TRANSFORMATIVE INTERNATIONALIZATION THROUGH KINDNESS:  

THE EXPERIENCES OF CHINESE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS  

AND THEIR INSTRUCTORS AT A U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION 

 

 

By 

Karolina Achirri  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to 

Michigan State University 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements  

for the degree of  

 

Second Language Studies−Doctor of Philosophy 

2020 

ABSTRACT 

TRANSFORMATIVE INTERNATIONALIZATION THROUGH KINDNESS:  

THE EXPERIENCES OF CHINESE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS  

AND THEIR INSTRUCTORS AT A U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION 

 

By 

Karolina Achirri  

In this dissertation, I set out to explore and analyze the experiences of six international 

students from mainland China (henceforth student-participants), who are currently undergraduate 

students at a midwestern university in the United States (henceforth Grand Lake University or 

GLU), alongside the experiences of their four instructors (henceforth instructor-participants). In 

addition, I aim to investigate interculturality in the teaching-learning context. Participants 

include four instructors of three different courses (an English as a second language class, 

business management class, and a college writing class) and six Chinese undergraduate students 

attending these classes. As a multiple case study (Stake, 1995, 2006), this project comprises two 

collective case studies, a student-participants collective case study and an instructor-participants 

collective case study. The theoretical lenses are those of interculturality in education (Dervin, 

2016b). I present a literature review where I identify the experiences of Chinese undergraduate 

students in the U.S. and these of their instructors thematically. I depict both enriching and 

challenging experiences that crop up during learning and teaching in the U.S. For my data in 

both collective case studies, I conducted semi-structured interviews as a main data source. I also 

observed classes for both case studies but conducted participant observations and collected 

artifacts for instructor-participants collective case study only. Additional data sources were a 

researcher’s journal, field notes journals and email correspondence with both groups of 

participants throughout the process. I then applied holistic coding (Saldaña, 2016) to derive 

codes and patterns from collected data and transformed them into themes in the findings section 

of this dissertation. I conducted transcript checks with all participants by sending them interview 

transcripts and asking for their feedback. Also, in my analysis, I emphasized the experiences of 

the participants (students and instructors alike) and how they construct intercultural learning and 

teaching. I discuss the findings from both collective case studies within the motif of 

transformative internationalization being possible through kindness (Abelmann & Kang, 2014; 

Loreman, 2011). I show that in order to reach transformative rather than symbolic 

internationalized learning environment, all voices must be heard. The four instructor-participants 

demonstrated open-minded approaches towards Chinese undergraduate students and positive 

perceptions of them, making the multiple cultures of learning they brought to their classrooms an 

asset rather than a barrier in a variety of ways and to different extents. The instructor-participants 

demonstrated not only culturally responsive pedagogies but also pedagogies that were 

interculturally rich and encouraging. Culturally, to the student-participants, kindness seemed to 

be a crucial factor. Wherever any instances of kindness were offered to them, either directly or 

indirectly, the student-participants thrived in their communication with instructor-participants 

and peers, in their social life, and in their evolving ideas about GLU. I also found that student-

participants prepared thoroughly for their sojourns and depicted multiple types of motivation to 

study in the U.S. (including familial pressure and better career opportunities afterwards). I 

examined their language experiences at GLU alongside their sociocultural endeavors, which 

turned out to be challenging but educational and enriching. Based on these findings I also 

suggest directions for future research.  

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copyright by 
KAROLINA ACHIRRI 
2020

To all academic mamas, who might have been once told  

that by becoming mothers they ruined their careers. 

We are enough. 

 

v 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

 

First of all, I would like to thank God, the Creator, the Father, the Life, the Hope, the 

Love, the Everything. He put me on this path and He surely walked it with me, every step of the 

way. There was not a single moment where He would abandon me. “Why you ever chose me, 

has always been a mystery.”  

 

Secondly, this dissertation would have not seen the light of day if not for constant and 

gentle (sometimes not so gentle) pushes from my advisors, Drs. Senta Goertler and Dustin 

DeFelice. Senta, you took me on when I needed a mentor. You led me through the intricacies of 

academia with confidence and never ceasing belief that we would get here one day. You are one 

of the strongest women in academia I know. And here we are. Dustin, what can I say? You 

showed me what kind of a teacher and researcher (despite my multitudinous attempts to not call 

myself a researcher) I can become. You showed me kindness, which I aspire to pass along to all 

of my future students. You were a wonderful mentor, not only in this program, but also in life. I 

am proud to call myself your first PhD baby. Thank you both for everything, especially for those 

open arms to pick me up from my falls and those ears ready to listen, even if it was just to my 

crying. I am forever grateful for having met you both!  

Also, this story would not have been written without Dr. Shawn Loewen. Shawn, your 

humility as a human being and your advocacy for students as a program director never cease to 

dazzle me. What you did for me and how you helped me to get to this finish line cannot be 

expressed through words, especially in English that is suddenly lacking appropriate adjectives. 

 

vi 

Thus, Dziękuję ci bardzo za wszystko. Furthermore, Dr. Lynn Fender. Lynn, you joined my 

adventure last, but you were such a long-awaited addition to it. You made it complete. Thank 

you for letting me be me and for always having my back. I appreciate you.  

 

Moreover, I would not have been able to either complete my program or finish my 

dissertation without the entire childcare village. First and foremost, I want to thank Mrs. B (aka 

auntie B) and uncle Chris at Mrs. B’s Daycare. Not only did you receive Thelo and I with open 

arms and daily smiles, but you also welcomed us to your home and family. Thelo loves you so 

much and so do I. I thank God for you every day. Also, I would not have met Mrs. B without the 

wonderfully leading hand of Ms. Kimberly Steed-Page, the Director of the Student Parent 

Resource Center at MSU. Ms. Kim, you took care of me like my own mother would have. You 

went above and beyond to make sure we are okay and set to succeed. Thank you for opening 

your heart and resources to me and Thelo. And, thank you for the Spartan Kids Grant that 

allowed Thelo to grow and learn at Mrs. B’s. We will never forget you.  

 

There were many uncles and aunties who looked after Thelo when I had to write. My 

deepest gratitude to all of you: Uncle Bronson and Auntie Amy, Uncle Rob and Auntie June, 

Auntie Ivette, Auntie Amy, Auntie Alaina, Auntie Abbey, Auntie Maggie and many others who 

cheered on me on this journey of motherhood in grad school. This achievement belongs to all of 

you. 

 

Importantly, I was lucky enough to make friends on this journey. You supported me, 

never turned down a coffee-venting session, and just by being there you made a difference. My 

thank you goes to: Caitlin Cornell, Dr. Amy Cousineau, Curtis Green-Eneix, Asif Iqbal, Dr. 

Mary Juzwik, Magdalyne Oguti, Hima Rawal, Dr. Irina Zaykovskaya. I am also grateful to the 

 

vii 

SLS program secretary, Benjamin Lampe, who supported me throughout the duration of the 

program and who is a wonderful human being.  

Lastly, I am grateful to my family. My husband - Ishmael, my mother - Bozena, my sister 

– Kasia, and my chosen sister – Emilia. Thank you for bearing with me through these 

challenging times. God bless you! 

 

Now that all is said and done, I’m off to my next adventure! 

 

viii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xii 

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... xiii 

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ xiv 

CHAPTER 1 ..............................................................................................................................1 
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 
Statement of Intent .........................................................................................................3 
Approach ........................................................................................................................3 
Impetus for the Study .....................................................................................................5 
Rationale for the Study ..................................................................................................8 
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................14 
Structure of the Dissertation ........................................................................................17 

 
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................19 
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................19 
Literature Search Strategy............................................................................................20 
Transformative Internationalization.............................................................................21 
Instructors’ Experiences with Chinese Undergraduate Students at U.S. Institutions  .24 
Perceptions .......................................................................................................25 
Cultures ............................................................................................................28 
Pedagogies .......................................................................................................31 
Interculturality..................................................................................................35 
Kindness .......................................................................................................................37 
Chinese Undergraduate Students’ Experiences in the United States ...........................40 
Preparedness and Motivations .........................................................................41 
Language ..........................................................................................................45 
Beliefs and Feelings .........................................................................................48 
Societies ...........................................................................................................50 
The Three Contexts ......................................................................................................54 
Theoretical Underpinnings...........................................................................................55 
Interculturality as Conceptual Framework.......................................................56 

 
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................62 
METHOD ................................................................................................................................62 
The Role of the Researcher ..........................................................................................63 
Context of the Study ....................................................................................................65 
Instructor-participants Case Study ...................................................................66 
Student-participants Case Study ......................................................................68 
Participants ...................................................................................................................70 
Instructor-participants ......................................................................................71 

 

ix 

Student-participants .........................................................................................74 
Data Sources ................................................................................................................76 
Instructor-participants Collective Case Study .................................................77 
Student-participants Collective Case Study .....................................................78 
Semi-structured Interviews ..............................................................................80 

Semi-structured interviews in the instructor-participants collective  
case study .............................................................................................80 
Semi-structured interviews in the student-participants collective  
case study .............................................................................................81 
Observations and Artifacts ...............................................................................81 
Observations in the instructor-participants collective case study ........81 
Participant observations ........................................................82 
Artifacts in the instructor-participants collective case study ...............82 
Observations in the student-participants collective case study ............83 
Additional Data Sources ..................................................................................83 
Field notes journals ..............................................................................83 
Researcher’s journal.............................................................................84 
Email correspondence ..........................................................................85 
Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................85 
Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................87 
First Cycle Coding – Holistic Coding ............................................................90 
Second Cycle Coding – Category Construction or Pattern Coding .............101 
Particularization .........................................................................................................104 

 
CHAPTER 4 ..........................................................................................................................105 
INSTRUCTOR-PARTICIPANTS: FINDINGS ....................................................................105 
Findings......................................................................................................................105 
Cases through Themes ..................................................................................107 
Perceptions of Chinese Undergraduate Students ..........................................108 
Cultural Mélange ..........................................................................................114 
Pedagogical Approaches to Chinese Undergraduate Students .....................123 
Interculturality ..............................................................................................133 

 
CHAPTER 5 ..........................................................................................................................140 
STUDENT-PARTICIPANTS: FINDINGS ...........................................................................140 
Findings......................................................................................................................140 
Cases through Themes ..................................................................................142 
Preparedness for and Motivation to Explore the New..................................143 
Language Experiences ..................................................................................147  
Beliefs and Feelings about Studying in the U.S. ..........................................153 
The Social Side of the New ..........................................................................160   

 
CHAPTER 6 ..........................................................................................................................165 
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................165 
Instructor-participants Collective Case Study: Discussion ........................................165 
Transformative Internationalization through Teaching Practices ................165 

 

x 

Perceptions of Chinese undergraduate students .................................165 
Cultural mélange ................................................................................171  
Pedagogical approaches to Chinese undergraduate students .............176  
Interculturality....................................................................................181  
Student-participants Collective Case Study: Discussion ...........................................186 
Kindness .......................................................................................................186 
Preparedness for and motivation to explore the new .........................187 
Language experiences ........................................................................191  
Beliefs and feelings about studying in the U.S. .................................196 
The social side of the new ..................................................................200  

 
CHAPTER 7 ..........................................................................................................................207 
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................207 
Main Findings ............................................................................................................208 
Instructor-participants’ Described Experiences (RQ1) ................................209 
Student-participants’ Described Experiences (RQ1)....................................210 
Interculturality in Teaching and Learning (RQs2) .......................................212 
Pedagogical Implications ...........................................................................................214 
Limitations .................................................................................................................216 
Future Research .........................................................................................................217 

 
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................220 

APPENDIX A Semi-structured Interview Questions for Student-participants  
(Based on Liu & Fang, 2017; Sercu, 2006; Uzum, 2013; Yazdanpanah, 2017) .......221 
APPENDIX B Semi-structured Interview Questions for Instructor-participants  
(Based on Liu & Fang, 2017; Sercu, 2006; Uzum, 2013; Yazdanpanah, 2017) .......223 
 

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................226 
 

 

xi 

LIST OF TABLES 

 

Table 1.1. U.S. vs. Chinese academic values. (Based on Cortazzi & Jin, 1997; Cortazzi  
& Jin, 2013; Ryan, 2010). ........................................................................................................10 
 
Table 1.2. Definitions of the main terms used in this project ..................................................15 
 
Table 2.1. Elements of interculturality, based on Dervin (2016b) ...........................................57 
 
Table 3.1. The list of instructor-participants, their gender, classes they taught and these classes 
areas of focus ...........................................................................................................................71 
 
Table 3.2. The list of student-participants, their gender, classes they attended and these classes 
areas of focus ...........................................................................................................................75 
 
Table 3.3. Codes from the first cycle of coding for instructor-participants with definitions and 
examples ..................................................................................................................................91 
 
Table 3.4. Codes from the first cycle of coding for student-participants with definitions and 
examples ..................................................................................................................................96 
 
Table 3.5. Themes for the instructor-participants collective case study that emerged from  
the second cycle of coding and codes from the first cycle of coding that I assigned to each 
theme ......................................................................................................................................102 
 
Table 3.6. Themes for the student-participants collective case study that emerged from  
the second cycle of coding and codes from the first cycle of coding that I assigned to  
each theme .............................................................................................................................103 
 
Table 4.1. The list of instructor-participants, their gender, and self-identification ...............107 
 
Table 4.2. Themes for the instructor-participants collective case study ................................108 
 
Table 5.1. The list of student-participants, their gender, self-identification  
and the course taken ...............................................................................................................142 
 
Table 5.2. Themes for the student-participants collective case study....................................143 
 
Table 5.3. Participants’ own words describing their instructors and friends in the U.S. .......157

 

xii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 

Figure 3.1. A graphic design of a collective case study for instructor-participants. The icons 
under Additional data sources represent a field notes journal, a researcher’s journal and email 
correspondence, respectively. Worksheet used with permission from Stake (2006, p. 5) ......68 
 
Figure 3.2. A graphic design of a collective case study for student-participants. The icons under 
Additional data sources represent a filed notes journal, a researcher’s journal and email 
correspondence, respectively. Worksheet used with permission from Stake (2006, p. 5) ......70  
 
Figure 3.3. Data collection procedures for instructor-participants collective case study.  
Primary data sources are depicted in bold ...............................................................................78  
 
Figure 3.4. Data collection procedures for student-participants collective case study.  
Primary data sources are depicted in bold ...............................................................................79 
 
Figure 3.5. A collage of examples from the field notes journals .............................................84 
 
Figure 3.6. An example of transcripts from both collective case studies ................................88 
 
Figure 3.7. Stages of data analysis in case study research, according to Stake (1995, p. 53) .89 
 
Figure 3.8. An example of data analysis of an artifact: one of the syllabi provided by the 
instructor-participants ..............................................................................................................90 
 
Figure 3.9. An example of an analytic memo from my data stored in MAXQDA 2018 ......100 
 
Figure 4.1. A graphic design of a collective case study for instructor-participants updated  
with main findings (issues) and research questions. The icons under Additional data sources 
represent a field notes journal, researcher’s journal and email correspondence, respectively.  
ESL ACL stands for English as a Second Language: American Culture, while ESL RESL A  
and B represent English as Second Language: Reading (A and B were taught by two different 
instructor-participants). CWC stands for cultural writing course and BC for a course on  
business management. Worksheet used with permission from Stake (2006, p. 5). ...............106 
 
Figure 5.1. A graphic design of a collective case study for student-participants updated with  
main findings (issues) and research questions. The icons under Additional data sources  
represent a field notes journal, a researcher’s journal and email correspondence, respectively. 
ESL ACL stands for English as a Second Language: American Culture, while ESL RESL A 
represents English as Second Language: Reading. CWC stands for cultural writing course and 
BC for a course on business management. Worksheet used with permission from Stake  
(2006, p. 5) .............................................................................................................................141

 

xiii 

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS 

 

BC 

 

Business Management Class 

CWC   

College Writing Class  

ESL 

 

English as a Second Language  

ESL ACL 

ESL American Culture Class 

ESL RESL 

ESL Reading Class  

Grand Lake University 

International Education 

Institutional Review Board 

Learning Management System 

The People’s Republic of China 

Second Language Acquisition 

The United States of America 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GLU 

IE 

IRB 

LMS 

PRC 

SLA 

U.S. 

 

 

xiv 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

U.S. universities that welcome international students often face challenges with 

understanding these students’ backgrounds, the cultural differences they embody, their prior and 

present educational practices and language endeavors (Yan & Berliner, 2016). Due to 

internationalization, which has seen high numbers of Chinese undergraduate students (i.e., 

mainland Chinese who identify as Chinese) attending U.S. higher institutions (Institute of 

International Education, 2019), the situation calls for analysis that could tease out the potential 

contribution of these students to U.S. cultures of learning and the efforts of their instructors (i.e., 

educators responsible for teaching a given course at U.S. institutions of higher education) to 

educate them. As a result, both groups could broaden their knowledge and experiences and thus 

enrich pedagogical processes.  

While internationalization is inevitable, transformative internationalization is what U.S. 

colleges and universities might want to strive for (Abelmann & Kang, 2014). In this project, I 

define transformative internationalization as a process that involves symbiotic changes in both 

students and instructors. As the data revealed, the most effective pathway to transformative 

internationalization was through practicing pedagogy of kindness. As such, kindness is 

understood as a quality of a human characterized by generosity, consideration, friendliness and 

empathy. My approach to making U.S. higher education truly transformed through kindness also 

brings light to an important aspect of interculturality (defined as mutual appreciation, curiosity 

and respect when dealing with others), namely the reciprocity of it. In transformative 

internationalization both parties involved (that is, the Chinese undergraduate students and their 

 

1 

instructors) benefit from kind mutual treatment, which as a result, makes their experiences more 

enjoyable and transformative.  

Chinese undergraduate students and U.S. instructors offer each other unique assets that 

could enrich cultural diversity on one hand and liberal education on the other. While Chinese 

undergraduate students contribute to the U.S. cultures of learning (Cortazzi & Jin, 2013; Jin & 

Cortazzi, 1993; Jin & Cortazzi, 2017) by, for instance, bringing fresh perspectives during 

classroom discussions, their instructors also bring specialist knowledges to the table. In this 

study, I understand cultures of learning as socially transmitted expectations, beliefs and values 

about what good learning is, what makes an instructor and a student effective and what their 

roles are; about learning and teaching styles, approaches and methods; about classroom activities 

and the use of textbooks. How can understanding both groups (i.e., Chinese undergraduate 

students and their instructors) enlighten intercultural teaching and learning? Domestic students 

and instructors in the U.S. can also benefit from the mixed cultural experiences that they might 

not be able to gain in all home student classes. However, details of how this student population 

contributes to these cultures of learning and the particular efforts of the instructors are not well-

known. These contributions seem important because they have the potential to improve (1) 

second language learning, (2) learning outcomes, (3) international education, and (4) 

understanding of interculturality. It is fruitful to not only investigate the experiences of Chinese 

undergraduate students but also those of their instructors. That is not only because these are 

intertwined but also exist within the spirit of mutual understanding and conviviality, which fits 

my focus on interculturality in this project.  

 

 

2 

 

Statement of Intent 

In this dissertation, I set out to critically explore the experiences, that is, knowledges, 

feelings, and understandings of six Chinese undergraduate students (student-participants) and  

those of four of their instructors (instructor-participants) in three different learning contexts at a 

midwestern university (henceforth known as Grand Lake University or GLU). Through this 

project, I aim to add to the existing literature on Chinese undergraduate students’ learning 

experiences in the United States. At the same time, I focus on understanding the efforts and 

experiences of these student-participants’ instructors in classes that have mixed student 

populations. I hope that findings will shed light on intercultural learning and teaching by 

increasing awareness of what occurs when Chinese undergraduate students and their instructors 

enter the teaching-learning space at GLU. Consequently, this could assist universities in 

becoming more productive, staying open, and welcoming towards Chinese undergraduate 

students. In addition, given the abundant literature about Chinese learners, I intend to understand 

these six students’ learning processes in the U.S. Lastly, by conducting this study, I hope to 

produce valuable knowledge about instructors’ approaches to teaching Chinese undergraduate 

students in the U.S. as well as the role of language and cultures in teaching-learning endeavors. 

As a result, the findings from this study, when revealed to its participants, could also positively 

impact not only Chinese undergraduate students’ decisions to complete their degrees abroad but 

also their success rate once in the U.S. 

Approach 

Scholars have realized the critical need and the significance of pedagogy and 

conceptualization of teaching and learning when it comes to international students (Dervin, 

2016b). In this study, I draw on interculturality in education, defined as mutual appreciation, 

 

3 

curiosity and respect when dealing with others, as the theoretical lens that informs on this study. 

I chose this approach due to its bilateral (i.e., mutual, reciprocal) nature. Additionally, the scope 

of my study as well as my own interests as a researcher demand an interdisciplinary perspective 

to fully uncover the cases studied. I define the case as the four instructor-participants and the six 

student-participants. In the light of the above, this project is situated at the intersection of Second 

Language Acquisition (SLA), International Education (IE) and Interculturality. Inevitably, it also 

attends to issues of othering, which have been highlighted in the literature (e.g., Dervin, 2016b; 

Holliday, Kullman, & Hyde, 2017). Here othering points to “stereotypes and representations 

about The Other when meeting her/him and talking about her/him” (Dervin, 2016b, p. 43). 

Processes of othering have formed the crux of much empirical and theoretical research in the 

humanities and social sciences in the past few decades. Thus, I examine stereotypes of both 

societies (that is Chinese and U.S. societies) that emerge in the learning and teaching processes 

whether advertently or inadvertently.  

For this study as such, I carried out a multiple case study comprising two collective case 

studies (instructor-participants collective case study and student-participants collective case 

study). Case studies seek out both what is common and what is particular about the case (Stake, 

1995, 2006). Thus, I delved into the observations and descriptions (i.e., explanations of 

experiences) of the learning experiences of six students from mainland China (aka student-

participants) at a midwestern university along with the teaching experiences of four of their 

instructors (aka instructor-participants). The courses that brought together these students and 

their instructors are different (see details in Chapter 3), yet they create a threefold context for this 

project. Working with these two groups within the three contexts, namely the ESL context 

(ESL), the business management context (BC) and the college writing context (CWC), enabled 

 

4 

me to draw similarities and particularities between learning and teaching cultures and to explore 

the role of language in the various teaching-learning contexts.  

 

In this multiple case study, I collected data through semi-structured interviews, 

observations (including participant observations), artifacts, email correspondence, researcher’s 

journal and field notes journals (see details on each collective case study in Chapter 3). In terms 

of data analysis, I followed the conventions of holistic coding (Saldaña, 2016), which is best 

applied “when the researcher has a general idea of what to investigate in the data” (p. 166). In 

this manner, I explored participants’ experiences in depth in order to particularize them. This, in 

turn, provided new insights into experiences of the student-participants and their instructor-

participants. As both participants attempted to cross cultural boundaries, I also looked into the 

multiple pedagogies that the instructor-participants utilized in their teaching to best include 

Chinese undergraduate students as well as learning strategies of these students.  

 

The chosen research approach fits this study’s purpose because (1) the four overarching 

research questions can be better answered, understood and explained through observing and 

describing rather than measuring; (2) the research questions are general, open-ended and broad; 

and (3) the purpose of this study is not to seek generalizations to other people or contexts but 

rather to derive subjective understandings from the participants’ own perspectives of their 

experiences.  

Impetus for the Study 

The initial impetus for this study emanated from my own experiences while teaching in 

China prior to my doctoral studies. I spent six years teaching in China’s 5th largest city, 

Hangzhou (population almost 10 million) and most of my students were high school students 

who were preparing to further their education in the U.S. Multiple conversations with students 

 

5 

who felt anxious and uninformed of what their futures might hold sparked my interest in 

knowing how they perform academically “on the other side.” What happens to those students 

when they reach their “dreamland” and how do they navigate the intricacies of a different 

culture, a different educational system, live in a different language and cope with the demands of 

transitions into adulthood? While I have been in touch with most of my former students from 

China who seem to be doing extremely well abroad (both academically and culturally), I also had 

feedback from others that voiced the critical challenges they faced, among which were instances 

of feeling misplaced, misunderstood, inadequate, stereotyped or othered, broadly speaking. 

These students attributed their experiences to the fact that they come from China and do not use 

English as their native language, which made integration into the U.S. cultures difficult for them. 

This added to my desire to fully understand the complexities of studying in a foreign country. It 

also prompted me to conceptualize instructor-participants and student-participants’ individual 

experiences. Finally, as a PhD student in Grand Lake University with experience of US models 

of instruction, and a graduate student instructor myself, I was curious to explore the experiences 

of US instructors teaching students from mainland China. Subsequently, I set out to analyze and 

conceptualize student-participants and instructor-participants’ experiences at Grand Lake 

University. 

Based on my teaching experiences in China and in the U.S., and feedback from 

colleagues, lengthy conversations with instructors interacting with students from China, and on 

my reading a number of scholarly publications (e.g., Cortazzi & Jin, 2013; Yan & Berliner, 

2016), my initial observations suggested a need to understand pedagogical approaches to 

Chinese undergraduate students in the U.S. as well as scrutinize more deeply the nature of 

preparation in students pre-sojourn phase. More so, my conversations on and off campus with a 

 

6 

number of Grand Lake University instructors who have experienced teaching these students 

suggest mutual misunderstandings in interculturality between these two groups. I thought this 

would constitute a good topic of study. All of the above encouraged me to examine 

interculturality and to apply a critical lens to elucidate potential sources of misunderstandings 

with the goal to create a more productive and bilateral approach to it.  

In addition, various meetings with instructors in the U.S. and efforts to explore the topic 

through literature reviews (e.g., Abelmann and Kang, 2014; Luan, 2012; Tolosa, Biebricher, 

East, & Howard, 2018) and research projects led me to believe that the experiences of Chinese 

undergraduate students and those of their instructors might not have been isolated (e.g., Huang, 

2012; Tange & Jensen, 2012; Wang, 2012). Being an instructor myself, I was curious about the 

experiences of instructors that teach Chinese undergraduate students in the U.S. How do 

instructors in the U.S. deal with the similarities and differences Chinese undergraduate students 

display in comparison to U.S. students? Maneuvering through different approaches to learning 

and new pedagogies to students from China (Tange & Jensen, 2012) has been a source of 

frustration for many instructors and yet a welcomed innovation for others. Yan and Berliner 

(2016) claim that Chinese undergraduate students perceive U.S. and China’s educational systems 

as opposites. In China, study goals are likely to be met via relationships (guanxi, in Chinese), 

while in the U.S. one needs to partake in competition to withstand the predominantly merit-based 

U.S. system (Yan & Berliner, 2016). Even though much work has been conducted in establishing 

the problems of teaching Chinese undergraduate students (e.g., Chen, 2000; Abelmann & Kang, 

2014), the experiences in teaching and learning practices both of students and instructors still 

have to be probed, described, and analyzed. By conducting this research, I hope firstly, to 

contribute to this lacuna, secondly, to theorize on intercultural learning and teaching, and thirdly, 

 

7 

to suggest effective practices for students and instructors in navigating their experiences as 

stakeholders. 

Notwithstanding, we cannot show interest in the experiences of Chinese undergraduate 

students without looking at the experiences of their instructors. These two are indissolubly 

connected. Filling this gap in research literature can help both academic faculty and 

administrators at U.S. institutions of higher education to gain a deeper understanding of the 

growing population of Chinese undergraduate students in their schools. In like manner, 

examining both sides of the educational experiences will further improve on services to aid 

Chinese undergraduate students in becoming more effective in studying in the U.S. Finally, it 

will assist their instructors in understanding the thinking behind some of these students’ 

classroom behaviors, which might lead to adjusted pedagogies, inclusive approaches, and 

enriching mutual exchanges.  

To conclude, as a qualitative researcher who is preparing for the job market in the U.S. 

academia, I see myself working with Chinese international students (or other international 

students) and their instructors in the future. Through conducting this project, I hope to better 

understand Chinese undergraduate students’ and their instructors’ experiences of working 

together. That would refine my corpus and knowledge of intercultural experiences alongside 

effective methods in communicating the successes, needs and struggles of these two populations.  

Rationale for the Study 

The leading rationales for this project are firstly the academic and social experiences of a 

still-rising high number of students from China who seek U.S. degrees (Institute of International 

Education, 2019). To date, Chinese undergraduate students have topped the number of 

international students in the United States. According to the Institute of International Education 

 

8 

(2019) Open Doors report, 148,880 undergraduate students from China (a 0.2%-increase 

compared to previous years) pursued college and university education in the U.S. during the 

2018/2019 academic year alone. These students represent the majority of international students 

on U.S. campuses (Institute of International Education, 2019), including Grand Lake University. 

Such a large population deserves special attention in terms of how they could influence change, 

especially in a form of transformative internationalization.  

Scholars have long assumed that internationalization happens through processes of 

diffusion (Abelmann & Kang, 2014). But this is not always the case as meaningful 

transformation aka transformative internationalization (i.e., for both Chinese undergraduate 

students and their instructors) might end up looking more like coexistence than friendly mutual 

relationships (Abelmann & Kang, 2014). That the teaching-learning processes between Chinese 

undergraduate students and their instructors are still to be adequately scrutinized and accounted 

for provides significant grounds to explore their experiences. 

With regard to cultures of learning, there seems to be a noticeable difference between 

teaching and learning methods in the U.S. and in China (Cortazzi & Jin, 1997; Cortazzi & Jin, 

2013; Ryan, 2010). For example, as depicted in Table 1.1, U.S. academic institutions seem to 

value individualism, student-centered, deep learning while Chinese academia focuses on rote, 

instructor-centered, collectivist learning. This dichotomy has created challenges for U.S. higher 

education institutions as well as for Chinese undergraduate students who are facing not only 

cultural but also academic trials in the new learning environment. For instance, while instructors 

in the U.S. tend to be explicit in their verbal communication, Chinese undergraduate students 

might perceive it as too straight-forward given the fact that they are coming from cultures of 

contextualized communication.  

 

9 

Table 1.1. 
U.S. vs. Chinese academic values. (Based on Cortazzi & Jin, 1997; Cortazzi & Jin, 2013; Ryan, 
2010). 

U.S. academic values 
• Individual orientation, 

Chinese academic values 
• Collective consciousness, 

 

• Horizontal relations, 

• Hierarchical relations, 

 

• Verbal explicitness, 

• Contextualized communication, 

• Seeking alternatives, 

 

• Single solution, 

 

• Creativity, originality, 

• Mastery, transmission, 

 

• Discussion, argument, challenge 

• Agreement, harmony, face (harmonious 

(adversarial stance), 

 
• Critical evaluation, 

stance), 
 

• Assumed acceptance (‘follow the master’), 

 

• ‘deep’ learners, 

• ‘surface’/rote learners, 

 

• Independent learners, 

• Dependence on the instructor, 

 

• Student-centered learning, 

• Instructor-centered learning, 

 

• Constructing new knowledge. 

• Respect for historical texts and the 

instructor. 

 

My initial research raises a question about how instruction in U.S. educational programs 

approaches students from mainland China. According to Mak and Barker (2006), because 

Chinese undergraduate students come from another culture, which for a long time was not 

exposed to other countries, they bring significant diversity to cultures of learning in the United 

States. Mak and Barker (2006) cite differences such as difficulties in actively participating in 

class discussions, given that it is not customary in Chinese classrooms (Mak & Barker, 2006). 

How do instructors interpret this? And how does this count in terms of class participation? How 

does it impact instructors’ evaluation of Chinese undergraduate students’ performance? Research 

by Gu (2016) also suggests that international students whose home cultures are notably different 

 

10 

from the U.S. cultures often experience dilemmas when trying to adapt to campus life, and that 

Chinese undergraduate students suffer from more stress and anxiety than other ethnicities. I 

would like to explore why it might be so. Yan and Berliner (2016) classify China as a non-

European, developing country, and Eastern country, which makes students from China prone to 

socio-cultural challenges that students from all three of these backgrounds also face. According 

to Yan and Berliner (2016), “Chinese students should expect to experience much more socio-

cultural anxiety than students from other countries do” (p. 144). The researchers, however, do 

not mention specific examples of such anxiety. Going further, Yan and Berliner (2016) found 

that instructors are concerned with not knowing how to approach Chinese undergraduate students 

in their classes, how to make sure they understand what is expected of them, or how to simply 

engage them more. By the same token, Paldy (2015) states that some of the faculty familiarize 

themselves with international students’ educational and cultural backgrounds, while others 

continue to question these students’ placement in their courses, especially if their spoken English 

seems poorer than their English proficiency test scores might indicate. Yet, if instructors are 

required to incorporate interculturality in their methodologies, then they need to be provided with 

necessary knowledge and skills to do so (Sercu, 2006). This could lead to adjustment of views, 

particularly when teaching a second language and recognition of potential stereotypes that 

students might hold towards a given language. Sercu (2006) suggests that frequent and critical 

reflection on one’s sources of information about a foreign culture might facilitate practicing of 

skills that are useful in intercultural situations. While Chinese students might not be a category 

on their own, and this research is not a comparative study of the experiences of international 

students, I still believe that the experiences of Chinese undergraduate students are worth studying 

given their increasingly significant populations, the high value that the Chinese middle class 

 

11 

attach to Western/U.S. education and their significant financial contribution in terms of tuition to 

U.S. institutions of learning. 

However, the claim that Chinese undergraduate students bring diversity to the U.S. 

education might as well be slightly premature or simply a potentiality given that large numbers 

of Chinese undergraduate students facilitate segregation (de Wit, 2015) and that they might 

perceive their experiences in the U.S. through the lenses of consumers who pay for education 

(Abelmann & Kang, 2014). Of recent, many U.S. institutions of higher education have turned 

towards the critical financial capital that Chinese undergraduate students bring to their 

institutions in terms of tuition, which has contributed significantly to the U.S. economy 

(Abelmann & Kang, 2014). In fact, in 2018, international students contributed $44.7 billion to 

the U.S. economy, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce (Institute of International 

Education, 2019). Importantly, according to new data released on May 30, 2019 by the National 

Student Clearinghouse Research Center, college enrollment for domestic students in the U.S. has 

decreased for the eighth consecutive year (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 

2019). This has led to extensive marketing strategies on the part of elite public and private U.S. 

universities with the aim of attracting Chinese undergraduate students to study in the U.S. 

(Abelmann & Kang, 2014). What is more, Abelmann and Kang (2014) also suggest that Chinese 

undergraduate students’ demand matches U.S. colleges and universities financial needs, 

simultaneously creating a fair market exchange. The researchers explain a fair exchange as an 

exchange between the U.S. institutions’ education and the Chinese undergraduate students, who 

might be better suited for liberal education than their U.S. counterparts due to their hard work 

and assiduity (Abelmann & Kang, 2014, p. 387). Such exchange has a potential to contribute to 

the internationalization of the U.S. institutions, as well as to the reflection on common 

 

12 

pedagogical practices towards international students in the U.S., which I find to be worthy of 

study. Thus, another rationale of this research is to ascertain what teaching or learning 

adaptations might be beneficial to provide interculturally responsive experiences for Chinese 

undergraduate students, and equally so for their instructors at GLU. I am also interested in 

examining the extent to which Chinese undergraduate students adapt to U.S. academic cultures 

and potential ways in which instructors could adapt their teaching methods to bridge cultural 

challenges.  

Furthermore, cultural representations and culturism (that is “using culture as an 

explanation for everything that a representative of another country does, thinks, etc. while 

ignoring the fact that other reasons might apply” [Dervin, 2016b, p. 113]), are believed to affect 

learning and teaching of international students. I refer to a definition of cultural representations 

from Holliday et al., (2017, p. 140): “a fuzzy subset of the set of mental and public 

representations inhabiting a given social group.” Also, Baumbaugh (2015) claims that 

stereotypes can influence successful intercultural processes, i.e., categorizing individuals into 

groups enables stereotypical behaviors which in turn affect communication between two given 

groups. For example, in order to foster the construction of interculturally competent students and 

instructors alike, stereotypes surrounding both groups need to be unpacked to help them firstly to 

understand and then be able to effectively navigate through various social situations. This, in 

turn, requires that students and instructors develop a set of skills such as language, personal 

views of how similar or different the two cultures are, and to become motivated to successfully 

implement the desired cultural behaviors. I am interested in such skills that instructor-

participants and student-participants might adopt or gain during their shared courses.  

 

13 

Lately, researchers have investigated intercultural competence or interculturality in 

education (Dervin, 2010, 2016a, 2016b). Some see attempts at imposing U.S. patterns of learning 

on Chinese undergraduate students as a potential threat to these students’ developing identities 

(Cortazzi & Jin, 2013) as well as their instructors’ professional identities. Therefore, I also 

planned to explore instructor-participants’ perceptions of their own interculturality. Do they 

incorporate cultural elements in their classes? If so, what are the reasons behind such perceptions 

and decisions? Is there cultural synergy (Yuan & Xie, 2013) in the way it is done? According to 

Yuan and Xie (2013), cultural synergy can be interpreted as systematic interaction of people 

from different cultures with a common purpose to understand each other without losing their 

own cultural features. In this study, I focus on instances of reciprocal learning and teaching, both 

successful and unsuccessful, as they have the potential to inform a deeper understanding of both 

Chinese undergraduate students and their instructors.  

All of the above rationales for this study underline the importance of the experiences of 

both instructors and Chinese undergraduate students in their courses. They also open a dialogue 

to encourage inclusive pedagogies that might benefit other international students’ learning. More 

so, this study also calls for revisiting interculturality. It underlines the significance of 

intercultural teaching and learning as indeed bilateral.  

Definition of Terms 

There are a number of terms in this study that I define in this section, in Table 1.2. It is 

important to provide definitions to key terms in order to operationalize my usage of them in this 

multiple case study. I define these key terms in an alphabetical order, in the following way: 

 

 

 

14 

Table 1.2. 
Definitions of the main terms used in this project.  

No. 
1.  Case 

Term 

2. 
 
 
 

 
 
  
3. 

Chinese undergraduate students  
 
 
 

cultural mixing (mélange) 
 

 

 

4.   cultural representations 

 
 
 

 
 

 

5.   cultural synergy 

6. 

cultures of learning 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

7. 

culturism 

Definition 

The four instructor-participants and six student-
participants in particular classes at Grand Lake 
University. 
 
Students who come from mainland China, 
a geographical area under the direct jurisdiction of 
the People's Republic of China (PRC). They have a 
native command of Mandarin Chinese and self-
identify as Chinese. Also referred to as student-
participants. 

I follow a definition from Dervin (2016b) as a 
situation “whereby a culture is influenced and 
transformed by another culture” (p. 115). 

 

The established ideas about a given social group that 
might take a form of embellished assumptions about 
specific groups or people (a definition based on that  
in Holiday et al., 2017, p. 140: “a fuzzy subset of the 
set of mental and public representations inhabiting a 
given social group”). 
 
Bringing two cultures together (here those of China 
and the United States) to form an environment based 
on combined concepts and skills in a way that 
encourages mutual growth and reciprocal learning 
through reflection (a definition based on that in Yuan 
& Xie, 2013: a systematic interaction of people from 
different cultures with a common purpose to 
understand each other without losing their own 
cultural features). 
 
Socially transmitted expectations, beliefs and values 
about what good learning is, what makes an effective 
instructor and an effective student and what their 
roles are; about learning and teaching styles, 
approaches and methods; about classroom activities 
and the use of textbooks (a definition based on 
Cortazzi & Jin, 2013; Jin & Cortazzi, 1993; and Jin & 
Cortazzi, 2017). 
 
Using culture as an explanation of everything a 
person from one culture does, thinks, etc. without 

 

15 

Table 1.2. (cont’d) 

No. 
 

 

Term 

8. 

description 

9. 
 
 
 

10.  

 

 
11. 

12. 

13. 
 

 

14. 
 

 

experiences 
 
 
 
instructors 

instructor-participants 
 
 
 
 
 
interculturality 

kindness 
 
 
othering 
 
 
 
 

15. 

transformative 
internationalization 

 

 

Definition 

considering other factors that might influence whom 
a person is. This phenomenon comes to being when 
culture becomes greater than people themselves (a 
definition based on that in Dervin, 2016b, p. 113: 
“using culture as an explanation for everything that a 
representative of another country does, thinks, etc. 
while ignoring the fact that other reasons might 
apply”).  
 
An explanation or a recollection of an experience, 
often in a form of a narrative. 
 
The feelings, knowledge or understanding one has of 
personal engagement with a situation, event, or 
phenomenon. 
 
Educators responsible for teaching a given course at 
U.S. institutions of higher education. 

The employed educators at Grand Lake University 
who agreed to participate in this study and who were 
responsible for teaching a given course in the 
timeframe I conducted this study. All four of them 
identify as American.  

The approach to others that is characterized by 
mutual responsiveness, appreciation and curiosity, its 
main goal being bilateral (i.e., mutual) 
communication. 
 
A quality of a human characterized by generosity, 
consideration, friendliness and empathy.  
 
The stereotypes and faulty representations when 
meeting others (based on a definition in Dervin, 
2016b, p. 43: “stereotypes and representations about 
the other when meeting her/him and talking about 
her/him”). 
 
A process that involves symbiotic changes in both 
student and instructor-participants within learning 
contexts. 

16 

Structure of the Dissertation 

Following the Introduction, the second chapter (Chapter 2) presents a critical review of 

existing literature on the teaching experiences instructors in the U.S report when working with 

Chinese undergraduate students. This chapter also scrutinizes gaps that exist in current cultural 

and empirical studies of Chinese undergraduate students’ endeavors and those of their instructors 

in the U.S. Following library research, I divide the literature review into broad thematic sectors, 

i.e., transformative internationalization, the experiences of instructors, followed by research on 

pedagogy of kindness and the experiences of Chinese undergraduate students in the United 

States. Then, I present the conceptual framework guiding this study, namely interculturality. I 

discuss this framework with critical perspectives, while focusing on those elements that are most 

relevant to this study’s context. Lastly, I state the four guiding research questions. Following the 

discussion of the literature background and conceptual framework, I present, in Chapter 3, the 

methods of data collection, materials, a description of this study context and data analysis. I also 

further introduce this study’s participants. I discuss my own positionality as a researcher and 

elaborate on my approach to data analysis. The third chapter ends with my estimation of the 

study particularization.  

Then, Chapters 4 and 5 delineate the findings of this multiple case study in reference to 

the guiding research questions. In Chapter 4, I focus on the experiences of the four instructor-

participants (instructor-participants collective case study); whereas in Chapter 5, I narrate the 

experiences of the six student-participants (student-participants collective case study). I discuss 

findings from both collective case studies extensively in Chapter 6, based on the themes that 

emerged during data coding and analysis processes.  

 

17 

Lastly, in the concluding chapter (Chapter 7), I briefly summarize this research study 

results as well as the limitations of the study. I also provide arguments for pedagogical 

implications of the results and directions for future research. I close the project with References 

and Appendices, in which I present the materials used in the study. 

 

18 

CHAPTER 2 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of six Chinese undergraduate 

students (student-participants) and four of their instructors (instructor-participants) at Grand 

Lake University (henceforth GLU). In this chapter, I provide a review of the related literature as 

well as a critical look at conceptual underpinnings guiding my data analysis. I divide this chapter 

into seven sections. In section one, I describe my strategy for searching literature, that is how I 

conducted the literature search alongside the databases I searched. In section two, I explore 

issues pertaining to transformative internationalization of higher education. In section three, I 

classify the experiences into instructors’ perceptions of Chinese undergraduate students, the 

presence or absence of cultural mixing in classes with Chinese undergraduate students in terms 

of attendance, instructors’ pedagogies, and their interculturality. After that, in section four, I 

present what the literature says about the pedagogy of kindness as a pathway to transformative 

internationalization. I discuss this phenomenon in relation to teaching and learning as it affects 

the rising numbers of Chinese undergraduate students on the United States campuses and the 

increasing professional demands on their U.S. instructors. Next, in section five, I synthesize 

existing research that scrutinizes the experiences of Chinese undergraduate students in the United 

States. I organize these experiences according to themes that emerged from my reviewing the 

literature and coding data sets for this project. Specifically, I delineate students-participants’ 

preparedness for the new study contexts as well as their motivation to further their education in 

the U.S. I also present language experiences these students undergo at U.S. schools, together 

with their feelings about studying in the U.S. Last but not least, I discuss the role of these 

students’ social life in their experiences in the U.S. Then, in section six, I discuss what literature 

 

19 

has to say about Chinese undergraduate students in three different learning contexts in the U.S., 

namely the ESL context, the college writing context, and the business management context. 

After that, (section seven) I introduce key concepts of the conceptual framework I applied to this 

study, to wit: Dervin’s interculturality (Dervin, 2010, 2016b). Here, I also provide the rationale 

behind my applying this particular framework by elaborating on how it fits into my research 

agenda. Finally, I state research questions that guide me through this project.  

Literature Search Strategy 

 

Following the advice from Galvan and Galvan (2017), I present a clear view of the 

strategy I used to search existing research literature on the topic under investigation in the step 

by step process. Between September 2018 and January 2020, I systematically searched for 

studies relevant to this project. I started with reports of general experiences of Chinese 

undergraduate students in the United States and then extended that category onto the instructors. 

I used three methods to search for additional studies. First, I entered 16 keywords and key 

phrases into databases available to me through the GLU’s library and Internet search engines. 

The keywords were (Chinese students* or Chinese undergraduate students* or students from 

China) and (U.S. instructors* or U.S. teachers* or U.S. professors*) and (experiences in the 

U.S.* or study experiences in the United States* or life experiences in the U.S.* or college life in 

the U.S.*) and (teaching experiences* or working with Chinese students* or teaching students 

from China*) and (intercultural learning*) and (intercultural teaching*) and (interculturality*). 

