use it” (P4.1:
402). Thus, “using it” is an important aspect to more durable learning in the MBA program.
After analyzing 111 potentially significant segments of 1,568 lines of transcript and an
accompanying 328 initial codes, I discovered five themes regarding how Mei makes sense of the
teaching and learning strategies that she encounters in her master’s program: 1) encountered
barriers, 2) learning activities clarify and solidify content, 3) relationships, 4) self-directed, and
5) cultural differences. The second theme, “clarify-solidify,” was unique to Mei. Her transcripts
revealed that she believes that effective learning activities clarify areas of the curriculum in
which she has misunderstandings, and solidifies the competency or disposition in lasting ways.
Throughout the interviews, Mei expressed a belief that her understanding of a topic is clarified
and solidified when she engages teaching and learning activities that require her to use the course
content in meaningful ways. She contrasts this to memorizing content for an exam, which is
quickly forgotten. Activities in which she discusses, debates, and compares her view of a topic
are ways, she believes, that she can evaluate her own work and level of understanding. The
internship, in particular, is a way of increasing her depth of knowledge in the field, and
determining her level of interest in the specific areas. In the end, Mei’s transcripts suggest that
she views active learning methods as complimentary and essential components to “internalized”
learning. As she says, “I think that knowledge is internalized, that means I will use them
naturally… In order to do that I think, you need, I think, I need more time and then I need more
practice… I can do more exercise or something” (P4.1: 194).
Participant five. Huan was a 29-year-old female student in the College of Business. She
graduated from a high school in her hometown, Dong’an, Hunan Province. She subsequently

64

completed an undergraduate degree in Chemistry at the University of Science and Technology of
China, having achieved a 3.1 cumulative grade point average. At the time of our interviews she
was completing her second semester at Michigan State University, having achieved a 3.72 grade
point average in her first semester.
Huan’s comments about learning suggest a very sophisticated way of thinking about what
it means to learn. Her transcripts suggest that she sees active learning methods, in particular, as
opportunities to develop cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal skills and abilities. Active
learning methods such as case study analyses and presentations develop ways of thinking and the
ability to critically evaluate proposals. As an example, she says, “So comparing your solution to
other people’s solution is definitely a good thing to help you to, in the future when you evaluate
a business opportunity or business case, it can, uh, help you to build up, uh, we call it a wellrounded, uh, skill sets or the mind, mindset” (P5.1: 669). Similar methods also develop
interpersonal skills: how to resolve conflicts, build consensus, respond to other people’s
demands, build a cohesive and productive team, and communicate effectively with others. Huan
also views such methods as opportunities to develop intrapersonal skills: acknowledging and
managing one’s own feelings in high-pressure work contexts, and imagining a problem or
situation from a different point of view. She described this aspect poignantly by recalling a time
when a professor divided students into groups that represented competing interests in the
workplace. “I think I learned a lot from that because you, you just position yourself as uh, uh, uh,
person in that case and then you, you argue and debating with other people and then you get, get
the first hand idea about, ‘Oh, that’s how they really feel when other people attack me;” (P5.2:
435).

65

Being self-directed in the master’s program is important to Huan. She demonstrates a
belief that students have to “want to learn” (P5.1: 463). In addition, students are responsible for
managing their learning progress, which is often facilitated through active learning strategies.
Like many of the other participants in this study, Huan reports cultural differences that she
encounters in the program, places value on learning activities that are “application” oriented, and
places emphasis on relationships with her teachers and fellow students. In addition, Huan seems
to be very focused on how the master’s program will serve her in her future vocation.
After analyzing 106 potentially significant segments of 1,594 lines of transcript and an
accompanying 260 initial codes, I discovered five themes regarding how Huan makes sense of
the teaching and learning strategies that she encounters in her master’s program: 1) high value on
application, 2) relationships, 3) cultural differences, 4) self-directed, and 5) future oriented.
“Future oriented” is a theme that was unique to Huan. There was evidence of this theme for the
other participants, but it was not strong enough to emerge as an individual theme for them.
Huan’s focus on her vocational aspirations seemed to frame the way in which she determines
what types of learning activities are most helpful. She seems to think about active learning
methods through the lens of future applicability. That is, she evaluates active learning methods
according to the degree that they equip her for potential vocational demands in her future. For
instance, the primary function of group presentation assignments is not to reinforce content
knowledge that will be tested on a final exam. She believes, instead, that the primary function is
to develop “well-rounded skill sets or mindset” (P5.1: 569). She often described learning
activities in relation to whether or not she believes that they equip her for the challenges and
demands in her future. Huan nuanced her discussion of the usefulness of various learning
methods with statements such as, “because, uh, for, especially for business world” (P5.1: 559);

66

“in the future when you evaluate a business opportunity or business case” (P5.1: 569)“like a
boardroom setting” (P5.2:162); “It can help because in the future we will go back to the
workplace” (P5.2: 194); “is kind of like a simulation about how in the future we work with other
colleagues” (P5.2: 196); and “presenting is important i-if you are a manager” (P5.2: 717).
Participant six. Min was a 24-year-old female student in the College of Social Science.
She graduated from a high school in her hometown, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province. She
subsequently completed an undergraduate degree in Administration Management at the Zhuhai
College of Jilin University in China, having achieved a 3.58 cumulative grade point average. At
the time of our interviews she was completing her second semester at Michigan State University,
having achieved a 3.3 grade point average in her first semester.
In regards to what it means to “learn something,” Min made two points. First, she
describes the transition from not knowing to knowing, saying, “it doesn’t belong to you and, turn
that things into, just change that thing into your own” (P6.1: 370). That is, learning is about
gaining the command of a foreign idea or concept. She elaborates by saying that people can
encounter or be familiar with something without learning it, or as she said, making it their own.
Second, similar to others in this study, she says that she knows that she has learned something in
her program when she can use it: “If you can use it to solve a problem in the homework, then
that’s when you feel like, ‘Okay, I’ve learned something.’” (P6.1: 363).
Throughout the interviews Min demonstrates that she is very serious about her
coursework in her master’s program. She compares the feelings she experiences in the master’s
program with the feelings of anxiety that she experienced in high school. However, she views the
master’s program differently. That is, she expects that her coursework will help her to understand
topics and ideas more deeply. Although her comments are more explicit, she is similar to the

67

other research participants in reporting that small group and whole class discussions are foreign
to her previous experience and can be beneficial to her learning. Min’s comments about working
with domestic students and confronting cultural differences add more perspective to how
students from China might be making sense of their experiences of active learning strategies in
U.S. classrooms.
After analyzing 86 potentially significant segments of 1,064 lines of transcript and an
accompanying 218 initial codes, I discovered five themes regarding how Min makes sense of the
teaching and learning strategies that she encounters in her master’s program: 1) cultural
differences, 2) self-directed, 3) feelings, 4) relationships, and 5) activities clarify and solidify
content. The third theme, “feelings,” was unique to Min. In the interviews she demonstrated an
awareness of the feelings that she experiences at Michigan State University. She reports feeling a
high level of stress in the master’s program, which she compares to the high level of anxiety that
she felt in high school. Although college was “very easy” (P6.1: 107), she anticipated that the
master’s program would be stressful. She describes her view of the difference between
undergraduate and graduate study, saying, “The level is lower, and all the things you learn it just
under, shallow than… And, but when you coming to the graduate, uh, even you learn the similar
to, similar subjects and, and you feeled very different and thinks very, very deeper” (P6.1: 113).
The demands of her master’s program make her feel stress, but she feels good about the
coursework on the whole, especially in comparison to her undergraduate experience. The
majority of the feelings that she describes, however, relate to large and small group discussions.
She reports that she feels more comfortable in a small group discussion, but that she feels
nervous and has trouble speaking in a large group context. Having a productive discussion with
her classmates makes her feel good. For instance, she says, “When we exchange and share our

68

ideas and turns out some new ideas maybe that connections makes me feel, make feel good.
Because I like that feeling just talk about and discuss and have some new idea” (P6.1: 354). Min
seems to define a productive discussion in terms of being valued by the group for her
contributions to their understanding, and benefiting from what her peers contribute to her
understanding of a topic or concept. Interestingly, she demonstrates an awareness and concern
for how her peers are feeling about the class discussion experience.
Participant seven. Cheng was a 23-year-old male student in the College of Social
Science. He graduated from a high school in his hometown, Beijing, Beijing Municipality. He
subsequently completed an undergraduate degree in English and English Literature at Beijing
International Studies University. He did not report his final grade point average. At the time of
our interviews he was completing his fourth and final semester at Michigan State University,
having achieved a 3.5 grade point average in his first three semesters.
Cheng seems to think about learning in two categories. In the first category is learning
that is incomplete and lacks comprehensive understanding. As he says, “You can learn
something, but you still don’t understand it” (P7.1: 404). When asked to describe an example of
the first category of learning, Cheng said that he understood “some of the back-up story of why
this is happening,” but he couldn’t fully explain the concepts or ideas on his own. By contrast, he
says that the second category of learning, which includes understanding, requires a student “to
have the courage to be not ashamed to ask questions or make mistakes so that you can learn from
that” (P7.1: 409). At another point in the interview Cheng described questioning as an essential
component to achieving this second category of learning. He explains, “So I think, uh, actual
learning, I think it requires, uh, it requires you to make some mistakes and really ask some
questions” (P7.1: 404). It isn’t entirely clear from his statements about “questioning” whether or

69

not he has interaction with the teacher and others in mind, or if he is possibly talking about
questioning the validity of the content. Either way, Cheng seems to believe that opportunities to
question and apply what he believes he knows – to “try to figure out” (P7.1: 407) – are essential
to “actual learning.”
It was obvious that Cheng intends to make the most of his experience in the master’s
program. It requires him to sometimes confront and overcome barriers, to gauge his level of
understanding, and to engage learning activities that will help him to advance. Similar to the
other participants in this study, Cheng seems to be very attuned to the relationships he has with
his teachers and fellow students.
After analyzing 82 potentially significant segments of 759 lines of transcript and an
accompanying 245 initial codes, I discovered five themes regarding how Cheng makes sense of
the teaching and learning strategies that he encounters in his master’s program: 1) relationships,
2) encounters barriers, 3) cultural differences, 4) self-directed, and 5) application. Each of the
five themes that emerged for Cheng were recurrent throughout the study. Thus, each of them will
be discussed in full in the next section.
Still, a dominant theme in Cheng’s interviews was the importance of relationships with
his classmates and professors. With his classmates, he relies upon them when working through a
large volume and/or really challenging content. However, he notes that sharing the workload in
the context of a group assignment can result in “kind of limited opportunity for you to dig deeper
into this topic” (P7.2: 60). Also, Cheng values discussing course topics and ideas with his
professors and classmates, but he seems to express frustration with the high degree to which such
discussions are “based on some of the American events or culture” (P7.2: 158). He believes that
such discussions limit the potential benefit to him and other international students because “I

70

don’t know the full picture” (P7.2: 168). He seems to suggest that some American students have
an unwelcoming attitude toward international students, which is evident in the way they
sometimes conduct themselves in discussion groups. For example, he says, “Most of the
American students will take even more control. International students basically have no say
because they don’t know the full situation we’re talking about” (P7.2: 206). He acknowledges
the difficulty that would result from full rejection by American students, but he reports that the
American students in his program are welcoming: “I don’t know about the other program or
things like that, but I’m very glad that my classmates, especially American classmates in this
program, is really supportive” (P7.2: 273).
Cheng reports that he was initially unsure about how he should conduct himself in the
relationships with his classmates and professors. In regards to his relationship with his
professors, he is cognizant of the different cultural expectations regarding how students relate to
professors (P7.1: 440), which he defines as “highly professional” in China versus relaxed in
America. Still, he demonstrates respect for his professors by not interrupting them in class: “I
would just do like him going on, because I really appreciate the efforts” (P7.2: 198). In the end,
he seems to be very attuned to the relationship with his peers and professors. He seems to
monitor the degree to which his peers are welcoming and inclusive, and the degree to which his
professors demonstrate their care for him.

Clustered Themes
A long and iterative process was used to reduce and organize the data into a logical and
comprehensible form. The data were analyzed collectively using the themes that were identified
for each participant individually in order to identify similarities, differences, and recurrent

71

themes. Figure 5 provides a graphic display of the recurrence of individual themes. Out of the
twelve themes identified across the seven participants, I identified five recurrent themes: 1)
relationships, 2) self-directed, 3) culture, 4) application, and 5) barrier. In order to be considered
recurrent, a theme had to be identified in more than half of the participants and traces of that
theme had to be present throughout the interviews with all of the other participants. That is,
culture, application, and barrier were identified as themes in at least half of the participants, and
there were traces of those concepts throughout the interviews with the other participants – even
though that evidence was not strong enough to emerge as themes for them individually. There is
a limit to what participants could say in two interviews. I expect that, given more time to
describe their experiences, the concepts would likely develop into themes for all of the individual
participants. Each of the five themes will be presented and discussed in detail in this section.

Table 4 – Recurrence of Individual Themes
P1: Hugo

P2: Wei

P3: Chun

P4: Mei

P5: Huan

P6: Min

P7: Cheng

Relationships

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Self-Directed

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Culture

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Application
Barrier

✓

✓

✓
✓

✓

✓

✓

Clarify-Solidify
Integrate

✓

Create

✓

✓

✓

✓

Adjustment

✓

Prepare

✓
✓

Future Oriented

✓

Feelings

72

Relationships. Analysis of the transcripts revealed that relationships with teachers and
classmates are important to each of the participants as they manage the learning activities in their
master’s programs. There seems to be four main components to the importance of relationships:
reliability, discussion, careful management, and developing skills and networks for the future.
Each component will be discussed in turn in order to clearly define what it means for participants
to place value on relationships in the context of their master’s programs.
First, the participants in this study seem to think about their relationships with fellow
classmates in terms of reliability. That is, participants report that they need to rely upon their
classmates when working through a large volume and/or especially challenging content, and
expect that their classmates should be able to rely upon them. Some classmates, however, are not
always reliable. For instance, Wei says that he regularly experiences learning activities in which
at least one of his classmates is “lazy” (P2.1: 260). Having a group member who doesn’t
contribute to the project is typical and somewhat frustrating, but he has come to expect it and
plans around the people who don’t work. Participants seem to believe that group projects and
presentations are not helpful to their learning if, on the one hand, they cannot rely upon their
classmates to complete the work. On the other hand, the project or presentation is equally
unhelpful to their learning if one person dominates the group. Dividing the work of a major
project or presentation can be more efficient. However, as Cheng notes, sharing the workload in
the context of a group assignment can sometimes result in “kind of limited opportunity for you to
dig deeper into this topic” (P7.2: 60). Many of the participants described this tension between
needing to rely upon fellow classmates in order to complete a project or assignment, and missing
the opportunity to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic or content because the
work is divided across the group.

73

Each of the participants also described their relationships with professors in terms of
reliability. They rely upon their professors for guidance and support, and expect that their
professors can rely upon them to do their part first. A statement by Chun succinctly illustrates
one aspect of what it means for a student to do his or her part before seeking assistance from a
professor: “But sometimes I will like ask for um classmates for help and if even they cannot
explain it, I would just go direct to the teacher and ask about it” (P3.1: 292). Thus, the professor
is not the first point of contact for the participants when they encounter difficulties. The
transcripts further reveal a general belief that professors should be able to rely upon students to
be adequately prepared before seeking assistance. Hugo describes this aspect in terms of
“knowing something” as a precursor to asking questions: “Because, you know when I talk to
professors or my tutors, I probably have to be well prepared on that. Because you have to ask
questions. If you really want to ask something, you have to know something” (P1.1: 64). The
general sense that I get from the participants is that they do not approach their professors on a
whim. They seek assistance from classmates before going to the professor; they ask questions
after they are confident that they have a base of knowledge or understanding to pose a question;
and they perceive that there is a potential risk to the relationship if they do not demonstrate the
characteristics of what they believe to be a “good” student. In a conversation after the formal
interview, Chun indicated how important it is to her to have good relationships with her
professors. She described her envy of domestic students who have good relationships with their
professors, saying, “In the class discussion they share their opinions. They communicate so good
with the professor. They have good relationship with the professor and I am very jealous” (P3.2:
Interview Notes).

74

Second, each participant seemed to place high value on relationships with classmates for
the opportunities they afford to discuss course content and ideas. Hugo talks about the value of
discussions with classmates in which they negotiate the different ways of thinking about a topic.
Wei places value on “listening to other people” and learning “how they think” because it helps
him to think differently (P2.1: 148). Chun says, “And the good thing is if you have something
which is you can’t, you don’t have a clue. You can just discuss it in groups and that is good”
(P3.1: 346). Throughout the interviews she demonstrated a belief that discussions with
classmates are essential when she encounters difficulties with new content. Mei places value on
discussions in which each student has to argue for and defend his or her view of the topic, which
is a way of extending her learning. Similarly, Huan says that comparing ideas with classmates is
“another way to help you to, uh, increase the understanding” (P5.1: 471). For Min, there is an
emphasis on having positive and productive discussions with her classmates, which are
important to her educational experience because “they can lead me to have a new…
understanding” (P6.2: 166). Finally, Cheng places high value on student-led class discussions
because “students know better about their classmates” (P7.2: 168). That is, he believes that
students can discern which aspects of a topic are more difficult for the broader group to grasp. In
each case, participants in this study place high value on discussion with peers as a way of
grasping course content and navigating course requirements.
Third, a main component to “relationships” for the participants in this study relates to
managing relationships with professors and/or fellow classmates. This was especially true for
Hugo. He reports that managing the relationships with argumentative classmates in the context of
a group project or discussion is an indicator of “whether you can negotiate well, whether
somebody can be a leader and can just help everyone can move it further” (P1.2: 272). Managing

75

others’ perceptions of him also plays an important role in how he engages learning activities. He
prepares and participates in learning activities with concern for avoiding embarrassment and the
appearance of lacking competence. Mei expressed similar concern, saying, “I don’t want to ask
some stupid questions that, you know, maybe, um, feel shame about myself to, to ask that
questions” (P4.2: 145). Wei demonstrated attention to managing the relationships with her
classmates in the context of group assignments so that the group can be productive at solving
problems. Interestingly, Cheng and Min express degrees of uncertainty about how they should
manage the relationships with their professors and fellow classmates. Cheng says, “when I first
come here, again just is I don’t know how professor will react. You also don’t know how your
classmates will react, especially the, the, you have classmates from America, from all over the
country” (P7.2: 283). Min seems to describe difficulty in knowing how to manage the
relationships with domestic students who are less willing to integrate international students into
group discussions and projects. This category of students, according to Min, seems to
marginalize international students: “And if the people they are, they don't like the international
student, they insist that they are, their ideas, and they maybe that kind of student, if you talk with
them you will have a very few chance to talk” (P6.2: 118).
Finally, the participants in this study seem to think about their relationships with peers
and professors as important for developing social skills and networks that will aid them in their
future vocations. That is, they value learning activities that require them to practice social skills
that are essential in their fields, and that serve as opportunities to build or broaden a professional
network. The MBA students, in particular, demonstrate a belief that a major focus in their
program is on helping students to develop the ability to conduct themselves appropriately in the
business context. Mei explicitly describes her belief that many learning activities in the MBA

76

program are less focused on grasping specific course content and more focused on participating
on a team, building consensus, and developing social skills and professional networks. She says,
“you get to involve a lot of teamwork and which is very useful for your career” (P4.1: 130).
Later she says, “So you learn more people, learn professor, or learn employer. You know, you
kind of build up a network. That’s, I think, that’s mostly the major purpose for MBA” (P4.1:
351).
Self-Directed. Throughout the interviews the participants revealed a belief that they
should choose their path and level of participation in learning activities according to their
interests, background, and experience. They exhibit a high level of personal responsibility for
their learning, and a belief that teachers and classmates are resources for guidance and support
when they determine that they need assistance. There are commonalities across all seven
participants in regards to what it means to be “self-directed.” In addition, it seems to be nuanced
differently for some students.
A large part of what it means to be “self-directed,” for all seven students, is to choose to
participate – or not participate – in learning activities based upon their level of interest and prior
knowledge and experience. This means that students often choose their courses based upon the
goals they have for the program; they choose project topics based upon their individual interests;
courses are determined to be more or less helpful for their learning based upon the degree to
which the content matches their interests; and they see a direct correlation between the
effectiveness of a learning activity and the degree to which it builds upon their prior knowledge
and experience. Huan makes a striking statement that reflects this sense of the interplay of
student with content: “Right, it’s kinda like everything interaction with you, and it’s uh, a
process. You’re building up your learning experience pre-, building up your, uh, knowledge”

77

(P5.2: 643). Thus, students see themselves at the center of the educational experience, and active
in directing their levels of participation in learning activities.
Another primary component of being “self-directed” is taking responsibility for
monitoring one’s own progress and level of proficiency or competency. For instance, Mei reports
that learning activities such as case study competitions, student presentations, class discussions,
and team assignments are opportunities for her to assess her learning progress. Min even speaks
about exams in terms of their usefulness for evaluating her own learning progress. She doesn’t
talk about exams in terms of demonstrating her learning to the professor, or the professor
evaluating her learning progress. Cheng acknowledges that there is an immense amount of
freedom in his program to determine what he believes is most important or helpful for grasping
course content. He suggests that this freedom requires students to monitor progress toward their
individual goals. He goes further to say that taking such initiative includes having “the courage
to be not ashamed to ask questions or make mistakes” (P7.1: 409).
Similar to the freedom that Cheng describes, the three Engineering students explicitly
describe a shift from a more teacher-directed and exam-based experience in high school to
greater independence and responsibility in college, and even more independence and
responsibility in the master’s program. Hugo describes the shift, saying, “In high school most of
the things the teachers will tell you how to do it, but in college, years, you have to learn all by
yourself” (P1.1: 256). Chun notes that the higher degree of responsibility takes shape practically
in requiring that students consider “every steps by yourself not just following the teachers”
(P3.2: 203). The Engineering program is heavily driven by projects and experiments. These three
students report that being “self-directed” includes taking responsibility for the project or

78

experiment design, rationale, execution, trouble-shooting, and consequences for making
mistakes.
The MBA students seem to believe that the program in general, and many learning
activities in particular, are designed in ways that foster independence and personal responsibility.
Mei believes that the end goal of the MBA program is to be formed as a leader and not
necessarily to master the details of the content. In addition, there is not enough time to master all
of the content, so she chooses which areas to pursue more fully based upon her background and
interests. Huan joins study groups when she deems it necessary; structures her approach to
assignments based upon what she believes is helpful and necessary; and uses the learning
activities that she encounters in the MBA program as opportunities to advance her learning,
rather than regarding them as ways for professors to assess progress toward predefined
outcomes. Returning to Mei, she revealed that her initial beliefs about how she should approach
her coursework were very different. As she was talking about the large amount of work involved
in the program, she said, “I mean for the first semester is, you know, the impression is too many
reading, and then I tried to read them all but later on my supervisor, I mean my GA supervisor
told me, ‘No one ever really read them all.’ (Laughing)” (P4.1: 118). The result seems to be that
she began to determine her level of engagement with content and activities according to the goals
she has for completing the program.
Of course, a fair criticism is that this might be a romantic interpretation of what the
students describe. That is, my interpretation is that the students are being strategic in choosing
their level of engagement with content and activities according to their backgrounds and plans
for the future. However, some might argue that these students are simply being opportunistic. So,
for example, they may be choosing their level of engagement based upon the minimal

79

requirements for course and program completion. In addition, while the participants demonstrate
a belief that their success in the master’s program is directly attributable to their own selfdirectedness, they acknowledge that professors can inspire or dampen student interest and
participation based upon whether or not the learning activities are designed well. For instance,
Cheng describes a course in which a professor presents a brief lecture and then appoints students
to be prepared to lead the class and small group discussions. Cheng believes that the resulting
discussions are more inviting “because students know better about their classmates. Like, they
know, like, what kind of discussion question will be most effective to unite a discussion among
classmates” (P7.2: 168). The participants suggest that courses in their programs may or may not
be helpful depending upon how well the professor designs the learning activities.
It is important to note that the interviews with student participants revealed that some of
the learning activities that they believe help them to learn do not arise out of a sense of “selfdirectedness,” and they might reasonably be more closely associated with the passive learning
activities of a behaviorist approach (Grippin & Peters, 1984) to education. As an example, Min
describes lecture as almost always helpful for her learning. Lecture that is accompanied by a
PowerPoint presentation is especially helpful because it is used later as a resource for “digesting”
the content of the previous class, and as a resource for preparing for the next class. When asked
to clarify, Min said that professors in some of the earlier courses in the Public Policy program
make the PowerPoint presentations available electronically. She uses the presentations to prepare
for the next class, specifically because there are regular quizzes. Min reports that the amount of
content along with the projects and homework assignments in some classes can feel
overwhelming. However, the weekly quizzes help her to focus her efforts. She says, “Yeah, so
actually the quizzes just can help you to more concentrate…” (P6.2: 570). Thus, it is the teacher

80

who is directing the students’ focus and effort by using a learning activity that encourages
students to extend their effort beyond their interests and familiarity.
This idea is further evidenced in the MBA program. I interviewed a professor from the
MBA program who had been recognized by his peers for excellence in teaching (e.g.,
Distinguished Faculty Award), and I subsequently observed his classroom. The format the
professor used for the course that I observed included a 10-question, 10-minute quiz at the start
of every class period. In the first interview with one of his students, Mei, she described a sense of
being overwhelmed by the amount of work that each course required of her. She says, “And as
an international student you know, reading is not fast, is not fast at all. And I take too many time,
you know, too long time in reading and sometimes I just don’t know, don’t understand what I’m
reading, just go through-, okay-. Nothing left in my mind” (P4.1: 150). However, the regular
quizzes focused her effort and time management. She explains, “Mm, to be honest, I read every
chapter in Dr. [Professor’s] class because we will have a quiz every week. So then I have to. So,
um, I mean for [Professor’s] class-. Because I foresee that every week we will have a quiz…”
(P4.1: 140).
Culture. A theme that emerged from the interviews of six of the seven participants is that
culture is a factor in how they make sense of their experiences at Michigan State University. The
theme, “culture,” took shape in the analysis by collapsing three sub-themes: different approaches
to education in China and the U.S., cultural references, and class discussion. Each participant
described differences between the approaches to teaching and learning that they experienced in
China and their experiences at Michigan State University. Although they were not asked directly
about it, most of the participants took time in the interviews to briefly describe the National
College Entrance Exam, the Gaokao, and the central role it plays, especially in the high school

81

years. Huan describes how important the exam is, saying, “the last or final exam will decide your
destiny” (P5.1: 101). Wei argues that the exam-based approach to education is most certainly
embedded within Chinese culture. He says that it is “the kind of education that go to, goes to
every, through the blood of every people” (P2.1: 567). Participants further characterize the
approaches to education that they experienced in China as teacher-directed, grade focused, where
lecture is dominant, and the emphasis for students is on listening rather than speaking. They
contrast these characteristics with approaches to teaching and learning that they have
experienced in U.S. classrooms, which include class and small group discussions, team projects,
and in-class activities. Min describes the contrast in striking terms: “We will not have-, we will
have fewer chance to discuss in the classes because Chinese classes totally not like American”
(P6.1: 57). She goes on to describe what she believes to be the differences in outcomes, saying,
“Maybe the, the basic knowledge for us, be very, maybe we’re stronger than American students
just like the math and that kind of thing. But we will, lack of the creativity that kind of skills
because, uh, just like our rushing prepare for exam” (P6.1: 63). Cheng characterizes the
differences between Chinese and American approaches to education in terms of “discipline
driven” and “creativity of the students themselves” (P7.1: 101). That is, Cheng believes that
American approaches to education emphasize fostering creativity and helping students to
develop the capacities needed for managing real problems and situations.
The second sub-theme that contributes to “culture” as a theme has to do with the use of
cultural references and idioms. Sometimes a culturally grounded word, phrase, or idiom can
obscure something as benign as a humorous comment, or as important as an entire unit. Huan
explains the dilemma strikingly:

82

Sometimes there are some context, we have no idea what is that and, uh, and it’s very
crucial for you to understand the situation or understand the problem. But, uh, since the
majority of my class they are domestic students, sometimes, sometimes professors won’t
stop and explain the details. And sometimes I can catch up with that because I, I can
search them online at the same time, but sometimes I don’t even know how to spell them
so which, which makes me, uh, which makes it impossible to search online to see what
are the things (P5.1: 576).
Cheng adds to this, saying that seminar courses and class discussions often rely upon examples
that are specific to American culture and society. “So, even if professor asks some question
based on what we are talking about, we cannot really participate” (P7.2: 96). He explains that
many international students are sent to the U.S. by their local governments and will return to
work in their country. Thus, they do not feel compelled to get a nuanced understanding of the
American context just to be able to participate in some of the learning activities.
The third aspect to “culture” relates to class discussion. Participants report that they did
not experience much in-class discussion in their educational journey in China. There are two
primary aspects to how participants seem to make sense of their experiences with class
discussion at Michigan State University. First, being a regular participant in class discussions
would require them to violate a Chinese cultural norm. Hugo describes the problem and potential
social implications for saying too much:
You know, I am a Chinese guy. We share the same culture on that. If I talk too much or
share too much things during the class I will be just shrink a little while for my talking.
That I shouldn’t be so strange with my Chinese classmates. They-, they all-, we all think
that-. We know that results. But we just don’t like to see. If I say a lot on that, I will be-,
uh, appear so different. I don’t want to be so different. You know, it’s kind of weird
things. When people just handout. They say, “Hey, you, you are not, our group. You are
such a different guy.” “You are a fake. You are a freak or something.” I don’t want like
to be that (P1.2: 332).
In addition, participants suggest that the emphasis in China – even in the context of a small group
or class discussion – is on listening to others and limiting one’s own speaking. Huan describes

83

the way that students participate in class discussion in China as following a “standard procedure”
that everyone knows and understands (P5.2: 397).
At times throughout the interviews some of the participants seemed to express frustration
with how aggressive American students are when they participate in group and class discussions.
This seems to further discourage their participation. For instance, Cheng says, “American
students take control. We just sit back, say, okay, all right” (P7.2: 194). They describe the
behavior that they observe of their domestic classmates as inappropriate, impolite, disrespectful,
and impulsive. Instead, Min suggests, Chinese students prefer to have “comprehensive ideas”
before participating in discussion, to “think deeper” about it first (P6.2: 650).
Interestingly, the students in this study seemed to think about the experiences at MSU in
“large culture” terms. For example, they used broad terms to refer to themselves individually,
their Chinese peers, their domestic peers, and their peers from other countries (See Figure 6:
References to students). Cheng’s references were simplest, referring to himself and students from
China and other countries as “international students.” Cheng referred to all of his other peers as
“American students.” Most notably, Wei avoided using any categories to refer to himself and his
classmates, with the minor exception of referring to working with “people from other countries”
(P2.1: 392; 394; 402). Chun sometimes referred to herself and her peers from China as “Chinese
students,” and sometimes as “Asian students.” Mei used interchangeably “domestic” and
“American,” and “Chinese” and “international.” She sometimes used “international” to describe
her peers from countries other than the U.S. and China. The broad terms used by these students
suggests that, for instance, they see American educational culture as monolithic and largely
distinct from other cultures. Thus, Min says, “…sometimes I would find out, ah, the ideas I think
is very different from the American students” (P6.2: 80). And Cheng says, “I think the reason for

84

that, for international students especially, is because when the professor trying to organize the
class as a discussion… most of time we don’t know what is going on” (P7.2: 94). Min noticeably
doesn’t describe her ideas as being different from the students from MSU, Mid-Michigan,
Michigan, or the Midwestern United States – just the broad category of “American students.”
Although it does not seem to occur to her, it is quite possible that she would not find her ideas to
be “very different” from her domestic peers at a university along the West Coast of the United
States.

Table 5 – References to Students
Domestic
P1

Hugo

P2

Wei

P3

Chun

American

X

X

International

Chinese

Asian

X

X

X

X

X

P4

Mei

X

P5

Huan

X

X

P6

Min

X

X

P7

Cheng

X

X

X

X

X
X

Application. “Application” emerged from the research analysis as a theme for four of the
participants in this study: Wei, Chun, Huan, and Cheng. There were traces of this theme
throughout the interviews with the other three participants. However, that evidence was not
strong enough for “application” to be identified as a theme for them individually. The four
participants represent both genders and span all three of the academic areas represented in this
study: (P2) male in Engineering, (P3) female in Engineering, (P5) female in Business, and (P7)
male in Social Science. Taken together, part of how they seem to make sense of their experiences
in their master’s programs relates to the degree to which they have opportunities to apply course
content and ideas to realistic problems and situations. This type of learning activity, they believe,

85

is helpful to their learning by bringing the content out of the declarative or factual realm and into
the experiential realm. Also, these students expect that they can measure their own level of
competency through “application” oriented learning activities, and they often evaluate the
effectiveness of professors and courses in relation to the design and use of such learning
activities. Each of these three components of “application” will be discussed in turn: realistic
problems, factual to experiential, and standard of assessment.
The participants in this study were explicit about the value that they place on learning
activities that allow them to apply course content and ideas to “real” problems and situations.
They use language such as: practical cases, real information, real data, real world, real system,
and real cases (P2); reality problems, reality, real project, application of this course in reality,
case study in the reality, practical examples, practical things, and real problem (P3); real
companies, how they really feel, and real life (P5); and actual data, put us into the reality, and in
the real life (P7). Cheng gave an example of a professor who required students to prepare and
present a professional proposal rather than a typical research paper: “He just say, ‘Okay, you’re
proposing some kind of policy idea. Just suppose I’m the mayor and you propose.’ When [the
professor] criticize you, we just shocked. The first person just don’t know what the hell is going
on… But when you think about it and when you get through that process, you came to
understand that we really learn much more from that process” (P7.2: 269). Although the direct
and sharp criticism of the professor – acting as mayor – was startling at first, Cheng said that he
valued that activity and others like it because they gave him opportunities to apply knowledge
and skills that will be useful in his career. Similarly, Huan expressed value for realistic exercises
that allow her to practice applying theories and ideas in a safe and controlled environment. She
used a clever analogy to describe the power of this type of learning activity. She said that reading

86

from the book is like grasping a two-dimensional model. Learning activities that are oriented
toward application “help you to volume it” into a three-dimensional form “so that you really
know how to apply those… concepts in the real life” (P5.2: 787).
Participants seem to believe that “application” within the context of a course is helpful
for their learning because it clarifies and solidifies factual knowledge by building a base of
experience. They can make sense of facts, theories, concepts, and “logical stuff” (P7.2: 148) in
ways that are meaningful and durable when they practice applying them to real situations. Cheng
describes the value, saying, “you really have to use it and really think about it. Until that time,
you can't fully just grasp, grasp the meaning behind that” (P7.2: 148). Huan specifically values
learning activities that emphasize the application of course content because they help her to
develop a certain skill set that she believes will be essential for success in her vocation. That skill
set includes decision-making, problem solving, navigating cross-cultural interactions, and
managing interpersonal conflict. Huan also believes that the purpose of many of the learning
activities that she encounters in the MBA program is to connect new content with past
experience and to develop the ability to apply it in the future. In the end, the participants seem to
value application-oriented learning activities because they provide a way to conceptualize
seemingly disparate “facts.” In summarizing the value of application-oriented learning activities,
Wei says, “So, if this home-, homework just designed for certain concepts – just kind of for
practice of the equations – it’s not that helpful. But if, if it’s involving the real case, it’s the type
of project, uh, I talked before – it’s helpful” (P2.1: 320). In this statement he alludes to the value
that each of the participants expressed for such activities: they can conceptualize seemingly
disparate sets of facts by working with them in an integrated and realistic experience.