Second, I examined the bibliographies of prior studies investigating corresponding topics (Liu & 

Fang, 2017; Sercu, 2006; Uzum, 2013; and Yazdanpanah, 2017), which also served as bases for 

developing questions for interviews with student and instructor-participants (that is for both 

collective case studies). Third, I contacted experts in the field to request information about any 

 

20 

other studies that I might not have located. Specifically, Professor Robert Stake whose approach 

to multiple case studies I apply onto this study, was of immense help suggesting relevant 

readings. I then conducted the study and upon having organized its findings, I was able to create 

this literature review in its current form.  

Transformative Internationalization 

While American universities frequently extend efforts to create intercultural 

understandings with their culturally rich and diverse students, how these efforts reflect forms and 

patterns of transformative internationalization is still to be amply scrutinized. For the purpose of 

this project, I specify that the process of internationalization can only be transformative if it 

involves symbiotic changes in students and instructors. Bartell (2003) takes it a step further and 

explains transformative internationalization as a result of synergistic changes in all aspects of the 

university, including its curricula, pedagogies and research agendas. However, the scope of this 

multiple case study can only provide insights into the experiences of four instructor-participants 

and six student-participants in their respective courses. In fact, transformative 

internationalization serves as a larger binding theme in the instructor-participants collective case 

study. It does not, thus, offer any insights into the administrative or structural sides of higher 

education to contexts outside of Grand Lake University.  

Furthermore, engaging not only in internationalization but in transformative 

internationalization appears to matter in this study’s context. For example, Mott-Smith (2013) 

claims that in order to understand Chinese undergraduate students’ behaviors, it is crucial for 

instructors to understand not only the global context within which international students exist but 

also their unique cultures of learning. Thus, gaining insights into Chinese undergraduate 

students’ educational needs and practices has the potential to make instructors better facilitators 

 

21 

of discussions, for instance (Mott-Smith, 2013). As I analyze and interpret experiences of both 

groups, that is Chinese undergraduate students and their instructors in the U.S. learning context, I 

take a comprehensive look at their reports. De facto, according to Wihlborg and Robson (2018), 

both research and teaching are to be conducted in “a more holistic, cross-disciplinary and 

transversal approach.” It seems interesting and necessary to explore the four instructor-

participants’ insights into the abovementioned phenomena. 

Interestingly, current research also points out that contrary to a common belief and 

everyone’s expectations, Chinese undergraduate students oftentimes return home after their 

sojourns abroad unchanged, and with reinforced stereotypes for that matter (Jackson, 2018). 

According to Jackson (2018), these students do not indicate interests in utilizing their gained L2 

proficiency to engage in intercultural dialogues upon return. Jackson (2018) attributes this 

occurrence to a lack of guided, critical reflection, on both students and instructors’ sides, which 

he sees as having the potential to extend students’ learning and optimize instructors’ teaching 

experiences. Jin and Cortazzi (2017) develop this finding further, by stating that for such an 

outcome to take place, a long-term commitment to knowledge sharing and practicing cultures of 

learning would have to be made. Following the notion that Chinese undergraduate students - as 

do all international students - bring newer dimensions to the stock of sociocultural experiences as 

well as intellectual resources of a given institution, potential benefits of this stock to local 

communities, instructors and non-Chinese students seem immeasurable. Jin and Cortazzi (2017) 

find it crucial as such that institutions of higher education should take into account cultures of 

learning. They underline that teaching that is enquiry-focused on interculturality has become a 

part of higher education in multiple contexts already. In their analyses, Jin and Cortazzi (2017) 

hardly focus on the learning resources that instructors equally bring, or on the reciprocal nature 

 

22 

of the relationship, and how detailed knowledge of this relationship within the context of 

Chinese undergraduate students’ stays abroad could inform the acquisition of effective and 

lifelong learning. 

The key focus of research considering transformative internationalization of higher 

education appears to remain on reciprocity of changes in students and instructors alike. One way 

to start this process of mutually influenced changes, according to Madge, Raghuram, and Noxolo 

(2015), is to think beyond international students as a category. Grouping students into a larger 

category contributes to the concept of othering, which is not welcome where intercultural 

dialogue takes place. Instead, it might be a promising idea to ask foreign students what they 

might prefer to be referred to as. This kind of approach not only creates a safe space for 

interculturally responsive interactions or exchanges, it also highlights the fact that the 

responsibility for international students’ experiences at universities abroad is shared between the 

students and their instructors (Madge et el., 2015). In sum, through this way, pedagogies are no 

longer limited by classroom walls, and instead function as intentional tools for transformative 

educational experiences. 

Lastly, understanding internationalization not only as an increase in numbers of 

international students on U.S. campuses (Chung, Chen, Jung, & Li, 2018) but rather as a 

changing experience is crucial to any educational transformations. Meeting the needs of both 

Chinese undergraduate students and their instructors in the U.S. seems like an indispensable 

element to achieving interculturally responsive education. Lamberton and Ashton-Hay (2015) 

claim that bringing more international students whose first language is not English pressurizes 

the teaching staff to adapt to these students’ diverse and often difficult to grasp learning styles, 

needs and backgrounds. The researchers suggest classes in Chinese culture and language as one 

 

23 

way to encourage instructors to enhance their intercultural competencies (Lamberton & Ashton-

Hay, 2015). However, while these scholars argue that such processes encourage instructors to 

extend their efforts towards understanding students from China, others might argue that this 

would place enormous pressure on already-burdened instructors, which would hardly be 

beneficial. More so, students from mainland China might not be the only students in the classes 

these lecturers teach. 

Instructors’ Experiences with Chinese Undergraduate Students at U.S. Institutions 

In the reviewed literature, we do not hear the voices, efforts, or challenges of instructors 

as often as we do those of Chinese undergraduate students. According to Abelmann and Kang 

(2014), both research and media focus largely on U.S. university administrators and Chinese 

undergraduate students, with secondary interest in what Chinese parents have to say. 

Interestingly, Wang (2012) notes that international students have the potential to help their 

instructors to recognize their own cultural background and values, which in turn may increase 

appreciation of different cultures around the world. Though Wang (2012) draws this interesting 

conclusion, he does not show how this could be done. My project seeks to fill in these gaps in the 

literature through an even exploration of both sides of this bilateral intercultural relationship. 

In the next sections of this chapter, I discuss research literature pertaining to instructors’ 

experiences with Chinese undergraduate students in the United States. I structure these sections 

according to the instructors’ perceptions of Chinese undergraduate students, their 

implementation of cultures in contextually different courses, and their pedagogical approaches to 

the Chinese undergraduate students. Lastly, I present research findings on the interculturality of 

the instructors working with Chinese undergraduate students.  

 

 

24 

Perceptions 

 

Any change starts at the level of human perception. We carry preconceived ideas, 

influenced by the multiple contexts we operate in that shape our opinions. Not surprisingly, 

instructors who have had experiences teaching Chinese undergraduate students in the United 

States also present certain emotions towards these students. For instance, a study by Frenzel et al. 

(2016) revealed that students’ behaviors are linked with their instructors’ affect, burnout, job 

satisfaction, and instructor self-efficacy. Where instructors felt prepared and confident in 

teaching, students exuded similar kinds of behaviors (Frenzel et al., 2016). Interestingly, Frenzel 

et al. (2016) underline that instructor anxiety seems to affect instructors’ well-being more than 

the quality of their teaching. Thus, contextualization of instructors’ emotional experiences is 

necessary as it allows for better understanding of their students, too.  

Moreover, instructors are often told that if an international student has passed a required 

language requirement, they are strong writers in English as well as have the ability to thrive in 

new academic settings (Abelmann & Kang, 2014). Consequently, they might perceive their 

students as independent learners with critical thinking skills (Abelmann & Kang, 2014). This 

also leads to what instructors think motivates Chinese undergraduate students to come and study 

in the U.S. colleges and universities. Lately, instructors have expressed some understanding of 

the familial pressures Chinese undergraduate students undergo as the main impetus to study in 

the U.S. as well as to do well in their courses (Montgomery, 2017). Students are expected to 

succeed in the name of “group success” (Montgomery, 2017, p. 968) and to bring honor to their 

families by performing exceptionally well abroad. According to Montgomery (2017), instructors 

seem to be aware of these family expectations and resultative pressure that surrounds Chinese 

undergraduate students in the United States. Still, what it takes for a Chinese undergraduate 

 

25 

student to obtain a required test score in terms of their actual language proficiency and in terms 

of their performance in other courses is often unknown until a student attends a given instructor’s 

class. 

In addition, cultural and academic adjustment or its lack thereof seems to be one of the 

main changes instructors notice in their interactions with Chinese undergraduate students. All 

international students, not just the Chinese, need to make changes in response to living in a new 

country. For instance, Yan and Berliner (2009) identified four factors impeding Chinese 

undergraduate students’ communication with their instructors in the U.S.: (1) language 

insufficiency, (2) the lack of initiative and autonomy, (3) verbal passiveness, and (4) indirect 

mode of communication (p. 945). According to Yan and Berliner (2009), switching between 

languages on a daily basis as well as struggling with the self-directed learning style in the United 

States (as opposed to the instructor-guided learning in China) clearly pose significant challenges 

to Chinese undergraduate students and their instructors. Also, these students need to work very 

hard to overcome their discomfort to conduct conversations with their instructors in the U.S. as 

well as to initiate such conversations in the first place. Following Yan and Berliner (2009), U.S. 

instructors attribute these cultural and academic challenges to the educational disparities between 

China and the U.S.  

Furthermore, Biggs (1994) created the concept of “the paradox of the Chinese learner”, 

which states that despite “Westerners’ views” of Chinese undergraduate students as learning 

mechanically in exam-oriented school environments, these students actually surpass their 

Western peers, who are by contrast educated in student-centered autonomous environments. 

While Biggs (1994) and Du (2015) caution against the stereotyping of Chinese undergraduate 

students, they equally produce stereotypes of U.S. students and their cultures of learning. 

 

26 

According to Dervin (2010), one way this could be avoided is if U.S. institutions implemented 

simple corrections to existing misconceptions, avoid essentialism, and tried not to perceive 

Chinese undergraduate students as a homogenous group that behaves differently from Western 

students. Shi (2006) notes that Western scholars tend towards either seeing Chinese students in 

their classrooms as passive, quiet and submissive or as open-minded, inquisitive and active 

thinkers (see Table 1.2 in Introduction), and never as representatives of both types of 

characteristics (listed in Table 1.2). Going further, Shi (2006) underlines that such a dichotomy 

might reinforce practices of othering and treating Chinese undergraduate students as not only 

different but deficient in comparison to their U.S. peers. She concludes by seeing today’s 

Chinese undergraduate students in the United States as representing features of both, i.e., the 

traditional and the new (Shi, 2006). In sum, the above scholars encourage multiplicity when 

engaging with Chinese undergraduate students which implies taking cognizance of their national, 

regional, economic, class, cultural and familial backgrounds. 

Overall, when dealing with understanding students from other cultures, instructors in the 

United States can rely on interculturality as a tool to help them to navigate their perceptions of 

Chinese undergraduate students (Ferri, 2018). An intercultural approach has the potential to 

allow instructors to join conversations on othering, and in the process, their long-standing views 

of Chinese undergraduate students, wherever applicable, might change. This is valid not just in 

the case of U.S. instructors and Chinese undergraduate students, but also international students 

studying in a second language and international educators or instructors. Instead of focusing on 

differences, Ferri (2018) encourages instructors to draw on diversities of cultures of learning as 

assets that Chinese undergraduate (or foreign) students contribute to their classrooms.  

 

 

27 

Cultures 

 

When two or more cultures meet in the same space, in this case a classroom, according to 

Dervin (2016b), cultural mixing (or mélange) is bound to take place. Dervin (2016b), who sees 

cultural mixing as an indispensable element of interculturality in education, defines this 

phenomenon as a situation “whereby a culture is influenced and transformed by another culture” 

(p. 115). Researchers are encouraged to look at exceptions, instabilities and processes rather than 

structures when working with multiple cultures (Dervin, 2016b). Unsurprisingly, instructors at 

U.S. schools face cultural mixings on a daily basis, due to having substantial numbers of Chinese 

undergraduate students, as well as those from other countries, present on their campuses, but also 

having to instruct these students in their classrooms.  

 

 To begin with, working with students from China requires not only culturally responsive 

but even more so interculturally responsive classroom environments. Interculturally responsive 

pedagogy encourages the notion that students from culturally and linguistically diverse 

backgrounds are able to succeed academically just as much as their U.S. peers (Farinde-Wu, 

Glover, & Williams, 2017). For some instructors, the lack of knowledge about Chinese 

undergraduate students’ backgrounds or limited exposure to these students’ backgrounds might 

create a barrier to implement fundamentally sound interculturally responsive practices. On the 

contrary, other instructors are able to use strategies that encourage inclusiveness of students from 

other cultures, such as multicultural content delivery, student-first learning or establishing 

familial-style classroom culture (Farinde-Wu et al., 2017). For instance, Chinese undergraduate 

students might be reluctant to participate in group work or group discussions due to the fact that 

their society is governed by different rules of effective group participation (Mak & Barker, 

2006). In addition, instructors are also bound by university policies, regulations, and procedures 

 

28 

when it comes to the ways they conduct their classrooms, too. For example, the manual for the 

ESL instructors at GLU states that instructors of a given skill, in this study’s case: reading, 

operate under the Reading Curriculum. The same document names student success as the 

premise on which teaching activities are to be based. Another document, available to the public 

through the GLU’s website, lists the responsibilities of all instructors teaching undergraduate 

students. Providing high quality teaching is one of them. In sum, understanding not only how 

students’ cultural and educational backgrounds affect their behaviors in U.S. classrooms but also 

the institutional regulations instructors need to follow seems key to conducting classrooms in 

interculturally responsive ways.  

 

What is more, if cultures are to mix in a classroom, the way instructors handle their 

classroom management including ways to maintain discipline, as well as the disposition of 

students, matters if it is to allow for such a mélange. According to Dicke, Elling, Schmeck, and 

Leutner (2015), general educational research shows that utilizing classroom management 

strategies has a positive influence on student behavior and their discipline. If that is true and 

bearing in mind the cultures of learning Chinese students come from, these students would 

benefit from having a clear structure in a classroom. For instructors, having an established 

management approach also decreases their reality shock (especially for new instructors or those 

just starting to work with students from China) and their workload, and fosters their retention 

(Dicke et al., 2015). Instructors gain opportunities to successfully implement diverse cultural 

elements in their teaching practices where structure is clearly laid out, as Chinese undergraduate 

students have been taught to follow structured teaching.  

 

Further, hybridized approaches to Chinese undergraduate students’ experiences in the 

U.S. offer a lending hand to their instructors as well. Understanding that not only the students but 

 

29 

also the instructors are placed in between two educational worlds might decrease cultural 

clashes, too. Bhabha (1996) coined hybridity and defined it as an in-between space, where 

constant negotiations of meaning and identity take pace, a third space. One way to see hybridity 

emerge is to allow for the engagement of both the Chinese undergraduate students and their 

instructors in the United States in situations where new views challenge the essentialist views, 

i.e., those of students and instructors identities remaining static and fixed (Schmidt, Berynets, 

Wu, & Scott, 2018), for instance where conflicts arise and are resolved. Such third space is open 

to new experiences for both instructors and students and encourages crossing cultural boundaries 

in a classroom and outside.  

 

Lastly, when discussing cultural mélange, we need to look at how cultures of learning 

actually mix. The idea of cultures of learning itself suggests that learning is cultural (Cortazzi & 

Jin, 2013). Basically, members of dissimilar cultural communities are likely to have different 

perspectives, expectations, and values in regard to how learning or teaching are done. 

Understanding of cultural commonalities and differences in teaching leads to the development of 

successful techniques of mediating between cultures of learning. Yet, as Cortazzi and Jin (2013) 

rightfully state, “cultures are complex, dynamic, changing, with (obviously) shared common 

values but (less obviously) internal diversity of recognized differences” (p. 2). Hence, allowing 

Chinese undergraduate students to explore the unknown elements of U.S. cultures of learning, as 

well as instructors to familiarize themselves with the Chinese cultures of learning, creates a 

welcoming and safe environment for cultural mélange.  

 

 

 

 

30 

Pedagogies 

According to Abelmann and Kang (2014), many U.S. college and university instructors 

report the need to adapt to Chinese undergraduate students instead of having to transform them 

into democratic citizens. Some instructors claim to have substantially changed their teaching 

practices only to accommodate Chinese undergraduate students in their classes (Abelmann & 

Kang, 2014), which might in turn carry consequences for domestic students (such as feeling 

neglected, etc.). Tange and Jensen (2012) state that instructors might find accepting and 

acknowledging alternative pedagogical approaches, especially when explaining complex 

theories, helpful to guide international students through the learning process. Most importantly, 

both constructive and challenging learning experiences might lead to embarrassment, frustration, 

disappointment, and consequently disruptive behavior (Tange & Jensen, 2012). Yet, the question 

remains: Is it equitable to ask instructors to change their teaching approaches to this particular 

student population?  

Furthermore, as Erichsen and Bolliger (2011) notice, students construct their knowledge 

when they are positioned in active roles in a classroom and when they perceive their learning 

environment as safe. For instructors to assist international students in succeeding in their courses, 

Huang (2012) suggests that it is vital to provide facts that are culturally sensitive, with multiple 

cues (such as time and space) to engage students in classroom activities. One productive strategy 

to engage Chinese undergraduate students is to brief them and provide them with pre-reading 

material (Evans & Morrison, 2011). The researchers see this as potentially reducing stress and 

anxiety in the classroom. In fact, having an open pedagogy of care and kindness (discussed in 

detail in the later section of this chapter) might increase instances of Chinese undergraduate 

students speaking or participating in classes.  

 

31 

 

Most published sources of information about instructors’ approaches to Chinese 

undergraduate students seem to depict the challenges that teaching this group of students entails 

(e.g., Paldy, 2015). For instance, instructional problems stemming from large numbers of 

international students in smaller classes where instructors face multiple challenges such as 

students not being able to comprehend the assignment, not used to open-ended classroom 

discussions or simply being accustomed to regurgitating facts for the sake of higher exam scores 

(Paldy, 2015). Thus, through this project, I intend to also explore the successful outcomes of 

working with Chinese undergraduate students that their instructor-participants at Grand Lake 

University reported. 

 

There is a prevalent belief that Chinese undergraduate students, as does the Chinese 

education system, place an exorbitant importance on tests (Yan & Berliner, 2016). Some 

instructors in the United States, however, seem to understand Chinese undergraduate students’ 

pressure to score high, especially on high-stakes exams. Thus, contextualization remains the best 

approach to teaching Chinese undergraduate students, as contexts influence instructors’ decisions 

as to what they choose to prioritize in their pedagogies (Clark-Gareca & Gui, 2019). 

Additionally, with testing oftentimes comes the occurrence of cheating or plagiarism. Chinese 

undergraduate students are frequently perceived as cheating or plagiarizing, especially where 

creative thinking is required. However, James, Miller, and Wyckoff (2019) explain these 

students’ behaviors by reminding us that the Chinese believe that there is a single correct answer 

to every question. Frankly, it is the instructor who represents the ultimate fountain of knowledge, 

hence is seen as the one representing that one correct answer. Thus, when Chinese undergraduate 

students are faced with open responses to questions either on tests or assignments, they are likely 

to turn to plagiarism to form their hypotheses (Bikowski & Gui, 2018; James et al., 2019). For 

 

32 

example, GLU’s website clearly states plagiarism policy and is a part of students’ code of honor. 

While all undergraduate students are required not only to read it but also to adhere to it in their 

academic endeavors, individual instructors can choose whether to elaborate on it in their syllabi 

or not. Some of the instructors’ frustrations could be resolved by providing them with training 

and workshops focused on understanding different cultures of learning that Chinese 

undergraduate students come from.  

While U.S. colleges are known for developing learners’ autonomy, Chinese schools do 

not see autonomy as an essential element for a well-rounded education. This creates a 

challenging classroom situation for Western or U.S. instructors who might not be aware of the 

reality. In this light, Lin and Reinders (2019) see a variation in U.S. instructors’ beliefs about 

their roles and professional knowledge about how to promote learners’ autonomy. While there 

are instructors who understand learner autonomy as teaching students learning strategies, 

“research evidence suggests that explicit instruction in strategy […] does not show that this 

process is necessarily effective in enabling learners to develop the capacity for autonomous 

learning” (Lin & Reinders, 2019, p. 85). Lin and Reinders (2019) also pose another dilemma 

resulting from the culture of enabling students to take their learning in their own hands. They 

find that allowing students to take their learning in their own hands creates a situation where an 

instructor is no longer in control of the process. That makes some instructors nervous and less 

confident. The problem arises where Chinese undergraduate students are given autonomy in 

every learning process in the U.S. Even if their instructors utilize the same teaching techniques 

with Chinese undergraduate students as they do with domestic undergraduate students, it quickly 

becomes clear that students from China need extra guidance and extensive accommodations. The 

abovementioned dilemmas show gaps in Lin and Reinders’s (2019) participants’ “understanding 

 

33 

of how learner autonomy can be promoted” (p. 85). Whether instructors in the U.S. are aware 

firstly, and secondly, ready to provide such accommodations to the Chinese undergraduate 

students in their classes is a dilemma that needs to be explored.  

 

Another issue seems to be Chinese undergraduate students’ usage of Chinese in class 

where English is presumed or required. Instructors also differ in terms of how much native 

language they allow in their classes. While some do not mind at all when Chinese undergraduate 

students use Chinese to discuss whatever topic is being taught, others might see it as rude and 

would advocate for English-only policies on campus. Translanguaging pedagogy (i.e., providing 

input in one language and allowing for output in another for the sake of comprehending the 

material under study [Wang & Curdt-Christiansen, 2019]) is not widespread yet. As Wang and 

Curdt-Christiansen (2019) remind us, it is the “deficiency” in English that might ironically lead 

to compromises where instructors allow the use of both English and Chinese in their classes, 

thereby contributing to the implementation of translanguaging techniques in classrooms. Also, 

by taking away students’ important processing tools (that is their first language), instructors 

might be in fact restricting their linguistic resources (Holdway & Hitchcock, 2018). However, 

one idea that might help to expand the net of translanguaging in U.S. education seems to be 

creating new educational policies (maybe even on a classroom level first) through a collaborative 

process that would give students agency in negotiating their linguistic repertoires (Garcia, Flores, 

& Chu, 2011). In general, by allowing students to rely on their mother tongues, instructors not 

only accelerate disciplinary learning but also ensure their Chinese undergraduate students’ 

comprehension of even the hardest of topics.  

 

Finally, students’ success and learning satisfaction, Chinese undergraduate students’ 

alike, need to remain as instructors’ main focus (van der Zanden, Denessen, Cillessen, & Meijer, 

 

34 

2018). In fact, instructors’ teaching is often assessed based on how the students perform either on 

a final exam or throughout the duration of the entire course or how high or low they rate the 

courses they take. As such, van der Zander et al. (2018) found that students’ social integration 

and acceptance at university are the main predictors of international students’ success. These 

researchers’ study also offered a valuable conclusion that “success in one domain can contribute 

to success in another” (p. 74), but this assumption might not be generalized upon all students, as 

their experiences are highly individual (van der Zanden et al., 2018). This is important for 

instructors’ pedagogical approaches in the instances where they might want to modify these with 

regard to the students’ personal needs.  

Interculturality  

 

Utilizing interculturality (defined here as the approach to others that is characterized by 

mutual responsiveness, appreciation and curiosity, its main goal being bilateral, i.e., mutual, 

communication) appears more visible in language classrooms than it is in other contexts (Tolosa 

et al., 2018). Instructors often redefine culture as “not only the facts but the thinking behind the 

cultural practices” (Tolosa et al., 2018, p. 233). By pointing out cultural commonalities and 

differences to students, instructors create space for reflective practice for him or herself, too. 

According to Tolosa et al. (2018), critical examination of one’s own beliefs and practices leads 

to adjustment in one’s teaching approaches and results in deeper understanding of one’s 

professional identities (i.e., those of an instructor). “A possible way forward to the challenge of 

developing the intercultural is to include an intercultural dimension in pre-service and in-service 

language teacher education programmes” (Tolosa et al., 2018, p. 234). Thus, if educational 

programs capitalized on the awareness of both difference and sameness, instructors could use 

this awareness as a starting point to blend cultures with content.  

 

35 

 

By the same token, teaching students from multiple parts of the world, and bringing an 

array of cultural and linguistic backgrounds to a classroom, requires an intercultural approach. It 

is often done by differing expectations based on context students are coming from and keeping 

an open mind towards learning from those students (Bovill, Jordan, & Watters, 2015). Instructors 

who practice modelling pedagogies seem to understand what it takes to create intercultural 

classrooms. “Key to successful transnational teaching partnerships is reciprocity” (Bovill et al., 

2015, p. 19). Reciprocity also happens to be an indispensable element of interculturality. 

Instructors work under institutionally established student learning goals, too. GLU’s website 

outlines five such goals: (1) analytical thinking, (2) cultural understanding as a path to cultural 

diversity, (3) effective citizenship that solves societal problems in ethical ways, (4) effective 

communication, and (5) integrated reasoning. Still, Bovill et al. (2015) caution against using 

culture to excuse resistance towards change. Instructors who include interculturality in their 

pedagogies seem to be open to transforming their teaching approaches. This is even more crucial 

when teaching Chinese undergraduate students, since they come with very different cultural and 

educational experiences from those in the United States. Learning from these students has the 

potential to not only create opportunities for interculturality but also to transform these students’ 

experiences, classrooms, and instructors alike.  

 

One of the challenges in working with students from China seems to be the ability to 

elicit their classroom participation. One explanation might be an issue of applying the U.S. 

classroom practices onto students who are new to such practices and who come from 

contradicting cultures of learning. Chen and Yang (2017) report two types of instructors. (1) 

Those who do not recognize the cultures of their learners. (2) Those who do recognize their 

learners’ cultures but do not apply them in their teaching. Yet, understanding Chinese 

 

36 

undergraduate students’ cultures of learning does not come naturally to some instructors (Chen 

& Yang, 2017). The researchers provide three steps to developing one’s interculturality, namely 

knowing one’s students and stimulating them to learn beyond the scope of the lesson and the 

scope of their cultures and participating in professional development opportunities. Thus, raising 

instructors’ awareness (however possible) might be a promising idea to make interculturality a 

normality.  

 

Ultimately, even though scholars have revealed what instructors need to know to develop 

interculturally responsive classrooms, instructors often struggle to create meaningful learning 

experiences for their students (Smolcic & Arends, 2017). This is a complex challenge that might 

also discourage some instructors from making conscious attempts at interculturally transforming 

their pedagogies. Smolcic and Arends (2017) claim instructors cannot build cultural awareness 

without meaningful interactions with The Other, awareness of the dynamism and intricacies of 

cultural identities, and empathy. Creating opportunities to build relationships with their Chinese 

undergraduate students through teaching cultural concepts and modelling guided cultural 

analyses seems like an initial step to building interculturally rich classrooms.  

Kindness 

 

Kindness, empathy, humanity, or affect, etc. need to exist at the core of all pedagogies 

and learning experiences (Loreman, 2011). However, within contexts of learning and teaching or 

education more broadly, the reality is uneven. According to Loreman (2011), education that is 

not guided by kindness complicates and constrains the learning process. Why are these 

abovementioned elements important to pedagogy? Kindness is hard to define in precise terms 

though it appears to be a curative in any human relationship (Loreman, 2011). In this project, I 

define kindness as a quality of being human characterized by generosity, consideration, 

 

37 

friendliness and empathy. Since teaching is a human relationship, kindness needs to stand at its 

roots if one wants to conduct an effective pedagogical process. For instance, according to 

Loreman (2011), an instructor that allows a struggling student extra time to complete an 

assignment reflects such an instructor’s belief that it is important to be kind to students. It is 

crucial to note, however, that kindness can only take place in an environment where kindness 

already exists (Loreman, 2011) or where it is considered as a critical value in the education of 

young people. That is to say, ideologies of kindness and developing personal kindness need to 

precede any acts of kindness in a classroom (Loreman, 2011). Thus, creating kindness in a 

classroom depends on whether this value is entrenched in a particular educational worldview or 

not and whether an instructor’s resulting acts of personal kindness transfer into their teaching 

realm. Kindness, however, is instrumental to achieving harmony which is an embracing notion in 

traditional Chinese worldview. 

 

Gao (1998) claims that to achieve successful communication, Chinese cultures place 

foremost importance on harmony (he, in Chinese). “The Chinese term he (和) stands for 

harmony, peace, unity, kindness, and amiableness” (Gao, 1998, p. 169). Thus, one of the 

elements under the umbrella of harmony is indeed kindness. It can be achieved if one maintains 

appropriate relationships by accepting established hierarchies in a society (Gao, 1998). Also, 

back in Confucius’ times, the Chinese had already perceived education as the means to cultivate 

moral virtues (Hui, 2005). The five moral virtues were benevolence, righteousness, propriety, 

intelligence, and honesty (Hui, 2005, p. 21). Later on, one of Confucius’s followers, Xun Zi, 

“wrote about ji shan cheng de, accumulating kindness so that kindness can be added to become a 

moral virtue” (Gao, 1998, p. 21). What Hui (2005) also mentions in terms of harmony between 

people from different strata of a given society, such as students and their instructors, is that “the 

 

38 

existence of the individual is for the purpose of living harmoniously with <others> in a family or 

in society” (p. 19). This could be one reason why the Chinese aspire to live in harmony with 

family members, neighbors, and figures of authority, including instructors. According to Gao 

(1998), any act of communication needs to take kindness into account or else the natural balance 

of peaceful societal relations is likely to get disturbed. Kindness in this sense is seen as 

instrumental to harmony. Given Chinese students’ cultures of learning, that might be one 

explanation as to why Chinese undergraduate students tend to respect their instructors. 

 

Furthermore, kindness in a classroom has also been problematized as a shift from 

“thinking of” to “thinking with” (Magnet, Mason, & Trevenen, 2014). The “thinking with” 

approach does not exclude criticism where it is constructive, thus proving useful for classroom 

environments. While helpful in community building, it might not be confused with leniency 

(Magnet et al., 2014). “Here, kindness is understood as a pedagogical strategy to rearrange our 

engagements with texts and each other […]” (Magnet et al., 2014, p. 11). This idea links with 

Dervin’s (2016b) essential element of interculturality, namely failure. For instance, this strategy 

to “think with” the students can be applied by teaching whole books instead of chosen excerpts. 

“It refuses easy or reductional readings […]. It also honors the complete project of the book, 

paying attention to the way that different chapters riff or expand on the book’s main argument” 

(Magnet et al., 2014, p. 10). In this example, kindness serves as a pedagogical strategy to 

rearrange the ways students engage with texts as well as with each other (Magnet et al., 2014). 

Using kindness to actively connect with the students, for instance, by getting to know them and 

about their backgrounds, engages their sense of personhood. This is particularly significant to 

students from other countries, for whom building connections with domestic peers and 

 

39 

instructors might prove difficult without culturally diverse ways of understanding, showing, and 

recognizing kindness.  

 

Lastly, we might want to consider practicing kindness on ourselves. According to Birkett 

(2013), the ability to view one’s life experiences as a part of a larger human experience and to 

express such kindness towards oneself is believed to have been similarly instilled in Chinese 

undergraduate students as in their American counterparts. This seems surprising given that 

Chinese cultures are known for representing higher levels of stress for students (Birkett, 2013), 

therefore do not strike one as especially self-caring or kind to oneself. Still, Chinese 

undergraduate students who choose to further their education in the United States, experience 

varied expectations of self-care. Understanding such cultural expectations could go a long way to 

enhance intercultural learning. 

Chinese Undergraduate Students’ Experiences in the United States 

The Chinese international student population in the U.S. has been growing at different 

paces ever since the 1950s. In the academic year 2018/2019 there were 148,880 undergraduate 

students from China enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities (Institute of International 

Education, 2019), comprising the largest ethnic group of international undergraduate students 

(33.7%). Interestingly, international education takes on a form of “cultural capital” for Chinese 

undergraduate students (Chung et al., 2018), as a tool that helps them to maintain a certain social 

status. Coming back to China with credentials from the U.S. often positions Chinese 

undergraduate students at an advantage when seeking employment (Yan & Berliner, 2016). 

According to Chung et al. (2018), this is because most Chinese perceive U.S. education as a 

world-class cosmopolitan education that nurtures such students with rich international 

 

40 

experiences and thus enables them with wide global influence. The question is whether this 

approach to studying in the United States is a good goal to strive for.  

In terms of choices of majors, following previous generations, Chinese undergraduate 

students have been known to choose the natural sciences, engineering, computer programing, 

biochemistry and other science-oriented subjects as their majors in the U.S. (Yan & Berliner, 

2016). However, they have recently begun to enroll in business, management, education, and 

communication, too. Since 2010, business and management have reached a peak as the most 

popular academic areas for this group of students in the U.S. (Yan & Berliner, 2016). Enquiries 

with Grand Lake University’s International Center statistician revealed that the case of Chinese 

undergraduate students at GLU is not much different from the main trends when choosing majors 

in the U.S., that is their first choice is indeed business followed by economics.  

Preparedness and Motivations 

Notably, preparedness for change (see Baumbaugh, 2015) affects Chinese undergraduate 

students as it does with other international students in terms of their experiences within U.S. 

academic cultures. It is apparent that when studying in a foreign country there are several aspects 

that have the power to influence their experiences in the new milieu that students might prepare 

for. These aspects often include but are by no means limited to new responsibilities, unfamiliar 

environment, different language for daily usage, and diverse cultural norms (Mustaffa & Ilias, 

2013). It is also worth mentioning that each university in the U.S. has its own organization, 

workload, expectations, and faculty-student relations to which Chinese undergraduate students 

would have to adapt in order to succeed, too. Baumbaugh (2015) claims that the more prepared 

the students come to a new institution, the smoother the adaptation process. According to 

Machart (2016), other factors frequently mentioned as crucial in understanding the new 

 

41 

surroundings are individual motivation, maturity, readiness for the experience and flexibility of 

one’s personality.  

To get thoroughly prepared for studies in the United States, Chinese undergraduate 

students often broadly utilize services of educational agencies. This, consequently, changes the 

idea of studying abroad as a reserve for the elite into one accessible to masses (Altbach, 2015), 

as more and more students, not necessarily wealthy, are gaining access to such agencies. With 

the omnipresent information about schools in the U.S., Chinese undergraduate students find it 

challenging to discover reliable information about what earning a degree in a different country 

might actually entail. Oftentimes agents capitalize on these students’ confusion and provide 

information based on a given school’s ranking and general reputation which they obtained from 

those Chinese undergraduate students who had graduated from U.S. schools and returned to 

China. The biggest training schools in China have been adding educational agencies as a part of 

their services to somewhat oblivious Chinese undergraduate students willing to study in a 

different country (Zhang & Hagedorn, 2011). Zhang and Hagedorn (2011) claim that students 

who decide against using agents in their pre-sojourn preparations do so because of relatives who 

studied abroad and who provided them with first-hand information.  

Interestingly, as Falcone (2017) states, Chinese undergraduate students from rural areas 

are less likely to get admitted to top Chinese colleges and universities than their peers from the 

cities. This, in turn, creates an opportunity for educational agents to recruit students from rural 

areas in China. The agents’ main responsibility is then to “assist students achieve their desired 

outcome” (Falcone, 2017, p. 252). These facts lead one to believe that Chinese undergraduate 

students who want to complete their degrees abroad often have no choice but to use educational 

 

42 

agencies services. That is, if they want to remain competitive in a large pool of peers who aspire 

to study in the United States.  

 

Likewise, multiple publications have addressed Chinese undergraduate students’ 

motivation to study in the United States (e.g., Butler, 2015; Brzezinski, 1994; Chao, Hegarty, 

Angelidis, & Lu, 2017; Wang, 1992). In the past, the main impetus to study in the U.S. seemed 

to have been strongly related to the switch resulting from a political situation in China in 1949. 

When China opened its doors to the rest of the world, more positive images of the West started 

appearing to prospective international students. Appealing images from the West, depicting its 

technological and social advancement, juxtaposed the demanding conditions of living in China 

(Brzezinski, 1994). Wang (1992) calls it a “push-oriented” trend, in which Chinese 

undergraduate students are lured by the opportunities in the U.S. and a lack of them in China. 

What is more, Brzezinski (1994) delineates additional reasons that drive Chinese undergraduate 

students towards U.S. education, some of them being the prestige gained by earning a diploma 

from a U.S. institution; the personal appeal of values in the U.S. as often portrayed in the media; 

and the societal respect that seems to be attached to foreign education in China. Studying in a 

different country gives Chinese undergraduate students the chance to obtain international 

education and to be ready for a global marketplace.  

 

Today, Chinese undergraduate students seem motivated to study in the United States 

mostly by opportunities to broaden their cultural and educational horizons as well as their 

parents’ encouragements. Chao at al. (2017) list Chinese undergraduate students’ top three 

motivations to complete their degrees abroad as: the hopes to gain new perspectives on their own 

country, the inability to attend a good school in China due to low scores from the National 

College Entry Examination (in Chinese, gaokao), and finally a belief that it is easier to get 

 

43 

admitted to a foreign school than it is to a Chinese one. Better educational system and better life 

conditions are no longer listed as priorities, which indicates a shift in Chinese undergraduate 

students’ motivations to study in a different country, compared with previous decades. Also, 

parents’ encouragement or familial pressure seems to be a strong contributor to Chinese 

undergraduate students’ choices of colleges and universities abroad. In some cases, parents’ push 

towards learning English for years might inhibit their children’s interests in other languages and 

cultures, as it is likely to cause tensions and raise pressure levels that Chinese undergraduate 

students often do not know how to release (Butler, 2015).  

 

Interestingly, whether or not Chinese undergraduate students decide to return to China 

once their programs in the U.S. are over remains a fluctuating tendency. It also links to these 

students’ motivations to study in a different country in the first place. Some students come to the 

United States with a clearly set goal of returning to China upon graduation. However, this goal 

often changes as a result of these students’ experiences at a U.S. school. Cheung and Xu (2015) 

named a few factors that contribute to Chinese undergraduate students’ post-graduation plans. 

For example, students might be worried that career advancement in China depends highly on 

connections (in Chinese, guanxi) rather than merit. Also, students might dislike the fact that 

many working environments in China are conducive to politics rather than innovation and 

professional development (Cheung & Xu, 2015). As Li (2004) rightly stated, the key to attracting 

outstanding personnel lies in wholesome environments rather than in high salaries. In reality, 

none of the literature reviewed for this study mentions Chinese undergraduate students being 

worried about their future income if they return to China. All in all, decisions on going back or 

building a new life in the U.S. are based on several factors that Chinese undergraduate students 

ponder over before taking a leap.  

 

44 

Language 

Even though Chinese undergraduate students who decide to study in the U.S. spend 

considerable time and effort to learn English, they are still entering a new space where using 

their second language seems pivotal to their experiences. This combines with the fact that 

English language classrooms do not prepare Chinese undergraduate students adequately for their 

studies abroad (Rawlings & Sue, 2013), some students find it difficult to understand their 

instructors and classmates’ accents (Chen, 2000), which might lead to a lack of interest in 

interacting with the locals. Accents, however, might not be the only limiting factor. Other factors 

such as vocabulary, idiomatic expression, speech rate, or the speed with which native speakers 

speak, could be added. More so, Wang, Ahn, Kim, and Lin-Siegler (2017) raise further concerns 

that Chinese undergraduate students have regarding communication with the native speakers of 

English as stemming from these students’ lack of faith in their language skills as well as their 

cultural knowledge. In such situations, interacting with co-nationals might also make Chinese 

undergraduate students further isolated from U.S. cultures, consequently impacting their English 

proficiency in negative ways (Yan & Berliner, 2016). Thus, even sufficient language skills do 

not assure for successful communication with speakers of languages other than Chinese, as 

sociocultural and emotional factors in interactions with U.S. peers and instructors might also 

play a role.  

Furthermore, Cheng and Erben (2012) claim that Chinese undergraduate students might 

suffer from language anxiety that may not be appropriately addressed by the hosting institutions. 

Class sizes of 60 or more are common in China, causing most teaching efforts to be placed on 

writing, grammar, and reading, leaving speaking out. Many Chinese undergraduate students 

learn by rote and have very limited opportunities to speak in class. This causes struggles for 

 

45 

these students in the U.S. as well as their instructors, who are at the receiving end of their 

learning efforts, where communication is a valuable element not only of second language 

acquisition but also of successful transitions to the new educational environment. A large number 

of Chinese undergraduate students appear worried about potential grammatical mistakes and 

whether or not their expressions would be deemed culturally acceptable (Cheng & Erben, 2012). 

Cheng and Erben (2012) also claim that Chinese undergraduate students feel anxious to be 

understood by U.S. citizens and as a result avoid using English as much as possible. In certain 

social situations, Chinese undergraduate students tend to bring a friend for translation purposes 

rather than risk being misunderstood. Equally, they tend to avoid direct communication with 

their instructors and only speak with U.S. citizens in short conversations where the possibility of 

errors is limited. Gu (2016) also mentions other language challenges such as difficulties in 

understanding slang and humor, which indicate that low English proficiency significantly affects 

Chinese undergraduate students’ effective adaptability to the U.S. cultures. According to Swagler 

and Ellis (2003), the lack of contextual knowledge and cultural background, limited chances to 

practice English both back home and in the U.S., and inadequate language training seem to be 

the most prominent factors that constrain Chinese undergraduate students’ smooth transitions 

into the U.S. educational realm while also creating pedagogical dilemmas for their instructors.   

Next, the risk of cultural representations and of culturism are recognized as potential 

factors when working with international students. For this study’s purpose, I define culturism as 

using culture as an explanation of everything a person from one culture does, thinks, etc. without 

considering other factors that might influence who a person is. Thus, it seems important to 

explore whether Chinese undergraduate students or their instructors actually experience or use 

any culturist language as well as the particularities of such language. Whether instructors 

 

46 

recognize culturism in their own pedagogies, or Chinese undergraduate students in their 

classroom discourses, and alternatively, how they deal with, or approach it, also poses a valid 

question for this study to attempt to answer. Developing understandings of such instances would 

yield complex insights into the learning and teaching encounters. On the whole, Chinese 

undergraduate students may lack understanding and proper knowledge of the U.S. society (Gu, 

2016). Due to having grown under the strict hand of a communist educational system, some 

Chinese undergraduate students might have developed negative characterizations of the U.S. 

society, too. As Baumbaugh (2015) states, prominent stereotypical views towards both China 

and the U.S. have a potential to affect the experiences of both groups of this study’s participants.  

In addition, the issue of having to exist and operate in a second language, for Chinese 

undergraduate students – English, has also created more chances for “cram schools” in China as 

well as placed more importance on exams. Lin (2020) claims that “cram schools can serve as the 

venues for students to build a peer community that can turn overseas studies into a fad” (p. 14). 

In the same line of thought, students who can afford “cram schools” hold an advantage over 

those who cannot get into prestigious colleges and universities abroad as they are also more 

familiar with various studying techniques (Lin, 2020), which they can then implement in their 

college projects. Yet, the stereotypes of ‘exam-crazy’ Asian students might still exist (Rappleye 

& Komatsu, 2018). When the results of international students’ achievements are released, such 

images are quickly used to explain away the differences between them and their “Western” 

counterparts. It is not the essentialized view of all Chinese undergraduate students being high 

achievers, but rather their cultures of learning that contribute to this stereotype. The exam 

preparation practices in China would have to be examined further in relation to their performance 

abroad in order to draw solid conclusions in this matter.  

 

47 

 

Lastly, providing a positive experience for Chinese undergraduate students at U.S. 

institutions needs to be an important mission for instructors, administrators and institutions in 

general. GLU’s website also lists student success as the main goal for its instructors. Writing 

assignments, reading academic articles and functioning in a second language can be daunting 

tasks that every Chinese student faces in the U.S. Still, based on motivational surveys, research 

has shown that in comparison to their domestic peers, Chinese undergraduate students present 

higher levels of motivation to succeed and that they come across as more engaged than their 

domestic peers (Lillyman & Bennett, 2014). Therefore, the fact that English is these students’ 

second language should not be understood as their disadvantage. In light of these findings, Roy 

(2013) recommends that U.S. instructors incorporate emotional intelligence into their 

pedagogical strategies. Such alteration, together with instructors’ willingness to accommodate 

Chinese undergraduate students’ unique cultures of learning, can help these students to achieve 

success despite the fact they are studying in a language so different from their mother tongue.  

Beliefs and Feelings  

 

Chinese undergraduate students, as any student would, hold certain beliefs about what 

studying in the U.S. might entail. Such beliefs often relate to their language, their assimilation to 

new academic and living environments, and their social life (Zhang-Wu, 2018). Any potential 

language struggles these students face could also be minimized if only the fact that they are 

studying in their second language was considered. According to Heng (2017), students from 

China often feel like their instructors and U.S. peers do not take their backgrounds into 

consideration. In addition, Chinese undergraduate students do not feel included in classroom 

discussions and prefer that their instructors extended direct efforts to help them to participate 

more actively (Heng, 2017). According to Heng (2017), the greatest need Chinese undergraduate 

 

48 

students who come to further their education in the United States have is the need to belong. Not 

only does it motivate many of them to complete their degrees abroad in the first place, but it also 

impacts their emotional well-being during the sojourn (Duan, Ho, Siu, Li, & Zhang, 2015). 

Interestingly, students from China tend to choose against self-segregation, which directly 

contradicts stereotypes of them being anti-social and unable to assimilate (Heng, 2017). Chinese 

undergraduate students want to interact with their U.S. peers and instructors but often find it 

challenging due to what they perceive as lacking knowledge of cultural references (Will, 2016). 

The abovementioned beliefs likely stem from what Chinese undergraduate students might have 

heard from their countrymates who returned to China after graduating from a U.S. school, media 

coverage, or the stories they might have heard from their educational agents.  