87

Participants report that building this base of experience through application-oriented
learning activities places a greater demand on them than simply memorizing facts for an exam.
However, such activities serve as a means of assessment, helping them to recognize areas in
which they lack understanding. Cheng describes this idea well:
But when I actually get into that practice, actually do that, like, you can, you can, the first
time I encounter that practice, I kind of feel like my head just went black. I can't
remember anything about that, so I have to, it's a really hard experience… Again, it's like
what I told you about the learning process, you think you know something, but when you
actually do it, like, uh, a lot of stuff that is just, just, uh, missing from your head and that
process really, uh, just, uh, combine all of the knowledge I know, uh, into my head, you
know, in a very strong way (P7.2: 146).
The learning process he describes seems to include a cycle of 1) knowing, 2) applying, 3) not
knowing, 4) applying, and 5) knowing. The first “knowing” is naïve and unknowingly
incomplete. The first opportunity to apply such knowledge reveals inadequacies, which results in
an awareness of “not knowing.” The second opportunity to apply content helps to solidify the
content in a more comprehensive and lasting way. Chun adds to this, saying that she knows that
she has learned something from a course when she can “apply those, those knowledge into like
certain kind of case study in the reality” (P3.1: 375).
Additionally, these four participants often assess the effectiveness of professors and
courses based upon the design and implementation of application-oriented learning activities.
Thus, professors are deemed effective at fostering student learning when they use activities that
challenge students to select which calculation applies to a particular situation, rather than just
requiring students to execute a calculation. Courses are deemed effective if students are regularly
challenged to put the “academic stuff” or “fundamental knowledge” to use at the right time and
in the right order. So, as Wei explains, a class discussion is not well-designed if the “information
that we can have from a book-, it’s just academic stuff. If it’s just like, to discuss why 1+1=2. It

88

doesn’t help” (P2.2: 681). This thinking seems to reveal that participants think about their
learning in three parts. First, they become familiar with the “academic,” “fundamental,” or
“theoretical knowledge.” Second, they are challenged to apply that knowledge in a realistic
situation. This leads to the third part, which is to become aware of misunderstandings and
develop a more refined understanding of the content.
The value that these students place on learning activities that are application oriented is
further nuanced by the distinction that five student participants made between “fundamental” and
advanced concepts, ideas, and courses. Again, all three programs of study and both genders are
represented in this group of students, which includes Hugo, Wei, Chun, Mei, and Huan. Hugo’s
description of this distinction is striking in his choice of words. In particular, he seems to use the
word “basement” where others used words like “fundamental” and “basic things.” He notes that
a student must have a certain “basement” of knowledge before asking the teacher a question; that
supplemental readings and textbooks are “the basement” for grasping new concepts; and that
students choose courses that are oriented toward “the final destination for students” because “that
will be a basement for them to learning” (P1.2: 622). Wei described the difference between
“fundamental” and “high level” courses in terms of those courses which require a lot of reading,
homework, quizzes, and exams in contrast to those which require application oriented projects.
He and Huan described their high school and much of their undergraduate experiences in terms
of gaining “fundamental” knowledge, which was dominated by reading, homework, and exams.
Huan says that her undergraduate institution is distinguished for emphasizing a breadth of
“fundamental subjects” as a “solid foundation” for students, “so that in the future you can go
further, uh, higher education. That’s, uh, how this university is known for” (P5.1: 126). Chun and
Mei used the term “theoretical” knowledge as a way of describing the “basic things” (P3.2: 243)

89

and “basic laws” (P3.2: 251) that a person must know in order to be able to apply their content
area to real life situations. For all five of these students, extensive lectures, reading, basic
homework, simple quizzes, and exams are characteristic of “fundamental” courses in contrast to
the experiments, projects, presentations, real life case studies, and other application oriented
learning activities that characterize the more advanced courses in their graduate programs.
Implicit within this distinction is the belief that a certain foundation of knowledge is
necessary as a prerequisite to learning that is more lasting and useful. So, these students seem to
expect that they will encounter the more passive or surface approaches to fostering learning
when engaging the “foundational” or “fundamental” level in their areas of study. Furthermore,
they seem to embrace these opportunities to build a solid foundation. The fundamentals are, after
all, a foundation for something greater. However, they are sometimes puzzled when teachers and
their domestic peers embrace teaching and learning methods that don’t correspond with the level
of learning. For example, students in the Master of Public Policy program perceive the Public
Finance course to be a more advanced course. As illustrated in Figure 3, the course is presented
in the syllabus as an advanced course in the program that relies upon lecture and class
discussion. However, the students in this study report that the course relied heavily on lecture, as
well as reading, homework, quizzes, and exams. They were puzzled that the professor relied
heavily on lecture and other more passive approaches to fostering learning in an advanced
course. Cheng describes the gap that this causes in regards to “really understanding” the content,
saying, “But if you ask me, ‘So if you understand, can you just give me a full explanation?’
When I did that, I tried, uhh-. During the process of thinking about it more, I kind of encounter a
lot of problems, and hiatus between those series that, uh-, I found out that actually still don’t
understand” (P7.1: 432). Similarly, some of the students in this study are puzzled when their

90

teachers and domestic peers embrace more active learning methods when working through
“fundamental” content. This concept will be discussed further in the next chapter.
Barriers. Participants in this study regularly mentioned barriers that they encounter in
their master’s programs. This theme, “barriers,” was prevalent in the transcripts of four research
participants: Hugo – male in Engineering, Wei – male in Engineering, Mei – female in Business,
and Cheng – male in Social Science. Each of them described barriers related to English
language, different ways of thinking, and classmates who dominate discussions.
All seven participants acknowledged that language is “the first biggest problem” (P2.1:
378) for most international students. Many of them describe a period of adjustment to long
lectures in English, how fast professors speak during class, and putting their thoughts into
English language in time to participate in a discussion. However, English language competency
is not the primary issue that students report after the initial period of adjustment. Rather, they
sometimes adjust their approach or withdraw from learning activities because they lack
confidence in their ability to speak English well. For instance, Mei describes a course in which
she is required to give professional presentations. She knows that she should speak in a relaxed,
conversational manner. However, she adjusts her approach to the presentations because she lacks
confidence in her ability to speak English. She says, “I’m still not very confident about my
English speaking skills. So I usually, um, write what I’m saying, you know, very detail and then
I just, um, from beginning I will memorize all I have” (P4.2: 952). Thus, what might appear to
some to be a preference for memorization is actually a way of coping with confidence in the
ability to speak a second language.
When talking about whole class discussion, Hugo reports that it is a teaching and learning
method that has “limited effectiveness” in helping him to learn. When asked to elaborate, he said

91

that there is a practical limit to the number of people who can participate in class discussion. He
believes that it is an effective learning method for the limited number of people who participate.
As he says, “If you want to involved in that, you will get something. But if you don’t, like, it’s
totally a waste of time for you… more than fifty percent students will be just to sit there, say
nothing” (P1.2: 302). When asked to elaborate further, Hugo reports another reason that “some
Chinese students” are not active participants in whole class discussion: “Some students are not so
confident to speak out their English. Even though, I mean, my English is not so well. I know. But
I think as much, the more I speak the better I will improve on that. So-. But some of them they
are not so confident to speak out even though they know the knowledge” (P1.2: 321). Later in
the interview, Hugo says that students from China usually choose to participate in work groups
with other Chinese students because “we can communicate with Chinese” (P1.2: 514). However,
he suggests that students from China who choose to join a work group that includes domestic
students have achieved a certain level of language confidence: “because they are comfortable,
they are confident to speak English” (P1.2: 516). Thus, it is confidence, rather than just English
language competence, that can be a barrier to participation.
The issue of English language confidence is also evident among other students in this
study. Wei addresses the issue of English language confidence, saying that he is inspired to
continue extending himself when he gets various forms of feedback that affirm his progress. He
says, “it’s also helpful, it’s also rewarding because I know I have a little success that, to help me
to step further” (P2.1: 449). On the other hand, Min reports that she prefers to share her ideas in
small groups instead of whole class discussion because she feels less “comfortable” in the larger
context. She explains that sometimes it is difficult to translate her ideas into English: “I don’t
know which words to, to precisely to express my ideas” (P6.1: 193). She adds that there is an

92

element of confidence or nervousness that serves as a barrier to participation in large group
discussions. “Maybe that will, in the littlest group will not feel so nervous and you can-, because, but every time I feel nervous and I cannot just… it’s hard for me to say” (P6.1: 203).
In addition, the students in this study demonstrate – in the process of the interviews – that
they lack confidence in having the ability to effectively communicate their ideas in English. It
was evident with, for example, the oft repeated phrase “how to say.” A lexical search of the
transcripts surfaced a total of twenty instances from Wei, Chun, Mei, Huan, and Min. Sometimes
the phrase was part of a rhetorical question directed toward me: “For these presentation things
it’s kind of, um, how to say that? Like, words, it depends more on words…” (P3.2: 355). Or, as
Mei said, “…think of what you get from your, um, you know-. How to say? So it’s basically ask
for-. How to say? For donation?” (P4.2: 25). Other times it appeared to be a phrase that was used
out of habit: “And I think that’s, uh, self-reflection really helped me to, uh, improve myself, um,
or, how to say, master the skills…” (P5.1: 685). Still, there were other instances in which the
lack of confidence was evident in instances when English language proficiency was equally
evident. One exchange with Min illustrates this point well:
Min: They love to talk.
Interviewer: Okay.
Min: That’s-. Which word you will use?
Interviewer: Uh, I-. That’s what I would use. They like to talk. Yes.
Min: Yes, they like to talk. They, they enjoy because they want to say something.
Interviewer: Okay. Okay.
Min: Because I cannot find, uh, appropriate English word.
Interviewer: No, that seems like the appropriate English words.
(6.2: 272-279)
Not surprisingly, Cheng did not demonstrate instances of lacking confidence, and he did not
discuss the issue of confidence in English language proficiency. Cheng majored in English and

93

English literature in his undergraduate program, and he was completing the final semester of his
program at MSU at the time of our interviews.
The participants in this study further report that the different ways of thinking among
their peers can sometimes serve as a barrier to maximizing learning activities. That is, their
classmates sometimes approach a topic from a very different angle, which makes it difficult to
work through a case study or project. Participants assign value to understanding a topic from a
different point of view. However, that value is lost when a particular way of thinking about the
topic is too different to comprehend. Min describes the dilemma:
Maybe some, for example in the Policy Evaluations sometimes we talk about an example
how to use some-, how to use some model to address the problems, and when we
thinking about that kind of things we will-, the angle is total difference. And at that time I
will just, uh, think the small group discussion just, uh, helps me a little bit. Because their
ideas, the thought process are so different (P6.2: 82).
Wei attributes at least some of the differences in how students think about the same topic to
culture and familiarity, saying:
And, uh, because we think differently and we have a different culture. And we need to
figure out how to speak to people from specific countries and how, what, sometimes for
me still the challenging to, to meet with new people, because they are talking with
something that I am not familiar with. The culture difference. So, it’s always challenging.
I’m still trying to be more, trying to learn more from other cultures (P2.1: 402).
Again, Wei was in his fourth semester in the Engineering program at the time of our interviews,
and he previously explained that his educational experience is enhanced because he gets to
interact with people from other cultures and backgrounds. Thus, it is the issues that arise out of
interactions with people from different cultures who think differently and have different depths
and realms of familiarity that are sometimes barriers to engaging or maximizing on some
learning activities.

94

The third component to “barriers” as a theme for all seven participants relates to their
perception that American students often dominate small group and class discussions. The fact
that the participants in this study took issue with domestic students who are argumentative and/or
dominate discussion isn’t surprising based upon earlier research findings (Howard, Short, &
Clark, 1996; Nunn, 1996; Tatar, 2005). Cheng describes the barrier to active participation in
small group discussions in a striking way. “Because you can imagine that, uh, especially those
class discussions where American students really take control, because they know more about
their county apparently, and that will be much more severe when the small groups discussion
happens” (P7.2: 206). As discussed in the context of the “culture” theme, there seems to be a
difference in cultural assumptions regarding participation in classroom and small group
discussions.

Overarching Themes
The five recurrent themes were explored and analyzed together in order to further reduce
the data, and to integrate the individual themes into a set of themes for the group. As a result, I
identified three overarching themes: 1) overall differences in approaches to teaching and
learning, 2) primacy of the individual, and 3) dependence upon others. All seven participants
described an overall difference between their educational experiences in the U.S. and China.
They also seemed to place themselves – the individual – at the center of the endeavor. That is,
the individual’s interests, preferences, background, and plans for the future guide the educational
experience. In addition, the individual is responsible for monitoring his or her progress and
adjusting accordingly. Finally, depending upon and being depended upon by others characterizes
the educational experience in general, and their participation in learning activities in particular.

95

Synopsis of overarching themes. Further analysis reveals that a theme across all seven
participants is differences between their experiences in the U.S. and China. Hugo describes his
experience in China as more teacher-directed and including less student discussion. Wei
contrasts the more active learning methods he experiences in the U.S. with a grade-driven and
exam-based approach that is embedded within the Chinese culture: “the kind of education that go
to, goes to every, through the blood of every people” (P2.1: 567). Chun describes her experience
in China as more teacher-directed and having less freedom or responsibility on the student. Mei
describes her experience in China as more lecture-oriented with less student interaction
compared to the group discussion and projects that are emphasized in her master’s program.
Huan also describes a lecture-oriented and exam-based approach compared to a variety of
teaching methods and learning activities in her master’s program. Min defines her experience in
China in terms of teacher-directed and exam-based with a more moderated approach to
discussion and class participation. Finally, Cheng speaks about the differences in terms of
discipline-driven in China compared to an emphasis on “creativity of the students themselves”
(P7.1: 102).
A second theme that spans across all seven participants is the primacy of the individual
student. This theme consists of three categories. First, each of the participants seem to think
about the learning activities that they encounter in terms of how effective the activity might be in
preparing them for their particular future careers. Second, each participant demonstrated a belief
that students choose their path and level of participation in teaching and learning activities based
upon their interests, backgrounds, and determination of what is useful. Third, all seven
participants demonstrated a belief that many active learning strategies are useful for monitoring

96

their own learning. That is, part of the primacy of the individual student is the responsibility that
each student has to gauge his or her level of progress.
The third theme that results from further analysis is dependence upon others. There are
two sides to this theme. On the one hand, each participant seemed to assume that students must
depend upon the teacher for guidance and support, and rely upon each other. Relying upon
fellow students includes working through a large volume and/or difficult content, being exposed
to new ways of understanding topics and ideas through discussion, completing projects, and
developing interpersonal skills that will be useful in a future professional context. On the other
hand, each participant described multiple ways in which they are regularly unable to depend
upon their teachers or peers. Language is sometimes a barrier to working with others; some
students are unreliable; projects and discussions are oftentimes dominated by a domestic student;
some topics and discussions are difficult to understand or engage because they are culturally
imbued; group projects often include dividing the work, which limits the ability to get a more
comprehensive view; and some active learning strategies are not designed in ways that invite or
inspire participation.

The Effects of Educational Culture, Educational Level, and Socialization
After analyzing the seven participants’ experiences individually and collectively, I
identified three different ways that these students seem to have been influenced in regards to
their preferences and expectations for certain teaching and learning methods: educational culture,
educational level, and socialization. These findings add to the broader field of research on
students from China, which most often considers separately the effect of educational culture
(e.g., Tweed & Lehman, 2002) or socialization (e.g., Li & Collins, 2014). Such literature does

97

not, arguably, give fair consideration to other variables that may be associated with student
preferences for particular teaching and learning methods. Still, the following discussion must be
prefaced with a word of caution. Attributing causality to individuals’ beliefs and preferences is
not an exact science. As evidenced in the following discussion, there are tensions among and
overlap between the three categories. In the end, readers are encouraged to regard these findings
as a starting point for future studies.
Educational Culture. Analysis of the interviews suggests that these students’
“educational cultures” initially orient them toward, or aid them in developing preferences and
expectations for certain teaching and learning methods. The educational culture literature on
students from China is dominated by the contrast between Confucian and Socratic cultures of
learning (e.g., Tweed & Lehman, 2002). However, the idea of an educational culture was
considered at a more granular level in the analysis of the data from this study. Furthermore, I
relied upon the students to define the characteristics of their educational cultures. So, for
example, Min describes an aspect that she seems to believe is characteristic of her educational
culture when she describes her preference for a teacher-directed approach to learning. She says,
“It depends upon the student thinking because actually for us, I’m not sure other international
student, because for our Chinese student we like the things just, um, maybe we get used to the
teaching style, the Chinese teaching style because the teacher will directly to tell you what will
you see in the exams… we like something very straightforward” (P6.1: 296). Chun describes a
similar belief, saying, “Um, I don’t know, maybe it’s also because of the Asian. They are not
really used to this kind of active things. And they prefer to just receive those knowledges from
the teachers” (P3.2: 403-405).

98

Three students seem to demonstrate that their educational cultures foster the expectation
that some teaching and learning methods are more like public performances. In particular, Chun,
Cheng, and Hugo seem to expect that asking the teacher a question or answering a teacher’s
discussion prompting question includes an aspect of publicly demonstrating what he or she
knows. Thus, Chun believes that she must be certain about the topic or content before responding
to a teacher’s question, or posing a question of her own. Cheng, who was completing his final
semester in his program at the time of our interviews, described his belief that maximizing on the
learning opportunities that are presented at MSU requires him “to have the courage to be not
ashamed to ask questions or make mistakes so that you can learn from that” (P7.1: 409). This
striking statement and the surrounding context suggests to me that his educational culture
prepared him to expect that he should not ask questions, and go to great lengths to avoid making
mistakes. Similarly, Hugo describes a belief that making the most of his experience at MUS
requires questioning, but that “knowing something” is an essential precursor to asking questions.
He says, “Because, you know when I talk to professors or my tutors, I probably have to be well
prepared on that. Because you have to ask questions. If you really want to ask something, you
have to know something” (P1.1: 64). Technically speaking, a performance is typically an event
in which the players have rehearsed their presentations. The interviews with these three students
suggests to me that they expect that posing and responding to questions in the classroom context
are events that require adequate preparation for public performance.
A third and very revealing example of the influence of educational culture centers on the
beliefs and expectations that all seven students demonstrate related to their experiences with inclass discussions at MSU. There seems to be four aspects to how they think about and conduct
themselves in such discussions. First, all seven students reported that in-class discussions were

99

not a regular part of their educational journeys in China. Mei, who completed undergraduate and
master’s degrees in China, very strikingly explains her limited experience in China with
“interactive opportunities” like these:
So sometimes we have small groups, you know, small class. Maybe we, uh, maybe 30 or
40 person in class, but sometimes where we have big classes like here, about 100 people.
You know, but most of it is lecture. And, actually, the interactive opportunities is little
with the professor. Usually the professor gives the speecher, give the speech, uh, the
lecture, and then, yeah, that’s about it. And then the students just show up and listen.
(P4.1: 52)
Min’s report regarding her undergraduate experience is very similar: “The bachelor’s degree-,
the courses, the teacher almost the whole class is the 45 minutes, an hours, the teacher’s just
talking. He just seldomly asked student questions, so you will seldomly have a chance to raise
your hand to answer questions” (P6.2: 634).
Second, the students in this study reveal a belief that their Chinese peers at MSU share
the expectation that students should not, as Hugo says, “talk too much or share too much things
during the class” (P1.2: 332). So for example, even though participating in a class discussion is
foreign to his experience in China, and he sees himself as exceptionally outgoing, Hugo
demonstrates that he is cognizant that he appears to his Chinese peers to be violating a cultural
norm. He says, “We share the same culture on that. If I talk too much or share too much things
during the class I will be just shrink a little while for my talking. That I shouldn’t be so strange
with my Chinese classmates (P1.2: 332).
Related to this is a third aspect, which seems to be a set of expectations for how students
should participate in class discussion. That is, the students did not experience very much in-class
discussion during their education in China. However, the relatively few in-class discussions that
they experienced were governed by a particular set of expectations, which they brought with

100

them to their experiences at MSU. Huan explains her beliefs about the expectations for how
students participate in class discussion in China, saying,
As I recall when I study in, in China, professors will, uh, ask the question and then like,
it’s kinda like have a standard procedure. “Who understand these questions?” Ok. Then
students will think about it short time and then raise your hand, and then professor will
say, “You can ask this question.” The student will stand up or just sit there, but, uh, speak
out. That’s kinda like a procedure. So, but here it’s kinda like what-, after professor ask
question the students just speak out or sometimes they will raise their hand, uh, even
during the lecture. (P5.2: 397)
Thus, Huan’s “educational culture” oriented her toward certain expectations for how students
should conduct themselves during in-class discussions.
Finally, a fourth aspect of the influence of educational culture is evident in Huan’s
description of the “standard procedure” for in-class discussion: “Then students will think about it
short time… (P5.2: 397). That is, based upon their previous experiences in China, the students in
this study seem to expect that participating in class discussion first requires preparation. Again, if
viewed as a type of performance, in-class discussion requires some level of rehearsal. Min’s
description of the contrast between her expectations and the reality she encounters at MSU is
remarkable:
So then, and the peoples, I guess, aren’t very respect. And h-, the American student,
seems like once they have some ideas they immediately to say. And the Chinese student,
they would not. They would prefer to-. If they have a topic, they would think. They
would think deeper, deeper. And until they have a comprehensive ideas, they will talk.
(P6.2: 650)
The potential implications of the distinction these students are making here will be discussed in
greater detail in the following chapter.
Educational Level. Analysis of the interviews suggests that these seven students adjust
their approaches to learning according to their expectations for the particular level of learning.
That is, the transcripts reveal that these students have clear distinctions in mind related to
expected outcomes for high school, undergraduate, and graduate levels of study, and the

101

particular types of teaching and learning methods that correspond with each level. Interestingly,
a theme was evident among the Engineering students, and a second theme was evident among
the MBA students.
The Engineering students, Hugo, Wei, and Chun, seem to think about the differences
between high school, college, and graduate study as a progression from dependence upon the
teacher to increasing independence as a learner. So, for instance, Hugo says, “In high school
most of the things the teacher will tell you how to do it, but in college… you have to learn all by
yourself” (1.1: 256). Similar to Wei and Chun, Hugo goes on to say that students have to take on
more responsibility as graduate students. Chun describes how this independence and
responsibility takes shape practically with comments on the differences between laboratory
experiments and projects on the undergraduate and graduate levels: “Actually we have those
kind of lab things in undergraduate studies, but this course is kind of different from the other
courses because for this course, we have to choose some topics we really interested in and then
and design the experiment ourselves” [emphasis hers] (P3.1: 56).
The MBA students, Mei and Huan, seem to think about the purpose of undergraduate
studies as preparation for further study, in contrast to their thinking about graduate studies as
preparation for life as a professional. Huan describes her undergraduate experience as unique
because the university she attended is known for preparing students for further study. She says,
“The university, they kinda emphasize, uh, very solid knowledge they can teach, uh, university
undergraduates. So they spend a lot of time to teach some very general, uh, subjects. Which the-,
had a good intention that can give you a very solid foundation so that you, in the future, you can
go further, uh, higher education” (P5.1: 122). Mei also described her experience as unique
because she completed undergraduate and master’s degrees in China before enrolling in the

102

MBA program at MSU. However, her expectation about the purpose of her undergraduate
program is the same as Huan’s. That is, she believes that her undergraduate study of biology
provided the knowledge needed to develop as a biological researcher in her first master’s
program. In the end, both students believe that the purpose of the MBA program is to be
prepared as a business leader. Mei describes this, saying, “Maybe for MBA program it don’t
really, you don’t really know very detail for every subject. It’s a program for creating a leader in
the future” (P4.1: 347). Huan echoes this, saying, “So, so, for MBA, I think we are not here for
researching. We are here to learn how to interact with other people. We are learn, uh, learning
how, uh, what are the subjects. So it’s a combination, not-, so I call it applied subjects” (P5.2:
568).
A theme did not emerge from the two students in the master of public policy program.
However, Cheng described a clear distinction between high school and college. For high school
he said that the teaching and content is “very straightforward” (P7.1: 16; 20), and that teachers
closely follow textbooks and prepare students for exams. For undergraduate studies, Cheng said
that there is more “flexibility” (P7.1: 51), which he clarified as requiring students to take more
personal responsibility for their learning. He says, “But in college you have the same amount of
class. But professors know that you’ve already grown up. So it’s your responsibility, now we
won’t push you that hard. So it’s all about how you’re going to organize yourself in the best way
you can to learn the things you want to learn” (P7.1: 66). Unfortunately, Cheng never got to the
point of describing the distinctions that he makes regarding studying at the graduate level.
Instead, he spoke in broad terms regarding education in China being “discipline driven” in
comparison to education in the U.S. being “more about the creativity of the students themselves”
(P7.1: 102).

103

Min, the other student from the master of public policy program, made a striking
statement about the distinction she makes between undergraduate and graduate studies. She says,
“The level is lower, and all the things you learn it just under, shallow than… And, but when you
coming to the graduate, uh, even you learn the similar to, similar subjects and, and you feeled
very different and thinks very, very deeper” (P6.1: 113). She goes on to say that graduate
programs allow students to “get deeper in that major” (P6.1: 117) by requiring them to integrate
course content through comprehensive projects and assignments. For instance, she describes one
project as requiring students to choose a policy topic, defend the choice, determine which
methodologies to use, and evaluate the effectiveness. “It’s very, take a lot of time… you start to
evaluate a lot of things, you learn during the whole semester, you are use in these projects”
(P6.1: 259).
Socialization in Program. The students in this study seemed to exhibit and describe a
process of developing preferences for new or different expectations and learning methods by
way of the cues from their classmates, professors, and others’ descriptions of the process and
purposes of their programs at MSU. Mei provides an easy example of being socialized toward a
new approach to reading assignments. She says, “I mean for the first semester is, you know the
impression is too many reading, and then I tried to read them all. But later on my supervisor, I
mean my GA supervisor, told me, ‘No one ever really read them all’” (P4.1: 118). Mei goes on
to explain how she quickly became selective on the type and degree to which she chose to
engage certain learning methods and assignments.
A comprehensive review of the transcripts and other research materials reveals an
apparent relationship between potentially socializing forces and student expectations and
preferences regarding two categories of coursework. The program descriptions and syllabi are

104

obvious tools for socialization. Thus, it isn’t surprising to observe a relationship between
program descriptions as including “foundational learning” (Michigan State University, 2013d)
and “core courses” (Michigan State University, 2013a; 2013e), and students’ expectations that
some learning is, as Cheng says, “basic” and “number driven” (P7.1: 147) while other
coursework is “more complicated.” Chun explains the distinction, saying, “I think basically it’s
just lectures and courses, but I think because that course is one of the fundamental courses
required here before you learn other subjects. So you have to understand those basic things
before you move on to those more complicated things” (P3.2: 243). As discussed earlier,
students in this study seemed to distinguish between two categories of courses: (1) basic courses
that are relatively straightforward, and (2) courses that are characterized by the complex nature
of the content. As a result, students seem to expect that the first category of courses in their
programs at MSU will include relatively passive teaching and assessment methods (e.g., lecture
and exam), while the second category of courses will include more active and rigorous teaching
and assessment methods (e.g., seminar and independent major project).
A second apparent relationship between potentially socializing forces and student
expectations relates to the expected outcomes for the academic programs. Again, there are
tensions and overlaps between the three categories of influence that are offered here. Thus, the
MBA students expect that the program at MSU will equip them as professionals, which might be
an expectation that is influenced by their perceptions of the outcomes that are associated with a
graduate level program. In addition, the socializing forces of program descriptions and course
syllabi may influence their expectations regarding program outcomes. So, for instance, the MBA
program is advertised online as one in which students develop “the roll-up-your-sleeves work
ethic sought by top employers” and as strengthening students’ “ability to solve global business

105

challenges” (Michigan State University, 2013b). Similarly, students within the Public Policy
program demonstrate a belief that the program equips students with knowledge and abilities that
are, as Min says, “very useful and more specific and more practical” (P6.1: 270). Cheng
describes an incident in which one of the professors in his program seems to socialize him
toward this expectation: ““He just say, ‘Okay, you’re proposing some kind of policy idea. Just
suppose I’m the mayor and you propose.’ When [the professor] criticize you, we just shocked.
The first person just don’t know what the hell is going on… But when you think about it and
when you get through that process, you came to understand that we really learn much more from
that process” (P7.2: 269).
Finally, a third apparent relationship between potentially socializing forces and student
expectations relates to the freedom and responsibility that students have to choose their academic
path. On the one hand, the syllabi and program descriptions are replete with references to this
flexibility: “Our flexible program lets students select a concentration and craft their own plan of
study” (Michigan State University, 2013d); “the student is expected to work with their advisor to
develop a Program Plan that meets the academic needs and interests of the student” (Michigan
State University, 2013e); and “we will meet to (individually) to cover the requirements of the
course and to discuss your ideas for the policy analysis project… You are to choose a committee
of three to oversee and review your project” (Policy Analysis Workshop Syllabus, p. 1). On the
other hand, students demonstrate a belief and expectation that their programs at MSU provide
them the freedom and flexibility to choose their individual paths. As discussed earlier in relation
to the “self-directed” theme, participants revealed a believe that they should choose their path
and level of participation in courses and learning activities according to their interests,
background and experience, and aspirations for the future. Hugo describes this perfectly:

106

The final destination for the students is the personal goal, personal goal or their target,
whether they just want to get a diploma and want to get a job here, they want to further
the study for the master students-, for the study as a doctor or PhD students. The course,
which course they should choose is helpful for them… This just probably based on their
experience… One thing is if you employee already, which course you think you will be
so helpful for you in the future career path. That will be so helpful for them to be decided
for the future” (P1.2: 622).
Thus, it seems that the students have potentially developed preferences and expectations based
upon cues from their classmates, professors, and descriptions of their programs at MSU.

Summary of Findings
Analysis of the interviews with the seven student participants revealed five themes
regarding how they make sense of the learning activities they experience in their programs. 1)
Relationships with teachers and classmates are essential to their ability to manage the learning
activities in their courses. Participants expect that they should be reliable and able to rely upon
their classmates and teachers; discussion is an important component in the relationship with
classmates; the relationships with teachers and classmates require careful management; and
relationships with professors and peers are opportunities to develop the social network and social
skills that are needed for success in their future vocations. 2) Participants revealed beliefs that
indicate a sense of self-directedness in how they approach the learning activities they encounter.
They choose when and to what degree they will participate in learning activities with an eye
toward how well they are developing proficiency in the areas that they believe are important. In
this way, they take personal responsibility for their learning, and access teachers and classmates
for guidance and assistance along the way. 3) Culture is a factor in how participants make sense
of the learning experiences in their programs. They describe particular differences between
Chinese and American educational cultures; difficulties that result when professors use and rely

107

upon culturally imbued words, phrases, and examples; and the need to navigate cultural
differences in learning activities such as class and small group discussion. 4) Opportunities to
apply course content to realistic scenarios provide a base of experience for grasping the content
in meaningful and durable ways; provide a means of measuring learning progress; and serve as
an indicator of a well-designed and well-implemented course. Finally, 5) participants sometimes
encounter barriers in learning activities in regards to speaking English; working with classmates
who have points of view that are vastly different from their own; and participating in class and
small group discussions when domestic students are aggressive and dominate the conversation.
I identified three overarching themes through further analysis of the five recurrent
themes. A major aspect of how the participants in this study make sense of the learning activities
they encounter in their master’s programs is an acknowledgement and awareness that there are
overall differences between how they approach teaching and learning compared to their
professors and domestic peers. The second and third overarching themes complement each other
well. On the one hand, the participants describe and demonstrate a highly individualistic
approach to the way they engage the learning activities in their programs. That is, their
individual interests, preferences, background, and vocational aspirations are the basis for how
they approach the educational context. On the other hand, they heavily rely upon the
relationships with their professors and peers in order to accomplish this highly individualistic
pursuit.
Further analysis revealed that the students in this study seem to be influenced in at least
three ways in regards to their preferences and expectations for certain teaching and learning
methods: educational culture, educational level, and socialization. While the norms associated
with their previous educational experiences are influential in shaping how they make sense of the

108

active teaching and learning methods they encounter in U.S. classrooms, so too are their
expectations for the outcomes of a graduate level education and the cues from their classmates,
professors, and others’ descriptions of the process and purposes of their graduate programs.

109

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
Review of Goal, Research Question, and Data Analysis
The goal of this study was to better understand the cultural dimensions associated with
the active learning methods that teachers often use by examining international students’
experiences in U.S. master’s programs. The guiding question for this study was: Within higher
education classrooms in the United States, how do master’s students from China make sense of
their experiences of active learning methods?
As explained in Chapter Three, the data were analyzed using phenomenological methods.
I conducted one preliminary interview (5-15 minutes) and two 60 to 90-minute in-depth
interviews for each student participant asking them to describe their experiences with the
teaching and learning activities that they had encountered in their master’s programs. Analysis of
their responses was an iterative and lengthy process, which included transcribing interviews
verbatim, reading and commenting, coding and commenting using MAXQDA computer
software, clustering individual themes, drafting individual textural descriptions, clustering the
themes across the group, and drafting a composite textural description. The textural descriptions
were validated by comparison to the transcripts, interview notes, classroom observation notes,
and documentary evidence (see Chapter Three for a complete description of how the data were
analyzed).

Organization of Chapter Five
The purpose of Chapter Five is to discuss the research findings in relation to the relevant
literature, existing theory, practical implications, and how they might inform future research. The
chapter is organized into five major sections. An overview of the research findings will be

110

presented in the first section. A discussion of how the findings align with, contrast, or challenge
the relevant literature will be presented in the second section. In the third section, the findings
will be interpreted through existing theory. Practical implications will be presented in the fourth
section in regards to welcoming international students to U.S. classrooms, maximizing on the
range of activities that foster active learning, indicators of an internationalized educational
experience, and the complex dynamics involved in integrating international students. The
concluding section will offer a perspective on the potential usefulness of the research findings,
and suggest areas for future research.

Overview of Findings
This study investigated the experiences of seven students from China enrolled in three
different master’s programs at a U.S. public research university: Master of Business
Administration, Master of Public Policy, Master of Science in Environmental Engineering.
Analysis of the interviews with the student participants revealed five themes relating to how they
make sense of the teaching and learning methods that they experience in U.S. classrooms:
relationships with teachers and classmates are important to each of the participants as they
manage the learning activities in their master’s programs; they are self-directed in choosing their
path and level of participation in learning activities according to their interests, background, and
experience; culture is a factor in how they make sense of their experiences in U.S. classrooms;
they value opportunities to apply course content and ideas to realistic problems and situations;
and they encounter barriers related to English language, different ways of thinking, and
classmates who dominate discussions.

111

The five recurrent themes were further analyzed, using the iterative process described
earlier, which resulted in three overarching themes regarding how participants make sense of the
learning activities that they encounter in their master’s programs: they acknowledge differences
between their educational experiences in the U.S. and China; they describe and demonstrate a
very individualistic approach to how they engage various learning activities in their programs;
and the relationships with their professors and peers are essential to success in their programs.
Further analysis suggests that these students’ preferences and expectations for certain teaching
and learning methods were influenced in three different ways: educational culture, educational
level, and socialization.