 

Moreover, Chinese undergraduate students tend to believe that a good instructor is kind, 

humorous, warm hearted, patient, friendly, helpful, etc. (Boshier, 2017). They pay attention to 

instructors’ affective characteristics more than professionalism, for instance. Not surprisingly, in 

Boshier (2017, p. 219), words like “motherly” and “fatherly” were used to describe Chinese 

undergraduate students’ favorite instructors. This is interesting in the context of Chinese 

undergraduate students coming to the United States, where being professional is what most 

instructors strive for first and foremost. That is not to say that they do not intend to be kind to 

their students. How Chinese undergraduate students see their instructors affects how they engage 

in a classroom, too. These students oftentimes gravitate towards kind instructors and if they do 

not consider their U.S. instructors kind, they are likely to stay reserved and keep to themselves in 

class (Yu & Moskal, 2018). This, in turn, adds onto their academic pressures in situations where 

something is not clear, and instead of asking for help they would rather keep quiet. If instructors 

encourage students to express themselves in kind ways, they are more confident to do so, as 

 

49 

opposed to when instructors are strict or unkind (Haarms, Holtzman, Xue, & Darbyshire, 2018). 

Consequently, the emotional ties that Chinese undergraduate students hold towards their 

instructors as well as their beliefs about what a good instructor is like, might make their 

intercultural experiences in the U.S. problematic.  

Societies  

 

Chinese undergraduate students in the U.S. have reported a number of enriching 

experiences when it comes to the social realm. What these students understand by “good 

adjustment” is the ability to fit completely into living in the United States and regular successful 

interactions with the locals (Lu et al., 2018). This reflects these students’ yearning to truly 

participate in the host culture. One strategy that helps Chinese undergraduate students to reach 

intercultural adaptation in the U.S. is making conscious efforts to communicate with others, be it 

domestic or international students, faculty members, university staff or local residents (Swagler 

& Ellis, 2003). Yet, there seems to be more research that focuses on challenging sociocultural 

experiences of Chinese undergraduate students in the U.S. Cultural distance, different habits, 

different notions of friendship and diverse ways of handling interaction are major issues for 

Chinese undergraduate students in the U.S. (Spencer-Oatey, Dauber, Jing, & Lifei, 2017). For 

instance, Yan and Berliner (2016) see Chinese undergraduate students’ dedication to scholarship 

as motivating them to study harder than their U.S. classmates. Yet, such devotion to become 

excellent oftentimes isolates them from social activities (Yan & Berliner, 2016). According to 

Yan and Berliner (2016), failure to fulfil high parental expectations to excel not only causes 

stress and anxiety but also brings disgrace to the students’ family and even entire ethnic groups. 

The researchers state that as far as cultural backgrounds are considered, when Chinese 

undergraduate students enter a new environment, they are unable to grasp, predict or control 

 

50 

other people’s behavior, since familiar cues disappear in the new surroundings. This, as a result, 

might make them confused of their roles, expectations, and values (Yan & Berliner, 2016). 

Unable to cope with multiple pressures, Chinese undergraduate students might withdraw into 

their frustrations privately, therefore, potentially failing to overcome the obstacles they face.  

 

Spending time with other students from China seems to be one strategy most Chinese 

undergraduate students apply to their sojourns. Yet, Gu (2016) reports that most students in his 

study of Chinese international students’ perceptions of their intercultural adaptability claimed 

that making friends and communicating with locals in their social circles helped them to improve 

intercultural skills and aided their adaptability. The most common behaviors to connect with the 

locals, as discussed by Gu (2016), were: attending social events (mostly organized by a given 

school), attending classes, having U.S. roommates, and being introduced by landlords. Therefore, 

those Chinese undergraduate students who put forward active efforts to confront new situations, 

tended to fit better into a foreign context.  

On a similar note, when discussing the experiences of Chinese undergraduate students in 

the U.S., their use of social media and its importance in those students’ endeavors cannot be 

omitted. Prior literature shows that Chinese undergraduate students’ utilization of large social 

networks increases their adaptation to the U.S. (e.g., Fu & Izuma, 2018; Lee, Lee, & Jang, 2011). 

For instance, Lee et al. (2011) found that even though the Internet neither directly facilitates nor 

impedes international students’ adaptation to the new educational settings, utilizing it for local 

social networking eventually leads to a better social adjustment. WeChat, a Chinese application 

similar to the U.S.’ WhatsApp, seems to be the most prevalent way Chinese undergraduate 

students communicate (Fu & Izuma, 2018). In addition, social networks do not only play a role 

in connecting local students with their international counterparts in college settings but also 

 

51 

allow these two groups of students to establish relationships even before they enter a classroom 

(Forbush & Foucault-Welles, 2016). The opportunity to hide behind a nickname or alternative 

virtual identity does seem to ease the process of making the first step towards creating 

international friendships for Chinese undergraduate students.  

 

Additionally, daily life issues may also cause significant stress to Chinese undergraduate 

students. For example, it is not easy for them to obtain information about facilities and services 

on a daily basis (Gu, 2016). They are also, just like most new college students moving to a new 

area, likely to have questions about security, food, housing, health care, transportation and the 

like. For instance, while it is very convenient to utilize public transportation in China, in the U.S. 

students realize the need to drive everywhere (Gu, 2016). Also, Yan and Berliner (2016) state 

that even though cultural interaction in the U.S. changes Chinese undergraduate students’ 

behavior and lifestyle, it does not affect their ethnic identities or ideologies. Thus, even daily 

matters prove that adapting to the U.S. for Chinese undergraduate students is an individualized 

choice rather than a societal force. In particular, research indicates that it is easier for Chinese 

undergraduate students to assimilate their extrinsic cultural features such as dress, mannerism, 

behaviors, lifestyle, using English than their intrinsic ones, e.g., cultural heritage, religious 

beliefs, or ethnic values (Yan & Berliner, 2016). This might cause Chinese undergraduate 

students to identify with neither (Chinese cultures nor U.S. cultures), and more importantly feel 

not accepted by either.  

 

What is more, despite the challenges discussed above, Chinese undergraduate students 

demonstrate agency in their responses to these challenges. To notice such agency, it is important 

to contextualize discussions surrounding Chinese undergraduate students’ experiences in the 

U.S. For instance, Heng (2018) highlights the fact that these students differ from their U.S. peers 

 

52 

in a variety of ways, be it academically, socially, or culturally, does not place them at a 

disadvantage and does not signify their deficiency in any of those aspects. For example, it is 

worth considering that maybe it is hard for them to start conversations with strangers because 

their society values being low-key (Heng, 2018). Notwithstanding, when exploring Chinese 

undergraduate students’ experiences abroad, we need to be reminded of the heterogeneous nature 

of those experiences (Heng, 2019). As every international student, the Chinese undergraduate 

students also contribute their diverse ways of thinking, cultural backgrounds and cultural beliefs 

to the picture. Thus, seeing Chinese undergraduate students as heterogeneous individuals whose 

“different” life and study experiences position them as agent, makes their journeys in the U.S. 

more colorful.  

 While there has been a large interest in Chinese international students on a national level 

in the U.S., not all universities and colleges seem to be ready to satisfy the needs of these 

students (Yan & Berliner, 2016). Given that Chinese undergraduate students still represent the 

largest portion of international students on U.S. campuses, and that they encounter a culture quite 

different from their own (see Table 1.2), it is worth developing a deeper understanding of how 

these students deal with tensions and contradictions between two apparently conflicting systems 

as well as how their instructors understand them. For instance, while U.S. academia values 

individualism, being verbally explicit and original, the Chinese academia is often described as 

collectivist, hierarchical relationships, and instructor-centered learning (e.g., Cortazzi & Jin, 

1997; Yuan & Xie, 2013). However, as Ryan (2010) notes, if Anglophone scholars formulate 

their perceptions of Chinese undergraduates solely based on observing these students’ struggles 

to adjust to unfamiliar pedagogical arenas, such scholars might potentially contribute to the 

stereotypical belief of the educational superiority of the U.S. The dichotomy between U.S. and 

 

53 

Chinese learners (Table 1.2) might de facto be false. Without the abovementioned 

understandings, huge populations of Chinese undergraduate students as well as their instructors 

in the U.S. might have to endure lots of contradictions with a corresponding failure to maximize 

their intellectual or sociocultural productivity. Thus, effective intercultural understandings have a 

significant role to play in this process in the context of Chinese undergraduate students in the 

U.S. higher education.  

The Three Contexts 

 

This study exists at the intersection of three contexts, namely an ESL context, a business 

management context, and a college writing context in a U.S. university. Therefore, it is crucial to 

discuss how existing literature portrays Chinese undergraduate students in these three contexts.  

 

First of all, I am unaware of a study that looks at these three contexts simultaneously, like 

this project. Naturally, most research in the ESL context focuses on the Chinese undergraduate 

students’ language struggles (e.g., Fu, Machado, & Weng, 2018; Jiang, Yang, & Zhou, 2017). 

Main challenges listed as findings are problems with using workable learning strategies that 

would help Chinese undergraduate students to fit into the U.S. system of education better, 

general low spoken English proficiency, or problems with pronunciation that impede these 

students’ willingness to communicate in English (Fu et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2017). 

Interestingly, scholarly literature in the college writing context also tends to discuss language-

related phenomena such as language transfer from Chinese (He & Niao, 2015), plagiarism 

(James, Miller, & Wyckoff, 2019), and transnational practices of Chinese undergraduate students 

in the writing classrooms in the U.S. (Wang, 2017). There are also instances where instructors 

grapple with teaching Chinese undergraduate students citations as they are done in the U.S. 

academia (Zhang, 2018). On the contrary, business literature involving Chinese undergraduate 

 

54 

students in the U.S. tends to display these students’ motivations to choose business as their 

college major (Ozgur, Li, & Rogers, 2015) or their unique ethics of conducting business (Cao, 

Anderson, Xu, & Caldwell, 2018). For instance, Chinese undergraduate students perceive having 

a degree in business as a practical and useful ticket to success, regardless of their decisions to 

stay in the U.S. or return to China (Ozgur et al., 2015). In other words, majoring in business 

seems transferable onto their potential future life in China. In terms of ethics of doing business, 

the contemporary Chinese demonstrate both old (that is from the past) and new (that is current) 

views of how ethical business is conducted. They show a strong influence from global economic 

development, simultaneously positioning themselves as different from their prior generations of 

businesspeople in China (Cao et al., 2018). This context, that is business management, does not 

seem to produce research concerned with Chinese undergraduate students’ learning styles, their 

language background or how these might affect their success in a mainstream classroom.  

 

How research literature portrays Chinese undergraduate students in these three different 

contexts matters. It shows a link between the ESL and the college writing contexts, with an 

obvious focus on language. It also separates the business context from the other two, by 

emphasizing Chinese undergraduate students’ practical skills and not language skills. However, a 

question whether instructors in the business context experience challenging situations with their 

Chinese undergraduate students that might be stemming from these students’ second language 

limitations remains open.  

Theoretical Underpinnings 

In this section, I delineate the main characteristics of this study’s conceptual framework, 

namely the notion of interculturality (Dervin, 2010, 2016a, 2016b). I also discuss my motivations 

 

55 

behind utilizing it in this project. I present related research literature that uses Dervin’s 

interculturality concept in various contexts and to a differing extent.  

Interculturality as Conceptual Framework  

I begin by defining the notion of interculturality (Dervin, 2010; Dervin, 2016a; Dervin, 

2016b; Dervin, 2017). Dervin (2016b) argues that universal definitions lead to colonized 

discourses of self and others, unbalanced power relations and differential treatment. For the sake 

of this project, however, I define the term interculturality as the approach to others that is 

characterized by mutual responsiveness, appreciation and curiosity, its main goal being bilateral 

(i.e., mutual) communication (as defined in the Introduction). Interculturality emphasizes the 

emergent, dynamic, and negotiated nature of communication between two or more cultures.  

The few times that Dervin’s name appears in the U.S. research articles, it usually pertains 

to his advocacy to stop perceiving culture as a fixed entity and to re-define the term altogether 

(e.g., Byram & Wagner, 2018); to his call for a critical approach to interculturality with ethical 

and reflexive awareness of power that linguistic diversity brings (e.g., Tolosa et al., 2018); or to 

his attempts to go beyond culturism in exchanges between China and other countries (e.g., 

Dervin & Machart, 2017).  

Overall, Dervin (2016b) urges us to consider what happens in interculturality by looking 

at three inextricably linked phenomena, namely culture, identity, and collectivity. First of all, 

“culture and the concepts to follow do not exist as such” (Dervin, 2016b, p. 9). In other words, 

one cannot meet culture, but only people who embody it; and therefore, only people can clash 

not their cultures. Secondly, identity is highly conceptual and always negotiated with others. 

Thus, collectivity often reinforces identity (Dervin, 2016b, p. 17). In this project, I look into the 

 

56 

experiences of both groups of participants, namely four instructor-participants and six student-

participants, and those elements of interculturality their experiences comprise.  

Dervin’s (2016b) methodological toolbox for IC includes elements necessary for 

interculturality to take place, namely interaction, context, the recognition of power relations, 

simplexity, intersectionality and failure (see Table 2.1 for a summary and their explanations). In 

the same vein, we are encouraged to stop emphasizing facts about so called target culture, 

presenting cultural do’s and don’ts and concentrating on cultural differences (Dervin, 2016b, p. 

72). Dervin’s framework, which he calls a “liquid realistic” approach to interculturality, reminds 

one to be aware of simplexity (the inevitable combination of the simple and the complex) of any 

act of interculturality. Having to constantly navigate between the simple and the complex, we 

adapt our discourses to specific situations and interlocutors. Yet, neither the simple nor the 

complex can be fully achieved (Dervin, 2016b). Therefore, we might need to accept the fact that 

we can only maneuver between the two. The liquid realistic approach assures interculturality 

stays ideological and welcomes the cycle of both success and failure. Dervin (2016b) claims that 

failure has benefits for future learning and self-criticality. Thus, it seems vital to celebrate 

failure, simultaneously making sure that everyone faces failure, not just the minority or the Other 

(Dervin, 2016b, p. 85). Most established models of interculturality recognize success only.  

Table 2.1.  
Elements of interculturality, based on Dervin (2016b).  

Elements of interculturality 

Explanation 

Interaction 

Context 

Recognition of power relations 

Simplexity 

is always jointly constructed; 
 
we have different identities that depend on context; 
 
when dealing with interculturality a certain degree of 
pain is inescapable; 
 
the inevitable combination of “the simple” and “the 
complex;” 

 

57 

Table 2.1. (cont’d) 

Intersectionality 

Failure 

Cultural mélange  

 

the interaction of multiple identities and experiences 
of exclusion; 
 
it is normal in interculturality and we should learn 
from it; 
 
cultural mixing, fusion of the West and the East. 

Moreover, power relations are to be revisited by acknowledging that when dealing with 

interculturality a certain degree of pain seems inescapable (Dervin, 2016b, p. 83). Glocalization, 

which Dervin (2016b, p. 25) describes as “two sides of the same coin,” makes it so that some 

people hold more symbolic power than others (the Center vs. Periphery) alongside the languages 

they speak (native speakers of English vs. native speakers of Chinese). Instead of creating 

interculturally correct situations, we might want to ensure testing resistance to discomfort and 

potential failure, and consequently learning how to be reflexive (Dervin & Byrd Clark, 2014). I 

argue that instructors’ role might be to approach students, who come from the position of lacking 

the abovementioned symbolic power, through diverse lenses that help to avoid othering. Clearly, 

there are diversities among Chinese undergraduate students as well as commonalities with the 

‘West’.  

In addition, intersectionality (understood as “examining the interconnected nature of 

social and ‘biological’ categorizations, identity markers such as language, race, ethnicity, class, 

gender, religion and so on” [Dervin, 2016b, p. 83]) allows us to see how these combined parts 

contribute to injustice, discrimination, and inequalities. At last, Dervin (2016b) sees 

collectivizing interculturality as a priority and assures that putting an end to individualistic 

perspectives will assist in treating people fairly. For the same reason, a researcher needs to 

 

58 

include his or her voice in the analysis of data to thoroughly examine his/her influences on the 

reported experiences.  

 

Notwithstanding, Dervin’s model of interculturality seems to appreciate what Pieterse 

(2004) calls “diverse diversities” of the self and The Others, namely habits and artifacts, 

discourse, and opinions within same geographical boundaries. People are different because of 

their cultural backgrounds and societies live through open-ended mixing. Last but not least, 

Dervin posits that even though researchers tend to defend changeability and the unstable nature 

of their participants, their corpus analyses often quantify and categorize these participants into 

national, religious, or ethnic groups (Dervin, 2010; Simpson & Dervin, 2019), simultaneously 

limiting the co-constructive aspects. The importance of relationships in interculturality is stressed 

when identities are co-constructed, given that one does not communicate with others as she/he 

really is, but rather as a representation of self.  

Importantly, Dervin (2016b) also criticizes other models for not matching today’s 

educational goals, such as fighting against othering, hegemony, hierarchies, and power 

differentials (p. 82). He rejects their stages, or simple progressions, believing that interculturality 

is composed of contradictions, instabilities, and discontinuities instead of mere harmonies, 

stabilities, and continuities. To sum up, Dervin (2010, 2016b) reminds one to decenter and 

reflectively look at oneself, seeing interculturality as open, flexible, and adaptable to one’s 

needs.  

 

All in all, Dervin’s (2016b) notion of liquid interculturality in education, where culture is 

co-constructed during communication, fits this project well. That is because (1) it matches my 

view as a researcher that cultures, identities, knowledge and experiences are always co-

constructed; (2) it goes beyond traditional view of culture as static, and instead portrays it as a 

 

59 

dynamic force; and (3) it emphasizes mutuality in experiences that has the potential to create 

cultures acceptable by and sensitive to both Chinese undergraduate students and their instructors, 

regardless of their perceived differences. These characteristics reflect my approach to this 

study’s goals, mainly the understanding that for any intercultural learning and teaching to take 

place there needs to be a mutual conviviality as well as constant negotiations that would lead to 

co-construction of knowledge. In agreement with Dervin (2016b), I also see research as critical 

and reflexive but that is achievable only if participants and their experiences are approached 

from the position of similarities rather than differences.  

Dervin’s theory is an appropriate framework for understanding what might enable 

interculturally responsive education for student-participants and their instructor-participants at 

Grand Lake University as it resonates with this study’s focus. However, by focusing on the 

actual experiences in the new environment (here at GLU), Dervin’s notion does not seem to take 

either the Chinese undergraduate students’ pre-sojourn stage or their instructors’ existing 

practical knowledge of how to work with these students in interculturally responsive ways into 

consideration. Nonetheless, his notion shares my categorization of student-participants and their 

instructor-participants in this study as heterogeneous learners and instructors and their academic 

endeavors as culturally contextualized.  

In this chapter, I delineated relevant literature pertaining to the experiences of Chinese 

undergraduate students and those of their instructors in the United States. I focused on those 

experiences that were ingrained in the idea that transformative internationalization can be 

achieved through kindness. I also presented how I conducted the literature search at the initial 

stages of this project. Then, I explained the theoretical underpinnings of this multiple case study, 

namely Dervin’s interculturality (Dervin, 2010, 2016a, 2016b). Finally, I explained how 

 

60 

Dervin’s notion fits into this study. Below, I delineate the research questions that guided me 

through conducting this study. This multiple case study was guided by four broad research 

questions: 

• 

the instructor-participants collective case study 

1.  In what ways do these four instructor-participants describe their experiences 

working with Chinese undergraduate students at Grand Lake University? 

2.  How do their experiences relate to interculturality in teaching? 

• 

the student-participants collective case study 

1.  In what ways do these six student-participants describe their experiences at 

Grand Lake University? 

2.  How do their experiences relate to interculturality in learning? 

To recapitulate, in the following chapter (Chapter 3), I discuss the methodology applied 

to this project. After that, I present findings from both collective case studies. Specifically, in 

Chapter 4, I focus on the instructor-participants collective case study, while in Chapter 5, I do so 

for the student-participants collective case study. I, then, proceed to discussing findings from 

both collective case studies in Chapter 6. I end this project with conclusions in Chapter 7. 

 

61 

CHAPTER 3 

METHOD 

In this part of the dissertation, I delineate information relevant to all parts of the study, 

including the description of the context in which I conducted this study as well as the process of 

selecting participants and their profiles. I also present data coding and analysis steps for both 

collective case studies, i.e., instructor-participants and student-participants, respectively. It is 

important to note that the current dissertation report includes two collective case studies (one 

with instructor-participants and one with student-participants) that together create a multiple case 

study. Subsequently, I discuss my own positionality as a researcher, where I shed light on my 

investment in the topic, my biases, and intentions in this project. Next, I describe the sources of 

data and their use, followed by a detailed data analysis section of the chapter, including the 

transcription and coding processes and the steps I have taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the 

findings. Finally, I walk the reader through the process of particularizing the findings. 

 

The purpose of this multiple case study is to explore the experiences that six student-

participants have undergone when studying at a large public university in the U.S. (here: Grand 

Lake University or GLU) as well as the experiences of four instructor-participants working with 

these students in their designated courses. In order to fulfill this purpose, I employed a broad 

range of research techniques and recruited students and instructors from four different university 

courses as participants. I applied a multiple case study approach (Stake, 2006), with two 

collective case studies as its main parts, to examine the abovementioned experiences and their 

impact on both instructor-participants and student-participants in terms of intercultural ways of 

teaching and learning (Dervin, 2016b). By doing so, I followed Stake’s (1995, 2006) 

classification and description of an instrumental case study as the one seeking out both what is 

 

62 

common and what is particular about the case, which I define as the four instructor-participants 

and the six student-participants in their classes. Case studies have been used in SLA on a large 

scale as descriptive narratives of both students and instructors (van Lier, 2005). Stakian 

characteristics of a case study can be described by the following four adjectives (Stake, 1995). 

(1) A case study is holistic, as it allows the researcher to consider the inter-relationship between 

the phenomenon under investigation and its context. (2) A case study is interpretive, as it helps 

the researcher to see research as an interaction between a researcher and the researched. (3) A 

case study is empirical, as it is based on observations from the field. (4) A case study is 

emphatic, as the researcher reflects on participants’ experiences in an emic way.  

Importantly, a case study appears suitable for investigating participants’ experiences over 

time (van Lier, 2005), as Stake (1995) suggests bounding the case by activity, which is suitable 

for my participants’ circumstances and contexts. In addition, following Baskarada’s (2014, p. 5) 

suggestion, I made sure the chosen case study method aligned with my researcher identity, 

namely that of an epistemological pluralist (Fendler, 2019). I look to particularize (Duff, 2012) 

and not to generalize, as my obligation is to understand this one chosen case, specifically the six 

student-participants and four instructor-participants at Grand Lake University. As a researcher, I 

believe knowledge is socially co-constructed and generated rather than discovered. Lastly, I 

chose a case study for its flexibility, or as Stake (1995) calls it “progressive focusing” (p. 9). 

Hence, I was able to tailor this project to the participants’ needs and circumstances by making 

adjustments even after I proceeded from its design stage to its research stage. 

The Role of the Researcher 

Janesick (2000) and Merriam (1998) see the researcher as the primary instrument for 

gathering and analyzing data. Throughout the process of working with my participants (i.e., six 

 

63 

student-participants and four of their instructor-participants at GLU), I occupied multiple roles, 

from researcher to a non-participating observer, a participating observer, and an involved 

conversant during interviews. My aim was to develop a rapport with the participants that would 

last beyond the time of this study. This is because my approach to research and my researcher 

identity demand a relationship rather than a singular contact that ends with data collection. 

Merriam (1998) suggests that a researcher should establish such rapport by finding some 

common ground with the participants, helping them when necessary, and showing interest in 

their activities. Therefore, I willingly shared my passion for China and my past experiences of 

teaching in China with both students and instructors who spoke with me and displayed interest in 

learning about these experiences. I was also able to switch into Chinese when interviewing the 

six student-participants, whenever they would seem more comfortable sharing their experiences 

in Chinese with me. This was possible due to my advanced proficiency in Chinese, which I 

obtained through a certificate back in China, named HSK 4. I felt like my ability to 

translanguage from English to Chinese during interviews with the students helped me to gain 

their trust and establish a stronger bond.  

The qualitative researcher must have an enormous tolerance for ambiguity, needs to be 

highly intuitive (sensitivity) and empathetic to lay a solid foundation for a relationship with 

his/her participants (Merriam, 1998, pp. 20-23). Therefore, I was not trying to eliminate my own 

subjectivity, but rather remain aware of it. According to Stake (1995), subjectivity not only 

creates a unique amalgamate of the researcher’s personal qualities and collected data but also 

plays an essential role in understanding the phenomenon under investigation (p. 45). This helped 

me to approach the project holistically and allowed for a comprehensive picture of what 

interested me (i.e., the participants’ experiences). To sum up, I acknowledge subjectivity in my 

 

64 

ways of exploring the cases. I had lived and taught in China for six years prior to my doctoral 

journey at GLU, hence my deep-rooted interest in the lives of Chinese undergraduate students 

overseas. My report of this study’s findings might sound slightly favorable for the student-

participants due to the reasons mentioned above. However, I am also an instructor; and therefore, 

sympathize with the numerous dilemmas that the instructors expressed to me through 

conversations in both private and academic settings. By recognizing that there is history between 

me and the topic of this investigation, I make an attempt to clarify my positionality as well as my 

identity as a researcher.  

Context of the Study 

I recruited four instructor-participants of three different courses at Grand Lake University 

(more on the participant selection in the next section) and six student-participants in their classes. 

The contexts were different from one another in the sense that one course was in the area of 

academic writing, one was focusing on teaching business and two were strictly English as a 

Second Language (ESL) classes focusing on reading (henceforth referred to as ESL RESL A and 

ESL RESL B) while the third one focused on teaching elements of American culture (henceforth 

ESL ACL). I chose those three contexts because I was interested in those student-participants 

who have not yet tested out of the university language requirement (the ESL classes), as well as 

those who were taking a cultural writing course (henceforth Cultural Writing Class or CWC), 

obligatory to all undergraduate students at GLU, due to this course’s focus on crossing cultural 

boundaries. Additionally, I felt like I needed to explore those areas of academia that attract the 

biggest numbers of Chinese undergraduate students, that is why I chose GLU’s business 

management related course (henceforth referred to as BC) as my third research site. In the span 

of two semesters, nine students responded to my call and I conducted a face-to-face interview 

 

65 

with all nine, but for this project, I chose six of them who identify as Chinese (as two did not) 

and were undergraduate students in order to maintain the flow of the narrative and to avoid 

confusion (one was a graduate student). With relevance to this project, there were almost 3000 

Chinese undergraduate students at GLU in the Fall 2019. Because most of them use English as 

their second language, Chinese undergraduate students appear to be an interesting, yet 

heterogeneous, group to study.  

In the Fall semester of 2019, Grand Lake University (GLU) was home to almost 4000 

international undergraduates, which accounts for 12% of the entire GLU student population. It 

was not possible to obtain information about the native languages international students speak 

from the university as this datum is not collected on a regular basis. However, I was able to 

determine that international undergraduate students at GLU represented 140 countries in the 

2018/2019 academic year. Naturally, international students’ exposure to the American variety of 

English, their instructors’ approaches to different World Englishes in class as well as the 

inevitable cultural exchanges would vary and can only be looked at through particularization 

(Duff, 2012).  

Instructor-participants Case Study 

For a more technical view of this case study, I have adapted a graphic organizer of a 

multiple case study from Stake (2006, p. 5). Presented in Figure 3.1 is my approach to the 

contextualization of the instructor-participants collective case study. The bolded circle represents 

the entire collective case study with four mini-cases, that is the four instructor-participants. It is 

clear that I conducted data collection at three different research sites: Activity Site 1, 2 and 3 

(three different contexts, namely ESL, college writing and business management classes) for 

each case study.  

 

 

66 

This collective case (Figure 3.1) was bounded by activity as well as a variety of lenses 

through which I looked at it, e.g., cultural context, personal background and history, relevant 

research, and educational background (the circles surrounding the main one on Figure 3.1). I 

followed Stake’s (2006) visual representation of this collective case study, and due to that I find 

it important to mention that contexts surrounding and influencing the instructor-participants 

collective case are placed randomly around the main circle. This collective case study looked at 

four mini-cases (the instructor-participants who volunteered to participate in this research 

project) (Figure 3.1). In this collective case study, I collected data through one primary data 

source, namely semi-structured interviews and two secondary data sources, namely observations 

and artifacts. I also utilized additional data sources, that is a field notes journal, a researcher’s 

journal and email correspondence, which are represented by icons in Figure 3.1, respectively. I 

focused on studying what was similar and different about the mini-cases (Stake, 2006, p. 6) in 

order to understand the essence of this collective case study both as a whole and as a crucial 

ingredient of the multiple case study.  

 

67 

 

Figure 3.1. A graphic design of a collective case study for instructor-participants. The icons 
under Additional data sources represent a field notes journal, a researcher’s journal and email 
correspondence, respectively. Worksheet used with permission from Stake (2006, p. 5). 

Student-participants Case Study 

For better visualization of this case study, I also adapted a graphic organizer of a multiple 

case study from Stake (2006, p. 5). Presented in Figure 3.2 is my approach to the 

contextualization of the student-participants collective case study. The bolded circle represents 

the entire collective case study with six mini-cases, that is the six student-participants. It is clear 

 

 

68 

        Educational Background Relevant Research  Mini-Cases Interviews  Personal Background and History Cultural Context Activity Site 1: ESL RESL A Activity Site 2: CWC  Artifacts Activity Site 3: BC Activity Site 1: ESL RESL B Observations (incl. participant observations) The Case of  Instructor-Participants Additional data sources Activity Site 1: ESL ACL that I conducted data collection at three different research sites: Activity Site 1, 2 and 3 (three 

different contexts, namely ESL, college writing and business management classes) for each case 

study.  

Also, this collective case study (Figure 3.2), just like the instructor-participants collective 

case study, was bounded by activity as well as a variety of lenses through which I looked at it, 

e.g., cultural context, personal background and history, relevant research, and educational 

background (the circles surrounding the main one on Figure 3.2). I followed Stake’s (2006) 

visual representation of this collective case study, and due to that I find it important to mention 

that contexts surrounding and influencing the student-participants collective case are placed 

randomly around the main circle. This collective case study looked at six mini-cases (the 

student-participants who volunteered to participate in this research project, were classified as 

undergraduate students and identified as Chinese) (Figure 3.2). In this collective case study, I 

collected data through one primary data source, namely semi-structured interviews as well as one 

secondary data source, namely observations. Contrary to the instructor-participants collective 

study, I did not collect any artifacts from the students. Yet, I utilized additional data sources, that 

is a field notes journal, a researcher’s journal and email correspondence, which are represented 

by icons in Figure 3.2, respectively. Here, I also focused on studying what was similar and 

different about the mini-cases (Stake, 2006, p. 6) in order to understand the essence of this 

collective case study both as a whole and as a crucial ingredient of the multiple case study. 

 

69 

 

Figure 3.2. A graphic design of a collective case study for student-participants. The icons under 
Additional data sources represent a filed notes journal, a researcher’s journal and email 
correspondence, respectively. Worksheet used with permission from Stake (2006, p. 5).  

Participants 

In the following sections, I elaborate on participant selection and their profiles separately 

for each collective case study, that is instructor-participants collective case study and student-

participants collective case study, respectively. Perry (1998) mentions four to ten units of 

analysis as an optimal number for reaching a saturation point, while Merriam (1998) argues that 

one should primarily strive for an adequate number of participants to answer the research 

questions posed at the beginning of the study. Findings from a small participant selection but of 

 

70 

        Educational Background Relevant Research  Mini-Cases Interviews  Personal Background and History Cultural Context Activity Site 2: CWC  Activity Site 3: BC Activity Site 1: ESL ACL Observations The Case of  Student-Participants Activity Site 1: ESL RESL A Additional data sources some diversity, such as in this project, yield “important shared patterns that can occur across 

cases and derive their significance from having emerged out of heterogeneity” (Patton, 1990, p. 

172). In line with the abovementioned suggestions, I present profiles of four instructor-

participants and six student-participants. Finally, while the term “sampling” is often used in 

research to explain the criteria for choosing this study’s participants, as Yin (2014) states, no 

case study represents a “sample” (p. 21), in a sense of statistical generalizations. 

Instructor-participants  

As previously explained, after having received IRB approval, I recruited four instructor-

participants in three distinct programs at GLU. I reached out to the instructor-participants 

through email. Drawing on Stake (1995, p. 4), I selected participants who were willing to partake 

in this research and from whom I believed I could learn the most, as my goal was to understand, 

discover and construct insights into participants’ experiences. The following description depicts 

the pseudonyms of the programs as well as those of the participants (Table 3.1). These 

pseudonyms were chosen by the participants and are unique to this dissertation. 

Table 3.1.  
The list of instructor-participants, their gender, classes they taught and these classes areas of 
focus. 

No.  Pseudonym 
1. 

Stan 

Gender  Class 
Male 

RESL A 

2.  Han 

Male 

RESL B 
 
 
ACL 

3.  Andrew 

Male 

CWC 

Focus* 
Improving academic reading skills in English 
as a Second Language; 
 
Improving academic reading skills in English 
as a Second Language; 
 
Learning the language through discovering 
American culture; 
 
Developing academic writing skills through 
cross-cultural boundaries; 
 
 
 

 

71 

Table 3.1. (cont’d) 
No.  Pseudonym 
4. 

Peter 

Gender  Class 
Male 

BC 

Focus* 
Learning about business management, ethics of 
doing business, supply chain, negotiation 
skills, etc.; 

Note: Focus * is based on a summary of the class syllabi and conversations with the instructor-
participants. 
 

In terms of participant selection, I worked with those instructors who were willing to 

participate in my research project, having four instructor-participants as a result. Firstly, as I was 

interested in the experiences of those Chinese undergraduate students who have not yet tested out 

of the university language requirement, I approached a few instructors teaching in the English as 

a Second Language (ESL) context. ESL at GLU has a venue that serves language learners and 

welcomes a large Chinese population every year. Two instructors, henceforth Stan and Han 

(pseudonyms chosen by the participants), responded to my call expressing interest in this study 

(Table 3.1). They were both teaching the same course in the Spring semester that focused on 

improving students’ reading skills (ESL RESL A and ESL RESL B henceforth) but different 

sections of it and had mostly (but not only) Chinese undergraduate students in their classes 

(around 80%). As an exception, Han happened to teach another course in the Summer semester 

that focused on learning about American cultures (henceforth ACL), while Stan taught ESL 

RESL A, the reading class, again in the Fall semester. I proceeded with them as my instructor-

participants. Secondly, I was interested in Cultural Writing Class (CWC henceforth), one of 

many sections offered throughout the academic year at GLU, which is a writing course 

compulsory for all undergraduate students (with around 75% Chinese). I deemed this course an 

appropriate fit for my research questions and scope because, based on the description of the class 

on GLU’s schedule website, it focused on crossing cultural boundaries in developing academic 

writing skills (Table 3.1). So, I reached out to the instructor (henceforth Andrew) with an 

 

72 

invitation to participate. He agreed under the condition that I would be an active observer in his 

class (a participant observer), not a silent one. Thirdly, a statistician from the International 

Center at GLU identified the Business School as the most popular choice amongst Chinese 

undergraduate students (there were 463 Chinese undergraduate students enrolled in their 

business-related programs in Fall 2018, almost twice as many as in their second choice, i.e., 

economics). This choice was obvious. I knew I had to be where most Chinese undergraduate 

students were. I met with one of the associate directors of the academic undergraduate affairs at 

the Business School and he provided me with a list of instructors who, according to his 

knowledge, might have been interested in my study. I emailed all of them and one replied with 

interest to participate (henceforth Peter). He was teaching a class that I can describe as having to 

do with learning how to conduct ethical business (henceforth referred to as BC), with 

approximately 25% of the student body being Chinese (Table 3.1). All instructor-participants 

were male U.S. citizens who spoke an American variety of English, were educated in the United 

States and self-identified as American. I argue that the chosen three courses exemplify a clear 

pattern of progressing from a developmental course (ESL RESL A, RESL B, and ESL ACL) to 

first-year college writing (CWC) to a content course (business management, BC).  

The instructor-participants formed one collective case study (findings presented in 

Chapter 4). In my encounters with instructors who agreed to participate in this exploration, I was 

trying to make sure they knew what I was offering them in return for their shared stories. I 

promised to share my findings with them as soon as they arose, since they expressed interest in 

reflecting on their classes and making further considerations of the Chinese undergraduate 

students they teach. Further, I conducted a transcript check for data accuracy in the interview 

transcripts with each instructor-participant as well. I did not compensate instructor-participants 

 

73 

for their participation in any monetary way since it is not a common research practice at my 

institution.  

Consequently, to protect the identities of the instructor-participants, in this document, I 

do not provide identifying information such as their real names, age, actual name of the class or 

any other demographic details except for their gender. Also, for anonymity, all instructor-

participants chose their own pseudonyms (presented in Table 3.1) and signed consent forms (IRB 

deemed this study exempt). I broadly filled the participants in on the study’s focus. Having 

chosen these three venues, as different as they might have seemed, was a strategic move. Tracy 

(2010) defines transferability in qualitative research as the study’s power to create reliability for 

its readers. I wanted to make sure that different settings are represented in my data sources, 

which could allow for a broader transferability of findings and possibly assist in creating 

interdisciplinary links.  

For each instructor-participant, I will provide more relevant information in Chapter 4 as a 

part of presenting the findings. For instance, I will describe their teaching background and any 

previous experiences working with international students.  

Student-participants  

As mentioned before, I recruited six student-participants in three distinct programs at 

GLU. Again, drawing on Stake (1995, p. 4), I selected student-participants who were willing to 

partake in this research and from whom I believed I could learn the most, as my goal was to 

understand, discover and gain insights into participants’ experiences. The following description 

depicts the pseudonyms of the programs as well as those of the participants (presented in Table 

3.2). These pseudonyms were chosen by the participants and are unique to this dissertation. 

 
 

 

74 

Table 3.2.  
The list of student-participants, their gender, classes they attended and these classes areas of 
focus. 

No.  Pseudonym 
1.  Aurora 

Gender  Class 
Female  RESL A 

2. 

Billy 

Male 

ACL 

3. 

Jackson 

Male 

CWC 

4.  Amy 

Female  CWC 

5.  Nick 

Male 

BC 

6. 

Eve 

Male 

BC 

Focus* 
Improving academic reading skills in English 
as a Second Language; 
 
Learning the language through discovering 
American culture; 
 
Developing academic writing skills through 
cross-cultural boundaries; 
 
Developing academic writing skills through 
cross-cultural boundaries; 
 
Learning about business management, ethics of 
doing business, supply chain, negotiation 
skills, etc.; 
 
Learning about business management, ethics of 
doing business, supply chain, negotiation 
skills, etc.; 

Note: Focus * is based on a summary of the class syllabi and conversations with the instructor-
participants.  
 

In terms of participant selection, I worked with those students who were willing to 

participate in my research project. Upon receiving IRB approval and after I established a good 

rapport with the instructor-participants through my classroom observations, and with their 

permission, I sent out an email invitation to participate to those students in their classes that 

instructor-participants indicated came from China (i.e., mainland China or Taiwan). From each 

class one or two Chinese undergraduate students emailed back, agreeing to give me an interview 

(Table 3.2). I interviewed all students who responded to my invitation (nine of them) but later on 

excluded data from those who were from Taiwan (that is those who did not identify as Chinese) 

and those who did not hold an undergraduate student status at GLU at the time, which left me 

with six student-participants. In other words, for student-participants the class they were taking 

 

75 

determined whether I reached out to them or not. To protect their identities, in this document, I 

do not provide identifying information such as their real names, age, actual name of the class or 

any other demographic details except for their gender. Also, for anonymity, all student-

participants chose their own pseudonyms (presented in Table 3.2) and just like the instructor-

participants signed the consent forms.  

The student-participants formed one collective case study (findings presented in Chapter 

5). Similarly to the instructor-participants, I was trying to make sure student-participants also 

knew what I was offering them in return for their shared stories. Apart from remuneration 

(thanks to my program’s research support) for each student who devoted their time and energy to 

talk to me, I offered help with English for their final papers as well as advice on thriving in the 

U.S. university system, if they desired any. A few of them took me up on that offer at the end of 

the Fall semester. Lastly, I conducted a transcript check for data accuracy with each Chinese 

student as well. 

For each participant, I will provide more relevant information in Chapter 5, as a part of 

presenting the findings. For instance, I will summarize their educational trajectories as well as 

their motivations behind coming to GLU and taking a particular course.  

Data Sources 

Given the fact that case studies require multiple sources of qualitative data, I followed 

this requirement and utilized multiple data sources in this project. Patton (1990), amongst others, 

states that using multiple data sources enhances the credibility of the study. I adhered to 

suggestions in Merriam (1998) and Stake (1995) by focusing on: (1) interviews, (2) observations, 

(3) participant observations, and (4) artifacts, as a whole for the multiple case study. However, 

for each collective case study, I only used those data sources that were contributing to my 

 

76 

findings and were feasible to collect (represented visually in Figures 3.3 and 3.4). Jointly, all 

data sources allowed me to grasp a broader and more holistic picture of what the data were 

displaying. Even though interviews served as my main data collection source in both collective 

case studies, each data source (that is interviews, observations, artifacts and additional data 

sources) was treated as one piece of the “puzzle”, contributing to my understanding of the cases. 

Patton (1990, p. 10) elaborates that data from all sources must be converged in the process of 

data analysis, not handled separately on the abovementioned data sources as such: 

1.  “direct quotations from people about their experiences, opinions, feelings, and 

knowledge” – obtained through interviews; 

2.  “detailed descriptions of people’s activities, behaviors, actions” – obtained through 

observations; 

3.  “excerpts, quotes, passages” – from diverse types of documents. 

In addition to the three above, I also saw the need to include “multiple roles” for myself during 

the process of data collection. In some cases, I was observing classes silently, while in others the 

instructor-participant would invite me to participate or even lead a class discussion. At last, I 

ceased collecting data, following a suggestion from Merriam (1998), once I had exhausted all 

data sources, my categories had reached saturation and regularities had been frequently 

emerging.  

Instructor-participants Collective Case Study 

In terms of data sources, the interviews served as a primary data source in the instructor-

participants collective case study (Figure 3.3). Also, I utilized observations (including participant 

observations) and artifacts as secondary data sources. My field notes journal, researcher’s journal 

 

77 

and email correspondence with the participants (Figure 3.3) comprised additional data sources in 

this collective case study.  

Figure 3.3. Data collection procedures for instructor-participants collective case study. Primary 
data sources are depicted in bold. 

 

 

Student-participants Collective Case Study 

In terms of data sources, the interviews also served as a primary data source in the 

student-participants collective case study (Figure 3.4). Furthermore, I utilized observations as 

secondary data sources. Finally, a field notes journal, researcher’s journal and email 

 

78 

1st semi-structured interviews with instructor-participants (Spring)Observations (including participant observations)(Spring, Summer, & Fall) Artifacts (Spring, Summer & Fall)2nd semi-structured interviews with instructor-participants(Summer & Fall)                       Field notes journals Researcher's journalEmail correspon-dence correspondence with the participants (Figure 3.4) created additional data sources in this 

collective case study.  

 

Figure 3.4. Data collection procedures for student-participants collective case study. Primary 
data sources are depicted in bold. 

 

 

79 

Semi-structured interviews with student-participants (Spring, Summer, Fall)Observations(Spring, Summer, & Fall)  Field notes journals Researcher's journalEmail correspon-dence Semi-structured Interviews 

I interviewed participants in both collective case studies throughout Spring, Summer, and 

Fall semesters. Stake (1995) urges to make trying out (i.e., piloting) interview questions routine 

(p. 65), which I did in the initial phases of the project. My main focus was on the experiences of 

the four instructor-participants and those of their six student-participants in the respective 

classes. I was working under the assumption that the interviews would be retrospective 

recollections.  

My interviews were semi-structured and informal (Merriam, 1998), which allowed me to 

respond to the situation at hand as well as new emerging ideas on the topic. Thus, I developed 

two lists of questions, based on Liu and Fang (2017), Sercu (2006), Uzum (2013), and 

Yazdanpanah (2017), for student-participants (Appendix A) and instructor-participants 

(Appendix B) in advance. Also, semi-structured interviews tend to be flexible and allow for a 

better understanding of participants’ perspectives (Baskarada, 2014). I was able to refocus the 

questions and prompt my interlocutors when novel information appeared. Also, I stayed aware to 

use probes like How? instead of Yes/No questions. I explained to each participant how the data 

would be used (i.e., written up in this document).  

I aimed at evoking a comprehensive account of the participants’ experiences. In some 

cases, I followed the questions, while in others, I varied and altered them, depending on the 

particular participant’s story. Parallel to Stake (1995), I expected participants to have had unique 

experiences that would help me to portray the multiple realities I try to reveal through 

conducting a qualitative case study.  

Semi-structured interviews in the instructor-participants collective case study. I 

audio-recorded each interview with the instructor-participants, which lasted between 45 and 60 

 

80 

minutes. I conducted each interview in a given instructor-participant’s office, to guarantee the 

privacy of interviewing and to ensure that the interviewees felt comfortable sharing their 

thoughts. I interviewed each instructor-participant twice throughout the span of this project.  

Semi-structured interviews in the student-participants collective case study. I audio-

recorded each interview with the student-participants, which lasted around 60 minutes. I 

conducted each interview in an empty classroom on campus to also guarantee the privacy of 

interviewing and to ensure that the interviewees felt comfortable sharing their thoughts. I 

interviewed each Chinese student only once. What also proved to be a smart strategy was using 

Chinese for parts of the interviews that were harder to explain to or comprehend by some 

students. From instructor-participants’ introductions of me to their students during classroom 

observations, I presume the student-participants most likely perceived me as an expert on China, 

as they would frequently call me zhongguo tong (in Chinese, literally, a foreign expert on China). 