Findings in Relation to the Literature
The purpose of this section is to discuss how the findings from this study align with,
contrast, or challenge the relevant literature. The discussion will draw upon aspects of each of
the themes and how they relate to 1) faculty perceptions regarding international students’
preparation to satisfactorily participate in learning activities that are expected to foster deeper
learning outcomes, 2) previous accounts of problems resulting from a lack of English language
proficiency, 3) the level of continuity between how participants make sense of their experiences
and constructivist orientations to learning, and 4) beliefs about the preferences for learning that
students from China possess. The discussion in this section will serve as a basis for discussing
the findings in relation to theory in the next section.
Deeper Learning Outcomes in Master’s Programs. The literature suggests that master’s
programs are ideal locations for achieving the goals associated with capacity building (World
Bank, 2002) because they provide opportunities for more narrowly focused and in-depth study in

112

particular fields (Conrad et al., 1993; Glazer-Raymo, 2005). In addition, the literature suggests
that master’s programs are being redesigned in efforts to foster deeper learning outcomes that
include cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal components that are relevant across a variety
of professional contexts (Andrews & Tyson, 2004; Boyatzis & Saatcioglu, 2008; Brookfield,
2000; Katz, 2005; Conrad, Duren, & Haworth, 1998; Kasworm & Hemmingsen, 2007; Wilson &
Hayes, 2000). The results of this study affirm that this transformation is taking place. The
participants in this study acknowledge and express appreciation for the learning activities in their
master’s programs that simultaneously require and develop presentation and interpersonal
communication skills (Hugo, Wei, Chun, Huan), self-reflection (Huan), creativity (Wei, Min,
Cheng), an attitude toward lifelong learning (Wei, Min), ability to work with people from
different backgrounds (Hugo, Wei, Mei), and confidence (Mei, Huan).
All of the participants seemed to be especially attuned to gaining the interpersonal and
intrapersonal skills that are transferrable to a variety of contexts. They readily acknowledged that
these were not emphasized in their previous educational experiences. Each of the participants
implied or overtly said that, for instance, presentation and communication skills are essential to
success in their vocations, but that they had very limited previous experience with developing
those skills. Thus, an initial interpretation of these findings challenges faculty perceptions that
international students are not capable of participating in learning activities that are designed to
achieve a broader set of outcomes because they have not developed the skills needed for
autonomous study (Kingston & Forland, 2008), they prefer or require step-by-step directions
(Wang & Li, 2011), explicit instruction, and do not possess the research skills needed to work
independent of a faculty supervisor (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007; Kingston & Forland, 2008;
Strang, 2008). Instead, the participants in this study demonstrate an eagerness to engage the

113

learning activities that develop interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, being aware that such skills
were not emphasized earlier in their education.
English Language. One of the most striking findings is in regards to how the students in
this study seem to make sense of English language proficiency as a barrier to participating in
learning activities, especially compared to the perceptions of some professors. Some professors
perceive that international students are not capable of participating in active and collaborative
learning methods because they do not possess an adequate level of English language proficiency
(Andrade, 2010; Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007; Brown, 2007; Fallon & Brown, 1999, Kingston &
Forland, 2008; Trice, 2003, 2005; Xu, 1991). Students in this study report that this is typically
true when they first begin the program. As Wei explains, it is “the first biggest problem” (P2.1:
378) for most international students. However, by the second semester, English language
proficiency is not necessarily the barrier to participation that it is believed to be. Instead, some
students in this study report that confidence in one’s ability to speak English is sometimes a
barrier. In addition, sometimes their domestic peers are not willing to accommodate secondlanguage speakers. As Min says, “because you still have language problems and so during the
talking you still have some problems, so maybe that kind of people they will not, um, they will
not, so-, so-, they would not love to talk with you maybe, yeah” (P6.2: 104). As the literature
suggests, native speakers of a host language sometimes have difficulty comprehending perfectly
intelligible language that is accented if they do not allocate sufficient effort or processing time
(Derwing, Rossiter, & Munro, 2002). Still, the research findings suggest that there may be more
at play than just technical aspects of speech.
Constructivist Orientation to Learning. The literature suggests that although
constructivism does not prescribe specific teaching methods (Kirschner et al., 2006; Mayer,

114

2004, 2008, 2009; Richardson, 2003), there are five characteristics to teaching methods that are
grounded in a constructivist orientation to learning: 1) attention to individual student
backgrounds; 2) group dialogue; 3) introduction of domain knowledge through a variety of
instructional methods; 4) tasks that allow students to challenge, change, or enhance their
understanding; and 5) develop students’ awareness of their own understanding (Richardson,
2003). A correlation can be seen between these five characteristics and the values that the
participants in this study express in regards to how they make sense of the learning activities that
they encounter in their master’s programs. That is, many of the preferences that the participants
in this study describe seem to resonate with a constructivist orientation to learning.
One of the primary components of “self-directed” as a theme is that the participants see a
direct link between the effectiveness of a learning activity and the degree to which it builds upon
their prior knowledge and experience. This correlates with Richardson’s first characteristic of
teaching according to a constructivist orientation to learning: devoting adequate “attention to the
individual and respect for students’ background” (Richardson, 2003, p. 1626). There seems to be
a correlation between the second characteristic, group dialogue, and elements of the theme
“relationships.” Participants in this study place value on learning activities that provide
opportunities for them to discuss course content and ideas with their peers. Such opportunities,
they say, help them to gain different perspectives, to, as Chun says, “have a clue” when they
encounter difficulties (P3.1: 346), and to refine their understanding by arguing for and defending
their view of a topic. The theme from this study associated with the third characteristic of
teaching according to a constructivist orientation to learning, introduction of domain knowledge
through a variety of instructional methods, is “application.” In particular, participants in this
study acknowledge the value of instruction from the professor and supporting materials, such as

115

textbook and journal article readings. In addition, they place high value on learning activities that
allow them to activate that domain knowledge through practical, application-oriented projects
and assignments.
Richardson’s fourth characteristic, engaging students in tasks that allow them to
challenge, change or enhance their understanding, seems to correlate with aspects of the
“relationships” and “application” themes. For example, Min placed high value on having positive
and productive discussions with her classmates because she believes “they can lead me to have a
new… understanding” (P6.2: 166). Also, the cycle of 1) knowing, 2) applying, 3) not knowing,
4) applying, and 5) knowing that Cheng describes, discussed in the “application” theme,
illustrates the value that he places on activities that challenge, change, or enhance his
understanding of a topic – especially in that first opportunity to apply what he believes he knows.
Finally, Richardson’s fifth characteristic, “development of students’ metawareness of their own
understanding and learning process” (2003, p. 1626) seems to correlate with the assumptions that
participants in this study demonstrate related to their own self-directedness. That is, a primary
component of being “self-directed” is taking responsibility for one’s own level of competency
and monitoring progress toward proficiency. In addition, the students in this study value
application-oriented learning activities because they serve as ways to measure their own level of
proficiency. In fact, in response to the interview question, “How do you know when you have
learned something?” most participants responded by saying that using the course content
appropriately for a project, case analysis, or experiment is their preferred way of monitoring their
learning progress.
When considering the educational backgrounds of this study’s participants, this
correlation might seem odd – the correlation between the values that the participants in this study

116

express and the five characteristics of teaching methods that are grounded in a constructivist
orientation to learning. Each of the participants describes educational backgrounds that do not
seem to be consistent with constructivism. A prevailing stereotype suggests that students from
certain educational backgrounds are limited in their ability to maximize on more progressive
approaches to teaching and learning. Again, Harris (1995, p. 78) articulates the stereotype,
saying:
One consequence of full-cost fees is that many overseas students now originate in
Pacific Rim countries, whose educational cultures characteristically value a highly
deferential approach to teachers and place considerable emphasis on rote learning. This
approach, of course, promotes surface or reproductive learning, which is at variance not
only with the more intellectually robust and egalitarian ambience of many arts and social
science faculties in UK universities, but with officially encouraged teaching innovations
which utilise participative methods and problem-solving strategies to ensure deep
transformational learning.
Objections to Harris’s stereotype notwithstanding, it raises the question of the relative impact of
a student’s “educational culture” on how he or she approaches a new educational context. An
initial interpretation of the results of this study is that educational backgrounds play a role, but
so, too, does educational level and the power of socialization.
In regards to educational level, each of the participants seemed to think of high school,
undergraduate study, and graduate study as fulfilling three different functions. For high school,
the primary goal is to score well on the National College Entrance Exam in order to get admitted
into a highly ranked university. The primary function of a bachelor’s degree, for some students,
relates to being trained for a particular vocation. However, for each of the participants in this
study, the purpose of their undergraduate education was to gain the foundational knowledge
needed for further study. The primary function of a master’s program is to develop expertise and
leadership qualities in a particular field. Thus, they are flexible in choosing approaches to
learning that suit the associated goals. So, for instance, Hugo describes the approach to high

117

school as emphasizing memorization of standard content and practicing for the exam. He says,
“A lot of quizzes. It’s, kind of, just the practice, the same thing when you, when you get in the,
uh, classroom, take the College Ent-Entrance Examination. That’s totally the same. It’s just, uh,
imitate the status and do it” (P1.1: 222). Although their college experiences were quite different
from high school, the experience of gaining the foundational knowledge for further study seems
to be characterized as highly teacher-directed and exam-based. However, there seems to be a
significant shift in the ways the participants approach their master’s programs based upon the
particular goal of developing the ability to manage real-world situations. For example, Mei says
that she is not concerned about knowing every detail for every subject, unlike in high school,
because the MBA is “a program for creating a leader” (P4.1: 347). Similarly, Wei says that the
MSEE equips him with knowledge and skills that he “can apply to real world, which increase my
job capabilities” (P2.2: 826). These expectations about the function of a master’s degree
arguably orient the ways that students approach their coursework, with emphasis on monitoring
their learning progress and engaging learning activities that they believe will help them to
develop as professionals in their fields.
In addition to the influence of a student’s educational background and expectations for a
particular level of education, socialization into a program seems to partly explain why the
participants in this study approach the educational context in the ways that they do. For example,
Mei explained that she felt overwhelmed by the amount of assigned reading in her first semester
in the MBA program, but then, she says, “my GA supervisor told me, ‘No one ever really read
them all’” (P4.1: 118). She goes on to explain that there is a lot of teamwork in the program,
which is very different from her experiences in her bachelor and master’s degree programs in
China. She says, “But here is, you know, you need to have a lot of team projects… So this is the

118

biggest difference but which I like. I mean teamwork I like because this is one of the selling
point of this program maybe” (P4.1: 128). Indeed, the MBA at Michigan State University is
marketed as such: “Our team of dedicated faculty challenges students to develop creative
solutions to today’s business realities in a team-focused learning environment at one of the
world’s top universities” (Michigan State University, 2013b). In addition, teamwork is clearly
emphasized throughout the curriculum with regularly assigned team projects and presentations. It
seems feasible that students with very different educational backgrounds develop preferences for
new approaches to teaching and learning by way of the cues from their classmates, professors,
and others’ descriptions of the process and purposes of their programs.
Preferences for Passive Learning. The findings from this study suggest that the
conclusions that some professors are drawing from their observations of students from China
may be incomplete or altogether inaccurate. They might conclude that students from China
prefer passive teaching methods and approaches to learning when they observe some students
relying upon memorization, being especially attuned to or preferring lecture, and withdrawing
from class and small group discussions. As discussed earlier, many researchers and faculty
members at institutions that receive students from developing countries perceive learners from
Asian countries as heavily dependent upon memorization (Harris, 1995; Marton Dall’ Alba, &
Tse, 1996; Phillips, 1990; Samuelowicz, 1987). Indeed, participants in this study report that they
relied upon memorization for success in high school, but less so in their undergraduate programs,
and even less in their master’s programs. They report that they use memorization in their
master’s programs when they knowingly lack understanding, when the content is “foundational,”
when a factor such as lack of confidence is at play, or when a course is designed in a way that
fosters the use of memorization for success. Analysis of the interviews for this study shows that

119

these instances are the exception and not the rule. That is, the students in this study reveal that
they prefer more active teaching and learning methods, which they believe are more effective in
helping them to develop expertise in their fields. Hugo, an Engineering student, makes a striking
statement that adequately represents his peers in this study:
For some courses it’s more dependent upon the memory. That’s something I don’t like so
much. It’s kind of-, you spend one or two days before the exam, you reading it and try to
memorize them. You will get a really high score on that. But if you try to understand
them and don’t remember all of them-. It’s-, you will still get a reasonable score, but not
so high as those just-, that just remember them. So, it’s probably not so well for me.
Because I like to see that you can remember them and speak them out with your own
way” (P1.2: 337).
He goes on to explain that he prefers, as a contrast to memorization, to “really understand it,”
which requires him to “dig it deeper” (P1.2: 383).
Similar to memorization, some professors might assume that students from China prefer
passive approaches to learning as opposed to more active and collaborative learning methods
when they see students withdraw from class and small group discussions (e.g., Bartlett &
Fischer, 2011; Xueqin, 2011). Participants in this study sometimes withdraw from class and
small group discussions when they don’t believe they will get a chance to participate because
one or more classmates dominate the discussion, and when they do not feel confident that they
have the requisite familiarity for meaningful participation. This concept of needing to achieve a
certain level of competency or understanding before participating in class discussion is an
important one that will be discussed further in the next section. Participants also acknowledge
that they did not previously experience class discussion very much, and that there might be social
risks associated with being too active in class discussion. However, they value discussion for the
opportunities it provides to encounter different ways of thinking, to overcome difficulties with
new content, to increase their understanding of a topic, and to monitor their learning progress. As

120

Min says, “Every time I felt I learned a lot is because, uh-. Because I can successfully to, to
discuss the problem with our little group” (P6.1: 334). An oft-repeated phrase in the interviews
was, “it’s always a complicated story.” In this case, it may be over simplistic to assume - based
upon observations of withdrawing from class and small group discussions - that students are
opposed to active and collaborative learning methods and favor more passive approaches. The
story is always complicated.
Analysis of the interviews for this study suggests that the story about lecture is also
complicated. The participants in this study reveal that they place high value on teacher lecture,
which might lead some professors to assume that students from China have difficulty engaging
more active and collaborative learning methods. The lecture, along with demonstrations by the
teacher, is a staple of the behaviorist orientation to learning that was prevalent for many years in
American education (Smerdon, Burkam, & Lee, 1999, p.7). As Richardson (2003) suggests,
efforts at assembling a constructivist teaching theory has primarily resulted in a ‘do not’ list,
which is topped by lecture and other methods that could be considered as transmission teaching.
Min, a student in the MPP program, describes the preference for lecture that she and her Chinese
peers might have, which she attributes to educational heritage:
It depends on the student thinking because actually for us-. I’m not sure other
international student because for our Chinese student we like the things just, um, maybe
we get used to the teaching style, the Chinese teaching style because the teacher will
directly to tell you what will, what will you see in the exams and so sometimes we will,
we, we like the teacher to spend too much time on that kind of information even though
we would know the information is maybe interesting or maybe related with our the thing
we learned, but we like something very straightforward (P6.1: 296).
Although she admits that she has developed a preference for lecture, she later demonstrates and
acknowledges that lecture is most effective in the foundational courses in which “I totally not
familiar with that topic” (P6.2: 174), and least effective in the advanced courses – namely, the

121

Public Finance course. Like her peers in this study, she prefers realistic projects in the advanced
courses as a way of integrating and solidifying the content. She says, “So it just like, to put all
the things you learned in the whole semester together. By your own self” (P6.2: 212).
The story on lecture is further complicated by the beliefs that the participants in this study
demonstrate and describe regarding the conditions for lecture to be helpful. On the one hand,
they describe lectures that are not helpful as consisting of an overwhelming number of
PowerPoint slides that are packed with information that the teacher reads, which are typically
distributed after class. For this type of lecture, as Wei says, “what’s the point of listening? I can
read it” (P2.2: 234). On the other hand, lecture is helpful when there are cues in the PowerPoint
presentation about the relative importance of certain information, and the teacher fills in the gaps
with explanations and examples. This form of lecture, participants report, requires them to pay
attention and typically helps them to grasp the material being presented. A curious finding is the
tension that Hugo describes regarding taking notes during lectures. He says that note taking helps
him to remember and review the information. However, he says that taking notes distracts him
from thinking about the information during the lecture. He says, “I think is contradictory… I
cannot do it well, I cannot think well when I am writing. It’s most of things I am writing and I
stop it. I think a little while and keep writing” (P1.2: 221). Each of these points indicates that
these participants are not approaching lecture in a “passive” way. That is, they might be
behaviorally inactive, but they seem to be cognitively engaged in making sense of the content.
This is another important point that will be discussed further in the next section.

122

Findings in Relation to Theory
This qualitative exploration into how seven students from China make sense of their
experiences with the teaching methods they encounter in U.S. master’s programs has provided
insight into the complexities of the contexts they encounter. In the following section, these
perspectives will be interpreted through existing theory, including theories of deep learning,
constructivism as a theory of learning, theories of educational culture, and theories of power.
Deep Learning. The students in this study were asked, “What does it mean to learn
something? How do you know when you have learned something?” Their responses, along with
other comments throughout the interviews, reveal a few distinct ways in which they
conceptualize learning. Wei, Chun, Mei, and Min explicitly say that they know they have learned
something when they get a chance to use it. Importantly, they each distinguish between a surface
level of learning, and a deeper and more durable level of learning. For Wei, learning may result
from reading a journal article or the news, but it is not necessarily deeper and more durable until
it has been put to the test by “using it.” Mei actually distinguishes between a “shallow” level of
learning that is quickly forgotten, a deeper level that is more durable because of a chance to
apply it, and a third level of learning that lasts forever – like riding a bike or driving a car. For
Min, a person can be familiar with something without really learning it. Instead, she knows she
has learned something when she is able to use it successfully, which is a process of making it her
own.
Hugo, Mei, and Cheng express a second way of conceptualizing learning. They contrast
rote learning with learning that results in the ability to confidently articulate the concepts or ideas
in their own words. Hugo explains what it practically means to experience deep learning, saying,
“It’s just the basic knowledge underneath. If you know that, you will understand why people can

123

choose this way not that way, or why-, or the basic logic lie behind that. It will help you to
understand further. Probably you cannot understand the name of the different segments, but you
will understand why they do this, why they do that” (P1.2: 385). For Cheng, a person can “learn”
something without really understanding it. He believes that deeper learning, which includes
understanding, is evident when he can fully explain the concepts or ideas in his own words.
Mei and Huan, the two students in the MBA program, express a third way of
conceptualizing learning. For Mei, deeper learning in the context of the MBA program is a
process of being formed as a leader – not just gaining textbook knowledge of technical terms,
formulas, and calculations. Huan defines this deeper level of learning as involving cognitive,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal development. That is, she expects that learning within the
context of the MBA program will result in field-specific knowledge; the ability to resolve
conflicts, respond to other people’s demands, build a cohesive and productive team, and
communicate effectively with others; and the ability to acknowledge and manage her own
feelings in a high-pressure professional context, and to imagine a problem from a different point
of view.
The views of learning that these students describe go beyond the stereotypical ideas of
learning as memorization. There appear to be more sophisticated and more mature
understandings of what it means to learn, even in comparison to some of the perspectives that
domestic students may espouse. As described earlier in the literature review, various orientations
to learning, the ways that deeper, more meaningful, and more durable learning are
conceptualized, and the teaching and learning strategies that follow are born out of systems of
belief that are generally shared by particular groups of people at certain points in time. They are
cultural phenomena. However, as illustrated by Nisbett (2003), they are often regarded as

124

‘universal.’ As a result, when learners struggle, the focus is typically on the ways in which the
learner is deficient (e.g., she’s a surface learner).
When viewed through the lens of theories of deep learning, these students appear to be
oriented toward views of ‘deep’ learning that emphasize the cognitive dimensions of a rational
process. That is, they conceptualize deep forms of learning as rational processes that depend
upon the interaction of experience and cognition, which is characteristic of, for example, Fink’s
(2003) model of “significant” learning and Mezirow’s (1978, 1991; Mezirow & Associates,
2000) model of “transformative” learning. So, the results of this study do not necessarily reveal a
new or different way of understanding deep learning. Instead, the results of this study raise the
question of what types of teaching and learning methods more closely align with how these
students conceive of deep learning. From a theoretical perspective, the way of thinking about
deep learning and the teaching and learning methods that correspond are culturally imbued.
Thus, the information and descriptions of the lived experiences of these students provides a
starting point for developing a framework for understanding the complexities involved in
fostering deeper, more meaningful, and more durable learning across cultures.
Constructivism and Educational Culture. Participants in this study acknowledge the
value of class and small group discussions, but were sometimes puzzled by how and when such
discussions were conducted. When speaking about a seminar-style course, Min describes her
puzzlement with how eager her domestic peers were to participate in class discussion without the
benefit of a more comprehensive understanding of the topic:
The American student, seems like once they have some ideas they immediately to say.
And the Chinese student, they would not. They would prefer to-, if they have a topic, they
would think. They would think deeper, deeper. And until they have a comprehensive
idea, they will talk. Yeah, they don’t-, this point they don’t like [aren’t like] American
students. Americans have just little bit idea, and he will immediate to tell you, “Oh, I

125

have this thing, I think this maybe.” Yeah (P6.2: 650).
Similarly, Cheng describes the importance of gaining a base of familiarity from the reading
before participating in small group discussion about it: “So you have to read. If you don’t read,
you have no idea what’s going on. You cannot participate” (P7.1: 356). In addition, the idea of
problematizing or articulating a hypothesis about the topic is puzzling without first having a
certain level of understanding. As Chun says, “Because you have to pay more attention to the
teachers so you can understand certain part and then you, you can have your question about it. If
you were, you were not sure about what the teacher is talking about, how can you get a question
about it and how can you discuss it…” (P3.2: 411). Participants in this study seem to believe that
domestic students prefer to discuss a topic as they are developing an understanding of it. By
contrast, the participants prefer to engage in discussion after they have a relatively solid grasp of
the topic. It seems puzzling to them to engage in class or small group discussion without first
achieving a certain level of competency.
From a theoretical perspective, this challenges common assumptions about how
constructivism as a theory of learning can be effectively translated into constructivist-oriented
teaching methods. Mayer (2009) argues that constructivism is a useful learning theory, but that it
is often regarded as a prescription for instruction. As a theory of learning, constructivism
assumes that knowledge is actively constructed in the human mind. Mayer says, “It is tempting
to also view constructivism as a prescription for instruction in which learners must be
behaviorally active during learning (2009, p. 184). Mayer (2004) labels this the “constructivist
teaching fallacy,” which is the assumption that educators must foster behavioral activity in order
to produce active learning. He proposes, instead, that educators recognize the power of
behaviorally passive instructional methods for stimulating productive cognitive activity among

126

students who are being introduced to new content. He argues that instructional methods that
foster behavioral activity can be ineffective at promoting active learning, especially when
students lack a foundational level of understanding. He offers a matrix of high/low cognitive and
high/low behavioral activity, as illustrated in Figure 1, as a guide for assessing the potential that
an instructional method will promote active learning.
From a cultural perspective, it makes sense that the students from China might initially
prefer passive instructional methods, like reading and lecture, when their American peers prefer
active instructional methods, particularly discussion that includes debate and hypothesizing. The
contrast between Socratic and Confucian cultures of learning is at the center of one explanation
that has been offered for this possibility. That is, Socrates’ ideas have influenced modern beliefs,
values, and expectations about teaching and learning in America, and Confucius’ ideas have
influenced the educational culture in China (Jin & Cortazzi, 1998; Kim, 2003; Lee, 1996; Lloyd,
1996; Marsella, DeVos, & Hsu, 1985; Scollon, 1999; Tweed & Lehman, 2002; 2003; Woo,
1993). Chief among Socrates’ influence is the emphasis on challenging widely accepted
knowledge, encouraging students to question each other’s beliefs, and on developing and
articulating their own hypotheses (Tweed & Lehman, 2002). Thus, American students may be
oriented toward learning methods that include animated discussions. By contrast, Confucius’
emphasized acquiring foundational knowledge rather than articulating individual hypotheses, and
submitting oneself to the authority of a collectively recognized exemplar (Tweed & Lehman,
2002). Students from China, then, may be oriented toward more passive learning methods.
Of course, a certain amount of caution is in order when attempting to make sense of
student preferences through a cultural lens. As Holliday (1999) suggests, the temptation to
impose a “large culture” view might exaggerate characteristics of a cultural group, which could

127

diminish the variations and variability within the group. However, each of the participants in this
study make sense of some of the challenges they encounter in their master’s programs in terms of
differences between Chinese and American educational cultures, which seem to align with some
aspects of theories of Socratic and Confucian cultures of learning.
Still, the participants in this study were sometimes puzzled by how and when class
discussion was conducted, but they were not opposed to it. In fact, as previously discussed, the
transcripts reveal that they prefer small group discussions and the benefits of class discussions.
The timing of that discussion, however, seems to be the distinguishing factor. That is, the
participants seem to prefer to have a certain level of competency prior to discussion. In terms of
the furniture analogy that is often used in educational debates, they seem to prefer to get all of
the furniture in the room before arranging it. By contrast, they describe domestic students as
preferring to arrange the furniture as they move it into the room. Thus, the participants were
puzzled that class discussion would take place so early in the process of learning. As Min says,
“Americans have just little bit idea, and he will immediate to tell you, ‘Oh, I have this thing, I
think this maybe.’ Yeah” (P6.2: 650). In the learning cycle that Cheng describes, the first
“knowing” is naïve and incomplete. However, it is the basis for the first opportunity to “apply,”
which could take place in the context of a small group or class discussion. In regards to theories
of learning, this raises questions about whether learning among graduate level students is best
understood as a process of constructing or reconstructing knowledge. Or, in terms of the
furniture analogy, rearranging content knowledge that has already been grasped at a minimal
level may increase the ability for students to internalize that experience in lasting ways.
Power. As demonstrated in Mayer’s (2004) argument about the prevalence of the
“constructivist teaching fallacy,” many professors in U.S. classrooms are still discerning which

128

methods are effective at fostering active learning among their students. At the same time, their
classrooms are becoming increasingly multicultural as the percentage of students from abroad
increases. Thus, for professors in U.S. classrooms, there is a cross-cultural dimension to
evaluating the effectiveness of the active learning methods they employ, which adds a layer of
complexity. In particular, the findings from this study suggest that a power dynamic may be
skewing interpretations of Chinese students’ experiences with active learning methods.
As an example, the participants in this study don’t seem to see English language
proficiency as the barrier to participation in active learning methods that some scholars and
practitioners perceive it to be. Two points from Saïd’s seminal work, Orientalism, could provide
a helpful explanation for this occurrence. First, people often make sense of “raw reality” by
placing it into familiar categories. Making sense of ‘others’ often involves describing them in
terms of how they are like something that is known, which can be misleading or incomplete. The
quest to make sense of why Chinese students aren’t participating in class discussion could be
more easily resolved by labeling them with familiar categories (e.g., they have an enduring
preference for passive learning, they can’t understand or speak the language).
Second, Saïd argues that Western descriptions of people in the East were particularly
organized through a lens of power that perpetuated Western domination of the East. His point
may be applicable to the experiences that the participants in this study describe. The issue of
language, again, is potent in regards to revealing the power dynamic that might be involved. I
was reminded of this on my way to an interview during the research for this study when I
encountered a sign at the entrance to a classroom. It was printed on a quarter-sheet of paper in
bold font: “Speak English!” (see Appendix AP). I was puzzled by the blank sheet of paper
affixed below the sign, and tried to imagine that maybe it was a poorly named club for people

129

interested in practicing their English language skills. In the end, an administrator at the university
English Language Center was adamant in saying that it was most certainly not related to any
university sponsored English-speaking club or activity.
Bourdieu’s (1991) assertion that language is an instrument of action and power helps to
explain the “Speak English!” sign and, at least in part, the lack of confidence that participants in
this study describe. In addition, it may explain why some domestic students, as Min says, “they
would not love to talk with you maybe” (P6.2: 104). Language is not simply a tool for
transmitting information, but, as Bourdieu argues, also serves to reinforce perceived power
structures. It is possible that some domestic students reinforce a perceived hierarchical position
over the foreign ‘other’ by pointing to language proficiency and equating it to social status. Also,
some international students may be hesitant to speak because they sense a connection between
their accented speech and a lower notch in the social hierarchy. As Bourdieu explains, “To speak
is to appropriate one or other of the expressive styles already constituted in and through usage
and objectively marked by their position in a hierarchy of styles which expresses the hierarchy of
corresponding social groups” (1991, p. 54). In plain terms, a master’s student from China with
heavily accented speech and a relatively limited repertoire of English grammar may be equated –
in language proficiency and social status – to a grade-school aged domestic student.
In the end, the data from this study seem to support many of the characterizations of how
students learn in China. For example, memorization, lecture, and testing are primary
components. However, there seems to be an accompanying belief that students from China have
enduring preferences that preclude their ability to thrive in an educational context that is
characterized differently. Instead, the findings from this study suggest that students are more
flexible and adaptive to the demands of their educational environments, and to the goals

130

associated with the particular level of education. So, for instance, Hugo says that he became an
expert at memorizing course content in order to achieve high scores during high school and
undergraduate studies, but that he prefers at MSU to “really understand it, not just remember the
words” (P1.2: 383) and to “create some new ideas” (P1.2: 425). Wei says that class presentations
were not typical during his studies in China, but he believes that such assignments at MSU are
opportunities to “dig into a topic” and “collaborate all the information we need and present it”
(P2.1: 139). Chun expressed a particular preference that she believes is typical of students from
Asian countries: “to just receive those knowledges from the teacher” (P3.2: 405). But she
adjusted to the expectation in her courses at MSU to “not simply recite those things. You have to
understand how it works or some general ideas or-, but you have to like write your own idea
about certain questions” (P3.1: 362). Mei says that small group and class discussions were not
really a part of her educational experience in China, but she prefers to discuss, debate, and
compare her view of a topic at MSU as a way of evaluating her level of understanding. Huan
describes her undergraduate experience as “kind of similar situation like what I did in, uh, in
high school. It’s basically professors they were lecturing and they will give you problem set and
you to go back and do some practice” (P5.1: 108). But she demonstrates a different, more
independent orientation to her learning in her program at MSU by choosing to join a study group
when she deems it necessary, and by structuring her approach to assignments based upon what
she believes will help her to advance as a professional. Min characterizes her education in China
as primarily teacher directed, but she appreciates the more active and collaborative methods she
experiences at MSU because she believes they help her to develop in areas that are important for
future success. She reflects on the differences, saying, “maybe we’re stronger than American
students just like the math and that kind of things. But we will, lack of the creativity that kind of

131

skills because, uh, just like our rushing prepare for exam… maybe this kind of education just can
help me to have a very, very strong and good base, basic for our future learning, but, uh, we will,
we will lost a lot of chance to thinking… especially critical thinking” (P6.1: 63). Finally, Cheng
describes his experience in China, especially in high school, as very exam oriented. He says,
“But, uh, to tell the truth, it’s actually 90% of them is about the examination… it’s a real focused
highly on the examinations” (P7.1: 37). However, he prefers the freedom within his graduate
program to determine what he believes is most helpful for grasping course content. Some of the
prevalent descriptions of how teaching and learning takes place in China may be true. However,
the data from this study suggest that students from China are very capable of adopting new
preferences and adjusting to a new set of demands in U.S. classrooms.

Practical Implications
The findings from this research support the notion that individual students bring with
them particular orientations to teaching and learning. Some learning methods are more or less
familiar to them, and they may exhibit distinct preferences. However, the findings also suggest
that these orientations to learning are not static. Participation in a higher level of education and a
new educational context can aid them in developing familiarity and preferences for different
teaching and learning methods. Professors should seek to maximize their ability to socialize
students into new or different teaching and learning methods, especially when welcoming
students from abroad. In addition, students’ expectations about the function of a course or
program may also serve to reorient their preferences for learning.
The literature suggests that although “active learning,” as conceptualized through
constructivist theories of learning, is broadly embraced among U.S. educators (Phillips, 1995),

132

the instructional methods that foster such learning are not clearly defined or understood. The
findings from this research underscore the potential potency of behaviorally passive teaching
methods for fostering active learning. As Mayer’s (2004) “constructivist teaching fallacy”
suggests, behaviorally active instructional methods are often selected when a behaviorally
passive method might be more effective. Thus, the students in this study would prefer that some
behaviorally active learning methods, such as small group and class discussion, take place after
they engage more behaviorally passive learning methods. This is not an unfamiliar approach in
some U.S. classrooms. The class discussion requirements for some online courses serve as a
good example. That is, online courses often have an asynchronous discussion component, which
affords students the ability to participate in discussion after a period of deliberation. Some
teachers leverage this possibility by requiring students to support their arguments with references
to the course materials. The implication is that students take a more measured approach to
participation rather than, as Min says, “once they have some ideas they immediately to say”
(P6.2: 650). Or, as Pinheiro discovered, “participation was perceived by the students to be
merely a matter of students reading articles and saying disconnected things in class” (2001, p. 7).
Class and small group discussions may be more effective in master’s level courses in U.S.
classrooms if students first engage and deliberate on the course content through more
behaviorally passive methods.
Prior research indicates that orientations to teaching and learning that place emphasis on
the learner are particularly meaningful for students who have historically been excluded from
formal education. The constructivist orientation to learning, in particular, has been credited for
helping to reduce the achievement gap for those students by providing opportunities to build
their base of experiences as a context for more meaningful and durable learning (Au & Jordan,

133

1981; Belfiore, Auld, & Lee, 2005; Burkam, Lee, & Smerdon, 1997; Lee & Burkam, 1996;
Oakes, 1990; Smerdon, Burkam, & Lee, 1999; Vaughan, 2002). This study further illustrates that
active learning methods that rely upon “real life” projects and examples may be especially
meaningful to international students. The students in this study explain that such opportunities
are helpful when they lack the context for making sense of particular content knowledge.
A popular thread in the current discourse about higher education is the
“internationalization” of higher education (Altbach & Knight, 2007), and more specifically
internationalization at home, which refers to internationally related activities – excluding
sending students and faculty abroad (Nilsson, 2003). This discourse acknowledges that the
percentage of students from abroad has increased within well-developed HEIs in step with the
increasing rate of globalization. One advantage to internationalization at home is that domestic
students can develop skills and perspectives (e.g., cross-cultural understanding) that are valued in
a globalized context without a passport or plane ticket.
The findings from this study raise questions about the experience of the
internationalization of U.S. higher education for the students from abroad. In particular,
international students report that they value the multicultural experience they gain from their
interactions with American students and students from other parts of the world. However, the
curriculum, they say, is largely mono-cultural. A sentence from one of the syllabi that was
reviewed for this study illustrates this point: “The course assumes a familiarity with American
government and the institutions of policymaking at the federal, state, and local levels” (PPL807).
Furthermore, participants in this study reveal that they regularly encounter culturally grounded
examples, words, phrases, and idioms that are confusing. The curriculum need not be acultural.

134

Rather, the current challenge for those who are in faculty roles is to develop ways to more fully
leverage the presence of international students toward a multicultural educational experience.
The results of this study contribute to an awareness of the complex dynamics involved in
integrating international students into U.S. classrooms. Some domestic students may demonstrate
xenophobic behaviors, which could discourage international students from participating in
learning activities. Furthermore, the process of evaluating – across cultures – the effectiveness of
teaching and learning methods is power-laden. Saïd’s (1979) caution is appropriate here. That is,
attempts at representing other people’s experiences often results in perpetuating false and
oppressive claims. Again, it is worth noting that Western observers most often describe ‘the
Chinese learner’ in terms of the less desirable characteristics (e.g., extrinsically motivated rote
learner from a teacher-centered and content-oriented background). Using categories, trends, and
statistics in an attempt to make sense of how to effectively integrate international students can
easily result in an image of a dehumanized ‘other.’ The challenge to those who are in faculty
roles is to appropriately balance an understanding of the categories, trends, and statistics with the
shared and lived experiences with the intelligent students in their classes.
Addressing this challenge may begin by more fully understanding what it means to be an
international student in a U.S. classroom. The experiences of the participants in this study
suggest that an exercise as simple as responding to a professor’s discussion-prompting question
is anything but simple. The series of cognitive actions seems to be much more complex for the
international student. That is, after hearing the question the Chinese student likely translates it
into her first language, attempts to make sense of culturally grounded references, then she thinks
about the question, forms a response, and then translates her response into English. At the same
time, she evaluates the situation in order to determine how she should interact with the teacher in

135

a way that maximizes on the learning opportunity, and in a way that is appropriately respectful.
Should she speak out, raise her hand, or just wait for the professor to choose a student? In
addition, she likely considers how her Chinese peers view her participation in the discussion.
Will she appear to be, as Hugo says, a “freak or something” (P1.2: 332)? By the time the student
resolves these issues, the domestic students have likely already dominated the discussion.