Observations and Artifacts 

 

Because in this project I focus on the reports of participants’ experiences, I consider 

observations and artifacts (Friedman, 2012) secondary data sources. Observations are also often 

conducted to triangulate emerging findings, especially in conjunction with interviewing and 

document analysis (Stake, 1995). In terms of artifacts, Saldaña (2016) states that artifacts are 

“social products” and therefore need to be examined critically as they depict the ideologies, 

values and interests of their authors and embody who they are (p. 61). Documents are not to be 

used in isolation. I used observations as a secondary data source in both collective case studies, 

while artifacts only in the instructor-participants collective case study.  

Observations in the instructor-participants collective case study. I observed 

instructor-participants and their classes (with the student-participants in attendance) on multiple 

 

81 

occasions throughout the academic year, each class at least six times. Altogether, there were 

eight different course sections that instructors who agreed to participate in my study taught. They 

all took place at various times and locations on GLU campus. Each time, I had access to the 

PowerPoint through the university’s platform, Learning Management System (LMS), and 

handouts were provided to me in a hardcopy format as well. I usually sat at the back of each 

classroom and took notes in my filed notes journals (more in the further section of this chapter). 

Participant observations. In most instances, I sat at the back of the classroom and did not 

partake in any classroom activities. However, there were times when an instructor-participant 

would ask me questions (especially with regard to my experiences of teaching in China) or even 

ask me to participate in an activity or a discussion. Stake (1995) explains participant observation 

as an act of ethnographic observation while taking an active role in the group that is being 

explored (p. 44). This form of observation provided me with a wide lens for further 

interpretations. Interestingly, Patton (1990, p. 207) points out that the challenge lies in 

combining participation with observation. This, in turn, created for me a capability to understand 

the field site as an insider (emic perspective), while describing it as an outsider (etic perspective). 

My involvement in some of the observed sessions was always an idea put forward by the 

instructor-participant. Some instances where I was asked to participate were scheduled ahead of 

time, while others occurred spontaneously during the actual observation. I was a participant 

observer in two out of three sites, that is the college writing and the ESL context, but not in the 

business management context. All student-participants happened to be present during those 

instances of me actively participating in the observations.  

Artifacts in the instructor-participants collective case study. All four instructor-

participants granted me access to their course materials on the LMS. I was able to find their 

 

82 

syllabi, most handouts, major assignments and other course details on the site. From the course 

syllabi, I obtained the initial picture of a given course context. The instructor-participants 

delineated their course objectives, requirements, assignments, grading scale and weekly schedule 

on their syllabi. This also helped me to identify those classes that would potentially focus on 

tests or revisions for tests, so I could exclude them from my planned observations.  

Observations in the student-participants collective case study. I observed student-

participants in their respective classes on multiple occasions throughout the academic year, each 

class at least six times. During each of my observations, all student-participants were present in 

class. The classes took place at various times and locations on GLU campus. I usually sat at the 

back of each classroom and took notes in my field notes journals (more in the further section of 

this chapter). However, in case of the business management (BC) class I had opportunities to sit 

at the same desk with the student-participants as the format of the class required team seating set-

up. This allowed me to follow the students’ words and actions in person and in close-up. In those 

instances, what I recorded in my field notes journals pertains mostly to the Chinese 

undergraduate student who agreed to participate in this project.  

Additional Data Sources  

 

The four data sources delineated above created a comprehensive base for my multiple 

case study (Baskarada, 2014), which allowed me to develop an audit trail from data collection 

through data analysis to final interpretations and conclusions. In addition to those four data 

sources, I also used (1) field notes journals, (2) researcher’s journal, and (3) email 

correspondence in both collective case studies. 

Field notes journals. During the observations and participant observations, I took 

thorough notes in my field notes journals (a separate one for each class) using the traditional pen-

 

83 

and-paper method. In Figure 3.5 below, I present a collage of assorted examples from my field 

notes journals.  

 

Figure 3.5. A collage of examples from the field notes journals. 

 
Following Stake’s (1995) suggestion, the field notes included a class seating plan, activity 

sequencing, the gist of the instructor-participants’ PowerPoint slideshows, direct quotes, and 

early comments on what I saw (e.g., interesting classroom interactions, situations, teamwork, 

instructor-participants’ wording, visual materials). Also, during each interview, I immediately 

took note of any striking issues in my field notes journals. After the data collection process had 

ended, I scanned the field notes and uploaded them to MAXQDA 2018 (a qualitative data 

analysis software) to store alongside other data sources for further analysis.  

Researcher’s journal. To organize the various aspects of data collection and data 

analysis processes, I kept a researcher’s journal. In that journal, I jotted down researcher memos, 

latest ideas that arose from looking at the data, any pressing questions, and thoughts. I made sure 

to record information on a weekly basis (as a form of a summary of each week’s research 

activities), such as the end-of-the-week reflections on the research progress or any ongoing 

 

84 

findings and their preliminary interpretations. I recorded any unplanned communication with 

participants, too. I paid attention to the seemingly trivial details of the research process, which 

facilitated a more accurate and complete description in the following reporting stage. 

Furthermore, the reflective journal helped me to capture my interpretations and thoughts right 

after significant episodes took place or were described to me. This, consequently, facilitated the 

organization of the whole data collection in tandem with analysis procedures for the multiple 

case study. All in all, many of my initial reflections, supported by multiple data sources, 

developed into more systematic interpretations in due course.  

Email correspondence. I asked all participants (both instructors and students), through 

the consent forms that they signed at the beginning of the study, to stay in contact with me 

through email correspondence. From my first introductory email to the participants through our 

last communication event, I kept track of all email correspondence and subsequently added it to 

MAXQDA 2018 (a qualitative data analysis software) as an additional data source. These 

records served as clarifications on certain topics discussed during interviews but perhaps in need 

of elaboration. 

Trustworthiness 

To establish trustworthiness of the findings, I assessed the data quality by checking their 

credibility. In order to ensure the accuracy of the transcribed interview data, I asked a colleague 

to confirm it by listening to the recordings while simultaneously reading my transcripts. After I 

had written a draft of this multiple case study, I asked all participants to examine the transcripts 

for “accuracy and palatability” (Stake, 1995, p. 115), i.e., conducted transcript check. In 

instances of direct quotations, I stressed that the participants were to check whether the language 

they used was in line with what they meant to say. Through the transcript check, I encouraged 

 

85 

them to provide honest feedback but also made it clear that their involvement in reviewing the 

draft was voluntary. All of the participants acknowledged having received the transcripts, but 

none asked for changes.  

Last but not least, I also conducted triangulation of data sources (Stake, 1995), as a 

method of establishing data credibility. Stake (2006) explains the purpose of triangulation is “to 

assure that we have the picture as clear and suitably meaningful as we can get it, relatively free 

of our own biases, and not likely to mislead the reader greatly” (p. 77). For me, it was important 

to triangulate data sources also to see whether the new views would be consistent with what I 

had already known about the cases. In a few instances, what I found did not agree with my prior 

knowledge of a given issue, but “mature is the researcher who rejoices in finding a big mistake” 

(Stake, 2006, p. 77). On a few occasions, a situation would occur in class during my classroom 

observations that seemed interesting to explore further. That might have been something an 

instructor-participant would say, or a student-participant would ask. I, then, made sure to ask 

them about the specific situation during our interview. This helped me to confirm my initial 

interpretations of the given situation and allowed the student or instructor-participant to elaborate 

on, explain or clarify the situation. What is more, in line with Merriam (1998), to avoid 

prejudgments, I incorporated anything I learned from data analysis back into the data sources 

inventory in MAXQDA 2018, alongside transcript checks, long-term observations, participatory 

research (in a form of participant observations) and disclosure of researcher bias (in discussing 

subjectivity in researcher positionality), which collectively solidified the credibility of my 

findings.  

 

 

 

86 

Data Analysis 

On the whole, I collected over 17 hours of audio-recorded interviews, multiple artifacts, 

such as syllabi, handouts, and PowerPoint presentations, constructed field notes with extensive 

observation notes and a researcher journal in this multiple case study. I performed all interview 

transcriptions myself in MAXQDA 2018 (a qualitative data analysis software) in their verbatim 

forms, that is in exactly the same words the participants used originally. I did include pauses and 

fillers such as uhms, ahhh, etc. I depict an example of a conclusive version of exemplary 

transcripts from both collective case studies below, in Figure 3.6. They represent interviews with 

Stan (who was teaching the ESL RESL A class) and with Aurora (who took the RESL A class). 

They also show my initial codes, as I conducted first cycle of coding simultaneously with 

transcribing the interviews.  

To notice recurring issues within each collective case, I looked at the data as a whole 

rather than analyzing them line by line. I divided the texts into broader descriptive codes. For 

instance, as visible in Figure 3.6, I created a new code for Stan’s transcript, which I named “T’s 

views on China” (which stands for teacher’s views on China), and subsequently linked a chunk 

of text that explained particular instructor-participant’s views on China with the code. Same goes 

for Aurora’s transcript, where I created a new code “student’s future study plans.” Then, 

MAXQDA 2018 automatically added each code into the inventory of my initial codes. Then, I 

reread each corpus a few more times to obtain the view of its bigger picture.  

 

87 

 

Figure 3.6. An example of transcripts from both collective case studies.  

I stored other data sources in MAXQDA 2018 in separate catalogs but as one project, 

which allowed me to take a holistic view of all information provided by the participants. Both 

Merriam (1998) and Stake (1995), established voices when it comes to case studies, suggest 

conducting data analysis simultaneously with collecting data. Stakian fundamentals of data 

analysis are depicted in Figure 3.7.  

 

 

88 

   

Figure 3.7. Stages of data analysis in case study research, according to Stake (1995, p. 53). 

 

For both collective case studies, I followed Stake’s order of doing analysis as I worked on 

classifying and filing all the data. First, I pre-coded the data in MAXQDA 2018 by highlighting, 

bolding, annotating, underlining, and color-coding significant and rich quotes that struck me 

from the data sources for each collective case study. For the instructor-participants case study, I 

utilized the transcripts from the semi-structured interviews, notes from the observations 

(classroom and participatory), and the submitted documents (artifacts). In Figure 3.8 below, I 

present an example of data analysis of an artifact, which is a syllabus from Andrew’s college 

writing class. For the student-participants case study, I made use of the transcripts from the semi-

structured interviews and notes from the classroom observations.  

 

89 

Figure 3.8. An example of data analysis of an artifact: one of the syllabi provided by the 
instructor-participants. 

 

 
First Cycle Coding – Holistic Coding  

I implemented one coding method in the first cycle of coding, namely holistic coding 

(Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2020; Saldaña, 2016) for both collective case studies. According 

to Saldaña (2016), one should take research questions, the scope of the study, and what we 

already know about the topic into account when choosing the most appropriate type of coding. 

Thus, because I wanted to apply a single code to a large unit of data in the corpus rather than 

perform detailed coding, I found holistic coding (Saldaña, 2016) the best fit for my data analysis. 

I also had a general idea, based on my review of the existing literature pertaining to the topics 

under scrutiny, of what to investigate in the data. By coding holistically, I was able to construct a 

list of 24 major codes for instructor-participants and 25 major codes for student-participants. 

 

90 

Table 3.3 portrays a list of codes for instructor-participants collective case study, while Table 3.4 

shows the codes for student-participants. Both tables include names of codes, their definitions 

and an example of each code.  

Table 3.3.  
Codes from the first cycle of coding for instructor-participants with definitions and examples. 

Code 

Definition of the code 

Example of the code 

No. 
1. 

motivation to study 
in the U.S. 

Instructor-participant 
describes what he thinks 
motivated his students to 
further their studies in the 
U.S. 

I’ve talked to a few of our Chinese 
students, so I know some of their 
reasons, but I don’t really have a 
complete perspective. But… some of the 
people I’ve talked to, and these are 
usually among the better students, 
they’re just culturally interested, and 
they’d rather be overseas. Some of them, 
they failed to get placed in a decent 
Chinese university and this was better for 
them than suffering the humiliation of 
going to a lower rank university in China 
or nowhere […]. (Stan, Interview 1) 
 
Stan talked about Taiwan in class today. 
He said: “Taiwan, here. I’m not going to 
go into political details here.” He 
skillfully managed to avoid getting 
himself into trouble by showing them a 
map. (Stan, Field notes journal) 
 
[…] it just depends what we're focusing 
on and also how much you can focus on 
at any one time. So, it is strategically just 
trying to choose your moment, but I 
certainly don't go in a situation where I 
try to correct all of their errors, usually 
I'll try and categorize or focus on key 
ones and we’ll talk around that. 
(Andrew, Interview 1) 
 
I have a few observations. One is I think 
is we should expect they tend to 
associate socially together, like groups 
do. (Peter, Interview 1) 
 

Han reporting on handling misbehaving 
Chinese undergraduate students in his 
class. “They chose to stay. I was, it was a 
problem, I was reaching out for help and 

2. 

‘culture’ talk 

3. 

teaching methods 

Instructor-participant 
mentions dealing with 
cultural differences, talks 
about culture in class. 

Instructor-participant 
describes the methods he 
uses to teach the course, 
how he utilizes students’ 
prior knowledge and how 
he motivates them to 
participate. 

4. 

5. 

beliefs about 
Chinese 
undergraduate 
students 

experiences 
teaching Chinese 
undergraduate 
students 

Instructor-participant shares 
his views and 
generalizations on China 
and Chinese undergraduate 
students.  
 
Instructor-participant shares 
his experiences teaching 
Chinese undergraduate 
students. 

 

91 

Code 

Definition of the code 

Example of the code 

 

the advice to me was: Be serious with 
them in class, in front of everybody. The 
advice I received was: Cause it is that 
bad and I had observers come to my 
class too. […]” (Han, Interview 1) 
 
I mean, you know, in terms of education, 
I mean, there are different approaches 
that I take at different time, so I don't 
know if I assume any one role all the 
time. I mean, certainly, if you look at the 
educational literature you could say it’s 
student-centered, you know, facilitator 
when the students make mistakes or as 
you want to see the logic to those 
mistakes or the idea of error analysis. So, 
it's really trying to take a more 
descriptive approach, trying to 
understand logic but also cultural logics 
and understand the students. […] 
(Andrew, Interview 1) 
 
Positive integration with others from 
wherever, you know. I would like to see 
more and more that people when they're 
in their formative years like this start to 
let go of some of the baggage that they 
probably we all bring with us from our 
parents or grandparents or whatever, you 
know, and just see that it's just US. And 
we're different. Yeah, but that's Ok. [...] 
(Peter, Interview 2) 
 
“I rewrote this text for you, so it’s more 
digestible to a non-native speaker’s ear.” 
(Stan, Field notes journal) 
 
I guess every student, every class 
somehow changes my thoughts and my 
thinking. I try to figure out how to 
answer that question because thoughts 
about international students, I'm not sure 
I… they’re students and they're also 
international. I don't know if I see them 
as international students. They’re just 
students […] (Andrew, Interview 2) 
 

Table 3.3. (cont’d) 

No. 

 

 

6. 

instructor’s 
strengths and role  

Instructor-participant 
reveals his strengths as an 
instructor and how he sees 
his role in a classroom.  

7. 

success measure  

Instructor-participant 
explains how he sees class 
progress as successful.  

8. 

course materials 

9. 

approaches to 
working with 
international 
students 

Instructor-participant shares 
how he prepares teaching 
resources.  

Instructor-participant 
explains how he 
differentiates (or does not) 
instruction and teaching 
approaches for international 
students. 

 

 

92 

Code 

Definition of the code 

Example of the code 

teaching 
frustrations and 
failures  

Instructor-participant 
mentions challenges 
teaching international 
students. 

Let me think. I just had a student this 
week that I did a zoom meeting with 
yesterday. An Asian student that felt, I 
don’t know what the right word is. She 
was concerned, a little bit anxious about 
disrupting her team with some areas that 
she thought the team could perform 
better so… Any team you take in here, 
you’ve got everything from soup to nuts 
and it's never just this perfect, you know, 
that are all just very exactly the same. 
So, she was a little frustrated with one of 
her team members and she didn't know 
because it's 2nd language […]. (Peter, 
Interview 2) 
 
Through such study, we will learn to 
resee, rethink, and revise our own 
language practices and world views. 
 (Andrew, Fall Syllabus) 
 
Just an American professor. (Peter, 
Interview 2) 
 
 

That’s a good question. I know for sure 
one of them is because they came up to 
me and told me, which is why I’ve 
actually chosen some of the topics based 
on what they’re interested in, which will 
be Education. So, I’m trying to work 
in… if students come to me, which one 
of them have, I want to work on things I 
know would help them, you know? If 
they’re taking initiative. […] (Han, 
Interview 1) 
 
I’m sure it [discrimination] exists but I 
tell you something it's the young people 
today in the U.S. are very different from 
young people 10 years ago or 20 years 
ago or 30 years ago. The acceptance and 
the assumption that diversity is good, 
fine and lovely is prevalent and so I don't 
think the majority are white nationalists 
or whatever. I think the majority accept. 
(Peter, Interview 1) 
 

Table 3.3. (cont’d) 

No. 
10. 

11. 

instructor’s IC 

12. 

instructor’s self-
identification 

13. 

communication 
with Chinese 
undergraduate 
students 

Instructor-participant’s 
understanding of 
interculturality and views 
on World Englishes.  
 
Instructor-participant 
reveals how he classifies 
himself in terms of his 
identity.  
 
Instructor-participant 
describes any 
communication or 
interaction instances 
between him and Chinese 
undergraduate students in 
his class.  

14. 

attitudes towards 
the Chinese 

Instructor-participant shares 
his and others’ (observed) 
attitudes towards the 
Chinese, including 
instances of presumed 
discrimination.  

 

93 

Code 

Definition of the code 

Example of the code 

class management  

Instructor-participant 
describes how he manages 
the class and how logistics 
are handled. 

Well. I guess maybe that's just a 
personality thing you know. I've been in 
a lot of classes where an activity will 
start and it will go for 7 or 8 minutes 
until the teacher finally realizes that they 
didn't really understand what I wanted 
them to do and then they have to stop it, 
they have to restart with the better 
understanding of what the teacher 
wanted and that's 7 or 8 minutes wasted. 
I would rather just take the 2 minutes up 
front and make sure everybody knows. 
(Stan, Interview 2) 
 
I mean it was kind of intertwined. I didn't 
have a plagiarism problem because I 
actually, might have told you this, I 
talked with one of the supervisors 
beforehand about plagiarism problems 
they had had so I didn't have them 
pulling anything from articles. […] (Han, 
Interview 2) 
 
No, I usually don't although in some 
cases I suppose I should. I probably don't 
grade if it's not a pedagogical question 
entirely, it's a little bit of a practical one, 
in terms of it's more work for me. I guess 
it would depend which little piece, like 
for instance, the reading I give on 
comics, in some sense, I think a lot of the 
Chinese international students struggle a 
lot with the reading itself even though it's 
comic, in terms of the language. And it 
works better when I give them, I 
suppose, worksheets with specific 
questions and I come and grade it. […] 
(Andrew, Interview 2) 
 
That’s so sad, but I mean they're great 
students so I'm not judging them for the 
gaokao score. I wish I could just keep 
them forever. (Han, Interview 2) 
 

Table 3.3. (cont’d) 

No. 
15. 

16. 

plagiarism 

Instructor-participant 
reports instances of 
presumed plagiarism in his 
class.  

17. 

approaches to 
teaching the subject 

Instructor-participant 
describes a specific 
approach he takes to 
instructing his subject.  

18. 

enjoyment teaching 
the course 

Instructor-participant 
explains if he enjoys 
teaching the course (or not).  

 

 

 

94 

Code 

Definition of the code 

Example of the code 

group settings  

Instructor-participant 
describes how he arranges 
group work and why.  

Yeah, it’s visible in the classes because 
of where they'll sit, right? And I tend to 
try to integrate, I do a lot of work with 
teams and the teams usually have 5 or 6 
whatever, it is you know 4 to 6 members 
usually. And I will not allow self-
selected groups. I drive that. I want the 
boys and the girls, I want the different 
ethnicities and I try to have that at least 
2, you know, never just one woman or 
one man, never just one, you know, 
foreign student […] (Peter, Interview 1) 
 
For sure, because, and one of the things 
I’ve learned in the TESOL program here 
is that, you know, incidental learning and 
incidental teaching, and teaching based 
on the students’ needs is usually better 
and they respond to that better than just 
chugging through a textbook, so that’s 
why I try to, you know, make my own 
materials as much as possible. And of 
course, I do use the textbook, we’re 
required to, but I also supplement it. 
(Han, Interview 1) 
 
I’m surprised Stan knows all of their 
names, in Chinese already. (Stan, Field 
notes journal) 
 
You know, what I wouldn’t like to do is 
what I’ve seen offered in other places, 
which is where somebody else who’s got 
exactly as much knowledge as me stands 
up and gives a workshop about how to 
handle Chinese students but doesn’t 
really know anything more about it than 
I do. But if I felt like somebody like you 
was in charge, having lived in China for 
so long, having studied cultural factors in 
their instruction, now that I think people 
would pay attention to. (Stan, Interview 
1) 
 

Table 3.3. (cont’d) 

No. 
19. 

20. 

approaching the 
curriculum  

Instructor-participant shares 
how he writes, uses, adapts 
the syllabi and the 
curriculum.  

21. 

knowing  students’ 
names  

Instructor-participant 
explains if he knows 
students (Chinese) names.  

22. 

instructor training  

Instructor-participant 
reports on any training 
opportunities he might have 
had.  

 

 

 

95 

Table 3.3. (cont’d) 

No. 
23. 

Code 

instructor’s 
languages  

Definition of the code 
Instructor-participant lists 
all languages he has 
studied.  

24. 

teaching beginnings   Instructor-participant 

describes his first years of 
being an instructor and why 
he decided to teach. 

Example of the code 

Too far back. [gives a few numbers and 
basic expressions in French and 
German]. So that deep into a few 
languages so that when I travelled, I will 
admit that I found over time, it was more 
effective to just communicate in English. 
[…] (Peter, Interview 1) 
 
I liked languages always, but my original 
major was computer science. So, my 
high school advisor kind of pushed me 
towards X language, as a language, 
because of companies like Samsung, LG 
being popular in the US. She was like 
that might give you a foot-in, and it’s 
different from Spanish. You know? So, 
that was kind of the argument and I 
already was interested so…taking that 
advice, I enrolled my first semester here, 
X language, which was my first class and 
then…it went from there. (Han, 
Interview 1) 

 

There were also instances were participants’ words would fall under multiple codes, 

given the fact that I coded larger chunks of text (holistic coding); therefore, in a few cases 

(specifically 12) I applied multiple codes to the same data section. 

Table 3.4. 
Codes from the first cycle of coding for student-participants with definitions and examples. 

Code 
new cultures 

No. 
1. 
 
 

Definition of the code 

Student-participant 
describes something new in 
relation to being in the U.S. 

2. 
 

comparisons of China 
and the U.S. 
 

Student-participant 
compares China and the 
United States. 

 

 

 

 

96 

Example of the code 

In China doctors will give you the same 
thing for many diseases, in here not like 
that. Doctors will give you different 
diagnosis. (Jackson, Interview) 
 
I want to know how to study in English. I 
want to improve my study skills like, I 
know how to study English and I know 
the Chinese education system and I know 
how to learn but I change the system and 
the teacher teach in different ways. 
(Aurora, Interview) 
 
 

Code 

Definition of the code 

Example of the code 

challenges in the U.S.  Student-participant 

describes challenging 
situations since he/she 
moved to the U.S. 

No, because when got in the GLU, the 
1st year I’m not comfortable to do 
something. Because when I am a 
stranger in the new environment, it's 
make me nervous. And I’m nervous to 
talk with other people and communicate. 
(Nick, Interview) 
 
I was in Rhode Island in high school. 
(Amy, Interview) 
 
 
 

My major is classical vocal. (Billy, Field 
notes journal) 
 
 
 
Ah, I only learn two language, one is 
Chinese is my first and mother language 
and my other is English. (Aurora, 
Interview)  
 
83, I believe. (Nick, Interview) 
 
 
 
 
So, you’re thinking in Chinese when you 
speak English? 
Aurora: Yeah. 
K: So, you’re translating? 
Aurora: Yeah.  
K: In your head before you speak? 
Aurora: Yeah and I know lots of words, 
but I can’t think, come up with that very 
quick in a second. (Aurora, Interview) 
 
I plan to apply for my master’s degree to 
the grad school. (Eve, Interview) 
 
 
 
I think it’s convenient here, but it 
depends. It's convenient here because 
there is not so many traffic. But in China, 
there’s so many traffic and so many cars, 
so the bus driver cannot care about every  

Table 3.4. (cont’d) 

No. 
3. 

4. 

preparation for study 
abroad 

5.  major + year at GLU 

Student-participant 
elaborates on any language 
courses or other preparation 
efforts taken prior to study 
abroad.  
 
Student-participant 
discloses their major and 
year of study at GLU.  

6. 

student’s languages  

Student-participant lists 
languages studied.  

7. 

English proficiency  

8. 

learning English  

Student-participant reports 
his/her TOEFL score or 
self-assessed level of 
proficiency in English. 
 
Student-participant shares 
his/her experiences with 
learning English.  

9. 

student’s future plans   Student-participant reveals 
what they want to do in the 
future, that is after their 
studies at GLU.  

10. 

daily life in the U.S. 

Student-participant reports 
on daily life experiences in 
the United States.  

 

97 

Table 3.4. (cont’d) 

No. 

 

 

11. 

living situation 

12. 

kindness  

Student-participant shares 
their living arrangements in 
the U.S. 
 
Student-participant explains 
instances of when someone 
was kind to him/her in the 
U.S. 

13. 

description of 
teaching methods 

14. 

grouping  

Student-participant 
describes the techniques a 
given instructor uses when 
teaching.  
 
Student-participant explains 
how they are grouped in 
class for teamwork.  

15. 

opinion about other 
Chinese students in 
the U.S. 

Student-participant reveals 
what they think about their 
country mates.  

16. 

self-assessment of 
student’s experiences 
in the U.S.  
 

Student-participant assesses 
his or her experiences in the 
U.S. thus far.  
 

98 

 

 

Code 

Definition of the code 

Example of the code 

 

person's feeling. They should follow the 
rules from the company to stop for each 
station, but in here it's not more traffic 
and not more car so it’s convenient to 
pull the line [string] to let the bus driver 
know what time to stop and which 
station to stop. (Nick, Interview) 
 
In dorm […] but everyone is gone. It’s 
just us. (Billy, Interview) 
 

And professor is also like when I have 
some questions asked him, he will 
answer specifically and accurate. I have 
talked with him when the end of the 1st 
class and I said to him: I’m too nervous 
to talk with other people and He told me, 
like: Just go, when you make team, and 
just tell your teammates what’s your 
problem and what’s your idea. And he is 
also very smart. He said: he very care 
about my feelings and so he make the 
other Chinese boy with me in the one 
team. (Nick, Interview) 
 
Yeah, but most teachers like lecture, and 
lecture and it is boring. It is boring. 
(Jackson, Interview) 
 
 
3 American girls. Two American girls 
and one American boy. They are very 
very awesome and they help me do, like 
give me some ideas and for presentation 
and for the slides. (Nick, Interview) 
 
Yeah, some my China friends want to 
still live after they graduate, they will 
still live in the US. 
K: Oh, they want to stay here? 
Aurora: Yeah, they want to stay here. 
They want to change some personality. 
(Aurora, Interview) 
 
I think I don't have that kind of problem 
communication problems. (Amy, 
Interview) 
 

Table 3.4. (cont’d) 

Code 

Definition of the code 

Example of the code 

No. 
17. 

feeling respected  

18. 

accommodating 
different students  

Student-participant admits 
whether they feel respected 
at GLU or not. 

Student-participant shares 
their thoughts on whether 
instructors should provide 
special treatment for 
students from other 
countries.  

19. 

friendships in the 
U.S. 

Student-participant talks 
about making friends in the 
U.S.  

20. 

interacting with the 
instructor  

Student-participant shares 
how much interaction he or 
she might have with an 
instructor.  

21. 

classroom 
discussions 

Student-participant 
comments on discussions in 
class.  

22. 

student’s perceived 
role in a class 

23. 

hopes and 
expectations at GLU 

Student-participant explains 
how they see their role in a 
class.  
 
Student-participant shares 
his/her hopes at GLU and 
what they expect from  

 

99 

Of course. (Nick, Interview) 
 
 
 
I think the teacher should to consider this 
because the language and different 
student come from different area, 
different countries high school so maybe 
their level or some knowledge they 
didn’t learn before and they don’t what 
the meaning in this academic term. So, 
they need to explain them in simple way. 
(Aurora, Interview) 
 
Yeah, it's true, so I think here I mostly 
communicate with just Chinese students. 
Because I didn't get a lot of chance to 
know American friends. Cause I lived in 
the east campus and there are also a lot 
of Chinese students living here. (Amy, 
Interview) 
 
And professor is also like when I have 
some questions asked him, he will 
answer specifically and accurate. I have 
talked with him when the end of the 1st 
class and I said to him: I’m too nervous 
to talk with other people and He told me, 
like: Just go, when you make team, and 
just tell your teammates what’s your 
problem and what’s your idea. And he is 
also very smart. He said: he very care 
about my feelings and so he make the 
other Chinese boy with me in the one 
team. (Nick, Interview) 
 
Yes, yeah. We had an article about the 
Chinese negotiation. Yes, but I left China 
in at my at 18 years old, so I didn’t know 
much about the Chinese business. (Eve, 
Interview) 
 
Just a normal student, I think. Just like 
the others. (Billy, Interview) 
 

I hope for now, at first, I want to 
improve my English skill. (Aurora, 
Interview) 

Table 3.4. (cont’d) 

No. 

 

 

Code 

Definition of the code 

Example of the code 

 
 
Probably because there's a lot of, the 
facility here is kind of good than China 
and I think the environment here is also 
better, the study environment here is also 
good, you know? You have a lot of 
students play in a practice room but there 
is a few in Chinese practice room. (Billy, 
Interview) 
 
South, Shenzhen. (Jackson, Interview) 

24. 

student’s motivation 
to study in the U.S.  

 studying at GLU.  

Student-participant talks 
about what motivated them 
to come study in the United 
States.  

 

25. 

 
place of origin in 
China  

 
Student-participant states 
where they are from in 
China.  

 

In addition, I kept analytic memos for each code that I established through MAXQDA’s 

2018 function of creating new codes. I present an example of one in Figure 3.9 below. These 

memos were thoughts that summarized or detailed my reactions to the data I was concurrently 

analyzing. This allowed me to keep record of how the analysis took shape and assisted my 

conclusions. Merriam (1998, p. 165) also suggests keeping track of one’s musings, speculations, 

and hunches (my analytic memos) as they occur during analysis, since they might get interwoven 

with the raw data. This was different from my reflective journal which I kept as a hardcopy and 

used during data collection phase; while I used the analytic memos as a function in MAXQDA 

2018. 

Figure 3.9. An example of an analytic memo from my data stored in MAXQDA 2018. 

 

 

100 

Second Cycle Coding – Category Construction or Pattern Coding 

 

Merriam (1998) defines category construction as “capturing some recurring pattern that 

cuts across the preponderance of the data” (p. 179).  For me, this process was highly intuitive, 

systematic, and informed by the study’s purpose. In deriving categories, I paid particular 

attention to them being exhaustive and mutually exclusive, in both collective case studies.  

 

On the other hand, Saldaña (2016) calls this cycle of coding: pattern coding. It is a way of 

grouping similarities from the first coding cycle into a smaller number of categories, or themes 

(Miles et al., 2020). Therefore, I based this cycle on similarly coded data in each collective case 

study. It allowed me to organize the data in a clearer manner and also attribute them preliminary 

meanings. I used a pattern coding approach, which helped me to see how major themes may 

potentially develop from my categories. Finally, I gathered all themes that emerged from the 

abovementioned procedures in each collective case study. Based on these themes, I constructed 

the headings in the subsequent Findings chapters (Chapters 4 & 5) for the instructor-participants 

collective case study and student-participants collective case study, respectively. 

Theming appears to be a common strategy for the analysis of interviews, observations, 

and artifacts (Saldaña, 2016), therefore fitting a multiple case study (p. 200). In my analyses, I 

paid particular attention to how the themes were similar, different and to what bound them 

together. This process resulted in complete data charts for each collective case study (Tables 3.5 

and 3.6). Each table depicts the overarching theme for each collective case study, i.e., for the 

instructor-participants (Table 3.5) and student-participants (Table 3.6), respectively, and the 

main themes for each of the case studies. I also included codes from the first cycle of coding that 

were assigned underneath each theme. I included one binding theme for each collective case 

study that became clear to me after I analyzed all data, i.e., transformative internationalization 

 

101 

for the instructor-participants collective case study and kindness for the student-participants 

collective case study. These tables served as a well-organized document with appropriate 

categories and possible relationships within data corpus and I used it as a major stepping stone 

for writing my interpretations in Chapter 6 (Discussion).  

Table 3.5. 
Themes for the instructor-participants collective case study that emerged from the second cycle 
of coding and codes from the first cycle of coding that I assigned to each theme. 

Transformative Internationalization through Teaching Practices 

1. 

Perceptions of Chinese 
undergraduate students  

2.  Cultural mélange  

•  (Code #1) motivation to study in the U.S. 
•  (Codes #4 & #14) beliefs and attitudes 

towards Chinese undergraduate students 

•  (Code #18) enjoyment teaching the course 

 

•  (Code #2) ‘culture’ talk 
•  (Code #10) teaching frustrations and failures 
•  (Code #15) class management 
•  (Code # 19) group settings 
•  (Code #21) knowing students’ names 

 

3. 

Pedagogical approaches to Chinese 
undergraduate students  

•  (Code #3) teaching methods 
•  (Code #5) experiences teaching Chinese 

undergraduate students 

•  (Code #6) instructor’s strengths and role 
•  (Code #7) success measure 
•  (Code #9) approaches to working with 

international students 

•  (Code #13) communication with Chinese 

undergraduate students 
•  (Code #16) plagiarism 

 

•  (Code #11) instructor’s IC 
•  (Code #22) instructor training 
•  (Code #23) instructor’s languages 
•  (Code #24) teaching beginnings 

102 

4. 

Interculturality  

 
 
 
 
 

 

Table 3.6. 
Themes for the student-participants collective case study that emerged from the second cycle of 
coding and codes from the first cycle of coding that I assigned to each theme. 

Kindness 

1. 

Preparedness for and motivation to 
explore the new 

2. 

Language experiences  

3.  Beliefs and feelings about studying 

in the United States 

4. 

The social side of the new 

•  (Code #4) preparation for study abroad 
•  (Code #9) student’s future plans  
•  (Code #23) hopes and expectations at GLU 
•  (Code #24) student’s motivation to study in 

the U.S. 

 

•  (Code #3) challenges in the U.S. 
•  (Code #7) English proficiency  
•  (Code #8) learning English  

 

•  (Code #2) comparisons of China and the U.S. 
•  (Code #12) being kind  
•  (Code #13) description of teaching methods 
•  (Code #14) grouping 
•  (Code #16) self-assessment of student’s 

experiences in the U.S. 

•  (Code #17) feeling respected 
•  (Code #18) accommodating different students 
•  (Code #20) interacting with the instructor  
•  (Code #21) classroom discussions  
•  (Code #22) student’s perceived role in class 

 

•  (Code #1) new cultures 
•  (Code #3) challenges in the U.S. 
•  (Code #10) daily life in the U.S. 
•  (Code #11) living situation 
•  (Code #15) opinion about other Chinese 

students in the U.S. 

•  (Code #19) friendships in the U.S.  

 

In line with Stake (1995) and Figure 3.7 (depicted previously), after completing this 

round of coding, I re-examined each collective case study’s coded data for accuracy and sought 

any disconfirmation of the findings. In the end, I eliminated themes that did not match my 

research questions and this study’s scope and focused on those that did. 

 

 

103 

Particularization 

Finally, it is important to discuss how I approached generalization in this project. As 

mentioned before, the real purpose of a qualitative case study is particularization, not 

generalization. In fact, in Stake’s (1995, p. 85) words, “there is no or little interest in 

generalizing from one case to another.” On the basis of the respective data sources for each 

collective case study, I drew my own conclusions (assertions), which emphasized interpretations. 

Since I was to record as objectively as possible what was happening in front of me, I 

concurrently examined the meaning and redirected my observations or interview prompts to 

refine the observed meaning. Through doing so, I accentuated the uniqueness of the particular 

cases (the instructor and student-participants in their classes). Turning back to Stake (1995), case 

studies are well-suited for what he calls naturalistic generalizations, those that transform tacit 

knowledge into explicit knowledge and as a result provide readers with a vicarious experience 

within a given context (Tracy, 2010). I practiced those naturalistic generalizations in my 

interpretations of initial findings. In the end, I described the complex phenomena under study 

extensively, explicitly, and in depth. 

In sum, I chose the methods delineated in this chapter to match specifically the types of 

data collected and research questions asked. Multiple case study research is rather valuable when 

researching issues pertaining to more than one case study (Stake, 2006), in this case two 

collective case studies. Now that the context, participants, data sources and analysis methods, as 

well as researcher positionality have been outlined, the following two chapters (Chapter 4 and 5) 

detail the findings derived from researching the experiences of the instructor-participants and 

student-participants, respectively. Following is Chapter 6, in which I discuss those findings. The 

last chapter in this project, Chapter 7, lays out my conclusions from this study.  

 

104 

CHAPTER 4 

INSTRUCTOR-PARTICIPANTS: FINDINGS  

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences that four instructor-participants 

have undergone working with Chinese undergraduate students in their designated courses as well 

as the experiences of six student-participants in those very courses at a large public university in 

the U.S. (here: Grand Lake University or GLU).  

In this chapter, I present findings from the collective case study for instructor-

participants. Figure 4.1 shows how this case study was structured, that is at three different sites 

(Activity Site 1, 2, and 3) with four instructor-participants (Mini-Cases). I collected data through 

two semi-structured interviews with each instructor-participant, multiple observations (including 

participant observations, when asked by an instructor-participant), and a rich collection of 

artifacts (course syllabi, assignments, handouts, PowerPoint presentations, etc.). I coded all data 

holistically by conducting first and second cycle of coding. The second cycle of coding (pattern 

coding) allowed me to categorize data into four themes (Issues on Figure 4.1), namely (1) 

Perceptions of Chinese undergraduate students, (2) Cultural mélange, (3) Pedagogical 

approaches to Chinese undergraduate students, and (4) Interculturality. The four themes fit 

within a larger issue of transformative internationalization through teaching practices, which I 

discuss in detail in Chapter 6.  

Findings 

 

Firstly, I remind the reader of whom this collective case study is about, i.e., the 

experiences of instructor-participants teaching Chinese undergraduate students. Next, I present 

findings for this case bound by the abovementioned themes. I do not discuss cases one by one 

but rather create a narrative that flows from one theme to the next. Also, these four instructor-

 

105 

participants share common elements of their narrative. Figure 4.1 represents this collective case 

study visually, as well as provides the multiple contexts surrounding and affecting the mini-cases 

in it. Research questions are also restated in the visual.  

Figure 4.1. A graphic design of a collective case study for instructor-participants updated with 
main findings (issues) and research questions. The icons under Additional data sources represent 
a field notes journal, researcher’s journal and email correspondence, respectively. ESL ACL 
stands for English as a Second Language: American Culture, while ESL RESL A and B 
represent English as Second Language: Reading (A and B were taught by two different 
instructor-participants). CWC stands for cultural writing course and BC for a course on business 
management. Worksheet used with permission from Stake (2006, p. 5). 

 

 

106 

       RESEARCH QUESTIONS: •In what ways do these four instructor-participants describe their experiences working with Chinese undergraduate students at Grand Lake University? •How do their experiences relate to interculturality in teaching?   ISSUES:   •Perceptions of Chinese students •Cultural mélange  •Pedagogical approaches to Chinese students •Interculturality   Educational Background Relevant Research  Mini-Cases Interviews  Personal Background and History Cultural Context Activity Site 1: ESL RESL A Activity Site 2: CWC  Artifacts Activity Site 3: BC Activity Site 1: ESL RESL B Observations (incl. participant observations) The Case of  Instructor-Participants Additional data sources Activity Site 1: ESL ACL Cases through Themes 

 

This collective case study constituted four instructor-participants as mini-cases. Table 4.1 

below reminds the reader about whom the instructor-participants were, their chosen pseudonyms 

for this study’s purpose and their gender. I also listed their self-identification as U.S. instructors. 

None of the instructor-participants spoke Chinese, but some had been to China once or more. 

They expressed interest in China and its rich cultures. All four instructor-participants, though to a 

different extent, had had previous experiences teaching Chinese undergraduate students, that is to 

say, the classes I observed were not their first exposure to students from China. This fact 

rendered the interviews quite enriching as they had plentiful teaching experiences to share. 

Table 4.1. 
The list of instructor-participants, their gender, and self-identification. 

No.  Pseudonym 
1. 
Stan 
2.  Han 
3.  Andrew 
4. 

Peter 

  

Gender 
Male 
Male 
Male 
Male 

Self-identification 
American; 
American; 
American; 
American. 

Stan and Han both ran a class that focused on improving students’ reading skills in an 

ESL context (ESL RESL A and ESL RESL B). These classes were predominantly made up of 

Chinese undergraduate students and had a maximum of 15 students each. Peter, on the other 

hand, instructed a class for students majoring in business management. His class was the biggest 

in terms of the number of students (about 45) and there were a few Chinese undergraduate 

students enrolled in it. This was a class only business majors could take.  

Interestingly, one instructor-participant, specifically Andrew, taught a class that was 

designed to focus on crossing cultural boundaries, which resulted in many points of reference to 

cultures, comparatively U.S. and Chinese cultures, throughout both semesters of my 

observations. During both semesters, this class had around 10 students and most of them were 

 

107 

from China. In addition, Han’s ESL cultural class also stood out as slightly atypical, primarily as 

it took place in the summer semester (in between the Spring and Fall), but also because its 

objective was to acquaint students (who were exchange students from two Chinese universities 

doing a joint undergraduate program between their universities in China and GLU) with 

American cultures through teaching them English. This class was unique also because it 

comprised only students from China (about 20) and was the shortest of all classes I observed (an 

intensive course of two weeks during summer).  

In the next section, I present findings from the instructor-participants collective case 

study. I follow the order of themes presented in Table 4.2 below. Themes are followed by a 

discussion of pertaining findings in Chapter 6.  

Table 4.2. 
Themes for the instructor-participants collective case study. 

Perceptions of Chinese undergraduate students  

1. 
2.  Cultural mélange  
3. 
4. 

Pedagogical approaches to Chinese undergraduate students  
Interculturality  

 

Perceptions of Chinese Undergraduate Students 

 

Instructor-participants’ data revealed their perceptions when it comes to Chinese 

undergraduate students. Here, I present data related to how the instructor-participants perceived 

reasons behind Chinese undergraduate students’ decisions to study in the U.S., followed by the 

instructor-participants’ beliefs about and attitudes towards the Chinese undergraduate students as 

well as China in general. In addition, I weave in their satisfaction teaching a given observed 

course (or its lack thereof) into this section as it affected instructor-participants’ perceptions of 

the Chinese undergraduate students.  

 

108 

Perceived motivation to completing a degree abroad emerged as a big category from my 

second cycle of coding. When it comes to what motivated student-participants in the observed 

classes to come and study in the U.S., different instructor-participants had different ideas. During 

our first interview, Stan elaborated on the matter (Excerpt 4.1) by sharing his conversations with 

some of the students from China in his class: 

Excerpt  4.1:  Some  of  the  people  I’ve  talked  to,  and  these  are  usually  among  the  better 
students, they’re just culturally interested, and they’d rather be overseas. Some of them, 
they failed to get placed in a decent Chinese university and this was better for them than 
suffering the humiliation of going to a lower rank university in China or nowhere. And in 
other cases, the parents just think: You gotta get out of here, you’re just hanging around, 
you’re doing nothing. You know, go to the U.S. (Stan, Interview 1) 
 

Stan’s observations were very comprehensive. While a lot of Chinese undergraduate students 

tend to prepare for completing a degree abroad from an early age, there are also those who have 

failed to secure a spot at a prestigious university in China (Falcone, 2017). Stan also noted there 

is a group of students who simply do not have a clear plan for their future, so their parents 

encourage them to experience the foreign country while studying at the same time. He also made 

a distinction between students’ English proficiency levels by contrasting those who are interested 

in foreign cultures (therefore higher proficiency level) with those who are lower levels as having 

failed at Chinese educational requirements.  

Interestingly, Peter, who taught the business management class – a top choice for the 

Chinese in terms of a major at GLU, noted: “They need to bring this knowledge back to their 

parents because their dad is running a factory and they are supposed to take over. There’s some 

sort of connection with the family.” (Peter, Interview 1). Peter’s experiences of having Chinese 

undergraduate students in his classes underline familial pressure as a strong factor that motivated 

his students to come to the U.S. It is expected that the students will return home after graduation, 

take over the family business and put all the knowledge they have obtained in the United States 

 

109 

schools into practice (Cheung & Xu, 2015). In Chapter 5, where I present findings from the 

student-participants collective case study, I reveal the motivations that the six student-

participants reported as an impetus to come and further their education in the U.S. 