Conclusion
The nature of the research problem and the associated research question for this study
called for a qualitative research design (Creswell, 2009). The study explored the experiences of
students from China - from the students’ perspectives - in an effort to form an understanding
based upon their descriptions. The approach was fitting because it provided the latitude needed
to consider the ‘messiness’ of the students’ experiences.
Although this study achieved the goal of identifying common characteristics among the
seven participants regarding how they make sense of their experiences of active learning
methods in U.S. classrooms, more research is necessary to determine if these findings are
consistent with a larger number of students. To what degree are these characteristics similar to
other master’s students from China, and from other master’s programs? Also, there may be other
groups of students who make sense of their experiences with active learning methods in the same
ways. The results of a similar study with a different group of students (e.g., first generation
students, students from a Latin American country), or a comparative study of domestic and
international students could further reveal the cultural dimensions associated with active learning
methods that students encounter in U.S. classrooms. In addition, this study included students
from professional master’s programs. Future research should investigate programs with different

136

characteristics. For instance, would similar themes arise among a group of Chinese students in
music or fine arts programs? The results of such research will potentially reveal the effectiveness
of certain methods for diverse groups of students, and add to the ways that instructional methods
that are used in the name of active learning are understood and implemented.
The results of this study suggest that issues of power and students perceptions of social
hierarchies interfere with the ways and extent to which some international students engage active
learning methods. Future research should further investigate when and in what ways the power
structures that are reproduced in classrooms result in a sense of privilege or disadvantage for
students from abroad. What are the similarities and differences between the power structures that
domestic and international students perceive in U.S. classrooms? In what ways do domestic and
international students monitor and adjust their participation in teaching and learning activities
based upon the power structures that they perceive? The results from studies like these should
inform the development of ways to more effectively foster active learning among a diverse group
of students.
This study relied on international students’ own accounts of their learning experiences in
U.S. classrooms. This research could be complemented with studies that investigate the
international students’ accounts alongside their professors’ and domestic classmates’
interpretations of their learning behaviors. A carefully designed study could reveal the unique
and intersecting dynamics that professors, domestic students, and students from abroad manage.
Also, it became apparent, from the Chinese students’ perspectives, that domestic students are
often unsure of how to engage their international classmates. Future research should investigate
the ways that domestic students make sense of their experiences with international students.
What do they believe to be the advantages and disadvantages of, for example, being paired with

137

international students for group projects and assignments? Studies that pursue this line of inquiry
should inform faculty members in regards to how they can help domestic students learn how to
better understand and work with their international peers, and to help students develop the skills
and perspectives (e.g., cross-cultural understanding) that are valued in a globalized context.
This study reveals that a framework is needed for understanding the cultural dimensions
associated with the active learning methods that students increasingly encounter in U.S.
classrooms. This study suggests that such a framework should, first, account for the interpersonal
dynamics that are involved. That is, the framework should account for interactions between the
international student and domestic student, the international student and his international peer,
and the international student and teacher, with a particular understanding that such interactions
are power-laden. Second, the framework should account for the intrapersonal dynamics that are
involved. In particular, the framework should account for the narratives that teachers,
international students, and domestic students follow in the design, use, and participation in active
learning methods. As an example, a common thread of narrative among teachers in U.S.
classrooms includes, “keep them moving” and “foster lively debate and discussion.” Common
threads among the narratives that the students in this study seem to follow include lack of
confidence in understanding the normative expectations in the U.S. context, sensitivity to
demonstrating disrespect to teachers, and concern for what others might think about how they
conduct themselves.
Finally, the results of this study suggest that some characterizations of the educational
experiences of students in China are accurate. That is, elements such as rote memorization,
frequent exams, classrooms dominated by teacher lecture, and other “passive” or “surface”
teaching and learning strategies were among the descriptions that the students in this study

138

offered about their educational experiences in China. However, the results of this study also
suggest that the habits and preferences for how these students think about and engage learning in
a formal educational context are not fixed. Instead, they adapt to the teaching strategies they
encounter based upon their beliefs about the outcomes for the degree program; they adjust their
expectations and preferences based upon cues from their professors, classmates, and the
surrounding context; and they are cognizant of the influence of their educational backgrounds.
This study adds to the broader field of research on students from China by suggesting that such
students are not necessarily limited in their ability to maximize on more progressive approaches
to teaching and learning because of the effects of their educational backgrounds. Thus, the story
of students from China may be more complicated than it appears at first glance.

139

APPENDICES

140

APPENDIX A
Preliminary Participant Information Form

141

Preliminary Participant Information Form
1. Name:
2. Age:
3. Gender:
4. Country of citizenship:
5. High school (secondary school) that you attended - include the City and Province:
6. College or university of undergraduate degree - include the City and Province:
7. Final grade point average for undergraduate degree:
8. Have you completed any other formal education beyond high school prior to your current
master’s program? If yes, please describe.
9. Master’s degree currently pursuing at MSU:
10. Semesters completed:
11. Current cumulative grade point average:

142

APPENDIX B
First Semi-structured Interview Protocol

143

First Semi-structured Interview Protocol
Starting Questions:
Please tell me a little about yourself.
Where did you complete your undergraduate studies and what was your major?
What are you currently studying?
What do you hope to do after you finish your program?
Primary Questions:
What was learning like in your undergraduate program?
Please describe what studying and learning was like in your undergraduate program?
What are some of the teaching strategies that you experienced during your undergraduate
program?
What are some teaching strategies that you have experienced during your master’s program?
If needed: Professors use various teaching/learning strategies and activities in the classroom. For
instance, in the class session that I observed, your professor ______ and ______ [e.g., lecture and
student discussion].
Can you describe for me your overall impressions of those experiences?
What stands out to you about some of those experiences?
Please describe to me, as fully as possible, how those experiences affected you?
Please tell me about an experience that was especially meaningful to you. What was the nature of
the strategy or activity? What about that experience was especially meaningful to you?
Can you tell me about another experience that was especially meaningful to you? What was the
nature of the strategy or activity? What about that experience was especially meaningful to you?
Clarifying questions:
Why?
How?
Can you tell me more about that?
What do you mean when you say ______?
Closing Questions:
I really appreciate your willingness to share your experiences with me. As you think about
everything that we have talked about today, is there anything else that you want to add?
Do you have any questions for me?

144

APPENDIX C
Follow-up Semi-structured Interview Protocol

145

Follow-up Semi-structured Interview Protocol
Starting Questions:
How is this semester going for you?
Have you had an opportunity to see a basketball game or visit the art museum?
What class are you enjoying the most this semester?
Primary Questions:
1. Last time we talked about some of the teaching/learning strategies and activities that
professors use at MSU. You mentioned:

Are there other experiences you have had that you would add to this list?
• What more can you tell me about those experiences?
2. Each of these 3x5 cards has a teaching/learning strategy listed on it. Many of them you
mentioned in our last conversation. Would you mind sorting them into three categories?
Category one: these work well for you. Category two: these work moderately well for you they work sometimes, or you like them but they only work a little. Category three: these
don’t really work for you – the effectiveness is limited.
Individual Questions:
Examples:
One thing that came up in our last meeting was class size. You mentioned some classes have 3040 students and other classes have more like 100. Is there a difference between how well you
learn in a smaller or larger class? What makes the difference?
In our last conversation you mentioned that you had a rough start to your first year of college,
but that it got much better because you learned how to “learn all by yourself.” Can you tell me
more about what that means? What kind of strategies did you gain that helped you to learn?
Closing Questions:
I’ve been asking you a lot of questions so that I can better understand your experiences in your
master’s program. But maybe we’ve missed something that’s important. Is there anything that
you can add that will help me to better understand your experiences with the strategies and
activities that your professors use in the classroom?
Again, thank you for talking with me. I’d like to share the outcomes of my study with you.

146

APPENDIX D
Semi-structured Classroom Observation Protocol

147

Semi-structured Classroom Observation Protocol
Date/Time:
Course:
Student Participant(s):
Describe each classroom activity, with special attention to:
Teacher and Student Actions

Duration:

Classroom configuration

Estimate Mayer’s matrix: quad 1, 2, 3, 4

Guiding questions for the observation:
•

Approximately how much of the class session is teacher talk, student talk, group work,
individual work, silence, or other?

•

What is the nature of teacher talk and student talk?

•

What is the level of student independence?

•

What is the nature of student and teacher questions (e.g., procedural, challenge content)?

•

What role does students’ prior knowledge play in the methods that the professor uses?

•

What is noteworthy about the methods used in the class and the ways that students
respond to them?

148

APPENDIX E
Hugo: Synopses of Themes

149

Table E1 – Hugo: Self-Directed Synopsis

150

Table E2 – Hugo: Relationships Synopsis

151

Table E3 – Hugo: Barrier Synopsis

152

Table E4 – Hugo: Integrate Synopsis

153

Table E5 – Hugo: Create Synopsis

154

Table E6 – Hugo: Culture Synopsis

155

APPENDIX F
Wei: Synopses of Themes

156

Table F1 – Wei: Application Synopsis

157

Table F2 – Wei: Barrier Synopsis

158

Table F3 – Wei: Culture Synopsis

159

Table F4 – Wei: Integrate Synopsis

160

Table F5 – Wei: Relationships Synopsis

161

Table F6 – Wei: Self-Directed Synopsis

162

APPENDIX G
Chun: Synopses of Themes

163

Table G1 – Chun: Adjustment Synopsis

164

Table G2 – Chun: Application Synopsis

165

Table G3 – Chun: Relationships Synopsis

166

Table G4 – Chun: Self-Directed Synopsis

167

Table G5 – Chun: Prepare Synopsis

168

APPENDIX H
Mei: Synopses of Themes

169

Table H1 – Mei: Barrier Synopsis

170

Table H2 – Mei: Clarify-Solidify Synopsis

171

Table H3 – Mei: Relationships Synopsis

172

Table H4 – Mei: Self-Directed Synopsis

173

Table H5 – Mei: Culture Synopsis

174

APPENDIX I
Huan: Synopses of Themes

175

Table I1 – Huan: Application Synopsis

176

Table I2 – Huan: Relationships Synopsis

177

Table I3 – Huan: Culture Synopsis

178

Table I4 – Huan: Self-Directed Synopsis

179

Table I5 – Huan: Future Oriented Synopsis

180

APPENDIX J
Min: Synopses of Themes

181

Table J1 – Min: Culture Synopsis

182

Table J2 – Min: Self-Directed

183

Table J3 – Min: Feelings Synopsis

184

Table J4 – Min: Relationships Synopsis

185

Table J5 – Min: Clarify-Solidify Synopsis

186

APPENDIX K
Cheng: Synopses of Themes

187

Table K1 – Cheng: Relationships Synopsis

188

Table K2 – Cheng: Barrier Synopsis

189

Table K3 – Cheng: Culture Synopsis

190

Table K4 – Cheng: Self-Directed Synopsis

191

Table K5 – Cheng: Application Synopsis

192

APPENDIX L
Photo of “Speak English!” Sign

193

Figure L2 – Photo of “Speak English!” Sign

194

REFERENCES

195

REFERENCES
Adrian-Taylor, S., Noels, K., & Tischler, K. (2007). Conflict between international graduate
students and faculty supervisors: Toward effective conflict prevention and management
strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1), 90-117.
Alcoff, L. (1996). Real knowing: New versions of the coherence theory. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Allum, J. R., Bell, N. E., Sowell, R. S. (2012). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2001 to 2011.
Washington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. K. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations
and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 290-305.
Andrade, M. (2010). Increasing accountability: Faculty perspectives on the English language
competence of nonnative English speakers. Journal of Studies in International Education,
14(3), 221-239.
Andrews, N. and Tyson, L.D. (2004), The upwardly global MBA, Strategy + Business, 36, 1-10.
Atkinson, D., Morten, G., & Sue, D. (1979). Counseling American minorities, 1st ed. Dubuque,
IA: William C. Brown.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1),
71-94.
Au, C., & Entwistle, N. (2001). ‘Memorisation with understanding’ in approaches to studying:
Cultural variant or response to assessment demands” Paper presented at the European
Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Conference, Gothenburg. Retrieved
from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001728.htm
Au, K. H., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally
appropriate solution. In H. Trueba & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual
classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Babcock, P., & Marks, M. (2010). The falling time cost of college: Evidence from a half century
of time use data. NBER Working Paper No. 15954 Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15954
Badur, G. (2003). International students’ perspectives on their cross-cultural adjustment to
American higher education (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.
Bakken, B. (2000). The exemplary society: Human improvement, social control, and the dangers
of modernity in China. New York: Oxford University Press.

196

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1984). Study abroad: A manual for Asian students. Malaysia:
Longman.
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Teaching students from overseas: A brief guide for lecturers
and supervisors. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Barak, R. (1987). A skeleton in the closet. In J. Green (Ed.), Master’s degree: Jack of all trades.
Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
Bartlett, T., & Fischer, K. (2011). Chinese students prove a tricky fit on U.S. campuses:
American colleges find Chinese-student boom a tricky fit. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/
docview/902848228?accountid=12598
Baviskar, S., Hartle, R., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist
teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist‐
teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541-550.
Beattie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: a simple or simplistic
dichotomy? Accounting Education, 6(1), 1-12.
Belfiore, P., Auld, R., & Lee, D. (2005). The disconnect of poor-urban education: equal access
and pedagogy of risk taking. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 855-863.
Bernstein, W., Stephan, W., & Davis, M. (1979). Explaining attributions for achievement: A path
analytic approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1810-1821.
Biggs, J. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D.
Watkins and J. Biggs (Eds.) The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and
contextual influences, (pp. 45-67). Hong Kong: CERC.
Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne, Australia: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire:
R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149.
Biggs, J. (1988). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Australian Journal of
Education, 32(2), 127-138.
Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. New York: Longmans.
Bohman, J. (2012). Critical Theory. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(n.p.). Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab. Retrieved from
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/critical-theory/

197

Bok, D. C. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and
why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bond, M. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford
University Press.
Bonwell, C., Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Boyatzis, R., & Saatcioglu, A. (2008). A 20-year view of trying to develop emotional, social and
cognitive intelligence competencies in graduate management education. Journal of
Management Development, 27(1), 92-108.
Braver, L. (2012). A brief history of continental realism. Continental Philosophy Review, 45(2),
261-289.
Braver, L. (2007). A thing of this world: A history of continental anti-realism. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Brookfield, S. (2000). The concept of critically reflective practice. In A. Wilson & E. Hayes,
(Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education. New edition (pp. 33-53).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, L. (2007). A consideration of the challenges involved in supervising international
masters students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 239-248.
Brown, L., & Holloway, I. (2008). The adjustment journey of international postgraduate students
at an English university: An ethnographic study. Journal of Research in International
Education 7(2), 232-249.
Brint, S. & Cantwell, A. (2011). Academic disciplines and the undergraduate experience:
Rethinking Bok’s “underachieving colleges” thesis. Berkeley: Center for Studies in
Higher Education.
Brint, S. & Cantwell, A. (2010). Undergraduate time use and academic outcomes: Results from
the University of California undergraduate experience survey 2006. Teachers College
Record, 112(9), 2441-2470.
Brint, S., Cantwell, A., & Hanneman, R. (2008). The two cultures of undergraduate academic
engagement. Research on Higher Education, 49(5), 383-402.

198

Brint, S., Douglass, J., Thomson, G., & Chatman, S. (2010). Engaged learning in a public
university: Trends in the undergraduate experience. Berkeley: Center for Studies in
Higher Education.
Burkam, D., Lee, V., & Smerdon, B. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school:
Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal,
34(2), 297-331.
Campbell, J., & Li, M. (2008). Asian students’ voices: an empirical study of Asian students’
learning experiences at a New Zeeland University. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 12(4), 375-396.
Carini, R., Kuh, G., and Kleni, S. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: testing the
linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
Carson, J. (1992). Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Writing,
1(1), 37-60.
Case, J. M. (2007). Alienation and engagement: Development of an alternative theoretical
framework for understanding student learning. Higher Education, 55, 321-332.
Cass, V. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Sex Research,
20(2), 143-167.
Cass, V. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4(3), 219-235.
Chang, P. C. (1923). Education for modernization in China: A search for criteria of curriculum
construction in view of the transition in national life, with special reference to secondary
education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Chen, C., & Stevenson, H. (1995). Motivation and mathematics achievement: A comparative
study of Asian-American, Caucasian-American, and East Asian high school students.
Child Development, 66(4), 1215-1234.
Chen, J. (1995). Confucius as a teacher: Philosophy of Confucius with special reference to its
educational implications. Boston: Weatherhill.
Chen, T. (1974). The Maoist educational revolution. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28(3), 435-446.
Cheng, X. (2002). Chinese EFL students’ cultures of learning. In C. Lee and W. Littlewood
(Eds.) Culture, communication and language pedagogy, (pp. 103-116). Hong Kong:
Hong Kong Baptist University Press.