The motivations instructor-participants saw behind Chinese undergraduate students’ 

decisions to study in the U.S. are linked to their beliefs about these students and more generally, 

China. Their enjoyment teaching a given course was also dependent on what their attitudes 

towards the Chinese undergraduate students were. Stan was the instructor-participant who had 

been teaching the longest. He also visited China multiple times in the span of over two decades, 

so his beliefs about China and Chinese undergraduate students underwent a visible 

transformation. He claimed his attitude “went from almost a sort of admiration mixed with pity 

to admiration mixed with a resistance to rival cultural trends” (Stan, Interview 2). He no longer 

sees the Chinese as lacking anything. Instead, he developed a sense of admiration towards how 

the Chinese were able to develop in all levels of society. He even feels a tad jealous of China 

now (“resistance to rival cultural trends”). Stan’s attitude to his Chinese undergraduate students 

evolved from a pitiful one to that of visible admiration. As visible in Excerpt 4.2, Stan looks at 

all China’s achievements as a country as a representation of his Chinese undergraduate students’ 

change as individuals. He also shows his intercultural development as an instructor by saying: 

Excerpt 4.2: Now, when I walk into a classroom, I think that there’s a lot about modern  
culture they could teach me. I don’t think they lag behind culturally. I think their culture is  
different  but  I  don’t  think  that  their  country  is  like  a  poor  backwater  anymore.  (Stan, 
Interview 2) 
 

For Stan, his current Chinese undergraduate students were a potential source of advancement for 

him in the classroom. My observations of his classes also confirmed that he was open to talk to 

his Chinese undergraduate students, willing to learn something new. Also, Stan was aware of 

cultural sensitivities, which he depicted through re-writing most of his course readings into 

 

110 

accessible language but more importantly stripped down from unnecessary and confusing 

cultural references. To illustrate, he asked Chinese undergraduate students in the course multiple 

times to provide an equivalent of a proverb in Chinese or to explain how certain things 

mentioned in a reading are done in China. In other words, the appreciation and awe Stan felt 

towards the Chinese and their cultures was confirmed through his abovementioned actions in a 

classroom.  

 

On the other hand, Peter held some more stereotypical opinions of Chinese undergraduate 

students: “[…] I think we should expect they tend to associate socially together, like groups do” 

(Peter, Interview 1). Therefore, he was also very specific in the way he grouped students in his 

class by using an algorithm to establish fairness. He made sure ethnicities were as mixed as 

possible in a given group to allow the students to practice the “global mind.” Peter’s class was 

the biggest of all the classes I observed, with over 40 students and indeed the Chinese 

undergraduate students in it tended to sit together. Thus, his grouping system, broke the seating 

pattern of Chinese undergraduate students. That is because his business management class was 

structured based mostly on teamwork and students had to find their team members to collaborate 

with as soon as Peter assigned activities to teams, which happened almost every class I observed. 

As will be described in Chapter 5, many of Peter’s Chinese undergraduate students appreciated 

being paired with local students.  

 

Further, Andrew’s class required advanced analytical and critical thinking skills, which 

could be challenging in a second language. His syllabus, however, sounded quite encouraging: 

Excerpt 4.3: […] the university is composed of numerous cultures (disciplines) each with 
their own “languages.” This course will help you learn to navigate ways of writing, reading, 
speaking, and thinking in these cultures. This task is particularly challenging for those of 
us who are new indeed to this culture and may be fluent in other world languages. (Andrew, 
Syllabus Fall)  
 

 

111 

Andrew was extremely conscious of what working with international students’ entails. He 

repeatedly said to me during the interviews that he did not like to separate international or 

Chinese undergraduate students from students as a whole. This way he was safe not to other any 

students based solely on their nationality or country of origin. In his awareness of keeping the 

classes inclusive for all, Andrew was also very eager to learn from Chinese undergraduate 

students. I observed this over and over again, where he would ask them to share their cultural 

artifacts and was trying to learn as much about where they come from as he possibly could. 

Thus, when he said, “They’re coming out of a different educational system. […] I’m trying to 

learn more about their histories and where they’re from […]” (Andrew, Interview 1), it did not 

surprise me at all. His attitudes towards Chinese undergraduate students (i.e., avoiding othering, 

inclusiveness, and willingness to learn from them) were clearly stated on his syllabus (e.g., You 

are members of various subcultures and traditions with their own forms of speaking, dress, body 

language, and dialects. These can all serve to enhance our understandings of the ways that 

language and culture operate. [Andrew, Syllabus]), repeated during the interviews and then 

represented in his teaching methods. In addition, Andrew indicated on his syllabus that one of his 

course’s objectives was indeed transformation: “[…] we will learn to resee, rethink, and revise 

our own language practices and world views” (Andrew, Syllabus). By using ‘we’ as the pronoun 

on his syllabus, Andrew not only included but welcomed his students to participate in the 

processes of re-framing their beliefs as well. He also stated throughout our interviews that he 

learns from his students each time he teaches them. So, his beliefs of Chinese undergraduate 

students and his students’ views of the world might have undergone a mutual transformation, to a 

different degree and in different ways, each time the processes of learning and teaching took 

place.  

 

112 

 

These three various beliefs about Chinese undergraduate students delineated above affect 

whether or not an instructor-participant would feel joy teaching his course. Specifically, Han 

enjoyed teaching the ESL cultural class over the summer. This might have been due to the fact 

that this class consisted of students from China only, but not typical Chinese undergraduate 

students (that is mostly seen by him as disengaged and disinterested) whom he would get to 

teach during spring and fall semesters. As I learned through the observations, these students were 

on an exchange and extremely eager and willing to learn. Han described his feelings about the 

class as follows: 

Excerpt 4.4: I was literally telling my friends: Oh my God, I can’t believe they’re so good. 
I was scared to teach this class, you know, because of my previous experience where there 
would be 2 or 3 students that were really focused and everyone else was like: attitude or 
they would tell me they thought my test was bad.[…] All of them are hard-working, even 
the weak ones. (Han, Interview 2)  
 

Here, Han was positively surprised at how motivated his students were. He entered the classroom 

feeling a bit unsure of what this course was going to be, given it was his first time teaching it and 

the fact that the population was different from his regular student body. His opinion of Chinese 

undergraduate students changed, from seeing them all as disengaged and bored, to 

acknowledging that there are also students from China who are the exact opposite (such as these 

in his ESL ACL class). He repeatedly told me how happy he was spending hours on making 

materials for this course (the syllabus he was given was written in a quite generic way) and how 

he loved teaching this course. While Han thoroughly enjoyed his course, the other three 

instructor-participants did so as well, but had a few downsides to mention, such as administrative 

frustrations reflected in too big of numbers of students in class, or weird scheduling system.  

 

The perceptions that the four instructor-participants revealed through this study oscillated 

around their perceived motivations behind Chinese undergraduate students’ choice to study in 

 

113 

the U.S. as well as broader views and feelings when it comes to educating the Chinese. The 

perceptions were generally positive and showed growth and transformation both at a personal 

and at a professional level.  

Cultural Mélange 

 

The second theme that emerged from my coding process was the mix of cultures (i.e., 

cultural mélange). Dervin (2016b) defines it as a situation where “a culture is influenced and 

transformed by another culture” (p. 115). The key to understanding cultural mélange is the word 

“transformed” as it ties into my assumption that internationalization needs to occur as a mutual 

process to be meaningful. Cultural mélange might also include two or more cultures of learning, 

which this section touches upon as well. Hence, in this section, I discuss mentioning of dissimilar 

cultures in class and potential cultural clashes as their results. I also present findings on class 

management that links to mixing of cultures, including group settings. Lastly, I depict reported 

teaching frustrations and failures that might have been related to having to navigate a plethora of 

cultures in one course.  

 

To begin with, I asked the four instructor-participants during our interviews if they 

incorporate cultural elements in their courses and if so to what extent and in what way. The 

answers I received varied greatly depending on the teaching context. Andrew said he focuses on 

cultures in his class primarily (CWC, college writing class) and how those might be navigated by 

students, while Han claimed to avoid talking about cultures altogether in order not to generalize 

or essentialize any one particular culture (ESL RESL B, reading class). Stan talked about 

integrating cultural elements quite a bit (ESL RESL A, reading class), for instance by 

manipulating reading materials that would describe a common concept in U.S. cultures to make 

 

114 

them more accessible to students, while Peter tended to focus on global contexts rather than one 

chosen culture (the business management class).  

 

Andrew’s syllabus was also filled with cultural annotations. Excerpt 4.5 presents one 

example of such notes. Importantly, his syllabus language did not position international students 

at any disadvantage but rather assured them that all are truly welcome to be themselves and learn 

from each other in his classroom.  

Excerpt 4.5: You are members of various subcultures and traditions with their own forms 
of speaking, dress, body language, and dialects (mid-western, southern, African 
American Vernacular English). These can all serve to enhance our understandings of the 
ways that language and culture operate. (Andrew, Syllabus Fall) 
 

It was very obvious that Andrew wanted to include cultures in his classes every time I observed 

him teach. He would continually ask international students (mostly from mainland China, but not 

only) to share their own cultural elements with the rest of the class. On his syllabus, Andrew 

listed learning to “denaturalize everyday mundane and routine language practices […] That 

means thinking like an anthropologist in order to resee other cultures as well as our own to 

understand the connections between language, culture, identity, and globalization” (Andrew, 

Syllabus) as one of his course’s objectives. He anticipated mutual changes (“resee other culture 

as well as our own”) that the processes of teaching and learning in his CWC course would likely 

evoke. He also asked me to participate in a few discussions, including leading one based on a 

passage he had had assigned students to read from my China memoirs. Cultures were 

omnipresent in Andrew’s class, his syllabus, his assignments and readings. He called cultures 

“the essence of the classes I teach” (Andrew, Interview 1). This is how he explained it further 

during our first interview: 

Excerpt 4.6: So, the whole center of my teaching is looking across cultures […]. It’s just 
grounded in sort of the approach. It’s like if we’re discussing things and then the Chinese 
students will bring in a term like tuhao or whatever it is, that just serves as a focal point 

 

115 

of discussions […]. Everything in the course is sort of geared towards that. (Andrew, 
Interview 1) 
 

The term he exemplified this with, tuhao (土豪), can be translated from Chinese as nouveau 

riche and is relatively new in Chinese culture. Students took turns to explain what this word 

means in the Chinese context and some of them included their own opinions on the nouveau 

riche, including the information whether they belonged to the group or not. It was interesting to 

see how Andrew was able to build an entire class around culture specific words. Students were 

willing to share and because the atmosphere of the classes was very relaxing and low stress, they 

were open to provide cultural digressions, which Andrew then skillfully turned into the focus of 

his classes. In his approaches, Andrew was able to mix cultures and as a result to potentially 

allow for mutual transformations by letting Chinese undergraduate students’ culture influence his 

ways of thinking.  

 

On the contrary, Han was very cautious in bringing any cultural connotations into his 

ESL reading class (ESL RESL B). Because the main objective of the class was “to improve 

students’ reading skills” (Han, Syllabus Spring), he had no pressure to incorporate cultural 

elements into that course. In his words: “Even with the U.S., it’s very vast, it’s not all the same 

place. That’s why I try to stay away from culture in instruction.” (Han, Interview 1). However, it 

was not the case with the ESL cultural class (ESL ACL) that Han taught over the summer. 

Because students were supposed to learn English through culture, the syllabus was built around 

their trips to various historical or cultural sites. He changed his approach and engaged the role of 

culture in classroom instruction based on the objectives of the course he was teaching. One of his 

classes that I observed focused on preparation for an upcoming trip to a local museum. Han 

could not avoid the culture talk. That is how he structured the class: 

 

116 

Excerpt 4.7: Their culture topics related to their trips. […] So, I turned it into some games 
with vocab and they did some research about it. We did coat of arms presentations […] 
and then they made their own. Then, they presented about it using new vocab, […] it was 
super fun. So, it’s like doing that kind of thing but in a fun way so that when they go back 
to China, they’ll be like: Oh, I remember it because we did it in class; not kind of like 
drilling them. (Han, Interview 2) 
 

Han was all about fun, learning through games and playing, which worked well with his Chinese 

undergraduate students. They were very engaged each time I observed, which was reflected 

through their active participation and frequent questions. He also cared about being liked, i.e., it 

mattered to him that students would remember him as the fun instructor and that they would be 

relaxed and open in class, as he admitted to during the interview. So, it was interesting to see 

how his approaches changed depending on the context of the class he was teaching, moving 

between “no culture talk at all” in his ESL reading class (ESL RESL B) to welcoming cultural 

digressions in his ESL cultural class (ESL ACL). This way, Han exemplified a definition of a 

cultural mélange, as a representative of one culture (the U.S.) being transformed by another 

culture (the Chinese) or vice versa.   

 

Furthermore, Stan was very detailed when he described to me what cultural elements he 

integrated into his reading course (ESL RESL A). Through my classroom observations, I was 

able to see that he filled in a lot of cultural background for students by working with maps. Many 

readings mentioned specific places, and Stan did not want the students to be deficient by not 

knowing what they were reading about. What is more, Stan also addressed classroom cultures 

and cultures of learning quite a lot in his classes but teaching Chinese undergraduate students not 

only about the history of the United States but also making sure they knew what the etiquette of 

studying at GLU was. He elaborated: 

Excerpt 4.8: I think you’ve heard me say a couple of times: When you get into your 
freshman classes, this is gonna happen. We had a conversation early in the class about 
when you write an email to somebody how do you address it. Don’t call somebody 

 

117 

“teacher,” only little kids call them “teacher.” And also, when you prepare your 
homework, instructors will expect X, Y and Z, you know? I give them a lot of those 
really logistic types of things. (Stan, Interview 1) 

 
Unlike Stan, Peter was concerned with making his students global citizens more than experts on 

American cultures. He emphasized collaboration as the one skill he was focused on instilling in 

all of his students, especially when it comes to collaborating with students who come from 

different cultures. Yet, his syllabus did not state that as his main objective. He expressed his 

opinion on the challenges international students might face in his classes here: 

Excerpt 4.9: Are my foreign students disadvantaged and where? They probably are, if 
I’m being honest, yes. I speak fast. I use colloquialisms that don’t have any meaning to 
them, they have to figure it out. Later, they ask me what that meant. So, there’s an extra 
effort required from them on that side. And then […] am I representing international 
business to my students? So those are two completely different factors and I’ve been 
more active on the vector of saying I want my students to be comfortable with issues 
related to international trade, negotiations, laws, you know, culture. It’s a businessperson 
of the world, not of the United States. (Peter, Interview 1) 
 

Because Peter used many colloquial phrases and idiomatic expressions in his classes, as well as 

spoke at a noticeably faster pace than other instructor-participants, it made it harder on Chinese 

undergraduate students to follow the lectures (as reported to me by students and observed in-

class). Peter told me that he would often have to explain or clarify things he had taught after 

class to Chinese undergraduate students in his business management course, and it would usually 

be in relation to a meaning of a certain colloquialism he had used in class. Based on my teaching 

experiences, colloquial phrases are not often taught to learners of English as second language 

(which the Chinese are), as they carry heavy cultural backgrounds and therefore make it harder 

on ESL learners to follow. If an instructor uses multiple idiomatic expressions and colloquial 

phrases in his or her lectures, the ESL students are forced to draw on both cultures (that is their 

home Chinese culture and the new U.S. culture) in order to follow their instructor and 

comprehend what is discussed in class. However, as Peter told me many times, he was unable to 

 

118 

remain consistent in his vocabulary choices in class, which exacerbated the need to mix cultures 

(by having to explain things after class) and for his Chinese undergraduate students (by having to 

rely on dictionaries and peers’ explanations). Still, he was disposed to reflection, which could 

open a pathway to transformation. When I commented on his use of colloquialisms during the 

interview I had with him and the pace of his speech, he responded that I was not the only person 

that had pointed that out to him. He also underlined that in as much as he tried to stay aware of 

that, it was hard for him to change the way he naturally spoke (e.g., with multiple sports 

metaphors). Even though he did not undergo a visible change, he exemplified awareness of the 

need for it.  

 

As different instructor-participants expressed their unique ways of handling culture in 

their courses, I also observed varied ways of managing their classrooms. Many of these had to do 

with the students’ ethnicity or first language, such as grouping systems instructor-participants 

implemented in their courses. Peter was the only instructor-participant who reported having used 

an algorithm for the purpose of creating teams: 

Excerpt 4.10: My grouping is very intentional. I have an online tool that I can use with an 
algorithm and I can play with the algorithm. So, what I use is: sex – male, female, 
ethnicity, their GPA and then on top of that their schedules. […] I run the algorithm and I 
look and see how the distribution is to have diversity in the teams, roughly half men half 
women. With ethnicity I can’t go half and half. But I try to never put a single ethnic 
person alone if I have two or more. […] I’ve read that that’s a good approach to not split 
them because they have a little comfort in being able to speak in the native language and 
participate instead of just being isolated. (Peter, Interview 2) 
 

This approach was quite unusual in a sense the other three instructor-participants did not report 

to be using any tools to help them to team students up. As is clear from Excerpt 4.10, Peter was 

concerned about making teams fair as well as comfortable for ‘ethnic’ students in his class. 

During the interview, he mentioned diversity as a driving force to split teams the way he did. He 

also mentioned to me that some Chinese undergraduate students would come up to him at the 

 

119 

beginning of a semester and ask to be paired up with Americans. He saw that as their attempt to 

learn more about students from unfamiliar cultures instead of “being stuck” with those whom 

they already “knew all about” (Peter, Interview 2), that is other students from China. The other 

instructor-participants assigned groups at random and without any deliberate plan.  

 

The way teamwork is divided amongst students was of importance for balanced and 

culturally mixed classrooms. So is clear classroom management style, one that Chinese 

undergraduate students could respond to and understand the workings of, given the stricter and 

more organized cultures of learning they come from. In terms of handling other aspects of 

classroom work, Han reported some problems his leniency brought upon him: 

Excerpt 4.11: Last semester I allowed cell phones […] but that led to them getting on 
WeChat or whatever and then telling me they were looking up words. So, for this 
semester I just said: If you don’t know a word, I probably know it, ask me, or ask your 
classmate. When I go around during group work and I have some students who would 
bring out their phones, […] I do dock their points, which they’re aware of, their in-class 
activity points. […] I keep a record in my notebook just in case somebody challenges me. 
(Han, Interview 1)  
 

Han learned his lesson the hard way. Prior experiences of Han’s struggles to control Chinese 

undergraduate students’ social media use in class (WeChat is similar to WhatsApp in the U.S.) 

instead of working in a team, made him realize he needed to become stricter in terms of cell 

phone use policy in his class. Two cultures of learning clashed when Chinese undergraduate 

students, so used to relying on digital devices in their classes back in China, were abusing Han’s 

leniency and instead of utilizing their phones for study purposes, went on social media. The fact 

that he recorded lost points for each student out of fear makes me wonder if he might have been 

challenged before by students who disagreed with a grade. Han also implemented a lot of 

teamwork in his ESL reading class, but it was more controlled, as he would walk around and 

make sure every student was participating and doing so in English, not in Chinese. Han’s 

 

120 

classroom management style was not as controlled and strict as what Chinese undergraduate 

students might have been used to, therefore it created a strong mix of two cultures of learning.  

 

Other instructor-participants reported different frustrations about teaching Chinese 

undergraduate students than their excessive cell phone use. For instance, Peter shared a story 

with me where he accidentally made a student cry at the beginning of his course, due to his lack 

of knowing that her culture of learning was very different from the style of teaching he often 

implemented. Peter said: 

Excerpt 4.12: I made the biggest mistake one day. […] Here I am, the first day of class 
and I asked a student right in front of me: What do you think? And she looked up at me 
and she shook her head No, and I said: You think not? That this is not true or what? What 
do you mean? And she shook her head No again. So, I moved on and 5 minutes later I 
looked over at her and she was sniffing and wiping her eye, and I said: Have you got 
allergies? Boy, are they hitting already! Anybody else? And … she didn’t have allergies, 
she was crying. She was embarrassed. […] Afterwards, I apologized to her. (Peter, 
Interview 1) 
 

This instance exemplifies Peter’s style of teaching and his approach to any teaching failures well. 

He emphasized in both interviews that he wants students to feel comfortable in his class, but that 

he simultaneously tries to push them out of their comfort zones. He reflected upon this situation 

and apologized to the student immediately. He realized that he drew the entire class’s attention 

onto the student and made her miserable in that moment. But more importantly, he fixed it by his 

empathy and reaching out to the student, which might have transformed his future approaches to 

putting Chinese undergraduate students on the spot in his classes.  

 

Similarly, Stan pointed out that any frustrating experiences he had with teaching Chinese 

undergraduate students would have to do with the students’ educational background. According 

to him, it makes a difference if a student went to an American high school or if they lived in a 

dormitory in the U.S. As he explained further: 

 

121 

Excerpt 4.13: […] then they will speak more. But if their entire social group is young 
Chinese men, then I think there might even be some sort of unwritten rule in there: You 
don’t out yourself in class. You just sit there, and you do as you’re told. Usually the 
women are better than men, so I think it’s more of a guy-thing. (Stan, Interview 1) 
 

He was also the only instructor-participant who differentiated between genders of his Chinese 

undergraduate students and their role in students’ classroom behavior. The “you don’t out 

yourself” concept, according to Stan (Stan, Interview 1), was behind some students never 

speaking in class, actively participating or hiding within a group of classmates who were also 

Chinese. This made them feel safer and did not risk them losing face in front of the whole class. 

Culturally, Stan’s thoughts on how Chinese undergraduate students’ background affects their 

classroom behaviors were in sync with the idea of mixing cultures (cultural mélange). Even 

though, according to Stan’s observations, his Chinese undergraduate students exhibited elements 

stereotypically predicted as Chinese undergraduate students’ classroom behaviors, they also 

understood that their cultures of learning did not match those in the United States. Therefore, 

Stan was able to blend cultures by introducing these students to the U.S. system’s rules and 

guidelines. As a result, he created a new blend of cultures of learning, and transformed his 

pedagogy, that held elements of Chinese and U.S. educational systems.  

 

The cultural mélange, or mixing, was a theme that encapsulated different experiences in 

the classroom with Chinese undergraduate students. What brings instructor-participants together 

here is their ability and willingness to assess the reasons behind their students’ behaviors. From 

recognizing varied cultures of learning through a tendency to stay with the familiar to avoid any 

unnecessary generalizations, the instructor-participants in this study practiced cultural mélange 

to various degrees.  

 

 

 

122 

Pedagogical Approaches to Chinese Undergraduate Students 

 

The next theme that emerged after the second cycle of data coding was the pedagogical 

approaches instructor-participants demonstrated towards teaching Chinese undergraduate 

students. I broke this theme down into three main portions, namely teaching methods and 

approaches to working with international students in general as well as with Chinese 

undergraduate students in particular; instructor-participants’ experiences with teaching Chinese 

undergraduate students and communication with them inside and outside of the classroom; and 

the role of an instructor and how it fits into measuring students’ success. Here, I present findings 

pertaining to the abovementioned theme.  

 

First of all, I was curious to see how the four instructor-participants tended to handle the 

‘English only’ policy, so prevalent in many classrooms, not just language classrooms. Here, 

Andrew stood out as the one who welcomed translanguaging in his course. He encouraged it by 

saying to students in class: “If you have troubles doing so in English, you can start with 

Chinese.” (Andrew, Field Notes Journal), when they were faced with developing a comic. He 

also praised one Chinese student who did a fantastic job outlining her comic and when asked to 

present it to the class, she proudly showed her outline heavily annotated with Chinese words. 

The instances of letting students discuss issues in Chinese were also a common view in 

Andrew’s class. When I asked him about allowing students to use Chinese in class, he said he 

did not care much about the language they were using as long as it helped them to stay on task 

and be logical about it (Andrew, Interview 1).  

 

To the contrary, in his ESL reading class, Han often walked around the room to ensure 

students would discuss a given issue in English. He explained to students that speaking English 

with their teammates was a sign of respect towards other group members, in case some of them 

 

123 

did not speak Chinese. When asked about his attitude towards ‘English only’ policy, Han 

elaborated: 

Excerpt 4.14: I don’t go and say: Speak English, but what I find myself doing is walking 
over and kind of saying: Oh, are we speaking English? And then they always look at me 
and say: Yes, we are. And I’d say: What were we talking about? And I’d sit down. Because 
they  might  be  talking  about  the  text  in  Chinese,  but  the  goal  is  English.  As  a  language 
learner, I don’t see it as necessarily bad if you’re lost and you need to refer back but if it 
goes and goes and goes, that’s a problem. (Han, Interview 1) 
 

Han also told me that he started pulling classroom tables apart, to make them smaller, and to be 

able to sit students in groups of three. He found that much easier to manage and thought that 

students were more responsible in terms of speaking English that way. Han spoke two Asian 

languages, so he could also empathize with his students’ struggles to discuss issues at length in 

English (Han, Interview 1). The language learner in him allowed for some flexibility and 

leniency when some of his Chinese undergraduate students would switch into Chinese in class.  

 

What also caught my attention during classroom observations were different teaching 

modalities the four instructor-participants used to appeal to diverse kinds of learners. Peter 

received feedback from Chinese undergraduate students, which he inferred from the numbers 

and language used in the evaluation forms, that his use of colloquialisms impeded their learning. 

Therefore, he decided to make sure that everything that was on the exams or other forms of 

assessment was clearly laid out in the slides, in the articles or in his lectures. This eliminated a 

situation where students would complain that they could not follow the lecture and thus fail the 

final exam. Peter explained this approach as follows: 

Excerpt 4.15: I always wanna include both content and applied learning. So, lecture and 
applied learning as much as I can. The worst thing I can imagine is that I just lecture to 
them and they don’t even click, nothing, just lecture and take notes. To me, that would be 
the worst possible scenario. (Peter, Interview 2) 
 

 

124 

Peter’s focus on providing multiple modalities to students (that is lectures on content and 

practical learning scenarios) and on making sure all that was required on exams was included 

within these modalities was initially developed to help Chinese undergraduate students in his 

class. However, it eventually might have appealed to all students in his course, given the 

individual differences learners bring.  

 

One of the teaching methods instructor-participants also talked about was their take on 

error correction. Obviously, Stan and Han were more focused on making sure Chinese 

undergraduate students understood the roots of their errors in English, given the nature of their 

classes (ESL RESL A & B, reading classes). Yet, Andrew, who taught the college writing class 

(CWC), developed quite a method in addressing Chinese undergraduate students’ errors in his 

course: 

Excerpt 4.16: The focus in composition studies is […] on higher order issues as opposed 
to lower order issues. First, you want to categorize information and you want to categorize 
the  errors.  Chinese  students  in  particular  tend  to  have  certain  tense  issues,  so  you  can 
identify those. […] I think there’s a tension. In general, I do focus on higher level issues. 
At the same time, I think to some extent you can be doing students a disservice if you’re 
doing that too much with this particular population. They need much closer focus on a lot 
of grammar issues, as well. […] I will certainly focus on errors and I will let the students 
know that if I don’t understand what they’re talking about, then they need to make it clear. 
(Andrew, Interview 1) 
 

Even though the main objective of Andrew’s class was not to fix Chinese undergraduate 

students’ language problems, he saw classifying their most commonly made errors as a strategy 

to help them to improve writing in English. That, in turn, might have led to helping them with 

the higher order issues that were his class’ objectives. By reading his students’ work closely, he 

was also able to gain a certain insight into Chinese undergraduate students’ challenges by 

identifying the specific tense issues manifested in these students’ work.  

 

125 

 

Interestingly, the four instructor-participants in this study had different opinions in terms 

of accommodating Chinese undergraduate students in their classes. Because Han taught Chinese 

undergraduate students in majority of his courses, he was in a way forced to attend to their 

individual needs. “I do try to accommodate the Chinese students because there are so many of 

them. The difficulties they might have are with stress, intonation, suprasegmentals […]” (Han, 

Interview 1). So, he demonstrated willingness to change or adapt his teaching for the sake of his 

Chinese undergraduate students. He was also aware of Chinese undergraduate students’ unique 

challenges in English pronunciation, which allowed him to make sure those were addressed 

through his teaching practices. However, Peter’s experiences with any special treatment were 

slightly different. Granted the class Peter was teaching, that is business management, assumed 

that all students’ English would be sufficient to not only exist in his classroom but also actively 

participate in the lectures. All international students in the business management class must have 

passed the required level of English proficiency in order to enroll. He reported to me that he did 

ask his admissions office about it and this is what he was told: 

Excerpt 4.17: […] What is my responsibility? How far should I go to accommodate? And 
I’ve been told they’ve passed all the exams to come here that show that you don’t need to 
accommodate them. So, it’s more of a subtle nuance, saying: Ok, I need to not say, you 
know, three strikes, you’re out, and expect that they understand what that means. That’s a 
baseball thing. How would they know. (Peter, Interview 1) 
 

Peter was aware that eliminating cultural, sport, or colloquial phrases from his speech was not 

realistic. He also did not want to sound “robotic.” He did ask but was told that the Chinese 

undergraduate students in his class were expected to understand the content and to be able to 

study alongside their native speaking classmates because they had obtained the necessary 

language requirements for university studies. One way to interpret Peter’s interest in 

accommodating Chinese undergraduate students (i.e., by asking the admissions office about it) is 

 

126 

to see his willingness to transform his teaching methods to best serve all students in his class, 

assuring equity and comfort.  

 

Whether or not the instructor-participants were willing to accommodate Chinese 

undergraduate students in his class also determined these instructor-participants’ process of 

change. This stood up particularly in Andrew’s case. For him, every student had the power to 

change his thinking. He realized that “working with students from other places, who speak other 

languages, always shapes my thinking.” (Andrew, Interview 2). He saw teaching international 

students as an opportunity to learn something new from them, to transform himself.   

Excerpt 4.18: No matter they’re Chinese or not Chinese, I always have to adapt. I think 
that’s the nature of a teacher. And I guess the question is, you know, in what ways and to 
what extent. So, I think there’s some sort of negotiation that’s always taking place. So, I’m 
always trying to adapt in terms of type of the readings that I select, in terms of the way that 
I’m framing things. (Andrew, Interview 2) 
 

Also, this excerpt is another exemplification of Andrew not differentiating between international, 

Chinese, American, or other types of students. To him, they were all just students. And this idea 

was reflected in his college writing class, he always asked them what they thought and why they 

thought it might have been different from what domestic students in the CWC shared in class. He 

informed me during our interview that “They change me every time” (Andrew, Interview 2). He 

understood teaching and learning as processes evoking mutual changes. He was not only willing 

to adapt but also ready for change.  

 

In a similar vein, the experiences instructor-participants had with Chinese undergraduate 

students in their classes shaped the way they communicated with them. For instance, Stan 

expressed how his Chinese undergraduate student population had changed over the years of his 

teaching the ESL reading class. During our first interview, he compared the old Chinese student 

with the new Chinese learner. He described an average student in his class in previous years as 

 

127 

“the average 18-year-old Chinese boy” (Stan, Interview 1), who would only come to class but 

not “give anything.” He said his teaching experiences used to be very frustrating, where the 

majority of his class were such Chinese boys. On the contrary, he saw the contemporary Chinese 

student as “more responsive, more pliable” (Stan, Interview 1). This shift in the student body 

type, according to Stan, also influenced a shift in his pedagogy. Because his current students had 

a higher level of proficiency in English than his previous ones, he had to adapt to their level as 

well as assign more updated texts to analyze in class. I saw this shift in the type of Chinese 

undergraduate students during my observations of Stan’s classes, where the Chinese 

undergraduate students would not fit into any stereotypical vision of what a Chinese student 

might do or how they might behave. For example, students would demonstrate fluency in 

English and preparation for class by having previously checked the meaning of the unfamiliar 

vocabulary in the assigned texts (Stan, Field notes journal). Stan saw his students as responsive 

and liked to talk to them (often for long even after class). These instances also visibly influenced 

Stan’s pedagogy in that reading class as he had to remain prepared and ready to adapt. 

 

Similar to Stan, Peter held a high opinion of Chinese undergraduate students in his 

course. He stated: 

Excerpt 4.19: […] The Chinese students tend to be in the better echelon of my students. 
It’s very rare that I would see a Chinese student that is getting a C and doesn’t care. […] 
Usually they’re high achieving. They have high expectations of themselves. They’re bright 
and they want to understand. (Peter, Interview 1) 
 

Peter’s students were hard-working and focused. They cared for their grades and wanted to 

genuinely understand what was taught. So, Peter’s experiences teaching Chinese undergraduate 

students were generally quite positive. Yet, he had a situation where a female Chinese student 

came to his office hours and disclosed feeling uneasy, conscious, and anxious about working 

well with her teammates. Since teamwork was a big part of students’ final grade in Peter’s class, 

 

128 

the student sought advice from him on how to communicate with her team members better. “She 

was a little frustrated with one of her team members and she didn’t know how to approach them 

because it’s her second language.” (Peter, Interview 1). The student did not want to switch teams 

but rather needed advice on how to deal with the situation. Peter saw this as a sign that Chinese 

undergraduate students in his business management class are willing to communicate with him 

and most importantly are not afraid to voice their concerns, which might have influenced his 

prior expectations of Chinese undergraduate students sticking together in his classes. Yet, it 

might be that they need help navigating new group dynamics, which seems true for most people 

facing new situations.   

 

Another example of effective communication, this time on an instructor-participant’s 

side, was the way Han dealt with potential plagiarism problem ahead of time. Having 

experienced Chinese undergraduate students copy chunks of information from the Internet before 

(Han, Interview 2), Han decided to move away from academic writing assignments in his ESL 

cultural class and instead implemented posters. During class prior to the poster presentations, I 

witnessed Han telling students that if they used information from the website they should say: 

According to this website… (Han, Field Notes Journal). He did not teach them any particular 

citation style, such as APA or MLA, because the focus of the ESL cultural class was on oral 

English. However, students were asked to keep a journal in which they would write down their 

impressions from the cultural trips they were taking. In grading these, Han: 

Excerpt 4.20: […] made brackets and was like: Is this from the Internet? and I’d circle it. 
Because you can tell the style was totally different. I’m like: This sounds too perfect, and 
then it would be like her experience, something from the inside. I was like: you don’t need 
to do that, just write what you can do. And I could tell many of them were doing that but 
that’s how I would give grammar feedback. I would circle, I would make like a whole chart 
and show them how to match the subject with the verbs. (Han, Interview 2) 
 

 

129 

Han used the instances of copying from the Internet as a chance to teach his Chinese 

undergraduate students not only about what journaling about their experiences might look like 

but also why the parts copied did not match their actual language. Having written a chart with 

subject-verb agreements was an indirect but clever way to draw students’ attention onto the issue 

without calling it plagiarism per se.  

 

What also captured my attention in the instructor-participants’ pedagogical approaches to 

teaching Chinese undergraduate students was the way they perceived their role as an instructor 

and how they measured success. To begin with, Stan had an interesting take on what his role 

was: 

Excerpt 4.21: […] my major role is a sort of their last opportunity to get individualized, 
detailed feedback and learning advice before they have to go into an English-medium 
class with professors who don’t really care about what their English is like. […] the last 
guy to try to teach them a thousand more important words before they head into being 
freshmen. (Stan, Interview 1) 

 
Stan’s position was clear. For the Chinese undergraduate students in his ESL reading class, he 

was their last resort to improve English. It was also visible during his classes, which I observed 

on multiple occasions, as he stressed the fact that their future instructors would not pay attention 

to their English and most certainly would not assist them with any language challenges they 

might face. Even though his class was built around improving vocabulary as well as reading 

skills (as stated on his syllabus), he had a larger mission in mind: “I’ve just gotta be the one that 

keeps them working in English because if nobody is forcing them to, they won’t.” (Stan, 

Interview 1). Stan’s position resonated with Andrew’s take on his role in a classroom ever so 

slightly.  

Excerpt 4.22: […] There are different approaches that I take at different times, so I don’t 
know if I assume any one role all the time. […] It’s student-centered, you know, facilitator 
when the students make mistakes or as you want to see the logic to those mistakes. So, it’s 
really  trying  to  take  a  more  descriptive  approach,  trying  to  understand  logic  but  also 

 

130 

cultural  logics  and  understand  the  students.  […]  And  so,  I  also  change  my  approach 
according to a specific situation. (Andrew, Interview 1) 
 

Andrew saw himself as a facilitator when need be, but also as the one who needed to understand 

the students through understanding their mistakes. His passion for learning about his students, 

and for crossing cultural boundaries, in his teaching style and classroom approaches, were 

transparent during my observations of his classes. He was not afraid to change his approaches, 

teaching methods or views if it meant he was receptive to his students’ needs. He would 

frequently ask Chinese undergraduate students in his college writing class to share their learning 

experiences from China. Oftentimes he would encourage them to think about a given concept he 

was teaching from a perspective they might have not considered before. He was also the 

instructor-participant who asked me to actively participate during a few of my observations 

(participant observations), as he was curious to learn about my thoughts and experiences with the 

Chinese undergraduate students from when I taught in China. Multiplicity of roles as multiplicity 

of approaches (i.e., openness to transform and get transformed) appear to be Andrew’s teaching 

trademark.  

 

In terms of how the four instructor-participants measured their students’ success, Peter 

pointed the ability to work with people from other cultures without being impeded by any 

baggage, understood as the fact they might come from different cultures and therefore have 

preconceived ideas about what cultures are like, as the most significant indication of success.  

Excerpt 4.23: Positive integration with others from wherever, you know, I would like to 
see more and more that people when they’re in their formative years like this start to let go 
of  some  of  the  baggage  that  they,  probably  we  all,  bring  with  us  from  our  parents  or 
grandparents or whatever. And just see that it’s just us and we’re different, but that’s ok. 
We should be respectful of those differences. That to me would be the best thing of all. 
And I’ve seen it. (Peter, Interview 2) 
 

 

131 

The above excerpt was just an introduction to a success story Peter shared with me about one of 

his Chinese undergraduate students. He had taken one of the teams for a competition outside of 

GLU and deliberately put one Chinese female on that team. Even though the student struggled 

with the language at first as well as with participation. She really wanted to do well. However, 

just as Peter started thinking that he might have made a huge mistake placing that student on the 

team, about a month into the competition, the student opened up and started thriving. “She was 

totally committed to doing her responsibilities on their team and they came out of it great 

friends.” (Peter, Interview 2). He used that example to explain what true success meant to him, 

that is becoming a team player, building relationships with people from other cultures. So, being 

culturally open was Peter’s definition of success measure. Peter’s pedagogical approaches to the 

Chinese undergraduate students in his business management class (BC) were linked to how he 

perceived success. If being culturally open meant altering his ways of thinking and doing things 

and seeing into his students’ classroom behaviors, then creating interculturally mixed teams 

where members felt equal and supportive was one viable way to go about it. 

 

Slightly different was Andrew’s description of students’ success in his class. In his 

words, Andrew was careful not to categorize Chinese undergraduate students, or international 

students, as separate from just students in general. For him, seeing improvement in the way 

students think and talk about the writing elements that his class was teaching them could qualify 

as success. “I’m generally trying to change the students’ disposition and approaches to writing, 

and then also orienting towards cultures.” (Andrew, Interview 2). He gave an example of hearing 

students discuss readers in a certain way, such as “I thought the reader should do x.” That would 

be an indication to him that students indeed learned what he was trying to teach them. “If I can 

 

132 

see logic, even a sort of cultural logic, even if there’s an error…” (Andrew, Interview 2), that 

would be one way to measure success for Andrew.  

 

The theme of instructor-participants’ pedagogical approaches to Chinese undergraduate 

students epitomizes their accommodations towards Chinese undergraduate students in the 

classrooms in the various contexts they meet these students. The findings presented above 

represent an array of pedagogies, with relation to a class taught and a specific instructor-

participant case study. The following theme extends earlier findings by delving into instructor-

participants’ interculturality and the practices that represent intercultural awareness in various 

teaching styles.  

Interculturality 

 

Through the fourth theme created out of instructor-participants’ data, I bring the focus 

onto interculturality. For the purpose of this project, I define the term interculturality as the 

approach to others that is characterized by mutual responsiveness, appreciation and curiosity, its 

main goal being bilateral (i.e., mutual) communication. In this project, I do not take an evaluative 

view on instructor-participants’ interculturality. In other words, I do not assess it following 

Dervin’s (2016b) claim that interculturality cannot in fact be measured. Nevertheless, I am able 

to report words or observed situations that reflected interculturally responsive attitudes towards 

Chinese undergraduate students. 

 

At the onset, Han’s take on approaching teaching international students in his ESL 

reading and ESL cultural classes stuck out to me. He had previously traveled to Asia, where he 

was also working on improving one of the Asian languages he spoke. Han was interested in 

languages and cultures in general. When I asked him about his experiences from teaching 

beginnings, he explained how he positioned himself in a classroom from the very start: 

 

133 

Excerpt 4.24: […] I don’t go into the class feeling like I’m above them because especially 
in my summer class, a lot of them are way older than me, probably way smarter than me. 
[…] So, when I walk into the classroom, I don’t see it as me higher than them. I see it as 
kind of like: We’re here to accomplish a goal. Let’s do that together. I don’t see myself as 
better than them. And I don’t want  to approach  a  class like that because then it’s  super 
weird when you try to talk with them in groups or something. I feel like I would rather be 
able to just walk up and it’s kind of like more casual. More like we’re on the same level. 
(Han, Interview 2) 
 

In this excerpt, Han explains why seeing students as “equals” worked better for the type of a 

classroom community he wanted to establish. His ideas were interculturally responsive and 

indicated that he was open to the transformation of the hierarchy between students and 

instructors. He emphasized on multiple occasions in his class, which I observed, that he wanted 

Chinese undergraduate students to feel comfortable and confident to talk to him about anything. I 

did not see any instances of him resorting to strict discipline in class, neither did he have to; as 

the atmosphere in his classes was fairly relaxing. It was also clear that students benefited from 

his approach towards teaching, judging by their numbers who stayed after class to chat with Han. 

“I think they need to see that I care about them and that I’m not just some sort of authority 

figure” (Han, Interview 1).  His interculturality was reflected in his openness and curiosity 

towards the cultural aspects that students contributed to his classes as well as his readiness to 

loosen the pre-existing dynamics where the instructor is perceived as a figure with authority and 

power. 

 

Concurrently, all four instructor-participants reported to have studied an array of second 

languages. All of them also traveled abroad, either to study a language, to teach English, to work 

in the publishing industry or to do international business. Andrew became fascinated by the 

power of language at an early age. This is his story: 

Excerpt 4.25: […] My interest in languages comes from my history. I lived  in country X 
for 4 years and so it’s at that point that I became more interested in sort of language. […] 
Growing up basically in North America in the suburbs here, I was really fascinated when 

 

134 

I’d speak with country X residents. It became like a game of chicken, so I would want to 
practice my country’s X official language and they would want to practice their English. 
And it became like a game of one-upmanship and it was so constant, you could really feel 
the force and power. And suddenly it dawned on me how powerful language was, as a form 
of capital. It was so constant and all pervasive everywhere, I became fascinated with the 
way that it was bound up in identity and all sorts of other things. So, that’s really what got 
me, just living there and sort of experiencing that sort of force and those sorts of everyday 
skirmishes. (Andrew, Interview 1) 
 

In a way, Andrew analyzed his revelations about the power of language as well as power 

relations (which is one of the elements of interculturality) inextricably related to language. He 

was mesmerized by having the chance to play games with his friends who spoke the official 

language of country X. The “force” such language exchanges allowed him to feel, determined his 

later attraction to language on a professional scale. Having become a writing instructor might 

have had its beginnings in that moment of realization from his childhood. In a sense, his place of 

living and early life experiences surely sparked his interest in interculturality, which then were 

reflected in his classroom.  

 

Although instructor-participants’ paths to teaching Chinese undergraduate students in 

their designated courses were different, they taught at the same institution, that is Grand Lake 

University. I would not be able to look at these instructor-participants’ intercultural teaching 

efforts if training from GLU was not discussed first. To illustrate, Andrew reported having 

support but also needing to seek it himself. “I feel in some sense, I have some support.” 

(Andrew, Interview 2). His desire to look for training opportunities at GLU also indicates his 

willingness to welcome new ways of approaching Chinese undergraduate students in his college 

writing classes. Nothing was imposed on him by the department or college he was a part of. 

Counter to that, Peter not only stated directly that no support in terms of teaching Chinese 

undergraduate students was offered to him, but also expressed his concerns that “you can’t 

educate all professors about interacting with so and so. […] I don’t think some of us would want 

 

135 

to change the way they do things” (Peter, Interview 1). Yet, the other two instructor-participants, 

who were in the ESL context, Stan and Han had had slightly different experiences when it comes 

to being trained to work with students from other countries. Stan told me he had been originally 

hired as an administrator, not an instructor, so “one of the requirements for the job was two years 

of experience at the university level overseas” (Stan, Interview 1). When asked about training 

provided to other instructors whom he was working with, he said: “I don’t think you’d get a 

different answer” (Stan, Interview 1). During both of our interviews, however, Stan mentioned 

that he saw a need for a solid intercultural training but in order for it to be successful in his 

teaching context it would have to be conducted by someone who knows China well and is 

familiar with the educational and cultural elements such training would likely address. 

Notwithstanding, Han taught in the similar context as Stan, but given the fact he was hired as a 

teaching assistant, his supervisors provided workshops and weekly meetings to focus on any 

class management problems he might have been facing.  

Excerpt 4.26: […] we were focusing on methods of teaching  a language. We did things 
like  literature  circles,  grammar,  ways  to  teach  a  language  […]  but  it  was  more  because 
they’re  not  native  English  speakers.  We  were  focused  on  how  to  teach  language.  (Han, 
Interview 1) 
 

Even though no particular training was given to Han that would address issues of interculturally 

responsive teaching, some training efforts, and thereby opportunities for transformation, 

occurred. This might have been because teaching a language requires specific skills and methods 

but also because Han was considered an instructor-to-be and therefore in need of extra support. 

He demonstrated intercultural efforts, but without having undergone any institutional training 

sessions at GLU, those efforts were just snippets rather than a whole approach to teaching 

Chinese undergraduate students.  

 

136 

 

Moreover, intercultural teaching encompasses many more factors that were visible in my 

classroom observations as well as the instructor-participants’ interviews. As an illustration, Stan 

was quite reflective about his failures (in his words “pitfalls”) when trying to implement 

interculturality into his teaching. “I wouldn’t say it was a lack of cultural knowledge, but it was a 

lack of application of cultural knowledge.” (Stan, Interview 1). For him, it was the applicability 

of what he knew rather than what he did not know that interculturality was contingent upon. He 

expressed his opinion on interculturality in teaching as: 

Excerpt  4.27:  […]  The  most  important  part,  I  guess,  is  to  recognize  what  classroom 
behaviors probably have cultural roots. It’s kind of like trying to balance what you sense 
is their personality with what probably comes from cultural training and use that as a kind 
of combined assessment of the person. Like the other day, when you saw me talk about 
Taiwan. I was very careful not to call it China. (Stan, Interview 1) 
 

Indeed, I was observing Stan’s class when he was showing the map of China and Taiwan. This 

was just one example of many instances when Stan presented a clear judgment when it comes to 

being interculturally responsive in his teaching. He did not call Taiwan a sovereign country 

neither did he call it China. By doing so, he managed to avoid unnecessary tensions and potential 

quarrels amongst students from different countries. He gave all students a fair chance to be the 

best versions of themselves by continually encouraging them to share their views, even if or 

perhaps especially if they might have been different from his views. When issues arose (such as 

the potential problem with categorizing Taiwan as a sovereign country or not), he would not 

contribute them to a given student’s country of origin but rather try to understand their behaviors 

from multiple angles (including different familial backgrounds, educational experiences, etc.).  

 

Equally important was Andrew’s stand on interculturality. When I asked him about it, he 

argued strongly that the term itself implies a binary approach, which he was not a fan of. In our 

first interview, he indicated to me that he would rather talk about transculturality.  

 

137 

Excerpt 4.28: […] I understand  culture as a set of  expectations, or as a lens that shapes 
your  worldview.  And  I  understand  language  as  deeply  bound  up  in  that  process.  I 
understand language is mediational and so that’s the idea that we don’t only use language, 
but language uses us. And so, I believe in then becoming more critically conscious of that 
process,  the  idea  of  developing  double  consciousness.  So, seeing  the  world  through  the 
lens of home and host cultures. So, I like the idea of introducing students to seeing things 
from multiple perspectives and having multiple ways of seeing things. […] I’m trying to 
attune students to what I’d say is the rhetorical nature of language and culture and think 
about the way culture works. (Andrew, Interview 1) 
 

For Andrew teaching interculturally meant helping students to explore the multiplicities of 

cultures and languages that come with it. He cared about students’ consciousness and wanted to 

make sure that his teaching accelerated their progress in critical thinking. Even on his syllabus, 

he stated: “Speaking other languages and having lived in other parts of the country and world 

will enrich this course.” (Andrew, Syllabus Fall), which confirmed his welcoming attitude 

towards the Other. During our first interview, Andrew also mentioned the notion of cultural 

reciprocity when explaining how he makes his teaching bilateral, that is a two-way process.  

Excerpt 4.29: I think teaching is about students. […] I mean there is a term, something like 
cultural reciprocity. The idea is that the teachers move, and the students move. So, there’s 
a negotiation. I think that’s central to any teaching. I think there are power dynamics and 
structures, so synergy implies of course you want to leverage that, but I think of negotiation 
not simply in terms of leveraging students as resources, but I think sometimes the students 
have to move, like they should. I think there are certain norms in the class, and they should 
move  but  I  think  also  the  teacher  needs  to  sometimes.  I  think  there’s  a  struggle  there. 
(Andrew, Interview 1) 
 

Andrew was very aware of his role in intercultural teaching – he needed to move alongside his 

students in order to transform himself. He understood the process of teaching as a negotiation, 

not without pain, but rather pushing both sides towards bettering themselves. For him, there was 

no other way to work with students than to meet half-way on the road to a synergic relationship. 

Andrew was conscious of the choices he made on the syllabus, from the language to the 

phrasing. In a nutshell, he placed students at the center of intercultural teaching and was willing 

to undergo any mutually evoked changes with them.  

 

138 

 

This last theme, named instructor-participants’ interculturality, included findings on their 

teaching beginnings and their languages. It also related to any institutional training those four 

instructor-participants might or might not have received from GLU as well as their unique takes 

on what intercultural teaching entailed. The abovementioned findings lead to their discussion, 

which is presented in Chapter 6.

 

139 

CHAPTER 5 

STUDENT-PARTICIPANTS: FINDINGS 

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences that six student-participants 

have undergone during their studies at a large public university in the U.S. (here: Grand Lake 

University or GLU) as well as the experiences of four instructor-participants working with these 

students in their designated courses.  

In this chapter, I present findings from the collective case study for student-participants. 

Figure 5.1 shows how this case study was structured, that is at three different sites (Activity Site 

1, 2, and 3) with six student-participants (Mini-Cases). Site 1 refers to classes in the ESL context, 

Site 2 to classes in the college writing context, and Site 3 to the business management courses. I 

collected data through one semi-structured interview with each student-participant and multiple 

observations of their classes. In the first cycle of coding data, I used holistic coding (Saldaña, 

2016), that is I applied a single code to a large unit of data. In the second cycle of coding (pattern 

coding), I categorized data into four themes (Issues on Figure 5.1), namely (1) Preparedness for 

and motivation to explore the new, (2) Language experiences, (3) Beliefs and feelings about 

studying in the U.S., and (4) The social side of the new. My analysis led to a larger issue of 

kindness in pedagogical approaches, which I discuss in detail in Chapter 6.  

Findings 

Firstly, I remind the reader of whom this collective case study was, i.e., the experiences 

of the six student-participants in their classes at GLU. Next, I present findings for each mini-case 

bound by the abovementioned themes. I do not discuss mini-cases one by one but rather create a 

narrative that flows from one theme to the next. Figure 5.1 represents this collective case study 

 

140 

visually, as well as provides the multiple contexts surrounding and affecting the cases in it. I also 

restated the research questions in the visual.  

Figure 5.1. A graphic design of a collective case study for student-participants updated with 
main findings (issues) and research questions. The icons under Additional data sources represent 
a field notes journal, a researcher’s journal and email correspondence, respectively. ESL ACL 
stands for English as a Second Language: American Culture, while ESL RESL A represents 
English as Second Language: Reading. CWC stands for cultural writing course and BC for a 
course on business management. Worksheet used with permission from Stake (2006, p. 5). 

 

 

141 

        RESEARCH QUESTIONS: •In what ways do these six student-participants describe their experiences at Grand Lake University? •How do their experiences relate to interculturality in learning?    ISSUES:   •Preparedness for and motivation to explore the new •Language experiences  •Beliefs and feelings about studying in the U.S. •The social side of the new  Educational Background Relevant Research  Mini-Cases Interviews  Personal Background and History Cultural Context Activity Site 2: CWC  Activity Site 3: BC Activity Site 1: ESL ACL Observations The Case of  Student-Participants Activity Site 1: ESL RESL A Additional data sources Cases through Themes 

 

This collective case study constituted six student-participants as mini-cases. Table 5.1 

below reminds the reader about whom the students were, their chosen pseudonyms for this 

study’s purpose, their gender and which class they were in. I also listed their self-identification 

as Chinese. All student-participants spoke Mandarin Chinese as their native language, but most 

were also raised in a household where local dialects were spoken. They were also undergraduate 

students at GLU, although in three different contexts. Two were already taking their chosen 

major classes (those in business management context, BC), two were still in their freshman year 

(so taking university general requirements in the college writing context), while the other two 

were studying English as a Second Language (in the ESL context) (Figure 5.1).  

Table 5.1. 
The list of student-participants, their gender, self-identification and the course taken. 

Billy 
Jackson 

No.  Pseudonym 
1.  Aurora 
2. 
3. 
4.  Amy 
5.  Nick 
6. 
Eve 

 

Gender 
Female 
Male 
Male 
Female 
Male 
Male 

Self-identification 
Chinese 
Chinese 
Chinese 
Chinese 
Chinese 
Chinese 

Course taken 
ESL RESL A 
ESL ACL 
CWC 
CWC 
BC 
BC 

Interestingly, five out of six student-participants reported having obtained a TOEFL score 

of over 80 (which GLU requires for mainstream classes), even those who were still working on 

improving their English. In terms of different contexts, specifically CWC (the college writing 

class) focused on crossing cultural boundaries, which resulted in many points of reference to 

cultures, comparatively U.S. and other cultures, throughout both semesters of my observations 

on both student-participants and instructor-participants’ side. In addition, the ESL ACL class (in 

the ESL context) also stood out as slightly atypical, primarily as it took place in the summer 

semester (in between the Spring and Fall), but also because all students in that class came from 

 

142 

mainland China. Its objective was to acquaint the Chinese undergraduate students (who were 

exchange students from two Chinese universities doing a joint undergraduate program between 

their university in China and GLU) with American cultures through teaching them English. This 

class was unique also because it comprised only students from China and was the shortest of all 

classes I observed (an intensive course of two weeks during summer). The business management 

class had a large number of international students, mostly from mainland China. Even more so, 

the ESL reading classes had 90 percent Chinese undergraduate students as a student body. Even 

though the six student-participants came from three different learning contexts, they shared the 

experience of being a Chinese undergraduate student at a U.S. higher education institution, 

though with different access to classes.  

In the next section, I present findings from the student-participants collective case study. 

I follow the order of themes presented in Table 5.2 below. Themes are followed by a discussion 

of pertaining findings in Chapter 6.  

Table 5.2. 
Themes for the student-participants collective case study. 

Preparedness for and motivation to explore the new  
Language experiences  

1. 
2. 
3.  Beliefs and feelings about studying in the U.S.  
4. 

The social side of the new 

 

Preparedness for and Motivation to Explore the New 

 

First of all, the six student-participants reported that they had spent significant amount of 

time and financial resources preparing for their sojourns years, while still in China. They 

mentioned having gone to a famous language school (English name: New Oriental) that not only 

prepared them for TOEFL and SATs but also provided them with study abroad agents, called 

zhongjie in Chinese, which translates literally as middlemen into English. Those agents offered a 

 

143 

comprehensive packet from filling out their college applications through proofreading their 

essays to making sure their college ranked from top 20 to top 100 (depending on the packet they 

obtained). Nick said: “I used zhongjie. I didn’t do anything by myself” (Nick, Interview). A few 

students expressed to me that this was not an excellent choice as it might have stripped them 

from a chance to learn the ins and outs of applying to school abroad in English or to take control 

over which school abroad to apply to. Nick, however, was relieved and satisfied with their 

service. During our interview, he said he would use it again if he decided to go for his master’s.  

 

Secondly, Eve and Amy were not novices when it comes to studying in the U.S. Eve had 

previously taken part in a summer language exchange program in Florida, while Amy graduated 

from a high school in Rhode Island. Eve recalled:  

Excerpt 5.1: […] So when I came back to China, my father asked me how about the 
education in the United States? I think I told him that it’s pretty good, so we decided I 
came to the United States for the university. Yeah, I think since my second year in high 
school I studied for TOEFL and SAT. (Eve, Interview) 
 

Eve’s preparation for GLU began early, and as we can see lasted at least three years in high 

school. On the other hand, Amy was able to avoid the Chinese testing regime by moving to the 

U.S. right after middle school. She told me her boarding high school, located in Rhode Island, 

was a small but very welcoming and foreigner-friendly institution. When asked if she was 

experiencing any problems in her college writing class (CWC), Amy said: “I don’t think so, 

since I was in an American high school. […] Everyone was so nice to Chinese students.” (Amy, 

Interview). Amy recognized kindness (“everyone was so nice”) of people she encountered in her 

high school in Rhode Island as important enough to mention, too. She also said she missed the 

friendships she was able to develop during her studies in the Rhode Island high school as they all 

loosened once everyone got accepted to different universities in the U.S.  

 

144 

 

In addition, students-participants’ motivation to study in the United States plays such an 

integral role in their exploration of the new. Three distinct catalysts behind choosing to further 

education abroad stood out. Billy was the most “different” case, since his home university in 

China offered a “three plus two” program, where students would study three years in China and 

then move to GLU for the remaining two years. Billy said he would get two diplomas. He was 

taking the ESL ACL class in the summer, as a part of that joint program. I asked him what made 

him choose the U.S. as his educational destination and he said: 

Excerpt 5.2: Probably because there’s a lot, the facility here is kind of good, better than 
China and I think the environment here is also better. The study environment here is also 
good. […] The teachers really care for us. You have a lot of students play in a practice 
room but there is a few in Chinese practice room. (Billy, Interview) 
 

Billy was a music major. He studied vocals. During our interview, as well as the ESL ACL 

classes I observed, Billy often expressed how seriously American students approach practice, 

and juxtaposed it with the Chinese undergraduate students back home who rarely utilize their 

practice rooms. He was also happy to tell me that his teachers “cared for him,” which clearly 

mattered to him as he contrasted it later with his Chinese teacher being on their phone most of 

his music practice. He was impressed with the campus (“facility here is kind of good”) and said 

he was going to study hard for his TOEFL to get accepted to GLU the following year.  

 

Yet, Eve’s choice of coming to GLU, and majoring in business, came purely from the 

ranking of the program. He said:  

Excerpt 5.3: […] before I came to GLU I knew that the business school here is pretty 
good, so I decided to go here. […] You know, some schools are higher ranking than 
GLU, but the business school is my best choice. (Eve, Interview) 
 

For Eve, it was all about prestige. He wanted to graduate from a reputable program. His agent 

back in China told him that GLU’s business program was highly ranked so it became his first 

choice. On the contrary, Amy was influenced by familial dreams and connections. She told me it 

 

145 

used to be her mom’s dream to study abroad but “because my dad just can’t speak English, so it 

was a little hard because they are already in a relationship” (Amy, Interview). Also, Amy’s 

friend had studied in an American high school before and had had a positive experience, so she 

decided to follow the friend. Even though different forces and people motivated Billy, Eve and 

Amy, they all imagined a better future and none of them regretted their decision to study in the 

U.S. (as reported during their interviews). 

 

What is more, motivation to complete a degree abroad is inextricably linked with 

students’ future plans. While Aurora wanted to go back to China to build her own school and 

combine her education training at GLU with her economics inclinations (Aurora, Interview), 

Amy would rather have stayed in the United States: 

Excerpt 5.4: I guess I would like to stay here if possible, cause I think my parents, like 
they spent a lot of money and everything on me for like study abroad. […] actually, I 
think they have like more jobs opportunity here because of the population in China. It’s 
really hard to get a great job unless you are really excellent. […] I’d love to stay here, and 
I love the environment and everything like housing and no pollution. […] People are so 
nice here. (Amy, Interview) 
 

Amy recognized her parents’ sacrifices in order for her study in the U.S to happen. She also saw 

China’s problematic job market due to its overpopulation. She wanted to capitalize on her U.S. 

education as well as enjoy the country’s living conditions, which she favored over those in 

China. She also described people she encountered in the U.S. as “so nice,” which signifies that 

having good relationships with others is important to Amy. Interestingly, three other students, 

namely Nick, Jackson, and Eve expressed wishes to apply for graduate studies in the United 

States. Nick wanted to take a gap year to travel first, though. They saw greater potential in 

having an MBA or a master’s degree from a U.S. institution than having one from a university in 

China.   

 

146 

 

This theme, comprising preparedness for and motivation to explore the new, allowed me 

to establish a foundation and impetus behind the student-participants’ choices to come and study 

in the United States. In Chapter 7, namely Conclusions, I will also elaborate on how student-

participants’ motivation and preparations to study in a different country align (or not) with 

perceptions of their instructor-participants.  

Language experiences  

 

Coming from a different country where languages other than English are most commonly 

spoken, Chinese undergraduate students face a unique challenge in the United States. Not only 

do they need to prove their second language proficiency by passing international English exams, 

but also a certain level of cultural background that would allow them to adjust to the new 

environment.  

 

In this study, five student-participants reported having surpassed the level of the TOEFL 

exam required by GLU, that of 80. However, Jackson was the one student who got admitted to 

GLU conditionally, “I got 78. This school required 79, so…” (Jackson, Interview). Therefore, he 

had to start his journey at GLU as a student of English as second language before he could enter 

a content classroom. Shortly after our interview, however, Jackson sent me an email proudly 

saying he scored 85 at his last TOEFL exam and would not have to continue with English classes 

the following academic year. Jackson experienced some disappointment with his TOEFL score: 

“[…] I didn’t expect that I will be conditional offer, because I think I can pass the exam but 

actually the writing part is much more difficult” (Jackson, Interview). From my observations of 

the college writing class, I saw that Jackson struggled with English, especially when it came to 

expressing his thoughts on the spot, without preparation or time to write anything down, even 

though he told me he had previously spent a few months in Seattle “hanging out.” 

 

147 

 

As English learners, the student-participants in this study experienced a myriad of 

learning adventures. All of them started learning English fairly early, that is in kindergarten: 

“because Chinese people are focused on education for when people are small, as a kid” (Nick, 

Interview). Aurora, for example, attributed any language challenges she might have had to her 

“mindset:” “You know, English and Chinese are different kind of languages, so their speaking 

mindset is different. So, I need to change that.” (Aurora, Interview). She elaborated on that by 

saying she translates everything from Chinese into English in her head before she utters 

anything. That is due to the fact that “I can’t come up with new words very quick in a second.” 

(Aurora, Interview). She did not seem ready to start thinking in English.  

 

For Nick, two things made his life harder in the business management class, namely his 

fear of communicating in English and his limited vocabulary (Excerpt 5.5). “I’m nervous to talk 

with people in English. I’m too shy. But in Chinese, it’s OK.” (Nick, Interview). He was not 

confident enough to communicate with Americans in English, but he did not feel the same about 

using Chinese. He was experiencing second language anxiety, which paralyzed him from 

confidently and logically expressing himself in English. However, he dealt with it by: 

Excerpt 5.5: I can handle English but some words to use to let them know what I mean, 
no. And American people know what I mean most of the time. They can make it shorter 
and I know what they mean. […] That’s very kind of them, because they kind to me to 
slow down and speak short. […] I don’t know why it’s not the same in Chinese, but hanzi 
can connect together. But English is just letters. (Nick, Interview) 
 

The above excerpt indicates certain efforts Nick had made to communicate with people in the 

United States. He appreciated their efforts to make communication with him easier (“they kind to 

me to slow down and speak short”). He saw that as kindness and was very appreciative of trying 

to make it easier on him during conversations in English. Yet, he struggled to move smoothly 

between two distinct language systems, i.e., English and Chinese. Chinese characters might have 

 

148 

made more sense to him as he approached them on a logical level “hanzi [Chinese characters] 

connect together”, which is not the case with the Roman alphabet that English adapted. Also, 

these differences might have contributed to his anxiety when using English altogether.  

 

Analogous to Nick, interesting was Billy’s take on English as a whole. During the 

interview, he disclosed to me that his passion for English was brought upon him by his 

grandfather who used to work as a translator between multiple languages, including English. In 

fact, he said his grandpa taught him most of the English he knew. During our interview and my 

observations of his classes, Billy was unafraid and quite fluent in English. He did not show any 

problems communicating his thoughts directly and correctly in class, neither did he struggle 

finding the right words to describe his experiences to me during the interview. 

Excerpt 5.6: […] I mean, English is more kind of fun than Chinese. Like, you can say one 
thing in many ways, like you can express your emotion, that kind of stuff. […] Chinese 
kind of rough but English kind of nice, you know. […] But I often just talk to myself in 
English, especially when I’m really upset or when I’m down. (Billy, Interview) 
 

Because of his early exposure not only to English but to learning English through his grandpa, 

Billy saw English as fun and exciting. He also indicted two different emotions towards English 

in comparison to Chinese: “Chinese kind of rough but English kind of nice.” He had a positive 

attitude to English and enjoyed using it. He developed a technique, to speak to himself in 

English, which could have helped him to achieve fluency and assisted in developing his 

confidence to communicate in English.  

 

In addition, student-participants expressed their view of using Chinese in classes at GLU, 

which links to the instructor-participants’ opinions of English-only policy depicted in Chapter 4. 

Eve reported his experiences from the business management class: “If we need to discuss in a big 

group, we must use the English. But if we only two, we discuss with another Chinese student, 

sometimes we’ll switch to the Chinese” (Eve, Interview). He did not see any benefits in using 

 

149 

English all the time and in all circumstances. On the other hand, Billy wanted all of his classes at 

GLU to demand English only. He studied in the ESL ACL class, the ESL context in the summer, 

where his classmates were his regular classmates from his university in China, though. He 

recalled: 

Excerpt 5.7: I think if you said Mandarin in class, it’s kind of disrespect to Han. He is 
teaching English in class so I think we should just speak English all the time in class. The 
interesting part is that if we said Chinese in class, he would just start saying language X. 
But I think the students here, it’s kind of hard to control themselves, like Mandarin is our 
native language so when we’re exciting or something, they would just say Chinese. 
(Billy, Interview) 
 

Han’s, who was teaching the ESL ACL class, approach to handling Chinese in class was surely 

interesting: speaking another Asian language. Billy’s recollections also resonate with findings 

from Han’s class presented in Chapter 4, when he was trying to make sure English was used the 

majority of time in the ESL ACL class. What I found particularly striking in Billy’s excerpt 

above was the fact that whenever he would speak of students using Chinese, he would switch to 

pronoun “they”, as if he subconsciously excluded himself from the group. Indeed, having 

observed the ESL ACL class, it was clear to me that Billy was determined to use as much 

English as possible in class, as he was ready to volunteer answers to Han’s questions and did not 

(to my knowledge) switch to Chinese in discussions, even though all his classmates were 

Chinese.  

 

Furthermore, Jackson shared some academic struggles that derived from his (self-

reported) low English level. “[…] because I like reading novels, so when it comes to English, 

sometimes I wish I can understand a novel normally like Chinese” (Jackson, Interview). Jackson 

claimed to have been reading a lot but if a chosen book (novel) was in English, he could not 

enjoy it due to the amount of unfamiliar vocabulary. In the same vein, he showed signs of 

 

150 

academic adjustment by telling me how hard it was for him to be able to stay on top of his 

responsibilities, his schedule and his general organization at GLU. 

Excerpt 5.8: So, I need a plan when I need to self-study but […] my schedule is a mess. 
It’s hard to know when class is, how to prepare, if there is a test. That’s painful. I often 
feel lost. So, then I read novels, that’s why. (Jackson, Interview) 
 

Jackson was not ready to organize his entire school life. He said back in China his advisor would 

handle all of that for him. He felt confused and lost when it came to setting up his own class 

schedule at GLU. Novels were his escape but having been unable to understand them thoroughly 

in English might have added to his stressors, too (Jackson, Interview).  

 

Furthermore, both Eve and Nick (who were attending the business management class 

during Spring and Fall semesters) found the pace of their instructor Peter’s speech problematic. 

Eve described listening to Peter lecture as “tough” (Eve, Interview), while Nick recalled a very 

encouraging experience with Peter after the first day of classes (Excerpt 5.9).  

Excerpt 5.9: And professor is also like when I have some questions, ask him, he will 
answer specifically and accurate, but he speaks super fast and has a funny accent, too. 
Not like my other teachers. I have talked with him when the end of the first class and I 
said to him: I’m too nervous to talk with other people, and he told me: Just go, when you 
make team, and just tell your teammates what’s your problem and what’s your idea. He 
also said he very care about my feelings and so he make the other Chinese boy with me in 
the one team. (Nick, Interview) 
 

Even though Nick acknowledged that Peter spoke fast and with an accent, he was equally 

touched by his instructor-participant’s kindness. He was happy that Peter took the time to listen 

to him (“he very care about my feelings”) and that he accommodated Nick by teaming him up 

with another Chinese student. Kindness seemed to matter to Nick. In case of language, Nick felt 

confident having another Chinese speaker by his side. In fact, Nick perceived his fellow students 

as kind too:  

 

151 

Excerpt 5.10: I think all American students I meet are very kind and they always help me. 
I have several cooperations with American people in different courses. And they are very 
kind and they help me to do language check and ideas. (Nick, Interview) 

 
For Nick, kindness was clearly a principal factor when asking domestic students (or an 

instructor) for help. They were willing to help him with English as well as any coursework issues 

that might have stemmed from the fact that his native language was Chinese. Even though Nick 

did not hide challenges related to having to use English all the time at GLU, he was also not 

afraid to ask for help. He was determined to improve his studying experiences at GLU 

altogether.  

 

Concurrently, it was of importance to student-participants to know what their instructor-

participants’ expectations and assessment styles were. Eve told me he struggled with adapting to 

the testing system at Grand Lake University.  

Excerpt 5.11: […] you need to prepare every test in the United States university but in the 
Chinese university they only care about the final test. […] so, if you done and took a 
midterm, per month per class, if you have four to five class average, you will take at least 
one test per week. (Eve, Interview) 

 
He clearly struggled with the frequency of having his knowledge checked at GLU. That affected 

his schedule too as he had to accommodate sufficient study time for the upcoming quizzes, tests 

and other forms of assessments the classes he was enrolled in might have utilized. Similarly, 

Aurora also grappled with her old ways of preparing for class. She found it hard to concentrate 

on readings and was easily distracted from those readings that were assigned in more volume 

compared to what she was used to in China.  

Excerpt 5.12: […] Like I don’t know which one is important. I think this one is 
important, but it didn’t show on the quiz. In our class, the assignment was about the 
reading material, you know. And we will take a quiz after I read it. So, on the quiz always 
show some very important points in the whole reading. I found some questions I didn’t 
see in my reading material, that’s strange. I use highlight and I learn some skills while I 
read. But still didn’t get the right answer for some questions. (Aurora, Interview)  
 

 

152 

In Aurora’s case, the lack of critical reading skills and some helpful techniques might have 

caused her stress with not getting 100% on a quiz. It was clearly important to her to get all the 

answers right. She was trying to improve her studying methods but found herself at a loss when 

some questions on the quiz were not represented in the reading, or in what she remembered from 

the reading. Both Eve and Aurora were having some challenging time adjusting their learning 

styles to the course assessments.  

While still at GLU, I asked student-participants about their hopes and expectations during 

the sojourn. “Improve English skills” was the most frequently coded phrase in the student-

participants’ data (Aurora, Billy, Jackson, Interviews). Additionally, both Amy and Jackson were 

in the college writing class, a compulsory course for all undergraduate students (domestic and 

international) at GLU, and they both mentioned hoping to improve their writing skills in English 

as well as their logic. Amy said she thought “professor is more focused on how to make a good 

story and not just like the skills of English writing” (Amy, Interview), which I confirmed through 

my observations of the college writing class.  

 

To recap, the language experiences of student-participants were clearly not without 

challenges. Yet, they demonstrated awareness of the reasons behind their struggles and tried to 

solve the issues by asking for help or trying to adjust their learning approaches. While student-

participants had to navigate a transition from one educational system to another, they were also 

able to notice acts of kindness that U.S. students and instructors extended towards them.  

Beliefs and Feelings about Studying in the U.S. 

 

The next theme that I found during data coding and analysis is related to what student-

participants feel and believe about studying in the United States, specifically at GLU. This theme 

also includes quite a few emotional experiences that relate to these students’ feelings towards 

 

153 

studying at GLU. For the purpose of space, I have picked the most interesting yet relevant 

reported words of the six student-participants.  

 

Starting with student-participants’ comparisons of the two systems, that is the Chinese 

education system with the U.S. education system (in particular at a large midwestern university), 

Jackson shed some light onto why some of his classmates, and himself at times as well, do not 

seem to participate actively in class discussions or are not willing to share their thoughts with 

everyone. “[…] Chinese think, in class, unless you get a very nice idea, they won’t say anything, 

if it’s not good enough…” (Jackson, Interview). According to Jackson, one needs to get a truly 

genius idea for it to be worth sharing with others in class. Based on my observations, student-

participants tended to find comfort in conforming to whatever someone else said.  

 

With relation to how student-participants perceived their own role in class, Nick told me 

during the interview that he still preferred the Chinese educational system over the U.S. one. He 

found it easy to just get tested on previously laid out material instead of having to really think 

about the questions and produce original solutions. Nick was taking the business management 

class, which either ran as a lecture or a pre-organized teamwork.  

Excerpt 5.13: It’s very different. In China, Chinese teacher always talk about the 
knowledge, something you need to know in exam and the like. But in American course, 
the professor will say his experience, his advice to you and to let you know some 
problems can be solved in the future and help you solve problems in the future. But in 
Chinese, it’s just knowledge, knowledge, knowledge and what you should know. It’s only 
the test. […] Honestly, I prefer Chinese system cause I’m good at memorizing. But in 
American test, it’s more focused on how to understand this thing. […] It’s hard for me to 
understand all the questions. But in Chinese they just say: what’s this? Definitions. (Nick, 
Interview) 
 

For Nick, having the same structure in classes back in China, where the focus would be on a test, 

was clearly a better solution as he realized he was “good at memorizing.” He struggled with the 

U.S. style of classes, too. He actually found the instructor-participants’ digressions with firsthand 

 

154 

experiences and examples distracting and confusing more than helpful. The understanding of 

things was troublesome for Nick, since it required more than just simple definitions. His 

preference of what is known to him and what is more aligned with his studying style was 

something he had to continuously overcome if he wanted to fit into the U.S. system of schooling. 

 

While Nick was getting adjusted to the new classroom reality the hard way, Aurora was 

telling me how much of a curiosity she had towards knowing her U.S. classmates and friends 

better, on a deeper level. “I want to know what they are thinking about. But I don’t know how to 

ask them. […] I want to be kind to them.” (Aurora, Interview). In fact, during my observations of 

ESL RESL A (ESL reading class), Aurora did not seem eager to ask such questions to students 

from other countries. She usually kept quiet and to herself. However, her curiosity of The Other, 

i.e., U.S. friends, shows that she was open to learn about their customs, habits and even belief 

systems. She simply did not know how to conduct such conversations with them. When I asked 

her why that might be the case, she attributed her fears to not wanting to be perceived as weird 

(Aurora, Interview), and “I want to be kind to them.” This indicates that Aurora also cared about 

what her classmates thought of her and it mattered to her to be seen as kind.  

 

In terms of student-participants’ beliefs about their instructor-participants, Billy had a 

very strong opinion that compared his instructor-participant at GLU, Han, with his Chinese 

English instructor in China.  

Excerpt 5.14: […] the teacher here is kind of great. I think the way he taught is kind of 
different from China. His way of teaching is kind of encourage people to speak and to 
talk. If you’re talking in a bad way, it’s all right, he will just forgive you and encourage 
you to practice more. But in China, my teacher just don’t give you a lot of chance to do 
that. She is always watching her cell phone and doesn’t care much about me. (Billy, 
Interview)  

 
Billy was quite observant. He was taking the ESL ACL class during summer. He had many 

chances to compare the two education systems. He appreciated his instructors’ kind approaches 

 

155 

to him (“he will just forgive you”). It was clear that gentle encouragement “to practice more” 

was also a teaching strategy Billy responded to. Billy’s words in Excerpt 5.14 made it sound like 

he needed more personalized attention from his instructor back in China, but most likely due to 

his class size there (over 40 people), the instructor was not able to work with every student 

individually. At GLU, Han’s approach to teaching and visible caring attitude towards his 

students’ success was what Billy appreciated.  

 

Comparatively, Amy had a lot to say in terms of comparing the two education systems, as 

she also shared with me that her future dream job would be something of a cultural bridge type, 

where she could explain both (that is the Chinese and U.S.) cultures to those who might not seem 

familiar with one.  

Excerpt 5.15: […] in China everything is about gaokao. They won’t look at your GPA or 
your essays. It’s just one test. So, it’s too much pressure and kind of unjust because you 
don’t even need to study during the freshmen year in high school. But I think in here, 
mostly you need to pay attention to every homework and you need to be studying all the 
times. But you don’t have a lot of pressure on a specific test. […] I like this style in here 
because I think students need to study all the time but not just during a specific time. It is 
fair. (Amy, Interview) 
 

In fact, other student-participants also mentioned gaokao, the National College Entry Exam, as 

one of the main factors contributing to their decision of studying in the United States. If they had 

known early enough that they would not have been applying to Chinese colleges, they would not 

have had to take gaokao. To Amy, having one centralized test of such exorbitant stakes was not 

fair in terms of students’ learning habits and study time commitments. Even though Amy 

claimed to have fewer classes in one semester at GLU than she would have at any Chinese 

college, she was confident fewer classes also provided her with enough time to prepare for all of 

them: “[…] though I don’t have so many classes, but I have time to study for that in details. […] 

I’m trying to do all my classes really good.” (Amy, Interview). From her interview, I learned that 

 

156 

having different class requirements also helped Amy to distribute her stress and pressure more 

evenly and made her strive to become an A student altogether.  

 

Moreover, when asked how they would describe their instructor-participants or their U.S. 

classmates and friends best, all six student-participants used the word “kind”, examples of which 

I present in Table 5.3 below. In fact, student-participants mentioned the word kind 28 times 

during their interviews. Table 5.3 depicts only chosen examples of these instances. The student-

participants also implied kindness by describing their instructors’ approaches to them as “nice”, 

and “care for me.” But the word kind was used most often in describing their instructors or peers. 

Table 5.3. 
Participants’ own words describing their instructors and friends in the U.S. 

Participant 
Nick 

Billy 

Aurora 
 
Jackson 
 
 
Amy 
 
Eve 
 

 

Quotations from the student-participants’ interviews 
“All my classmates are very kind.” 
 
“The teacher here is also kind.” 
 
“Everyone is so kind here. I feel good.” 
 
“He [Andrew] is really kind to us. He is patient and always 
listens.” 
 
“People are kind in American.” 
 
“…it was very kind.” (Referring to Peter’s mentioning of 
Taiwan in class) 

It was very important to them that the instructor-participants dedicated time to listen to them and 

that they wanted to help with their struggles. This was most reflective in ways the four 

instructor-participants grouped their students for teamwork or group work. Peter, as mentioned in 

detail in Chapter 4, was the only instructor-participant that used an algorithm to structure teams 

in the most optimal way in his business management class. He also accommodated Nick’s 

challenges by adding another Chinese student onto his team, in case any language barriers arose. 

 

157 

Nick found this extremely kind and thoughtful. Nick also proudly pointed out to me that “the 

Chinese students and one international student in my group were best in the class” (Nick, 

Interview).  

In addition, there were other instances where instructor-participants’ classroom practices 

were perceived as kind by the six student-participants. For example, Amy saw Andrew’s 

strategies to meet with students individually to discuss different stages of their written 

assignments as an act of kindness. “[…] a lot of advice he gave me is not like your grammar 

issues or structural issues. It’s just like his own feeling as a reader, but he is always kind.” (Amy, 

Interview). She elaborated by saying that Andrew “cared” about developing her creative 

thinking. To Amy, this was a sign that her instructor-participant cared about her as a person, by 

making sure she learned more than just what was in the reading materials or in textbook. 

Similarly, Eve perceived Peter’s careful mentioning of Taiwan, neither claiming its sovereignty 

or dependence on mainland China, during the classes I observed, as his international 

competence.  

Excerpt 5.16: […] Sometimes they will consider Taiwan as a country, […] but other 
professors didn’t know about that, so it might cause problems. It’s hard to explain what 
the Taiwan problem is here, in America, to the American professors. But he knew. So, it 
was very kind. (Eve, Interview) 

 
Given the ongoing political banter of whether Taiwan should be called a sovereign country or a 

part of China, Eve was very sensitive to the matter. When Peter mentioned Taiwan in his class, 

which I was observing, all Chinese students in the class looked at him with what seemed to me 

as admiration (Peter, Field Notes Journal). He pointed on the map which he pulled up online and 

said: “Taiwan, here. I’m not going to go into political details here.” (Peter, Field Notes Journal). 

Judging by the looks on the students’ faces, it was clear they respected him and took it as a 

gesture of intercultural openness. Nick saw it as an example of kindness, that is taking the 

 

158 

presence of Chinese undergraduate students in the class into consideration when making 

comments that could potentially spark an impromptu, yet unnecessarily heated discussion.  

 

With regard to interacting with instructors in class or outside of teaching, Jackson told me 

his instructor-participant, Andrew, would treat you in response to how hard-working you 

appeared. “He will say: Oh, your paper is great, but if you work hard, he will say a lot, to help 

you.” (Jackson, Interview). In other words, Jackson thought that Andrew was attentive to his 

students’ progress as much as they cared about their own standing in his class. His observation 

seemed fair to me, as I got a similar impression from observing Andrew’s classes. Again, this, to 

Jackson, was a sign of caring. Jackson also pointed out that in class any cultural references that 

might have been made would focus on “some humorous things about Chinese culture” (Jackson, 

Interview). Andrew always alluded to other cultures, the Chinese one in particular, but made it so 

the Chinese undergraduate students in his class were engaged and willing to share pieces of their 

cultures with others. To my knowledge, based on the interviews and my classroom observations, 

there were no instances of visible insults or noticeable judgement in Andrew’s class. Hence, 

Jackson saw inclusion and genuine interest in his background as kindness (Andrew, Field Notes 

Journal).  

 

Overall, when I asked the six student-participants if they felt respected in their classes at 

GLU, they all said yes without any hesitation. Amy gave me examples of how she knew her 

instructor-participant, Andrew, respected her: (1) “He knows my name, even my Chinese name.” 

(2) “He did not make me feel alone.” (3) “He was very interested in China and never make it 

look bad.” (Amy, Interview). This list was extremely important to the student-participants. It also 

contributed to their positive assessment of their experiences at GLU. Their responses could not 

have been any more unified than: positive, I like it here, absolutely perfect. That does not mean 

 

159 

the student-participants did not recall negative instances during their stay in the United States, 

but those situations were related to their social life more than school life; therefore, they will be 

discussed with the next theme.  

The Social Side of the New 

 

The last theme in this student-participants collective case study is the social side of their 

new environment, that is GLU and the United States more broadly. This theme encompasses 

student-participants’ experiences with new cultures, any challenges they might have encountered 

in the social sphere and general daily life situations that were new to them.  

 

First of all, student-participants shared their observations regarding several aspects of life 

in the U.S. with me. For instance, Aurora, who was taking the ESL reading class (ESL RESL A), 

compared the convenience of using mobile phones in China to pay in stores, to connect with 

friends through an application named WeChat (similar to WhatsApp) with the same functionality 

of any U.S. apps. “I found American apps very specific, one just to focus on work out” (Aurora, 

Interview). According to Aurora, the Chinese app WeChat combines functions of many apps in 

the U.S. in one, that is you can pay in stores with it, work out, sell and buy and use its friends 

circles to stay in touch with your friends at all times (Aurora, Interview). Aurora found WeChat 

more convenient than any of the U.S. apps she compared it to. Similarly, Nick reported his 

surprise with the public buses in the city GLU is located at, where one needs to pull a string to 

notify the driver of their desired stop. In China, buses have to stop at every designated station, 

regardless of having passengers get off or not. Nick elaborated: 

Excerpt 5.17: I think it’s convenient here, but it depends. It’s convenient here because 
there is not so many traffic. But in China, there’s so many traffic and so many cars, so the 
bus driver cannot care about every person’s feeling, can’t be so kind. They should follow 
the rules from the company to stop for each station, but in here it’s not more traffic and 
not more car so it’s convenient to pull the string to let the bus driver know what time to 
stop and which station to stop. (Nick, Interview) 

 

160 

When comparing the two systems, Nick seemed quite observant and rational. He understood that 

convenience might have been the main argument for assessing how things worked in each 

country and one that evoked kind behaviors, too. He also maintained focus on following the 

norms each country imposed on its citizens. In sum, both Aurora and Nick mentioned 

convenience as an important value and used it as their judgment category.  

 

In addition, student-participants also recalled a few instances where their roommates or 

classmates demonstrated interest in Chinese cultures. Nick’s classmate often sought Nick’s help 

on homework from his Chinese class.  

Excerpt 5.18: […] My teammate, he is learning Chinese, and he always does Chinese 
homework when I come to the classroom. He will ask me to check if it’s right or not. 
He’s always writing one word so many times and I told him that’s what we do in China. 
He’s kind to me so I want to be kind to him. (Nick, Interview) 
 

Not only did Nick readily offer help to his U.S. classmate, whom he perceived as kind, he also 

wanted to share with him pieces of his culture. This explains why he told him multiple 

repetitions of Chinese characters were what students do in China when learning to write, too. He 

wanted to repay his classmates’ kindness with his own kindness. Nick was willing to help and 

share his culture with those who were interested in it. In a similar vein, Eve reported his 

classmates in the business management class were curious about Chinese alphabet and how it 

might work with a keyboard. “I think I just told him a lot about pinyin […] that we developed 

something that we can use just like English, like some characters pushed together to pronounce 

the word.” (Eve, Interview). Eve explained to his classmates how Chinese can be typed on a 

keyboard and used that opportunity to teach them something about the culture of Chinese 

language. Both Nick and Eve were willing to share their home cultures with their U.S. 

classmates in different social situations.   

 

161 

 

Anecdotally, student-participants also found certain instances of experiencing the new 

funny. In particular, Amy told me that someone at GLU asked her “if I know how to do kung-fu” 

(Amy, Interview). She told them it was a funny question because all Chinese people do not 

practice kung-fu. She thought it was a stereotype that person held about the Chinese but took it 

as a joke more than comment meant to offend her.  

 

Not surprisingly, student-participants’ experiences in the new social sphere were not free 

of challenges. To illustrate, Amy admitted having been homesick for a prolonged period of time 

when she first got to GLU. “I thought it would be a really cool experience cause I got curious 

about everything but at first I got really homesick.” (Amy, Interview). Amy told me her mom 

had to come to stay with her for a few months so she could continue studies in her first semester. 

She did not expect to miss her family so much as she was excited to experience the new, so this 

feeling of homesickness caught her by surprise. Feeling homesick ties into making friends in the 

U.S. Nick said he only had one “American friend, but he’s Korean American” (Nick, Interview). 

Jackson said: “meet friends in classes is more difficult than in a club” (Jackson, Interview), as he 

saw most students focused on assignments instead of socializing while in class. However, he did 

not hang out with any Americans at that point. In fact, he also did not spend time together with 

any Chinese undergraduate students after class. “[…] just by myself” (Jackson, Interview). When 

I asked him why he said: 

Excerpt 5.19: Because the Chinese students here is not really like the same people in our 
high school. Some students not work very hard so I not into them. They are rich, not like 
me, just very rich. It’s hard to make friends with them, nothing in common. (Jackson, 
Interview) 

 
Jackson saw himself as coming from a lower economic class than some of the Chinese 

undergraduate students he encountered at GLU, therefore he did not try to make friends with 

them (“nothing in common”). He also did not show much initiative to find himself American 

 

162 

friends. He preferred solitude where he could go home and read novels. Amy, Nick and Jackson 

experienced certain challenges in the social arena in the United States. While Amy solved her 

problem by asking her mom to come and stay with her for a while, Jackson continued to live 

alone, as he was likely not ready to engage in friendships with either Chinese or U.S. students.  

 

Furthermore, when asked specifically whether student-participants might have 

experienced any situations of bias or discrimination, they said they did not personally, but a few 

of them heard of such instances from their countrymates. In particular, Aurora told me her 

Chinese friend was swore at by another student on GLU campus: “One of the white men said 

something bad to the Chinese, so my friend feel very unfair and angry about this.” (Aurora, 

Interview). She learnt about that instance from Chinese social media (WeChat), where her friend 

made a post that was broadly commented on by other Chinese undergraduate students at GLU. 

She called it “inkind” (Aurora, Interview), but underlined the fact that this was the only time she 

heard of any such happening. Other student-participants could not recall any situations of such 

nature.  

 

Lastly, the six student-participants had different living situations while studying at GLU. 

Some lived in dormitories on GLU campus, while others were renting apartments with either 

other Chinese undergraduate students or American roommates. Nick experienced a cultural 

difference firsthand when his American roommate would overuse the fan, turning their room into 

a very cold place.  

Excerpt 5.20: My American roommate, he always likes to turn on the fan and beside the 
window and cause me very cold. When I’m in the morning, I get up, poor me, always 
cold. I don’t know why I see a lot of fans people put besides windows, the wind. It’s too 
cold for me. (Nick, Interview) 

 
From my own experiences with traditional Chinese medicine, confirmed through my 

conversation with Nick, Chinese people tend to believe that any form of draught that might enter 

 

163 

their body has a potential to make them sick. Nick pitied himself (“poor me”) for having to deal 

with his U.S. roommate’s habit of keeping a fan by the window, therefore letting the cool air 

enter the room. Yet, he did not address the issue with the roommate. When I asked him why, he 

said: “I should be kind to him” (Nick, Interview). Thus, he chose to stay quiet and suffer in 

silence. The importance of being kind to his roommate seemed to have overtaken Nick’s 

discomfort. Other student-participants also did not seem to be capitalizing on the fact their 

roommates were local in terms of language exchanges or cultural learning.  

 

The social experiences of student-participants varied on a pendulum from exciting to 

scary to challenging. They also mentioned kindness as an important element of their social life.  

The range of the student-participants’ social experiences make an argument for them being a 

heterogeneous group that cannot be generalized. Some of them chose to learn from their social 

experiences, while others were yet to have seen such experiences as potentially educational. 

 

164 

CHAPTER 6 

DISCUSSION 

 

In this chapter, I discuss findings from both collective case studies. First, I delineate a 

discussion of findings from the instructor-participants collective case study, followed by 

discussing the student-participants collective case study. Headers appear with accordance to 

themes presented in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively.  

Instructor-participants Collective Case Study: Discussion 

 

In this section, I discuss the presented findings with regard to existing relevant literature, 

the multiple contexts (represented visually in Figure 4.1) and my interpretations as the 

researcher. Finally, I end this section by summarizing instructor-participants collective case 

study and prefacing the following one.  

Transformative Internationalization through Teaching Practices 

Engaging not only in internationalization but in transformative internationalization, that 

is one which involves symbiotic changes in both students and instructors, matters in this context. 

The four instructor-participants either underwent changes evoked by teaching Chinese 

undergraduate students in their classes (e.g., Andrew, Stan) or were open to transforming their 

pedagogical approaches to these students (e.g., Han and Peter). Thus, I bound findings from this 

collective case study within the notion of transformative internationalization, since as will 

become clear later both instructors and students admitted having undergone mutually evoked 

changes.  