199

Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice. AAHE Bulletin, 39, ED
282 491, 3-7.
Clark, R., & Gieve, S. (2006). On the discursive construction of ‘the Chinese learner.’ Language,
Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 54-73.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in
post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research
Centre.
Collins, C., & Rhoads, R. (2008). The World Bank and higher education in the developing
world: the cases of Uganda and Thailand. In D. Baker & A. Wiseman (Eds.), The
Worldwide Transformation of Higher Education: International Perspectives on
Education and Society (Vol. 9, pp. 177-221). UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Compton, R. (Producer), & Heeter, C. (Director). (2007). 2 million minutes: A documentary
calculating the educational divide [DVD]. United States: Two Million Minutes.
Compton, R., Uppala, A., Ahrendt, N., Shafiq, M., Zhao, Y., Banerji, R., & Labaree, D. (2009).
2 million minutes. Comparative Education Review, 53(1), 113-137.
Conrad, C. & Dunek, L. (2012). Cultivating inquiry-driven learners. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Conrad, C., Duren, K., & Haworth, J. (1998). Students’ perspectives on their master’s degree
experiences: Disturbing the conventional wisdom. New Directions for Higher Education,
101, 65-76.
Conrad, C., Haworth, J., & Millar, S. (1993). A silent success: Master’s education in the United
States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory, (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cosh, J. (2000). Supporting the learning of international students in large group teaching. In G.
Wisker (Ed.), Good practice working with international students (pp. 51-58).
Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2009). Why should I get a master’s degree? Washington, DC:
Author.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches,
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

200

Cross, K. (1971). Beyond the open door: New students to higher education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2008). The landscape of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Dirkx, J., Mezirow, J., & Cranton, P. (2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning, context,
and process of transformative learning: A dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack
Mezirow. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(2), 123-139.
Dolence, M., & Norris, D. (1995). Transforming higher education: A vision for learning in the
twenty-first century. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.
Dollar, D., & Collier, P. (2001). Globalization, growth, and poverty: Building an inclusive world
economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dummett, M. (1978). Truth and other enigmas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Durkin, K. (2008). The adaptation of East Asian masters students to western norms of critical
thinking and argumentation in the UK. Intercultural Education, 19(1), 15-27.
Egege, S., & Kutieleh, S. (2004). Critical thinking: Teaching foreign notions to foreign students.
International Education Journal, 4(4), 75-85.
Enonbun, O. (2010). Constructivism and web 2.0 in the emerging learning era: A global
perspective. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 6(4), 17-27.
Entwistle N (1997). Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N.
Entwistle (Eds.), The Experience of Learning, 2nd ed. Edinburgh Scotland: Academic
Press.
Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, D. (2003). Preparing for examinations: the interplay of memorising
and understanding, and the development of knowledge objects. Higher Education
Research and Development, 22(1), 19-41.
Evans, N., & Wall, V. (1991). Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals on campus.
Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.
Fallon, G., & Brown, R. (1999). What about the workers? Academic staff opinions about
working with non-UK postgraduate students in higher education. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 23(1), 41-52.
Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering
Education, 94(1), 57-72.
Felder, R., Woods, D., Stice, J., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The future of engineering education: II.
teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1), 26-39.

201

Feng, Y. (1994). From the imperial examination to the national college entrance examination:
The dynamics of political centralism in China's educational enterprise. Paper presented
at the Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Fink, L. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing
college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Flowerdew, L. (1998). A cultural perspective on group work. ELT Journal, 52(4), 323-328.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glazer, J. (1986). The master’s degree: Tradition, diversity, innovation. ASHE-ERIC Report No.
6. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Glazer-Raymo, J. (2005). Professionalizing graduate education: The master’s degree in the
marketplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Goodwin, C. D., & Nacht, M. (1983). Absence of decision: Foreign students in American
colleges and universities, a report on policy formation and the lack thereof. New York:
Institute of International Education.
Gould, R. (1978). Transformations: Growth and change in adult life. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Green, J., (Ed.). (1987). The master’s degree: Jack of all trades. Denver, CO: State Higher
Education Executive Officers.
Griffiths, D., Winstanley, D., & Gabriel, Y. (2005). Learning shock: The trauma of return to
formal learning. Management Learning 36(3), 275-297.
Grippin, P., & Peters, S. (1984). Learning theory and learning outcomes. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Gupta, M. (2004). Enhancing student learning performance through cooperative learning in
physics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 67-73.
Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into “Approaches
to learning” research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 29(1),
89-104.

202

Hammond, S., & Gao, H. (2002). Pan Gu’s paradigm: Chinese evaluation’s return to holistic
communication in learning. In X. Lu, W. Jia, and R. Heisey (Eds.) Chinese
communication studies: Contexts and comparisons (pp. 227-244). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Harman, G. (2003). International PhD students in Australian universities: financial support,
course experience and career plan. International Journal of Educational Development,
23(3), 339-351.
Harris, R. (1995). Overseas students in the United Kingdom university system. Higher
Education, 29(1), 77-92.
Hart, T. (2001). From information to transformation: Education for the evolution of
consciousness. New York: Peter Lang.
Haworth, J., & Conrad, C. (1995). Master’s education in the United States: A contemporary
portrait. In P. Nerad, R. June & D. Miller (Eds.), Graduate Education in the United States
(Vol. 2, pp. 263-282). New York: Garland.
Heckanova-Alampay, R., Beehr, T., Christiansen, N., & Van Horn, R. (2002). Adjustment and
strain among domestic and international student sojourners: A longitudinal study. School
Psychology International 23(4), 458-474.
Heron, J. (1992). Feeling and personhood: Psychology in another key. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ho, D. (1994). Cognitive socialization in Confucian-heritage cultures. In P. Greenfield & R.
Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 285-314).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237-264.
Howard, J., Short, L., & Clark, S. (1996). Students’ participation in the mixed age classroom.
Teaching Sociology, 24(1), 8-24.
Hu, C. T. (1984). The historical background: Examinations and control in pre-modern China.
Comparative Education, 20(1), 7-26.
Hull, C. (1952). A behavior system: An introduction to behavior theory concerning the individual
organism. New Haven: Yale University Press.

203

Institute of International Education (2011a). International student enrollments increased by 5
percent in 2010/11, led by strong increase in students from China. Open doors report on
international educational exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/en/Who-WeAre/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2011/2011-11-14-Open-DoorsInternational-Students
Institute of International Education. (2011b). International students by academic level and place
of origin, 2010/11. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.
Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/OpenDoors/Data/International-Students/By-Academic-Level-and-Place-of-Origin/2010-11
Institute of International Education (2011c). Open doors 2011: Briefing presentation. Open doors
report on international educational exchange. Retrieved from
http://www.iie.org/Research-and Publications/~/media/Files/Corporate/OpenDoors/Open-Doors-2011-Briefing-Presentation.ashx>
Institute of International Education (2011d). Open Doors fact sheet: China. Open doors report on
international educational exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-andPublications/Open-Doors/Data/Fact-Sheets-by-Country/~/media/Files/Corporate/OpenDoors/Fact-Sheets-2011/Country/China%20Fact%20Sheet%20%20Open%20Doors%202011.ashx
Ji, Zhou (2006). Higher education in China. Singapore: Thomson Learning Asia.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International
Journal of Educational Research, 29(8), 739-761.
Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in women. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kasworm, C., & Hemmingsen, L. (2007). Preparing professionals for lifelong learning:
Comparative examination of master’s education programs. Higher Education, 54,
449-468.
Katz, P. (2005). Retrieving the Master’s Degree from the Dustbin of History: A Report for the
Members of the American Historical Association. Washington, DC: American Historical
Association.
Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to
learning. Higher Education, 31, 341-354.
Kim, H. (2003). Critical thinking, learning and Confucius: A positive assessment. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 37(1), 71-87.
Kingston, E., & Forland, H. (2008). Bridging the gap in expectations between international
students and academic staff. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), 204221.

204

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimally guided learning does not work: An
analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential
learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Kuh, G. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks
for effective educational practices. Change, 35, 24-32.
Kuh, G., & Hu, S. (2001). Learning and productivity at research universities. The Journal
of Higher Education, 72(1), 1-28.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., & Whitt, E., (2005). Student Success in College: Creating
Conditions that Matter, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass and American Association for Higher
Education.
Laird, T., Shoup, R., Kuh, G., & Schwarz, M. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep
approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education,
49(6), 469-494.
Lee, T. (2000). Education in traditional China: A history. Leiden: Brill.
Lee, V., & Burkam, D. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: Subject
domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education, 80(6), 613-650.
Lee, W. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the
Confucian tradition. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural,
psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25- 41). Hong Kong: CERC and Melbourne:
ACER.
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design, (8th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leveille, D. (2006). Accountability in higher education: A public agenda for trust and cultural
change. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California,
Berkeley.
Li, J, (2002). Learning models in different cultures. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 2002(96), 45-63.
Li, J. (2003). US and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(2), 258-267.
Li, W., & Collins, C. (2014). Chinese doctoral student socialization in the United States: A
qualitative study. Forum of International Research in Education, 1(2), 32-57.
Liu, D. (1998). Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs of
international TESOL students. ELT Journal, 52(1), 3-10.

205

Lloyd, G. (1996). Adversaries and authorities: Investigations into ancient Greek and Chinese
science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsella, A., DeVos, G., & Hsu, F. (Eds.). (1985). Culture and self: Asian and Western
perspectives. New York: Tavistock Publications.
Marti, M. (2002). China and the legacy of Deng Xiaoping: From communist revolution to
capitalist evolution. Dulles, VA: Brassey's.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of
Educational Research, 19(3), 277-299.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Tse, L.K. (1996). Memorizing and understanding: the keys to the
paradox? In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological
and contextual influences (pp. 69-84). Hong Kong: CERC and Melbourne: ACER.
Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. (1997). The experience of learning. Edinburgh,
Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the Learner's Perspective. III. Level of Difficulty
Viewed as a Relationship between the Reader and the Text. Reports from the Institute of
Education, no. 78, University of Gothenburg.
Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: 1. Outcome and process.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Marton, F., Wen, Q., & Wong, K.C. (2005). ‘Read a hundred times and the meaning will
appear…’ Changes in Chinese university students’ views of the temporal structure
of learning. Higher Education, 49, 291-318.
Mayer, R. (2009). Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription
for instruction. In Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or
failure? (pp. 184-200). London: Routledge.
Mayer, R. (2008). Learning and instruction, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three strikes rule against pure discovery? The case for
guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
McKeachie, W. (1972). Research on college teaching. Educational Perspectives, 11(2), 3-10.
Merriam, S., & Associates. (2007). Non-Western perspectives on learning and knowing.
Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.

206

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide, (3rd ed). The Jossey-bass higher and adult education series. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J. (1991). Study orchestration: The manifestation, interpretation and consequences of
contextualized approaches to studying. Higher Education, 22(3), 297-316.
Mezirow, J., & Associates. (Eds.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on
a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 28(2), 100-110.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching,
55(2), 42-47.
Michigan State University (2013, January 7a). Department of political science: The MPP
program curriculum. Retrieved from http://polisci.msu.edu/index.php/mppprogram/program-curriculum
Michigan State University (2013, January 7b). Eli Broad college of business: Full-time MBA.
Retrieved from http://mba.broad.msu.edu/
Michigan State University (2013, January 7c). Eli Broad college of business: Full-time MBA
case competitions. Retrieved from http://mba.test.broad.msu.edu/academics
/experiential/cases/
Michigan State University (2013, January 7d). Eli Broad college of business: Full-time MBA
curriculum. Retrieved from http://mba.test.broad.msu.edu/academics/curriculum/
Michigan State University (2013, January 7e). Graduate student handbook: Environmental
engineering program. Retrieved from http://www.egr.msu.edu/cee/programs
/ENE_Handbook_13.pdf
Miyazaki, I. (1976). China's examination hell: The civil service examinations of imperial China
(C. Schirokauer, Trans.). New York: Weatherhill.
Mohrman, K. (2010). Educational exchanges: What China should not adopt from United States
higher education. In D. Chapman, W. Cummings, & G. Postiglione (Eds.), Crossing
borders in East Asian higher education. Hong Kong, China: The University of Hong
Kong.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.

207

Mullis, I., Martin, M., Gonzales, E., & Chrostowski, S. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international
mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and
science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Kennedy, A., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 international report: IEA’s
progress in international reading literacy study in primary schools in 40 countries.
Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school
(Expanded edition). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalisation at home from a Swedish perspective: The case of Malmö.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(27), 27-40.
Nisbett, R. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently…
and why. New York: Free Press.
Nunn, C. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: triangulating observational and survey
results. Journal of Higher Education, 67(3), 243-266.
Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in
science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education 16, 153-222.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Pavlov, I. (1960). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the
cerebral cortex. New York: Dover Publications.
Payne, C. (Ed.). (2009). Information technology and constructivism in higher education:
Progressive learning frameworks. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to
the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 46(3), 53-65.
Phillips, D. (Ed.). (2000). Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on
controversial issues. Chicago, IL: National Study for the Study of Education
Phillips, D. (1990). Overseas students and their impact on the changing face of professional
education in universities. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in
Education Annual Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.aare.edu.au/90pap/phill90234.txt

208

Phillips, D. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.
Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Pinheiro, S. (2001). Perceptions versus preferences: adult international students’ teachinglearning experiences in an American university. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452 785).
Pratt, D., & Nesbit, T. (2000). Discourses and cultures of teaching. In A. Wilson & E. Hayes,
(Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education. New edition (pp. 117-131). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding teaching and learning: The experience in
higher education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Pryor, J., DeAngelo, L., Palucki Blake, L., Hurtado, S., & Tran, S. (2011). The American
freshman: National norms fall 2011. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute,
UCLA.
Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth, and history. New York: Cambridge University.
Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches
to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology 51(3), 368-383.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Routledge.
Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher
Education, 8(4), 411-427.
Rao, N., McHale, J., & Pearson, E. (2003). Links between socialization goals and childrearing practices in Chinese and Indian mothers. Infant and Child Development, 12(5),
475-492.
Resnick, L. (Ed.). (1989). Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 16(9), 1623-1640.
Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1997). Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new
understandings. London: Falmer Press.
Salili, F. (2001). Teacher-student interaction: Attributional implications and effectiveness
of teachers’ evaluative feedback. In D. Watkins and J. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the
Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 77-98). Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Säljö, R. (1979). Learning about learning. Higher Education, 8(4), 443-451.

209

Säljö, R. (1982). Learning and understanding. Gothenburg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: two sides of a story. Higher
Education Research and Development, 6(2), 121-133.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning.
Higher Education, 41(3), 299-325.
Schwandt, T. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Scollon, S. (1999). Not to waste words or students: Confucian and Socratic discourse in the
tertiary classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning
(pp. 13-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shi, L. (2006). The successors to Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnaire study on
Chinese students’ culture of learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 122147.
Shi-xu. (1997). Cultural representations: Analyzing discourse about the other. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Skinner, B. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330), 969-977.
Smerdon, B., Burkam, D., & Lee, V. (1999). Access to constructivist and didactic teaching: Who
gets it? where is it practiced? Teachers College Record, 101(1), 5-34.
Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory,
method and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Smith, S. (2001). Approaches to study of three Chinese national groups. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71(3), 429-441.
Snyder, T., & Dillow, S. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics 2011 (NCES 2012-001). National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC.
Soothill, W. E. (1910). The educational conquest of China. Contemporary Review, 98(2),
403-408.
Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

210

Stevenson, H., & Lee, S. (1996). The academic achievement of Chinese students. In M. Bond
(Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 124-142). Hong Kong: Oxford
University Press.
Stevenson, H., & Lee, S. (1990). Contexts of achievement: A study of American, Chinese, and
Japanese children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
55(1/2), p. 1-119.
Stewart, D. & Spille H. (1988). Diploma mills: Degrees of fraud. New York: American Council
on Education and Macmillan.
Strang, K. (2007). Improving supervision of cross-cultural postgraduate university students.
International Journal of Learning and Change, 4(2), 181-202.
Tagg, John (2003). The learning paradigm college. Jossey-Bass.
Tan, P. (2011). Towards a culturally sensitive and deeper understanding of “rote learning” and
memorisation of adult learners. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(2), 124145.
Tatar, S. (2005). Classroom participation by international students: the case of Turkish graduate
students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(4), 337-355.
Thorndike, E. (1913). Educational psychology, Volume 1. New York: Teachers college,
Columbia University.
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? London:
Routledge.
Tolman, E. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: The Century Company.
Trice, A. (2003). Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: Benefits and challenges.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(4), 379-403.
Trice, A. (2005). Navigating in a multinational learning community: Academic departments’
responses to graduate international students. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 9(1), 62-89.
Trice, A., & Yoo, J. (2007). International graduate students’ perceptions of their academic
experience. Journal of Research in International Education, 6(1), 41-66.
Tweed, R., & Lehman, D. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and
Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57(2), 89-99.
Tweed, R., & Lehman, D. (2003). Confucian and Socratic learning. American Psychologist,
58(2), 148-149.

211

UKCOSA (2004). Broadening our horizons. London: UKCOSA.
van Woerkom, M. (2010). Critical reflection as a rationalistic ideal. Adult Education Quarterly,
60(4), 339-356.
Vaughan, W. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and attitude among
students of color. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 359-364.
Veeck, A., Flurry, L., & Jiang, N. (2003). Equal dreams: The one child policy and the
consumption of education in urban China. Consumption, Markets and Culture 6(1), 8194.
Venturino, S. (2000). Globalisation, cultural critique and China. Social Semiotics, 10(2), 211220.
Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2004). Building capacity through cross-border tertiary education. Paper
presented at UNESCO/OECD Australia Forum on Trade in Educational Services,
Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/25/33784331.pdf
Wang, T., & Li, L.Y. (2011). ‘Tell me what to do’ vs. ‘guide me through it’: Feedback
experiences of international doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 12(2), 101-112.
Wang, Q., & Li, J. (2003). Chinese children’s self-concepts in the domains of learning and social
relations. Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 81-101.
Wang, J., & Mao, S. (1996). Culture and the kindergarten curriculum in the People’s Republic of
China, Early Childhood Development and Care, 123, 143-156.
Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. (2004). The experiences of international students in New Zealand:
Report on the results of the national survey. New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/international/14700
Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and
contextual influences. Hong Kong: CERC
Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (2001). The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond. In D. Watkins
and J. Biggs (Eds.) The Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives,
(pp. 3-23). Hong Kong: CERC.
Watkins, D., Reghi, M., & Astilla, E. (1991). The Asian-learner-as-a-rote-learner stereotype:
Myth or reality? Educational Psychology 11(1), 21-34.
Watson, J. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158-177.

212

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Merrill
Education/ASCD College Textbook Series, ASCD.
Wilson, A., & Hayes, E. (2000). A selective history of the adult education handbooks. In A.
Wilson & E. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education. New edition
(pp. 3-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wong, J. (2004). Are the learning styles of Asian international students culturally or contextually
based? International Education Journal 4(4), 154-166.
Woo, H. (1993). Making of a new Chinese mind: Intellectuality and the future of China. Hong
Kong: China Foundation.
World Bank (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yang, Xinyu (2008). A view from China. In Laughlin, S. (Ed.), U.S.-China Educational
Exchange (pp. xiii-xv). NY: Institute of International Education.
Yorks, L., & Kasl, E. (2006). I know more than I can say: A taxonomy for using expressive ways
of knowing to foster transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(1),
43-64.
Xu, M. (1991). The impact of English-language proficiency on international students’ perceived
academic difficulty. Research in Higher Education, 32(5), 557-570.
Xueqin, J. (2011). Selecting the Right Chinese Students. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/
docview/1021175160?accountid=12598

213