Perceptions of Chinese undergraduate students. The way instructor-participants in this 

study perceive Chinese undergraduate students was the first theme I presented in the findings 

chapter. Earlier, based on the four instructor-participants’ reports, I presented these instructor-

 

165 

participants’ perceived motivations behind Chinese undergraduate students’ decisions to study in 

the U.S. I also showed how these instructor-participants’ beliefs about and attitudes towards 

Chinese undergraduate students and China changed over time. In the midst of this, I delineated 

findings on how their general satisfaction teaching a given course relates to their perceptions of 

Chinese undergraduate students. Now, I will discuss these findings in light of existing literature 

and my (the researcher) interpretations.  

One suggestion that Chung et al. (2018) offer for instructors in relation to Chinese 

undergraduate students abroad is to consider the extent to which these students’ educational 

motivations are shaped by the politics of education in mainland China or constantly changing 

familial traditions. This concern was also reflected in Stan (students did not want to go through 

Chinese national examination regime or could not obtain a high enough score to be admitted to 

one of the best universities in China) and Peter’s impressions as of why they had Chinese 

undergraduate students in their classes (i.e., family responsibility). Chung et al. (2018) found that 

their participating Chinese undergraduate students expected a wide range of benefits from having 

a foreign degree, namely knowledge advancement, improvement of their social communication 

skills, broadening their global perspectives and widened cultural exposure. In recent years, the 

Chinese government has expanded its plans of seeking maximum benefits of overseas education 

both in a form of cultural and social capital (Chung et al., 2018), of which this study’s instructor-

participants were likely not aware. The Chinese government has also planned to spread Chinese 

cultural values overseas while incentivizing internationally educated students to return to China 

(Chung et al., 2018). The hopes are that globally educated Chinese undergraduate students will 

contribute to the rise of the China nation in the future, but in order for this to happen their 

Chinese instructors need to be a part of the conversation.  

 

166 

Moreover, Chao et al. (2017) listed the most influential factors that might impact Chinese 

undergraduate students’ decisions to study in the U.S. as the desire to gain a new perspective on 

China as their respondents’ top incentive. Stan mentioned some of the students he spoke to 

where interested in new cultures and new worldviews.  Stan also mentioned that some of the 

students he had encountered either did not want to go through Chinese national examination 

regime or could not obtain a high enough score to be admitted to one of the best universities in 

China. Chao et al. (2017) also ranked this reason as the second most common motivation to 

study in the U.S. Their participants also presented a clear awareness of the necessity to return to 

China upon graduation as foreign nationals might not be able to secure jobs in North America as 

easily, while this study’s student-participants did not, as became visible in Chapter 5.  

Peter’s perceptions of what motivates Chinese undergraduate students to further their 

education in the United States stated that these students seem to be driven to complete their 

degrees abroad by family responsibility, even more so if their parents have already determined 

their future career, such as taking over a family business. Montgomery (2017) found that there 

were several push-pull factors that motivated her study participants from China to come to the 

U.S. schools. Amongst those were parental influences or good reputation of a given program, but 

the instructor-participants in this study were not aware of those. Chung et al. (2018) conclude 

that Chinese undergraduate students abroad see their education from a U.S. university as a path 

to join the elite nationals with rich global influences and experiences (p. 433), which partially 

matches what Stan and Peter stated above about what they perceived as motivation for the 

Chinese undergraduate students in their classes. Lu et al.’s (2018) findings also strengthen this 

conclusion, stating that Chinese undergraduate students’ motivation to study in the U.S. is often 

linked to avoidance of unwanted societal pressures and stigmas in China. Unless a student-

 

167 

participant directly confided in an instructor, the instructor-participants could only share their 

assumptions as to what motivated the Chinese undergraduate students to enter their classrooms.  

In terms of the instructors’ general perceptions of Chinese undergraduate students, 

Frenzel et al. (2016) claim that the emotions instructors have towards their profession influence 

not only their well-being but also the smoothness of running their classrooms. However, they 

caution against generalized claims and suggest contextualizing to a particular subject taught. In 

this collective case study, Han was the one who emphasized his enjoyment teaching the ESL 

cultural course (ESL ACL) the most. Because that class was quite specific in its context, that is 

ESL ACL – American Cultures and Language (henceforth ESL cultural class), it is safe to infer 

that reactions might have varied if the subject taught was different. Again, the findings discussed 

in this chapter are not to be applied onto different contexts, but rather seen as particularized to a 

specific situation, class taught, or cases examined. Even though Han expressed some anxiety 

over teaching the ESL cultural class, since it was his first time and he did not know what to 

expect from that group of Chinese undergraduate students, Frenzel et al. (2016) claim that 

teaching anxiety threatens instructors’ well-being only and is not to be considered an impact on 

teaching quality. From my observations, Han was visibly nervous at the beginning of the course 

(he spoke fast, and his hands were shaking) but as the classes continued, he became more 

relaxed, confident (no more shaking hands) and exuded pleasure from working with that group 

of Chinese undergraduate students. I saw that in his strolls around the room and attempts at 

making jokes with students. This indicated to me that Han was transformed, by the mere power 

of his students being responsive to his teaching and having created a comfortable atmosphere in 

the classroom.  

 

168 

On another note, instructor-participants’ beliefs about Chinese undergraduate students 

varied in this project as well. While Stan described his Chinese undergraduate students as 

changed, more culturally informed and new, Peter held more conservative ideas about how to 

work with Chinese undergraduate students by pointing out their assumed tendency to stick 

together. This is an interesting contrast. Stan taught an ESL class while Peter was an instructor of 

a business management class. Peter’s observations of Chinese undergraduate students sticking 

together can be found in slightly older research findings, where Chinese undergraduate students 

were seen as struggling with the learner-centered approach that focuses on group work, active 

participation and sharing one’s opinions (e.g., Yan & Berliner, 2009). Given the size of Peter’s 

class, its convention as a lecture and its main teaching technique being teamwork (with 

instructor-assigned teams), having chances to develop close relationships with his Chinese 

undergraduate students might have proven difficult.  

Conversely, Stan’s attitude towards the “new Chinese learner” (as an amalgamate of the 

more conservative old and the more progressive new [Shi, 2006]) is more prevalent amongst 

recent research findings that portray Chinese undergraduate students as different but not deficient 

(Heng, 2018), heterogeneous, and in need of contextualization when explored (Du, 2015). Stan 

was open to learn from his students, which links with the bilateral nature of interculturality 

(Dervin, 2016b) and transformation as well. Only mutual changes can form well-rounded and 

globally educated individuals (Dervin, 2016b).  

Interestingly, Stan said something during our second interview that grabbed my attention: 

“We have a new type of an ESL teacher these days” (Stan, Interview 2). When asked to explain 

what he meant by that, he stated the fact that instructors of English as a second language in this 

day and age are more globally informed, better traveled, and more versatile when it comes to 

 

169 

nationalities and their students’ places of origin. This, in turn, makes them more receptive to 

accept change, try new teaching approaches and stay open to the new generation of Chinese 

undergraduate students. According to Stan, “the new type of an ESL teacher” has undergone a 

transformation in their attitudes, views and approaches to students who study English as a second 

language. Also, given what Shi (2006) found in her study, that is the fact that today’s Chinese 

undergraduate students depict “something old” and “something new”, shifting from traditional 

Confucian learners to more modern, individualistic and having much more in common with their 

Western equivalents than previously assumed, might make a potential reflection of the new type 

of the ESL teacher described by Stan.  

The intercultural approach to teaching Chinese undergraduate students also brings the 

concept of othering into the forefront of this discussion. In the Introduction to this project, I 

defined othering as the stereotypes and faulty representations when meeting others. Andrew was 

very vocal about making sure he did not other any students in his class. The language on his 

syllabus was welcoming to non-native speakers of English as was his demeanor during the 

classes I observed. Even though he did point out that Chinese undergraduate students come from 

different cultures of learning, he was not judgmental in his observations. Dervin (2016b) points 

out that to other someone means to create “a boundary between different and same, insiders and 

outsiders” (p. 45). So, in order to other one would need to compare self to the others (Dervin, 

2016b) and Andrew never did that during the times I observed his teaching, neither through his 

syllabus discourse nor his words or behaviors in the classroom. According to Ferri (2018), to 

essentialize through othering means to impose a new framework on The Other, thus essentialism 

lies at the core of othering. Andrew’s syllabus was clear and welcoming “the other voices.” It 

was quite inspirational to watch him teach, in a way, as by being aware of the processes of 

 

170 

othering he skillfully managed to avoid any instances of othering towards Chinese undergraduate 

students. He did not impose any ideas on them but allowed them to co-construct definitions of 

terms he was teaching though group discussions. He also encouraged Chinese undergraduate 

students to present themselves as they wanted to be perceived, without any presupposed ideas, 

assuring them that his classroom was a safe space to do so.  

The findings of the first theme discussed above solidify the idea that internationalization 

does not suffice. In order to achieve transformative rather than symbolic internationalized 

environment, instructors’ voices need to be heard. This study’s instructor-participants’ 

perceptions of Chinese undergraduate students and their multiple contexts show that celebrating 

the cultural richness international students bring about has the potential to affect these instructor-

participants’ teaching satisfaction as well as their beliefs about Chinese undergraduate students 

in general.  

Cultural mélange. The instructor-participants in this study reported diverse levels of 

integrating culture into teaching their respective courses. Although the topic of culture appeared 

multiple times in other places during the interviews as well, I found it important to include 

‘culture talk’ whether inside or outside of classroom that Chinese undergraduate students are 

exposed to on a daily basis as a part of a broader theme of cultural mélange.  

The overarching idea behind the ‘culture talk’ in this instructor-participants collective 

case study was culturally responsive teaching (Farinde-Wu et al., 2017). Culturally responsive 

teaching challenges the idea that students from linguistically or culturally diverse backgrounds 

do not stand a chance to excel academically if they do not conform to “Western” ideals, beliefs 

and established ways (Farinde-Wu et al., 2017). Even though the instructor-participants revealed 

various levels of cultural or intercultural awareness, they were all indeed aware of the 

 

171 

importance of implementing cultural components into their courses. In this case, Chinese 

undergraduate students might have been potentially positioned at a disadvantage for the mere 

fact of being foreign to the U.S. cultures of learning. However, none of the instructor-participants 

reported having seen them that way. Only Peter mentioned once that Chinese undergraduate 

students struggled in his class due to his fast pace of speech or less common linguistic features. 

In fact, Farinde-Wu et al. (2017) describe a culturally responsive instructor as one who links 

instruction to students’ cultural backgrounds, does not utilize any dominant or othering 

narratives, and not only appreciates but also promotes cultural awareness for students from 

culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (p. 282). Generally, for some instructors, the 

lack of knowledge of students’ backgrounds might be enough of a reason not to try to adopt 

culturally responsive pedagogy in their classrooms. This study’s instructor-participants did not 

share that characteristic. They were not only willing to share U.S. cultures with their students 

(Han) but also other cultures (Peter) and cultures of learning (Stan). They were also either 

already transformed by their students (Stan’s attitude and Andrew’s view of learning as a shared 

journey with his students) or at least open to changes that these students’ might have evoked in 

their pedagogical practices (Han’s shift in anxiety and Peter’s attempt at knowing how his 

college approached accommodations). Andrew was also eager to learn new things about other 

cultures (mostly Chinese) from his students. Farinde-Wu et al. (2017) offer a concluding thought 

on the practicalities of teaching in culturally responsive ways: “teach them [students] to be 

responsive to a larger culture or other cultures […] pushing them to be global thinkers (p. 291).” 

Overall, this ties into the concepts of transformative internationalization and interculturality as 

the processes that have to work both ways (student-instructor, instructor-student) in order to 

become meaningful.  

 

172 

Moreover, Mott-Smith (2013) claims that in order to understand Chinese undergraduate 

students, it is crucial for instructors to understand not only the global context within which those 

students exist but also their unique cultures of learning. For the purpose of this project, I defined 

culture of learning as the socially established beliefs about learning and teaching. Mott-Smith 

(2013) suggests that gaining insights into Chinese undergraduate students’ educational needs and 

practices might make instructors better facilitators of discussions, for instance. Mak and Barker 

(2006) claim that Chinese undergraduate students’ difficulty to actively participate in class 

discussions is understandable given that it is not customary in Chinese classrooms, but this 

assumption seems a bit outdated in application to the latest generation of Chinese undergraduate 

students abroad (Heng, 2018). One idea is that Chinese undergraduate students’ silence in class 

might come from their genuine fear and respect towards an instructor who holds their future in 

his or her hands rather than from the fact that Confucianism promotes submission.  

The concept of cultural mélange fits into diverse cultures of learning and the challenges 

those bring into the classroom. Here, the four instructor-participants displayed diverse class 

management styles as well. For instance, while Peter was very adamant about relying on an 

algorithm to create student teams for his course, Han changed his cell phone policy and his 

approach to classroom discipline based on negative experiences from previous semesters. Dicke 

et al. (2015) concluded, from their study on the effects of classroom management skills training 

on beginning instructors, that solid training has a potential to reduce instructor’s reality shock, 

which they define as “the collapse of ideals or expectations developed during teacher education” 

(p. 9). In Han’s case and according to his words, specific training would have been very helpful. 

However, he did disclose having a coordinator who was ready to help and advise him on 

classroom matters. The coordinator was deemed as helpful in most of the troublesome instances. 

 

173 

Yet, I would take it a step further and say that perhaps classroom management training does not 

only alleviate reality shock but has an immense potential to familiarize instructors with styles of 

handling a classroom from other parts of the world, simultaneously contributing to cultural 

mixing. If the aim is a truly transformative internationalization, then perhaps we start by turning 

training into more of a global endeavor where multiplicity of cultures (including cultures of 

learning) is seen by all involved as an asset in a classroom.  

Back to culture and its effects on how Chinese undergraduate students approach learning 

in the U.S. schools, the relationship between the instructors’ knowledge about these students’ 

cultural and learning backgrounds and their pedagogies cannot be denied. Amongst the 

instructor-participants, Stan had the most knowledge about where Chinese undergraduate 

students are coming from academically. Peter’s failure to predict that calling on a student might 

cause stress, anxiety and even tears, could have been avoided if he knew more about Chinese 

cultures of learning. Maybe then he would not have been surprised by another Chinese student’s 

request to be teamed up with American classmates. Schmidt et al. (2018) claim that 

interculturality has the potentiality to address any ambiguities that might occur in cross-cultural 

situations. They explain further that interculturality means empathetic communication where 

Chinese undergraduate students’ needs and identities are openly discussed (p. 47). According to 

Schmidt et al. (2018), instructors could gain confidence by knowing that they can learn culturally 

appropriate approaches to Chinese undergraduate students. However, they also need to 

understand that this process is a hybrid of teaching about U.S. cultures and learning about the 

Chinese ones. This suggestion extends the idea of cultural mélange by raising a question whether 

it is time we moved beyond perceiving one culture as more dominant than the other. Of course, 

an equal split between cultural influences is not realistic, therefore, U.S. cultures will be more 

 

174 

powerful than the Chinese undergraduate students’ home cultures in many instances. Yet, it does 

not mean that a mutual dialogue and respect amidst academic cultures cannot happen.  

Overall, following Cortazzi and Jin’s (2013) understanding of cultures of learning as 

“different cultural communities having different preferences, expectations, interpretations, values 

and beliefs about how to learn or how to teach” (p. 1), instructor-participants were aware of 

bridging the ‘West’ and the ‘East’ as a way to build strong classroom communities. Through 

efforts to bridge the two different cultures of learning, instructor-participants demonstrated 

awareness of the importance of transformative internationalization. Through my classroom 

observations, I noticed that all four instructor-participants were very aware of the fact that they 

had Chinese undergraduate students in their classes (e.g., they often made sure they pronounced 

their Chinese names correctly). Andrew made sure to not perceive the Chinese undergraduate 

students in his course as deficient, therefore, giving them a voice and an equal seat at the table. 

Han did not want to generalize, while Stan accommodated the fact that some of his Chinese 

undergraduate students were not familiar with the cultural backgrounds to the readings that they 

were expected to tackle by explaining it to them upfront. Lastly, Peter learned that cultures of 

learning differ the hard way, after having made a student cry, but that helped him to stay more 

reflexive (Dervin, 2016b) of his classroom teaching techniques. If learning is to be 

transformative, not just an act of transmission (Cortazzi & Jin, 2013), both parties need to stay 

open minded and ready for the new to enter their teaching and learning realms. Through such an 

approach, cultural synergy (understood as “reciprocal learning through reflection”, Cortazzi & 

Jin, 2013, p. 2) might be a feasible goal in the midst of the cultural mélange. Indeed, in this 

study, instructor-participants displayed an open-minded attitude towards teaching Chinese 

undergraduate students. 

 

175 

Pedagogical approaches to Chinese undergraduate students. The ways instructor-

participants decided to approach Chinese undergraduate students in their courses were many and 

equally diverse. Clark-Gareca and Gui (2019) claim that instructors’ cultural and pedagogical 

beliefs affect their instructional practices. How this study’s instructor-participants viewed 

Chinese undergraduate students in their classes (either as lazy, shy [Han], or hard-working and 

smart [Stan]), proved to influence their respective pedagogies. The four instructor-participants at 

GLU also differed when it comes to accommodating Chinese undergraduate students in their 

classes. While Han paid special attention to Chinese undergraduate students’ pronunciation, 

Peter was told not to provide any special treatment to the Chinese undergraduate students in his 

business management class. The document on GLU’s website that delineated instructors’ 

teaching responsibilities does not mention any accommodations for the international students 

either. High quality teaching, however, is one of the criteria that instructors’ promotion, retention 

and salary at GLU depends on. Still, instructors’ understanding of student needs is believed to 

play a crucial role in making decisions about the curriculum (Clark-Gareca & Gui, 2019). 

However, when considering changes to teaching practices, one needs to stay cautious not to 

other the Chinese or position them as problematic in the class. Abelmann and Kang (2014) 

reported that some instructors required their Chinese undergraduate students to leave their books 

at the front of the classroom during an exam to prevent cheating, which in turn othered those 

students instead of simply explaining it by their unfamiliarity with the notion of intellectual 

property (p. 392). Thus, finding a balanced approach, one that would capitalize on Chinese and 

U.S. cultures of learning consequently might help to avoid tensions and unnecessary chasms. It 

holds the power to capitalize on the diverse cultures of learning Chinese undergraduate students 

have to offer for the U.S. academia as well as instructors’ intercultural teaching skills.  

 

176 

Accordingly, the most striking observation to emerge from this theme was the issue of 

plagiarism. Mott-Smith (2013) talks about instructors looking at plagiarism as commonly done 

re-usage of text and warns against othering Chinese undergraduate students as the only ones who 

practice it. In addition, based on my teaching experiences in China, Chinese undergraduate 

students often come from a place where essays or even more so oral presentations are memorized 

for the purpose of a test or a better grade. They seem to have a different understanding of 

copyright and plagiarism from that of their instructors, which is reflected in a cultural clash of 

testing and grading practices. While GLU’s policies, available online, define plagiarism as 

“presenting as one’s own the words, work, or opinions of someone else,” I did not see or receive 

a clear definition of what plagiarism might entail when I was teaching in China. Adequately, 

James et al. (2019) report that Chinese undergraduate students’ belief in a “standard answer” as a 

representation of the correct answer to a given question on a test or assignment, is the main 

reason behind plagiarism. Yet, James et al. (2019) found business students to “be more focused 

on end results” (p. 637), perceiving plagiarism as a clear means to completing their writing 

assignments in college. Peter, who taught the business management class, did not report any 

similar experiences. On the contrary, humanities classes tend to focus on creating content, which 

is why students in the humanities tend to plagiarize less (James et al., 2019). Andrew, who taught 

the college writing class, did mention that as long as his students’ writing makes logical sense, he 

did not mention concerns with issues of plagiarizing. Further, Bikowski and Gui (2018) see 

understanding how Chinese undergraduate students use sources in their native language as a 

potential solution to misunderstandings when it comes to text borrowings (p. 201), which is what 

Stan and Han skillfully did in their ESL reading classes (by asking their Chinese undergraduate 

students over and over again how things are done in a typical Chinese classroom). According to 

 

177 

James et al. (2019), Chinese educational system teaches students to restate authoritative sources. 

Admittedly, definitions of plagiarism also vary in different institutional and educational contexts. 

For instance, while a Chinese student might have intended to copy, they might have not 

necessarily intended to cheat. As Han rightfully noticed, having had his students make oral 

presentations rather than written reports, using effective and appropriate sources also depends on 

context. Overall, instructors’ approach towards plagiarism not only matters but also affects their 

students’ responsiveness to it. Open-minded perspective on cultural and educational contexts 

Chinese undergraduate students come from may influence the overall comprehension of the 

issue.  

These project’s instructor-participants operated in three different ones, namely English as 

a second language, college writing, and a business management class. It is important to note how 

these different contexts impacted their approaches to teaching Chinese undergraduate students. 

Peter (in his BC class) displayed an example of good communication between an instructor and a 

Chinese undergraduate student, when he listened to and advised his female Chinese student on 

how to handle team conflict. This goes against Erichsen and Bolliger’s (2011) findings that 

Asian students’ arduous work and intelligence was not acknowledged by their instructors. This 

study’s instructor-participants demonstrated effort and commitment to working with Chinese 

undergraduate students in interculturally responsive ways and openness to transformation, that is 

without othering or stereotyping (Dervin, 2016b). This in turn allowed them to create a safe 

learning environment in a given teaching context (Erichsen & Bolliger, 2011).  

The three different contexts in this study also helped me to determine how the instructor-

participants perceive their current Chinese undergraduate students, as opposed to what they had 

thought of them in the past. Stan, who had been teaching Chinese undergraduate students the 

 

178 

longest, emphasized that U.S. institutions are dealing with the new type of Chinese learners these 

days, who according to Shi (2006) could not be any further from a traditional image of passive 

rote-learners. Stan described them as hard-working and culturally rich. By extension, Lin and 

Reinders (2019) elaborated on how ready instructors might be to foster Chinese undergraduate 

students’ autonomy of learning. Conversely to Stan, Lin and Reinders’ (2019) participating 

instructors understood their role in cultivating learner autonomy and even showed willingness to 

promote it, but their pedagogical practices did not reflect those realizations. They were deemed 

“psychologically, but not technically or behaviorally, ready for autonomy” (Lin & Reinders, 

2019, p. 85). Despite the fact that Stan certainly showed awareness and willingness to explore 

the new Chinese learner further, the question whether a contemporary instructor can move 

beyond established representations of Chinese undergraduate students, either from literature or 

their own teaching experiences, remains. Facing the new Chinese learner in U.S. classrooms 

might require adjustments and changes in pedagogies (such as adapting teaching approaches and 

changing beliefs) that do not come easily or naturally to seasoned instructors.  

Analogously, attitudes towards English-only policy also varied in this study participants’ 

classrooms. Wang and Curdt-Christiansen (2019) see translanguaging pedagogy as a force that 

can shift focus onto the content learning and loosen the tights on correctness. Translanguaging 

was first termed by Williams in 1996 as a purposeful type of language teaching where the input 

and the output are done in two different languages or modes (Williams as cited in Wang & 

Curdt-Christiansen, 2019). In this study, Han was a bit more adamant about his students using 

English, but since his class was in the English as a second language context this did not come as 

a surprise to me. Neither did Andrew’s openness towards World Englishes and his encouraging 

practices to translanguage in the college writing class. While experts in applied linguistics tend 

 

179 

to believe that including students’ first language in classroom instruction or pedagogical 

practices serves as a valuable resource, the U.S. schooling system seems to think that using any 

other languages while learning English might affect the process in a negative way (Holdway & 

Hitchcock, 2018). Holdway and Hitchcock (2018) state that the instructor’s approach to 

languages other than English in a classroom stems from one’s ideology and whether or not one 

recognizes any value in multilingualism in a classroom setting. Their participating instructors 

came to understand that providing an English-only learning environment is not only pernicious 

but also promoting inequality (Holdway & Hitchcock, 2018, p. 68). Indeed, implementing 

translanguaging practices in any classroom has the potential to contribute to an open attitude 

towards English variations and their mixing. This in turn might prove helpful in moving away 

from the monolingual ideology in the U.S. classrooms (Wang & Curdt-Christiansen, 2019) and 

facilitate transformative internationalization of the higher education in the U.S. Interestingly, 

other scholars (Garcia et al., 2011) also proved that students tend to succeed when their first 

language is used, even in the mathematics classroom. Therefore, just like Andrew’s classroom, 

this study’s contexts other than ESL, such as the business management class, might have 

benefitted from welcoming translanguaging into their classrooms.  

Lastly, in terms of instructors’ measure of success, Paldy (2015) points out the 

importance of exploring teaching successes as many research studies tend to focus on challenges 

only. For Peter, Chinese undergraduate students’ integration into the new system, that is U.S. 

educational system, was a sign of his successful teaching. In contrast, Andrew measured success 

in visible progress not only in the way the Chinese undergraduate students in his course wrote, 

but also in their classroom language and way of thinking. Following van der Zanden et al. 

(2018), amongst a wide spectrum of predictors of student success are students’ previous 

 

180 

academic achievement and their intrinsic motivation to do well in a given class. Students’ critical 

thinking skills, for instance, tend to be related stronger to the learning environment (van der 

Zanden et al., 2018), which is why Andrew’s observations might have been fitting given his 

multicultural learning environment in the college writing class.  

In my examination of the experiences of the four instructor-participants teaching Chinese 

undergraduate students at Grand Lake University in the U.S., I found clear willingness to 

accommodate these students’ unique needs and educational and cultural backgrounds. This 

study’s instructor-participants did so without complaining or othering Chinese undergraduate 

students in their courses. It was clear that the instructor-participants’ teaching experiences, as 

well as their own educational backgrounds, influenced their approach to teaching students from 

mainland China. The instructor-participants did not disregard Chinese undergraduate students’ 

knowledges or cultural inclinations. They achieved or strived to achieve a balance between their 

U.S. ways of teaching and welcomed adjustments to their established pedagogies. I did not see 

instances of pure coexistence (Abelmann & Kang, 2014), but rather mutual teaching and learning 

experiences (Dervin, 2016b) conducted in the spirit of mutual conviviality. While these findings 

cannot be generalized onto the entire U.S. higher education system, the instructor-participants’ 

experiences at GLU offer hope for transformative internationalization.  

Interculturality. Last but not least, a theme of the instructor-participants’ intercultural 

teaching revealed itself. Tolosa et al. (2018) found that intercultural focus has the potential to 

add depth to one’s teaching as well as the power to develop interculturality in students. Wang 

(2012) takes it a step further by claiming that Chinese undergraduate students may even help 

their instructors to recognize the value they bring to multicultural classrooms, which indicates a 

potential to transform them. One of this study instructor-participants, Andrew, understood that 

 

181 

teaching interculturally is done in reciprocal ways, ways that enrich both the instructor and the 

students alike. However, Tolosa et al. (2018) conclude that “language learning is in a privileged 

position to develop intercultural learners ready to engage in plurilingual contexts” (p. 234). 

Therefore, Stan and Han, who taught in the ESL context, as well as Andrew, who taught in the 

college writing context, seem to have had an advantage over Peter when it comes to their 

pedagogical practices potentially reflecting interculturality.  

In light of this dissertation’s findings, I argue that when teaching Chinese undergraduate 

students, one needs to strive for interculturally responsive teaching, as culturally responsive 

teaching does not suffice in that context and suggests dominance of one culture over the other. 

To do so, Bovill et al. (2015), who call it transnational teaching, suggest four principles to 

implement in one’s teaching: (1) modelling particular pedagogies and practices, (2) ensuring 

mutual benefits, (3) ensuring individual integrity alongside institutional credibility, and (4) not 

only developing but also supporting transnational staff. Even though instructor-participants of 

this study did not demonstrate all four of the above principles, they demonstrated “practice what 

you preach” approach, which indicated awareness. The big issue, as expected, was with making 

teaching a mutually beneficial or transformative practice. As an instructor-to-be, Han showed the 

biggest degree of being willing to adapt to the needs of his Chinese undergraduate students, 

while the other three instructor-participants, more seasoned instructors, experienced a few self-

developed pushbacks when it came to pure reciprocity. That was likely due to their beliefs about 

what teaching is and their established routines and practices when working with Chinese 

undergraduate students in previous years as well as GLU’s policies they needed to adhere to. In 

terms of holding oneself and one’s institution accountable for the outcomes of education 

provided to Chinese undergraduate students, Bovill et al. (2015) point out that U.S. higher 

 

182 

education system and its general lack of focus on languages other than English might certainly 

limit the instructors’ view on how to work with students from abroad. Hence, we cannot hold 

these four instructor-participants accountable against what they simply might not have known or 

might not have been exposed to. In addition, Byram and Wagner (2018) claim that 

interculturality brings the notion of mediation into the mix. They understand it as “acting as a go-

between and a link between two people or groups” (p. 145). Byram and Wagner (2018) also 

establish a clear distinction between having the ability to live in two cultures (or being bicultural) 

and having the ability to act as a mediator between people from two or more linguistic or cultural 

backgrounds (p. 145). The instructor-participants in this study were able to maneuver in the 

space between multiple cultures. Lastly, although “establishing and maintaining partnerships 

across cultures can be challenging due to different […] expectations amongst individuals and 

institutions” (Bovill et al., 2015, p. 21), they are part and parcel of true intercultural teaching. 

Therefore, it does not seem enough to require certain experiences and languages from staff, like 

in Stan’s case, but also to continually support the staff in re-examining and reflecting upon their 

beliefs in order to broaden their cultural awareness and sensitivities, and consequently become 

agents of transformative internationalization.   

All in all, this study’s instructor-participants demonstrated a fair number of approaches 

and practices that could lead towards interculturality. Dervin (2016b) doubts if interculturality 

can be feasibly achieved and prefers to look at it more as a goal that instructors need to aim for. 

The instructor-participants here, indeed, invoked some helpful approaches to teaching Chinese 

undergraduate students like thoughtful grouping, knowing students’ names or welcoming their 

use of Chinese language when needed in class. Chen and Yang (2017) name knowing students as 

one of the appropriate strategies. The instructor-participants knew their Chinese undergraduate 

 

183 

students’ names, either their Chinese names or the English names the students preferred to have 

been addressed by. Han, Stan and Andrew showed an interest in their Chinese undergraduate 

students’ backgrounds, especially in situations culturally tricky. They were curious and therefore 

asked many culturally related questions, even about how teaching and learning differ between 

China and the U.S. Peter claimed not to have had time to get to know his students better given 

the size of his class and its structure, mostly lectures. Yet, intercultural responsiveness assumes 

that instructors cannot teach what they do not know or lead whom they do not know (Chen & 

Yang, 2017). Interestingly, instructor-participants had a hard time locating intercultural training 

for faculty at GLU. No wonder the four instructor-participants felt like some enhancement of 

their interculturally responsive approaches had been overdue. Whether institutional leaders see 

guiding GLU towards more truly interculturally solid practices as their role remains a question. 

“When leaders consistently communicate a commitment to academic achievement through 

culturally responsive teaching approaches for all students and maintain a similar commitment to 

continuous, life-long learning for themselves and their schools’ faculty and staff” (Chen & Yang, 

2017, pp. 84-85), studying in the U.S. might prove to no longer be a challenging experience for 

Chinese undergraduate students. 

One cannot discuss intercultural teaching without looking at othering. From the 

instructor-participants’ narratives, a conclusion can be drawn that all of them were aware of 

othering being the culprit in maintaining intercultural attitudes and practices when teaching 

Chinese undergraduate students; and that might have been why they tried to avoid it in their 

pedagogies. Dervin (2016b) introduces the concept of diverse diversities as an understanding that 

everyone, despite where they come from, is diverse and needs to regularly deal with own as well 

as others’ diversities. “If I am ready to accept my own diverse diversities, maybe I can start 

 

184 

noticing and accepting them in the other as well.” (Dervin, 2017, p. 90). Working under the 

assumption that interculturality is a fluid process (Dervin, 2016b), I see how it shapes differently 

depending on the context and intersectionality (defined here as a mix of different identities and 

instances of exclusion). Dervin (2017) names unwillingness to un-learn or re-learn as a failure of 

interculturality. It can also be seen as an obstacle to transformative internationalization. 

Importantly, if knowledge is transactional and co-constructed (Dervin, 2017), then calling dos 

and don’ts-list-like approach intercultural might prove a bit misleading. Though the four 

instructor-participants in this study operated in different educational contexts, they were 

cognizant of the fact that “all learning is re-learning” (Dervin, 2017, p. 91). They were open to 

learn from the Chinese undergraduate students in their respected courses.  

To sum up, instructor interculturality is a phenomenon to be tirelessly built through 

meaningful interactions with students, not only cultural but intercultural self-awareness, and as 

Smolcic and Arends (2017) rightfully state, awareness of the dynamism and complexities of 

cultural identities (p. 63) of both themselves as instructors and their students, which this study’s 

instructor-participants displayed. By practicing interculturality, instructors also had a chance to 

re-learn their pedagogical approaches as well as un-learn their long-established ideas about 

students from China.  

To recapitulate, I discussed above the findings from the instructor-participants collective 

case study, namely their perceptions of Chinese undergraduate students, cultural mélange (or 

mix) in their teaching, pedagogical approaches they had taken towards Chinese undergraduate 

students and their interculturally responsive teaching efforts. These findings tie into the concept 

of transformative internationalization, that is reciprocal changes in both student-participants and 

instructor-participants. Transformative internationalization of individuals involved in the 

 

185 

teaching-learning processes requires transitions on both personal and professional levels 

(Wihlborg & Robson, 2018). For this purpose, academic mobility needs to continue. According 

to Jin and Cortazzi (2017), what is needed is commitment to reinforcing learning environments 

to share knowledge in order to transform meaningfully. In sum, teaching in ways that welcome 

students’ diverse cultures of learning has the power to truly transform and internationalize in 

reciprocal ways.  

In the following section, I discuss findings from the student-participants collective case 

study. These are also organized by four themes that emerged from earlier data coding and 

analysis processes. Following that, in Chapter 7, I present conclusions to this dissertation project, 

as well as its pedagogical implications, limitations and suggestions for future directions. 

Student-participants Collective Case Study: Discussion 

In this section, I discuss findings from the student-participants collective case study with 

regard to existing relevant literature, the multiple contexts (represented visually in Figure 5.1) 

and my interpretations as the researcher. Finally, I end this section by summarizing student-

participants collective case study and prefacing the following chapter.  

Kindness 

According to Gao (1998, p. 169), the main goal of communication in Chinese culture is 

to maintain harmony. The Chinese word for harmony, he, encompasses values such as peace, 

unity, and kindness. The Chinese care about kindness in all sorts of relationships, be it familial 

ties, neighborhood relations or business connections. Gao (1998) names kindness a necessary 

component of an interculturally developed person, which then extends onto the entire society. 

Thus, I saw this phenomenon binding findings from this collective case study very coherently, 

 

186 

since all six student-participants articulated the importance and presence of having a kind 

instructor-participant and classmates (see Table 5.3 for examples).  

Preparedness for and motivation to explore the new. There has been a recent change 

of international education from an elite to a mass occurrence (Altbach, 2015). Given the 

competitiveness of international education, effective recruitment of students is key to 

internationalization efforts of hundreds of schools worldwide. Despite the fact that most 

institutions offer interactive online application tools, Chinese undergraduate students prefer face-

to-face contact when it comes to arranging their future, hence the spread of local agents (Zhang 

& Hagedorn, 2011). This study’s student-participants reported having used the services of an 

education agent when applying to GLU and other schools. According to Zhang and Hagedorn 

(2011), the major factor deciding who uses and does not use an agent turns out to be insufficient 

knowledge about foreign college application process. The lack of familiarity with the U.S. higher 

education system seems to be a determining impetus to working with education agents back in 

China. Interestingly, almost half of their respondents claimed that they had better chances of 

getting accepted when hiring an agent (Zhang & Hagedorn, 2011). This did not, however, prove 

right in the case of Jackson, who received a conditional offer from GLU. As reported during 

interviews, the majority of this study’s student-participants would not have used agencies again.  

In terms of Chinese undergraduate students’ preparation for study in a different country, 

Baumbaugh (2015) found that it did not affect students’ adaptation process much. The six 

student-participants in this project certainly put time, finances and efforts to prepare for the U.S. 

school. As a contradiction to Baumbaugh’s (2015) claim, Amy was a good example of 

preparation making the transition process easier, as she attributed her lack of study problems to 

both prior training at a high school in Rhode Island and studying at the training school back in 

 

187 

China. Yet, Falcone (2017) reports that the part of China a student comes from affects their 

preparedness and likelihood of academic success. Rural areas in China struggle to prepare 

students for the national exams and as a result fail to set them up for a success in their college 

life (Falcone, 2017). With studying fees having gone up in the past few years, parents may no 

longer afford the best education for their child, which in turn opens opportunities for the foreign 

schools to recruit those Chinese who cannot afford the elite education back home (Falcone, 

2017). This, however, could not have been confirmed by the student-participants as they came 

from larger cities in China.  

When discussing preparedness to study in a different country, we cannot forget 

experiencing U.S. education in interculturally responsive ways. One needs to learn to negotiate 

the similarities and move away from focusing on differences (Dervin, 2016a, p. 154), as 

differences might strengthen “we are better than you” attitude. Student-participants mentioned 

pressure from society, parents and themselves to learn about the U.S. culture and to “experience” 

it. Dervin, however, cautions against creating a “must-do” list that Chinese undergraduate 

students would have to tick off in order to become intercultural learners (Dervin, 2016a, p. 164). 

Instead, whether Chinese undergraduate students would be better off left alone to go through the 

new with the right to fail remains a question.  

Based on the interviews, this study’s student-participants utilized all available sources to 

them apart from agents, i.e., online searches, exchanges, family and relatives. However, for 

example, if Amy’s friend had not had the best experience studying at a U.S. college, she might 

have not decided to come to the United States herself. Machart (2016) claims that even though 

multiple studies blame Chinese undergraduate students for their poor adaptation to the unfamiliar 

environment due to their lack of adequate preparation. It might not be the culprit. The 

 

188 

participants in Machart’s (2016) study did not excel in intercultural interactions despite 

demonstrated cultural awareness. Their informal online preparation efforts also ended up being 

futile as they would rely on outdated stereotypes about the destination. Taking the above into 

consideration, well-rounded interculturally responsive preparedness (whether in one’s home 

country or already in the host country) might not be achievable even if steps are taken to learn 

and educate oneself about the new.  

In addition, the student-participants’ impetuses behind exploring the new in the United 

States varied from seeking better environment (both study- and pollution-wise) of a highly 

ranked program to parental hopes and expectations. With regard to motivation, Chao et al. 

(2017) found that Chinese undergraduate students tend to primarily seek “education with a 

worldview and opt to break from the Chinese system of learning” (p. 257). They also reported 

the inability to attend their dream school back in China due to poor results from the National 

College Entry Exam as the second most common reason for coming to the U.S. (Chao et al., 

2017). This indicates that Chinese undergraduate students tend to perceive foreign education as 

simply easier to be admitted to. This did not prove true for the student-participants, as they 

reported preferring Chinese styles of learning, too (e.g., Jackson). In this study, Amy wanted to 

fulfill her mother’s long-held dream to study abroad. However, she emphasized her mom’s 

support and did not mention any forms of maladaptive parenting strategies to get her to study in 

the U.S.  

Finally, Aurora was the only student-participant who expressed to me the will to return to 

China upon graduation, but only to gain working experience before applying for graduate studies 

back in the States, just like the other student-participants. Contemporarily, China might be 

suffering from “the worst brain drain in the world,” as on average a quarter of students do not 

 

189 

return to mainland after graduating from schools overseas (Cheung & Xu, 2015). One of the 

explanations for this phenomenon might be offered by Li (2004), who claims that Chinese 

undergraduate students recognize a significant gap between U.S. and Chinese study 

environments, which some of this project’s student-participants also mentioned. That is why, one 

possible solution might come in a form of better and kinder working environment (e.g., Amy’s 

experiences) rather than higher salaries if China wants to bring some of its talent back (Cheung 

& Xu, 2015). Also, given this study’s three different contexts, that is an ESL class, a college 

writing class and a business class, it is notable to mention that, just like the student-participants 

in this study, students majoring in business were more likely to return to China than those 

studying education or social sciences (Cheung & Xu, 2015). According to Cheung and Xu 

(2015), business students recognize more job opportunities in China than in the United States. In 

contrast, education majors for instance, seem dissuaded from returning to China due to potential 

low income (Cheung & Xu, 2015). However, this study’s student-participants did not seem to 

follow these patterns. Overall, they considered future employment when making decisions 

whether or not to return to China upon graduation from GLU. Even though they recognized more 

competitiveness on a current Chinese job market due to a large population (Yan & Berliner, 

2016), they still planned to complete graduate studies in the U.S. before facing the decision on 

where to settle down.  

The theme of preparedness for and motivation to explore the new created a coherent 

introduction to this study’s student-participants’ larger experiences in the United States. While 

all six student-participants reported efforts to prepare to study in a different country, their 

motivations varied as did their willingness to return to China immediately upon graduation or 

later on.  

 

190 

Language experiences. When Chinese undergraduate students move to the United States 

to begin their college lives, just like many students from other nations, they are confronted with 

not only living and surviving in another country but also with adapting to living in English, and 

in particular using it for educational purposes. Therefore, this theme of language experiences is 

imperative to comprehensively discuss student-participants’ experiences at GLU.  

To start with, Chinese undergraduate students in the U.S. seem to complain mostly about 

inadequate language training prior to their sojourns as one of the most relevant factors 

accounting for their language difficulties (Yan & Berliner, 2016). On the contrary, this study’s 

student-participants did not represent the same experiences. All six of them found their language 

training, be it in China or in the U.S., useful and sufficient to at least survive in the U.S. school. 

The training in English they received back in China, at “cram schools”, might have been 

designed to enable students to pass the TOEFL exam. Yet, according to Yan and Berliner (2016), 

it could have overlooked the academic demands of their respective programs in the U.S. 

However, in the experiences of the student-participants, none of that was reported as a result of 

poor language preparation or too low of a TOEFL score to begin with. “Cram schools”, which 

the student-participants reported to have attended, are believed to affect students’ access to 

information (Lin, 2020). Interestingly, according to Lin (2020) “cram schools” might be 

selective in presenting information about a given test, such as TOEFL, giving students an 

impression of that test carrying more weight than it actually does in a college application 

process. Yet, Rawlings and Sue (2013) found that language preparation in China falls short, 

compared to “Western schools,” due to different teaching methodologies and learning styles. 

This is interesting because Jackson was given a conditional offer from GLU as his TOEFL score 

did not reach the cut score. Lin (2020) sees such organizational practices of “cram schools” or 

 

191 

agencies mentioned before as potential foundations to “inequities in student mobility” (p. 14). 

Since the student-participants used the services of “cram schools” or educational agencies, I was 

not able to juxtapose their experiences against the experiences of those who did not use them.  

Also, Yan and Berliner (2016) claim that the need to develop self-management and self-

discipline proves hard for Chinese undergraduate students who are more used to directions and 

strict discipline in studies in general. The six student-participants came from different English-

related narratives. Amy went through an American high school in Rhode Island, and thus felt 

pretty confident about her language abilities at GLU. On the contrary, having come from a 

traditional high school in China (where English was taught by Chinese instructors), Jackson 

struggled to achieve the required TOEFL score as well as to adapt to managing his school life by 

himself. While U.S. education system encourages autonomy and self-directness (Yan & Berliner, 

2016), the Chinese are likely to find it problematic to adjust to the decentralized nature of it.  

In line with the stressful language requirements, student-participants in this study faced 

second language anxiety that clearly affected their experiences at Grand Lake University. For 

instance, Aurora reported having translated what she wanted to say in her head from Chinese into 

English first, while Nick was anxious to communicate in English altogether as he believed his 

proficiency level was not adequate. This discovery agrees with findings from Cheng and Erben 

(2012), where Chinese undergraduate students were unable to communicate confidently and 

proficiently at the beginning of their respective programs in the United States. Yet, student-

participants in this project did not avoid using English as a strategy to deal with the anxiety 

(Cheng & Erben, 2012), but that might have been due to the fact that some of them (specifically 

those in business management context) were already more advanced in their studies at GLU. As 

Nick reported, his domestic classmates and his instructor were helping him to overcome his fear 

 

192 

of being misunderstood both in class and outside of the classroom, and they were doing so in a 

kind manner, which Nick found important to mention. In other words, language did not seem a 

barrier for student-participants but might have been an obstacle. Rather, depending on how 

confident they felt with their capabilities in English, it served as a stressor (Yan & Berliner, 

2016), which some students chose to capitalize on (e.g., Billy’s bravery to use English only and 

not defer to Chinese while at GLU) while others struggled to overcome (e.g., Jackson’s inability 

to think in English and frustrations from not understanding everything during his classes at 

GLU).  

Among other language-related challenges Chinese undergraduate students encounter 

when coming to study in the U.S., was their willingness to communicate with their instructors 

and domestic classmates. It was enriching to have heard that the six student-participants did not 

find this an obstacle to their academic success at GLU. Even though Nick was not able to 

understand his instructor, Peter, fully and at all times, he actively sought ways to find solutions 

to the issue by asking his classmates for help and reaching out to Peter either via email or during 

his office hours. He saw Peter’s openness to help him as a sign of kindness. Nick disconfirms 

Yan and Berliner’s (2016) findings that Chinese undergraduate students tend to be reluctant to 

talk to their instructors due to the lack of knowledge of what might be culturally acceptable in 

student-instructor relationships and interactions. Similarly, the argument that for Chinese 

undergraduate students communication in English poses threat to their success in the U.S. 

academia (Swagler & Ellis, 2003), as it is rooted in their personalities, does not apply to these 

student-participants. Instead confidence, as related to ability in English, might have affected 

student-participants’ communication efforts (e.g., Nick). After all, only Billy reported instances 

of seeing any form of bias on the basis of his Chinese classmates’ accent or general low English 

 

193 

ability (Wang, Ahn, Kim, & Lin-Siegler, 2017), but that was reported in social situations 

(waiters in restaurants) rather than in classroom settings. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that 

student-participants in this project found ways to communicate despite having to use English and 

did not find themselves isolated or discriminated because of English being their second language.  

Moreover, student-participants’ exam anxiety and unfamiliarity with testing conventions 

in the U.S. influenced the way they felt at GLU, too. Aurora expressed her concerns with being 

anxious on tests and not knowing how to study for a test in an appropriate and efficient way. 

Interestingly, Rappleye and Komatsu (2018) maintain that “Western” education systems tend to 

stereotype Asian students, including those coming from mainland China, as “exam-crazy” (p. 

750). They argue that such a view of Asian schooling does not reflect reality and that Chinese 

undergraduate students in fact do not lack either knowledge or English language skills (Rappleye 

& Komatsu, 2018), which was the case with Aurora. Instead the problem might come from the 

attitudes on the instructors and researchers’ side in Anglo-American academia. Again, the 

question remains whether the problem lies with comprehending Chinese cultures of learning, 

where different things are considered important than those typically valued at U.S. schools, such 

as U.S. academic institutions placing value on individualism, student-centered, deep learning 

while Chinese academia focusing on rote, instructor-centered, collectivist learning (for a detailed 

list of differences, refer to Table 1.1 in Chapter 1). However, this difference should by no means 

lead to any further divides, which creates othering of Chinese undergraduate students as “less 

than.” Student-participants in this study did not make excuses, but rather sought solutions to their 

initial struggles with things that did not make sense to them at first, which consequently opened 

new pathways to learning for them at Grand Lake University.   

 

194 

In addition, student-participants were quite aware of the fact that their new life in the U.S. 

would not be free of certain degree of pain. Dervin (2016b) points out that recognition of power 

relations is one of the main elements of interculturality, which I defined for the purpose of this 

study as mutual responsiveness, appreciate and curiosity with its main goal being bilateral (i.e., 

mutual communication). The six student-participants not only presented an accepting attitude 

towards their language challenges but also towards an understanding that a certain amount of 

pain when in an unfamiliar environment cannot be escaped. Having acknowledged that painful 

experiences did not stop them, however, from recognizing acts of kindness their instructors or 

peers extended to them. They also demonstrated respect towards their instructors, bearing in 

mind that their studies and lives in the U.S. depended on these instructors. It did not, however, 

seem to create any unhealthy power imbalances (Dervin, 2016b), which led me to believe that 

student-participants’ learning at GLU may, indeed, be considered intercultural.  

It was extremely interesting to see how student-participants’ reported experiences at GLU 

link to the notion of kindness. Nick, in particular, mentioned how “kind” his instructor was by 

making sure he would have a language buddy on his team. Nick also repeated multiple times 

how helpful and kind his classmates were to him in times of confusion. Loreman (2011) states 

that “a pedagogy of love can only occur in an environment in which kindness exists” (p. 19). 

That means Peter, Nick’s instructor-participant, developed personal kindness in order to share it 

with his student. Peter’s grouping strategy was also intentional, as reported in Chapter 4. His 

decision to add another Chinese student into Nick’s group, so that they can speak Chinese 

whenever necessary, definitely manifested his care for Nick and was perceived as care by Nick. 

According to Loreman (2011), instructors should keep two equal goals in mind, particularly 

maintaining academic progress and pursuing kindness. Nick was an example of when kindness 

 

195 

worked, as he was not scared of Peter from that moment on, neither was his communication with 

him impeded.  

In conclusion, honing in on student-participants’ English language experiences at GLU, 

one is left wondering if they might have had any connection with their instructor-participants 

speaking fast or using slang and colloquialisms. Even the expectation that Chinese undergraduate 

students would maintain an eye contact with their instructors (Roy, 2013) might have sparked a 

problem with understanding these students’ cultures of learning. Student-participants faced 

challenges with English as much as any international student would have when placed in new 

learning environment, visibly different from what they might be used to. Yet, I did not find 

student-participants’ English proficiency levels to have been restraining them from experiencing 

learning at Grand Lake University in interculturally responsive ways. They were responsive to 

learning new ways of life as much as they were reflective of their educational journeys at GLU.  

Beliefs and feelings about studying in the U.S. How Chinese undergraduate students 

feel when they study in the United States is oftentimes influenced by their beliefs of the U.S. 

education, and in particular their beliefs of the instructors. This study’s student-participants 

shared a range of feelings and beliefs with me. I tied them with the motif of kindness because all 

student-participants mentioned kindness multiple times during our interviews (see examples in 

Table 5.3). Every student-participant mentioned how kind their instructor-participant or their 

domestic peers had been to them. Thus, I will discuss the findings from this theme with relations 

to kindness.  

First of all, people who have positive emotions and behaviors such as kindness while 

interacting with others tend to show less psychological symptoms of stress and anxiety (Duan et 

al., 2015). This might partially explain why the six student-participants in this collective case 

 

196 

study deemed their experiences at GLU as positive, since they mentioned kindness multiple 

times as an important element of their sojourns. Even with instances of not-so-friendly situations 

outside of the classroom they deemed their experiences at GLU as overall positive. According to 

Magnet et al. (2014), kindness in the classroom requires a commitment to “thinking with” (p. 9), 

which excludes any divides, be it disciplinary, national, gender, etc. Therefore, student-

participants would not have been able to experience kindness if it had not been for their 

instructor-participants’ conscious decisions to include “thinking with” in their pedagogies. In this 

case, kindness that student-participants reported was feasible only thanks to the four instructor-

participants’ openness and willingness to include it.  

The fact kindness was important to student-participants is not a precedent. Boshier (2017) 

lists “kind” as one of the six most frequently cited words amongst over 300 of his respondents 

from China. If the instructor was friendly and kind-hearted, the Chinese undergraduate students 

would consider them their favorite (Boshier, 2017). Interestingly, Boshier (2017) also contrasts 

this with the Chinese government’s attempts at reforming universities, labeling them as 

materialistic and hegemonic endeavors (p. 223). The six student-participants did not mention any 

of those elements as crucial to their positive experiences at GLU, though. The human factor of 

their instructor overtook any other feelings or observations these students might have made.  

Kindness was also represented through encouragement and friendliness. Billy saw Han as 

caring, just like Amy recognized kindness in Andrew’s personalized approach to every student. 

Heng’s (2017) participants shared that encouraging students with a gentle nod brings about 

reassurance and takes away fear. They explained that students in China typically perceive 

instructors as authority figures, which causes confusion in their relations with instructors in the 

U.S. (Heng, 2017). Regardless of Chinese undergraduate students’ language competencies, they 

 

197 

seem to hope for active initiative from their instructors and peers to connect with them (Heng, 

2017). Especially when Chinese undergraduate students first arrive and face adjustments on 

many levels, not just academically, the show of care and inclusion might improve their 

motivation, self-esteem and more importantly intercultural experiences, as was visible in student-

participants’ reports. 

What is more, student-participants reported having struggled with test preparation in their 

respective classes at GLU. Zhang-Wu (2018) claims that Chinese undergraduate students 

rigorous test preparation programs in China do not seem to prepare them adequately for authentic 

life situations in the United States. Nick admitted the Chinese “no thinking” type of test suited 

him better (Nick, Interview). It is clear that on top of having to re-learn language skills, student-

participants needed to adjust to new communication and learning styles, too. In fact, Heng 

(2018) maintains that Chinese undergraduate students are used to being given information 

directly (that includes questions for the test), and so being given a framework to work with in the 

U.S. classroom or being asked for conclusions (on a test) that students need to derive themselves 

might inadvertently create tensions. This links to a commonly used dichotomy between U.S. and 

Chinese academic values (presented in Table 1.1, in the Introduction), which I do not use as a 

starting point in this study, but of which I am aware.  

In terms of a common assumption that Chinese undergraduate students, as a homogenous 

group, tend to stay quiet in class due to their shyness or a lack of adequate English skills, through 

this study I not only juxtaposed the assumption of homogeneity (by particularizing experiences 

of each Chinese student) but also demonstrated the need to consider cultures of learning. The 

student-participants clearly explained that they would typically keep quiet in class if they thought 

their idea was not innovative enough, not because they felt too shy to speak. They also shared 

 

198 

that working on their own, without help from instructors or advisors, created an uncertainty of 

whether they would do things the right way, such as sufficiently prepare for the test. Following 

Haarms et al. (2018), Chinese undergraduate students face obstacles when asked to explore a 

given subject under guidance rather than be given answers by the instructor. One thing to 

consider here might also be the fact that student-participants come from cultures of learning 

where being kind means caring for others’ feelings (Heng, 2018). Thus, by staying quiet in class 

they might have actually tried to show their respect for the instructor and for their peers.  

Interestingly, the student-participants partially confirmed Will’s (2016) findings that 

despite their good enough TOEFL scores they could not express themselves on a deeper level 

during class. Her participants experienced many “lost in translation” instances, where they could 

not articulate their thoughts clearly enough (Will, 2016). Some student-participants (e.g., Amy) 

reported keeping to themselves in class out of fear of being misunderstood or due to her inability 

to express her opinions in clear English. Some others (such as Billy) were not passive even if 

they felt like their English was not good enough to participate in a class discussion. Instead, 

Nick, for instance, actively tried to find other ways of being a part of the class community, such 

as asking his domestic classmates for help and seeking his instructor-participants’ advice. In a 

similar vein, Heng (2018) also points out that Chinese undergraduate students might keep to 

themselves in class to avoid face-to-face confrontations, especially in group discussion settings, 

as such confrontations are considered impolite in their cultures of learning, and thereby portray 

them as unkind. This study’s student-participants varied in their approaches to using English in 

class.  

Another interesting finding that this theme encompassed was discussing politically 

sensitive cultural elements in class, such as Taiwan. Eve appreciated Peter’s smooth handling of 

 

199 

the matter in class, which allowed him to avoid any cultural clashes and made Eve see Peter as 

kind. According to Dervin (2010), in order to practice interculturality instructors need guidance 

in selecting sensitive language for cross-cultural comparisons and examples. Peter was clearly 

ahead of that. It seemed to me, when Eve was reporting the occurrence that I had also previously 

observed, that Peter’s interculturality might have in fact led to Eve’s intercultural learning. 

Again, the process of transformation happened mutually, that is Peter’s transformative and kind 

teaching approach resulted in Eve’s interculturally responsive learning moment.  

The abovementioned student-participants’ beliefs and feelings paved a path to discussing 

interculturality. Yu and Moskal (2018) state that structural conditions and institutional 

arrangements might be making intercultural contact for Chinese undergraduate students difficult. 

In their opinion, the environment overwhelmed with international students could hinder Chinese 

undergraduate students’ intercultural learning chances (Yu & Moskal, 2018, p. 666). However, 

that was not the case at GLU. While the numbers of international students were quite high, they 

were not higher than those of domestic students in the BC and CWC contexts, which provided 

student-participants with ample opportunities for intercultural contact.  

The social side of the new. In a world quickly advancing in mobility and open borders, 

globalized attitude to experiencing the new seems more important than ever. This study’s 

student-participants came to the United States to further their education at GLU but also to 

embrace the unknown cultures. Their reported experiences at GLU, and more broadly in the 

U.S., indicate that they might have understood that interculturality requires acceptance of 

simplexity (Dervin, 2016b). According to Dervin (2016b), we need to experience the social side 

of life as a concurrent simple and complex phenomenon. There are tensions to be expected as the 

simple interacts with the complex (Dervin & Byrd Clark, 2014). In fact, neither simplicity nor 

 

200 

complexity, can be fully reached (Dervin, 2016b). Student-participants’ reported experiences 

made it clear that simplexity helps one to navigate between different social arenas and makes 

one’s experiences more interculturally responsive.  

This leads to another issue of portraying Chinese undergraduate students as constantly 

struggling individuals in the context of studying abroad (e.g., Biggs, 1994; Chao et al., 2017; Du, 

2015; Heng, 2018). Dervin (2016b) recognizes the importance of speaking about failures on the 

road to interculturality, but he discourages focusing on failures only. This study’s student-

participants experienced a certain amount of failure, but my focus, as a researcher, was more on 

where they have succeeded despite any challenging situations. In the experiences of the new 

social sphere they found themselves in, student-participants in this project were not hiding their 

failures, either. Instead, they did not dwell on them but rather learned from them (such as Billy, 

Aurora, or Nick’s cultural discoveries). Ryan (2010) attributes frequent research findings 

concentrate on how hard it is for Chinese undergraduate students in the U.S. schools to outdated 

dichotomous characteristics of the “Chinese learner” (presented in Table 1.2. in the 

Introduction). Mutual respect seems useful to understand contemporary Chinese undergraduate 

students’ experiences in the U.S. society. Additionally, as long as Chineseness, a largely 

generalizing term, is defined as “deviance from Western norms” (Ryan, 2010, p. 40), it tends to 

ignore the diverse learning contexts Chinese undergraduate students come from. Therefore, 

centering the cases around the experiences of student and instructor-participants is more 

appropriate than treating them as a homogeneous group.  

What is more, when studying at GLU, student-participants had varied experiences when 

it came to making friends. While Jackson struggled to make friends with anyone, be it the 

Chinese or American students, Nick made some friends with his U.S. classmates somewhat 

 

201 

unknowingly, by helping them with their Chinese homework on a weekly basis. He also called 

them “kind.” Student-participants did not avoid making friends with the local students. Further, 

most research claims that Chinese undergraduate students are not willing to meet people from 

their own country abroad, in fact preferring to become friends with the locals (Dervin, 2016b, p. 

38). That might be due to the fear of “being stuck with the same.” That is why the word local is 

problematic: do we define it by place of birth, nationality, language? (Dervin, 2016b, p. 38). This 

study’s student-participants were neither for nor against creating friendships while at GLU, 

which might lend support to the notion of their heterogeneity.  

In a similar vein, Gu (2016) claims that the Chinese see relationships as interdependent, 

while Americans might not care about selfless support of friends. Because none of this study’s 

student-participants admitted having been close friends with a U.S. person (other than interacting 

with some due to being at the same place at the same time, such as classroom or dormitory), it is 

impossible to judge whether that idea could be represented in their relations. However, when 

Nick’s roommate tended to overcool the room, making Nick feel uncomfortable, Nick did not 

face him but instead “suffered” in silence because he wanted to be kind to his roommate. 

According to Gu (2016), from the aspect of kindness, Chinese people prefer to save face by 

avoiding confrontations and thus conflict. This could be one explanation of Nick’s reluctance to 

solve his conundrum.  

By the same token, student-participants were aware of the cultural divide between where 

they came from and where they came to. They were accurate and critical in comparing elements 

of social life in China and the U.S. as an explanation of their cultural lessons or any challenging 

situations. Differences mentioned included different living preferences, different 

conceptualizations of friendship and different ways of coping with the unfamiliar. Spencer-Oatey 

 

202 

et al. (2017) call this occurrence a cultural distance (p. 750). For their participants, on the one 

hand differences contributed to students’ reluctance to establish friendships with U.S. students 

(e.g., Jackson), while on the other hand created opportunities to “learn about other people’s 

thoughts” (p. 751) (e.g., Aurora). As presented above, this study’s student-participants confirmed 

that claim in both of its directions.  

Baumbaugh (2015) states that the more international students tend to perceive Americans 

as friendly, kind, and warm towards them, the more likely they are to adapt to American cultures 

(p. 40). So, in other words, any stereotypical or judgmental attitudes or behaviors from their U.S. 

friends have a potential to affect student-participants’ experiences at GLU in a negative way. On 

another note, student-participants recalled situations where they themselves or their Chinese 

friends might have been stereotyped (e.g., Amy and her kung-fu recollection). If that is true, then 

analogically, positive attitudes, warmth and kindness can affect student-participants’ experiences 

positively. According to Heng (2018), the situations where U.S. college students stereotyped 

their Chinese peers as bad in English and unsociable seem to be a thing of a past decade.  

Furthermore, through this study, I tried to highlight the fact that the experiences of 

Chinese undergraduate students abroad cannot be discussed without looking into the ever-

changing sociocultural contexts these students are placed within. I suggest that even within one 

nationality, international students’ experiences might comprise a flux of various aspects, for 

instance different fields of study, as was this study’s case. In fact, Chinese undergraduate 

students have been found to be a heterogeneous group (Heng, 2019). In particular, they have 

been able to interact with individuals from other cultures without losing their cultural features, 

which in turn leads to reciprocal (i.e., mutual) learning. That is what Yuan and Xie (2013) call 

cultural synergy. This notion sees dialogue as a necessary element of any learning process (Yuan 

 

203 

& Xie, 2013, p. 21). According to Yuan and Xie (2013), such dialogue cannot be, however, a 

simple sum of all differences between a Chinese student and their instructor, but instead should 

create contextualized forms of reciprocal learning. This study’s student-participants exhibited a 

tendency to make a two-way conversation with their instructors as well as their U.S. classmates 

or friends. Yet, they cared about maintaining harmony, peace, and kindness in any social 

situation (such as Nick not telling his roommate he was cold), and above all, stayed open and 

receptive towards their U.S. peers and instructor-participants inquiring into their cultures. By 

Yuan and Xie’s (2013) rules of the cultural synergy, target culture needs to recognize its lack of 

cultural knowledge of the Chinese undergraduate students’ backgrounds, which likely gives roots 

to cultural misunderstandings. If culture is seen as a resource (Yuan & Xie, 2013, p. 31), then 

there is a need to use distinct cultures of learning in positive and enriching ways. This study’s 

student-participants were ready to share and explain their cultural inclinations to those who were 

curious.  

Withal, social networks established through social media also played a role in student-

participants’ experiences at GLU. They reported using WeChat (a Chinese application similar to 

WhatsApp) as a major vehicle not only to learn about social events and experiences of other 

Chinese undergraduate students at GLU, but also to make their daily lives convenient. Fu and 

Izuma (2018) claim that the intensity of using social media sites, such as WeChat, positively 

influences Chinese undergraduate students bridging of social capital. The researchers 

conceptualize bridging social capital as weak ties in social relationships (Fu & Izuma, 2018). 

Thus, bridging social capital refers to the capacity to access resources through those weak ties in 

social networks, such as acquaintances, coworkers, strangers (Fu & Izuma, 2018). In this project, 

WeChat played a role in creating opportunities for student-participants (e.g., Aurora) to 

 

204 

communicate not only with their countrymates but also with U.S. peers. This conforms to the 

claim that Forbush and Foucault-Welles’s (2016) put forward, viz. that Chinese undergraduate 

students in the United States who utilize social media (mainly WeChat), build more diverse 

networks abroad, compared to those who do not make use of social media. Consequently, 

students whose social networks are diversified tend to adapt better to the new social realities of 

the host cultures (Forbush & Foucault-Welles, 2016).  

The findings from this theme, that is the social side of student-participants’ new life in 

the United States, are important for intercultural understanding between students from China and 

their instructors. “Appreciating the complexities of Chinese students’ experiences may minimize 

the entrenchment of a deficit discourse of these students […]” (Heng, 2018, p. 33). If Chinese 

undergraduate students’ experiences in the U.S. fall on the positive side, they can lay a 

foundation to future interculturality in relations between China and any other country of study.  

To recapitulate, I discussed above the findings from the student-participants collective 

case study, namely their preparedness and motivation to study in the United States, their 

language and sociocultural experiences as well as their beliefs about studying at Grand Lake 

University. These findings tie into the concept of kindness. Hui (2005) advocates for kindness to 

be added as another moral virtue in Confucianism. Originally, there are five moral features listed 

as Confucian virtues, namely benevolence, righteousness, propriety, intelligence, and honesty 

(Hui, 2005). This study’s student-participants frequently mentioned how kind instructor-

participants and peers were towards them, especially in situations when they needed help. 

Loreman (2011) claims that by developing empathy we develop kindness, since understanding 

The Other increases the chances of helping them. When this study’s student-participants 

mentioned that someone was kind to them, what they meant was actually an understanding they 

 

205 

might have shown of the diversities Chinese undergraduate students bring not only to the U.S. 

sociocultural arena but also to U.S. classrooms.  

In the following concluding chapter, I summarize and offer conclusions on the findings 

from instructor-participants collective case study (Chapter 4) and student-participants collective 

case study (Chapter 5). Following that, I present pedagogical implications, limitations and 

suggestions for future directions.

 

206 

CHAPTER 7 

CONCLUSIONS 

The focus of this study was to explore the experiences that four instructor-participants 

have undergone when working with Chinese undergraduate students in their designated courses 

as well as the experiences of six student-participants in those courses at a large public university 

in the U.S. (here designated as: Grand Lake University or GLU). In order to achieve this goal, I 

employed a broad range of research techniques, and recruited students and instructors as 

participants from three different university contexts, namely the ESL context, the college writing 

course (CWC), and the business management context (BC). I applied a multiple case study 

approach (Stake, 2006), with two collective case studies as its main parts, to examine the 

abovementioned experiences and their impact on both instructor-participants and student-

participants in terms of intercultural ways of teaching and learning (Dervin, 2016b). Each 

collective case study was guided by two research questions:  

• 

the instructor-participants collective case study 

1.  In what ways do these four instructor-participants describe their experiences 

working with Chinese undergraduate students at Grand Lake University? 

2.  How do their experiences relate to interculturality in teaching? 

• 

the student-participants collective case study 

1.  In what ways do these six student-participants describe their experiences at 

Grand Lake University? 

2.  How do their experiences relate to interculturality in learning? 

I interpreted the findings of this study carefully because this study focused on four 

instructor-participants and six student-participants at a specific institution, that is, Grand Lake 

 

207 

University. Thus, I was not concerned with generalizability of the findings beyond the 

experiences shared with me by the participants (that is, instructor-participants and student-

participants).  

In terms of research techniques, I utilized semi-structured interviews as a primary data 

source in both collective case studies. In the instructor-participants case study I was able to 

capitalize on observations (including participant observations) and artifacts as secondary sources 

of data. In the student-participant case study, however, only observations served as a secondary 

data source. Also, for both collective case studies, I made use of additional data sources such as 

the field notes journals that I kept for each course, and the researcher’s journal and email 

correspondence with the participants. Collectively, these data allowed me to concurrently 

examine the emerging meaning and refine that meaning. In sum, I chose these methods of data 

collection to match specifically the types of data collected and research questions asked. Multiple 

case study research is valuable when researching issues pertaining to more than one case study 

(Stake, 2006), in this case two collective case studies. 

 

In this concluding chapter, I will summarize the main findings of this study, followed by 

its pedagogical implications. Next, I will draw the reader’s attention to the limitations of this 

project. Finally, I will suggest viable future research directions that materialized through my 

conducting of this study.  

Main Findings 

 

The main findings from both collective case studies merged within the motif of 

transformative internationalization being possible through kindness. In order to reach 

transformative rather than symbolic internationalized learning environment, the instructors’ 

voices must be heard. That is because their interculturally responsive attitudes towards 

 

208 

international students constitute a core of truly transformative internationalization. In this study, 

the four instructor-participants demonstrated open-minded approaches towards Chinese 

undergraduate students, making the multiple cultures of learning they brought to their classrooms 

an asset rather than a barrier. The richness of these Chinese undergraduate students’ cultures 

showed to have positively affected these instructor-participants’ teaching satisfaction, too. 

Equally, the findings challenged some of the long-standing stereotypes surrounding Chinese 

undergraduate students abroad. The instructor-participants demonstrated not only culturally 

responsive pedagogies but also pedagogies that were interculturally rich and encouraging. They 

tried to serve as a bridge between the ways that instructor-participants teach and the ways 

student-participants learn. Following Cortazzi and Jin (2013), if learning is to be truly 

transformative and not just a single act of transmission, both parties need to stay ready for the 

new experiences. My examination of the experiences of the instructor-participants in this study 

revealed that they were not only ready, but also willing to accommodate the uniqueness Chinese 

undergraduate students bring into their respective courses. Instances of mere coexistence 

oftentimes reported in research literature (e.g., Abelmann & Kang, 2014) turned out to be 

mutually convivial intercultural teaching and learning (Dervin, 2016b) in this project.  

Instructor-participants’ Described Experiences (RQ 1) 

 

Through the first research question in the instructor-participants collective case study, I 

was looking at the ways instructor-participants described their experiences of working with 

Chinese undergraduate students at GLU. What I found was that transformative 

internationalization came through their approach to teaching. Interestingly, Madge et al. (2015) 

maintain that instructors are involved in daily practices of international students, whether directly 

or indirectly, that produce knowledge. Therefore, the four instructor-participants in this study 

 

209 

acknowledged their agency to alter traditional forms of internationalization and to capitalize on 

their Chinese undergraduate students’ transformative potential. I believe that the experiences of 

working with Chinese undergraduate students which these instructor-participants reported to me 

were mutually transformative only due to their openness, empathy, and intercultural demeanor. 

Granted, transformative internationalization, as a mutual occurrence, also affects the students. In 

fact, as Lamberton and Ashton-Hay (2015) conclude, transformative approach “entails students 

and instructors making paradigm shifts and viewing work from the perspective of different 

racial, cultural and gender groups” (p. 156). Following the above, I found instructor-participants 

demonstrating the willingness and ability to work with Chinese undergraduate students in their 

courses in a transformative way while the student-participants embraced the changes they faced 

at GLU in order to be successful. While Jackson (2018) states that transformative learning is not 

guaranteed when Chinese undergraduate students study in a different country, I was elated to 

observe that both student-participants and instructor-participants showed genuine efforts to learn 

from each other.  

Student-participants’ Described Experiences (RQ 1) 

 

Following the first research question in the student-participants collective case study, I 

looked at the ways student-participants described their experiences GLU. What I found mattered 

the most to these students most was the notion of kindness. Although not a part of the original 

five traditional moral Chinese virtues, culturally, kindness has been a significant element of 

Chinese cultures for generations (Hui, 2005). In the midst of preparing for their sojourns 

overseas, the six student-participants in this study faced language challenges and new social 

realities often challenged their beliefs about what studying in the U.S. entitled. However, if 

anything, these six student-participants did not allow the differences between their cultures of 

 

210 

learning and these in the U.S. ruin their experiences at GLU. They were aware of those 

differences, ready to overcome them. That is wherever any instances of kindness were offered to 

them, either directly or indirectly, the student-participants communicated successfully with 

instructor-participants and peers, in their social life and in their evolving ideas about GLU (e.g., 

Nick in his team in BC class). Magnet et al. (2014) claims that in order to practice kindness in 

the classroom one must “think with” (p. 9) rather than “think of.” This is where kindness also 

reflected interculturally responsive pedagogies, where being kind is a core approach to any 

student, no matter their nation, skin color, or first language. Coming from an instructor-

participant, this approach aligned with the student-participants’ approaches to confrontations in 

and outside of classroom, which might have contributed to their overall positive experiences at 

GLU.  

 

Moreover, having seen that kind responses made student-participants feel welcome, 

comfortable and a part of a larger community at GLU, it led me to the notion of self-compassion. 

Birkett (2013) found that Chinese undergraduate students, in general, might experience self-

compassion as both a positive and negative emotion. In this study, the six student-participants 

claimed to have benefitted from kind gestures of their peers and instructor-participants. To 

illustrate, some students reported that their instructor-participants simply listened to their 

dilemmas. Loreman (2011) lists compassionate and active listening as one of the strategies for 

the development of kindness. Also, these students reflected on their experiences after their 

instructor-participants exhibited kindness, which might have resulted in shifting paradigms. 

Challenging one’s own reality can be achieved through dialogue with others and this often leads 

to conscious changes in one’s thinking (Loreman, 2011). Such shifts were visible in both student 

 

211 

and instructor-participants and made me believe that kindness more often than not, creates a path 

towards effective transformative internationalization.  

Interculturality in Teaching and Learning (RQs 2)  

 

Both collective case studies were guided by a second research question which allowed 

me to look at interculturality in teaching (for the instructor-participants collective case study) and 

in learning (for the student-participants collective case study). I concluded that interculturality, 

defined here as the approach to others through mutual responsiveness, appreciation and curiosity 

with mutual communication as its main goal, could have played a crucial role in the experiences 

of both participant groups, that is, students and instructors. Wihlborg and Robson (2018) claim 

that intercultural teaching and learning must see transitions on both professional and personal 

levels (e.g., Stan’s shift of opinion of Chinese undergraduate students). The student-participants 

reported that their experiences at GLU changed them, so did their instructor-participants. 

Multiple and bilateral (i.e., mutual) attempts at empathy and understanding each other allowed 

for capitalization on the differences in terms of true diversification of the observed courses.  

 

Even though the idea of interculturality has been with us for quite some time now 

(Garrett-Rucks, 2016), Dervin’s (2016a, 2016b) approach to it brought new insights and more 

inclusive take on experiences of two or more individuals from distinct cultures. Simpson and 

Dervin (2019) claim that this notion suffers from a few misunderstood and yet prevalent 

assumptions, such as Western-centrism (p. 673) or comparativism. Thus, in this study I took a 

stand of not treating student-participants as deficient in any way, or their instructor-participants 

as superior or deficient to them either. This allowed me to avoid culturalist interpretations and 

hopefully helped me to present this study’s participants’ reported experiences through an 

intercultural lens. Accepting plurality of meanings and identities, on both sides of the spectrum, 

 

212 

that is student and instructor-participants, has a potential to move away from the cultural do’s 

and don’ts, what is permissible and what is not, and extends the experiences of the participants 

into bilateral ones. In such experiences, cultural synergy (Yuan & Xie, 2013) becomes not only 

possible but also necessary, as it focuses on what two parties have in common and then uses 

those commonalities to create long-lasting relationships in the spirit of conviviality. That was 

visible in the instructor-participants’ foci on what made Chinese undergraduate students in their 

classes similar to their peers as well as the student-participants’ desire to learn about the new 

cultures of learning.  

 

Last but not least, this study was conducted in three different contexts, namely the ESL 

context, the college writing context, and the business context. I was strategic in choosing these 

three sites as they represented a trajectory that seemed typical to Chinese undergraduate students 

at GLU. First, they would take an ESL related class (ESL), then, once they have tested out of the 

ESL program, they would take a writing course that prepares them for college writing (CWC). 

Finally, majority of the Chinese undergraduate students at GLU would choose a business 

management related major (BC), according to the information I obtained from the statistician at 

GLU. I found these three contexts very interesting in terms of the ways classes were structured, 

instructor-participants were approaching international students, or the ways materials were made 

for each course. Even though seemingly so different, all contexts showed similar care for 

Chinese undergraduate students’ success, as well as kind approaches to these students. Granted 

the instructor-participants approached Chinese undergraduate students in their classes in many 

different ways, but they all shared kindness in these approaches.  

 

 

 

213 

Pedagogical Implications 

The findings of this multiple case study have multiple practical implications. Participants’ 

challenges in learning and teaching processes appear crucial to improving classroom practices 

and providing instructors with solid ways to make their classrooms intercultural. This could be 

one reason why Chinese undergraduate students have topped the number of international 

students in the United States. An interculturally responsive classroom makes an ideal 

environment for international students to thrive as it does for their instructors to develop 

professionally. To take this a step further, if instructors, administrators and other stakeholders are 

required to incorporate interculturality in their methodologies (which might not be the case), 

their institutions need to provide them with necessary knowledge and skills to do so (Sercu, 

2006). This study’s instructor-participants had mixed experiences with support and training at 

GLU, such significant elements of enhancing pedagogies. Also, each collective case study’s 

individual findings may inform not only instructors’ approaches to teaching Chinse students but 

also those students’ preparation for study in a different country and their general success rates in 

the U.S.  

In addition, through conducting this study I ascertained what teaching or learning 

adaptations might be beneficial to provide interculturally responsive experiences for Chinese 

undergraduate students at GLU and equally for their instructor-participants. In order to foster the 

construction of interculturally competent students and instructors in the process of data 

collection, I unpacked some stereotypes surrounding Chinese undergraduate students and their 

instructors. That might have helped both groups of participants to firstly understand and to 

effectively navigate through various social interactions. I found that students and instructors 

developed a set of skills such as language skills and personal views of the two cultures. They 

 

214 

were motivated to successfully implement interculturally responsive behaviors in reciprocal 

ways. That allowed me to focus on both successful and unsuccessful instances of reciprocal 

learning and teaching, which in turn informed a deeper understanding of student-participants and 

their instructors. 

Furthermore, this study’s findings (especially these from instructor-participants collective 

case study) indicate that it would be beneficial for higher education institutions in the United 

States to move from “institutions of learning” to “learning institutions” (Ryan, 2010). This might 

be achievable by understanding Chinese undergraduate students’ educational motivations (or 

cultures of learning they are coming from) in order to create sustainable programs. This could 

also be started at the instructional level, one instructor at a time. When Chinese undergraduate 

students see that instructors also learn from them, it makes them feel valued and consequently 

helps them to develop self-esteem and confidence (Jin & Cortazzi, 2017), which are important 

characteristics of any successful international student. By having combined this study’s 

theoretical underpinnings with its findings, I provide tools for interculturally responsive learning 

environments at the classroom level and for transformative internationalization at the 

institutional level. For instance, truly intercultural teaching can be achieved by constant 

questioning of one’s world views and letting go of taking anything for granted when teaching 

Chinese undergraduate students. Thus, understanding culture as the lens through which both 

Chinese undergraduate students and their instructors construct and interpret meaning seems like 

a critical starting point towards interculturality in education. Also, empathy and attempts at 

understanding The Other without actually othering them might also prove helpful in creating 

truly interculturally responsive classrooms, that would welcome Chinese undergraduate students 

and capitalize on the array of diverse values they embody. Next, Chinese undergraduate students 

 

215 

seem to appreciate kindness. It would be beneficial to include it in pedagogies as well as on the 

institutional level in policies for instructors. In addition, Chinese undergraduate students could 

benefit from familiarizing themselves with U.S. cultures of learning, which would in turn ease 

their acclimation to the U.S. academic environment. Finally, both instructors and Chinese 

undergraduate students might approach learning and teaching as a mutually transformative 

experience, thus stay open to changes in both of them.  

Limitations 

 

While all studies have their limitations, a study that ventures into previously 

unresearched interdisciplinary territory, naturally has a few limitations. First of all, I interviewed 

the participants and their recollections of reported experiences might have been distorted by time 

and memory. I cannot be certain that situations reported to me by participants actually took 

place. I had to trust their memories though it is evident that memories tend to be fallible for all 

humans. For instance, Jackson tended to say “I can’t remember exactly” many times during our 

interview. Secondly, it is important to contextualize current findings by understanding the 

characteristics of the participants. Since I recruited the instructor-participants through direct 

emails (following suggestions that I received about those that were likely to show interest in the 

study), I had to recruit the student-participants from their respective classes. This might have 

affected the characteristics of the student-participants, given that they were volunteers, and 

therefore presumably open-minded. It also influenced me not to use three student-participants’ 

stories in this study because they did not identify as Chinese undergraduate students. Also, since 

kindness emerged as an essential factor in transformative internationalization, it was an 

emotional concept that I did not measure. I had to rely on participants’ reports and their feelings 

about the experiences they were sharing with me. Due to the newness of kindness as a concept, I 

 

216 

would look forward to finding ways of exploring this idea in the future. In addition, in the case of 

one of the ESL reading classes, specifically RESL B, I ended up having no student-participants. 

That is because even though I interviewed one Chinese undergraduate student, that student 

revealed to me that they did not identify as Chinese, therefore I could not use their data. Thus, 

for RESL B, I only observed the class from the instructor-participant’s perspective. Lastly, I 

have to acknowledge my own subjectivity as a researcher in this project. At the time of data 

collection and analysis, I shared the identities of both groups of participants, that is I was a 

student (graduate but international) as well as an instructor at GLU. Due to my prior living and 

teaching experiences in China, I may have been more disposed towards the students more than 

towards their instructors. “Subjectivity is not seen as a failing needing to be eliminated but as an 

essential element of understanding” (Stake, 1995, p. 45). I was curious and compelled to see how 

they handled their studies in the new educational settings. Therefore, my report might read as 

slightly favoring student-participants’ experiences.  

Future Research 

 

Theoretically speaking, the future is wide open to researchers who would like to explore 

the experiences of Chinese undergraduate students and those of their instructors in the United 

States’ institutions of higher education. To begin with, in the process of conducting this research 

and reflecting upon its findings, I realized that the notion of equitable education promoted by 

Rancière (1991) could be helpful in understanding equality in educating international students. 

Equitable education is understood as education that sees students and instructors as equals in 

their practices, level of knowledge and rank (Rancière, 1991). Rancière’s conceptualization 

constitutes an ideal that has the potential to enhance education. Because power relations can be 

detrimental to the co-construction of knowledge, Rancière’s concept of equality, as an ideal to 

 

217 

create context for effective learning and teaching, potentially decreases unequal power struggles. 

I also see his characterization of potential equality fitting situations that international students 

often find themselves in. The concept that all people, regardless of their race, color, age, 

economical background, and the like are uniformly intelligent (Rancière, 1991), might resonate 

especially well with Chinese undergraduate students in the U.S., given any pigeonholing 

experiences they might face at U.S. institutions.  

 

Moreover, in my future research, I intend to focus on differences and similarities between 

undergraduate and graduate Chinese students in the U.S. schools as well as educational 

experiences of those Chinese students who complete their bachelor’s degrees in the U.S. and 

those who did not. That might extend research findings on the roles of diverse cultures of 

learning in creating multicultural and intercultural learning environments. Also, the research 

design of this multiple case study enabled me to look at two groups of participants, that is 

student-participants and instructor-participants. With relation to internationalization, through 

future studies I might want to explore the third group, namely administrators. Their contributions 

to the experiences of Chinese undergraduate students and their instructors allow for 

transformative internationalization on all levels. Both students and instructors interact with 

administrators multiple times in a semester and for diverse reasons. Therefore, their perspectives 

on intercultural education could prove unmatched. In addition, I wish I had been able to track my 

student-participants’ trajectories as they moved through different contexts step by step. It was not 

possible to extend the time of data collection into another academic year. I was also not able to 

find Chinese undergraduate students who were going from the ESL context to the college writing 

context to the business context in the consecutive semesters. Having a more longitudinal data 

collection technique could have contributed to the depth of the participants’ stories which might 

 

218 

have created a stronger link between the three contexts and the four instructor-participants 

teaching in these contexts. 

 

However, for now, I have aimed to make a valuable contribution to the literature on 

interculturality in education as well as research on transformative internationalization and the 

application of the pedagogy of kindness in higher education. I also wanted to strengthen the 

interdisciplinary links between second language acquisition, international education and 

interculturality as well. 

 

219 

APPENDICES 

 

220 

APPENDIX A: Semi-structured Interview Questions for Student-participants 

(Based on Liu & Fang, 2017; Sercu, 2006; Uzum, 2013; Yazdanpanah, 2017) 

1.  Which part of China are you from? 

 

2.  What languages have you studied and what is your proficiency in each? 

3.  What do you plan to do upon graduation? 

4.  What courses have you taken so far? What did you learn from them? 

5.  What got you hooked on... (Business/English)? 

6.  What were your expectations for this course? 

7.  How would you describe your role in this class? 

8.  How do you understand intercultural competence? 

9.  How much interaction do you have with your instructor? How would you describe it? 

10. How would you compare your role in this class to your past experiences in China? 

11. How would you describe teaching methods in this class? 

12. How would you compare these methods to your past experiences in China? 

13. How would you describe the exchange of cultural information in this class? 

14. Do you recall any particular experience that you have found interesting regarding the 

U.S. culture?  

15. Considering what you’ve learned in this class, how being from a different culture affected 

the way you studied? 

16. Would you say you’ve become more aware of this culture’s educational practices, 

expectations or behaviors? Can you give a specific example? 

17. Did your instructor ask you to compare aspects of your culture with aspects of American 

culture? 

18. In your opinion, to what extent should your culture be considered in learning this subject?  

19. Did you feel respected in your class (by the instructor and your classmates)? Why/why 

not? 

 

221 

20. Do you have any examples of cultural understanding or misunderstanding in class to 

share with me? 

21. To what extent are you willing to introduce Chinese culture to your classmates and 

instructor? What aspects are you willing to introduce? 

22. Is there anything else you’d like to share at this time?

 

222 

APPENDIX B: Semi-structured Interview Questions for Instructor-participants  

(Based on Liu & Fang, 2017; Sercu, 2006; Uzum, 2013; Yazdanpanah, 2017) 

 

1.  What languages have you studied and what is your proficiency in each? 

2.  How did you first become interested in teaching…?  

3.  What is your experience with students from other cultures and speaking other languages?  

4.  What are your course objectives? What knowledge, skills do you want students to learn 

in this course? 

5.  What do you think are your strengths as an instructor? 

6.  Would you say that your classes are going as planned so far? 

7.  How would you describe your role in this class? 

8.  How would you describe your teaching methods in this class? 

9.  How would you describe your classroom management? 

10. Do you provide differentiated instruction based on students’ nationality and first 

language? 

11. Have you received any instructor training since you started teaching at the university? 

(especially one focusing on teaching international students) 

12. How many international students do you currently have in your classes? (Percentage?) 

13. Please tell me about your teaching experiences with international students thus far. 

14. How do you understand intercultural competence? 

15. Do you believe that intercultural skills can be taught at school? Why/why not? 

16. How would you describe your interaction with international students in this class? 

17. Do you think various cultures international students bring into your classroom should be 

considered in your teaching approaches? Why/why not? 

18. What is your position on incorporating culture into this course? (Possible ways to do so?) 

19. Do you feel like you bridge any cultural differences among your students through your 

instructional practices? Why? 

 

223 

20. Do you feel like learning conditions in your class might be sometimes challenging for 

international students? How? 

21. Would you say you’re knowledgeable about Chinese culture and students’ expectations, 

practices and behaviors? 

22. How much interaction do you have with Chinese students in your class? How would you 

describe it? 

23. Do you motivate your students to communicate with people from different cultures? If so, 

how? If not, why not? 

24. How extensively do you deal with particular cultural aspects, such as cultural 

expressions, values and beliefs? 

25. For ESL instructors only: How is your teaching time distributed over ‘language teaching’ 

and ‘culture teaching’?  

26. For ESL instructors only: What kinds of culture teaching activities, if any, do you 

practice during classroom teaching time? 

27. Please tell me about your teaching experiences with Chinese students this semester. 

28. How were your course objectives met (or not)? 

29. Have you received any institutional support (in terms of teaching international students) 

throughout the course of this semester? 

30. Did you enjoy teaching this course? Why/why not? 

31. What has been the most valuable aspect of teaching this class? 

32. What has been the most challenging aspect of teaching this class? 

33. What have you learned from teaching this class? How will you apply this to your future 

teaching? 

34. Throughout the course of this semester, have you experienced any situations where you 

had to modify or adapt your behavior to communicate more effectively with Chinese 
students in your class? 

35. Think about a lesson (or activity) that went particularly well with international students in 

your class. What do you think was good about it? 

36. Think of a lesson (or activity) that did not go the way that you planned. What do you 

think the problem was? What would you do differently if you were to do this lesson (or 
activity) again? 

 

224 

37. Did you have a chance to incorporate “intercultural awareness” into your teaching in any 

way this semester? 

38. In what ways, if any, have your ideas about international students changed? What do you 

think has caused this change? 

39. Has your teaching philosophy changed in any ways? How? 

40. Do you have any examples of cultural understanding or misunderstanding in class to 

share with me? 

41. How much U.S. culture do you think your Chinese students might have learned in your 

class? 

42. Do you feel like your intercultural competence has increased through teaching this class? 

Why/why not? 

43. To what degree do you think awareness of Chinese culture should be raised in class 

having Chinese students?  

44. Did you have a chance to organize any intercultural (cross-cultural) activities this 

semester? 

45. How do you measure success in teaching international students? 

46. Is there anything else you’d like to share at this time?

 

225 

REFERENCES

 

226 

REFERENCES 

 

 
Abelmann, N., & Kang, J. (2014). A fraught exchange? U.S. media on Chinese international  

undergraduates and the American university. Journal of Studies in International 
Education, 18(4), 382-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313479852  

Altbach, P. G. (2015). Agents and third-party recruiters in international higher education. 

International Higher Education, 62, 11-14. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.62.8528 

Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities. Higher Education, 45(1), 43-70. 

https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021225514599  

Baskarada, S. (2014). Qualitative case study guidelines. The Qualitative Report, 19(40), 1–18. 

Baumbaugh, A. D. (2015). Cultural adaptation of international students: Stereotypes and 

intercultural communication competence. (Master’s Thesis, San Diego State University). 
Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48500591.pdf 

Bhabha, H. K. (1996). Cultures in between. In S. Hall & P. Du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural 

identity (pp. 53-60). London: Sage Publications.  

Biggs, J. (1994). Asian learners through Western eyes: An astigmatic paradox. Australian and 

New Zealand Journal of Vocational Educational Research, 2(2), 40-63.  

Bikowski, D., & Gui, M. (2018). The influence of culture and educational context on Chinese 
students’ understandings of source use practices and plagiarism. System, 74, 194-205. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.017  

Birkett, M. (2013). Self-compassion and empathy across cultures: Comparison of young adults in 

China and the United States. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 
3(3), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsp.2013.551  

Boshier, R. (2017). Chinese students speak about their favourite teachers and university reform. 

International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36, 210-229. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2017.1268810  

Bovill, C., Jordan, L., & Watters, N. (2015). Transnational approaches to teaching and learning 

in higher education: Challenges and possible guiding principles. Teaching in Higher 
Education, 20(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.945162  

Brzezinski, M. (1994). Migration & opportunity: A qualitative understanding of the Chinese 
student brain drain phenomenon (NASFA Working Paper, No. 41). Washington, DC: 
NASFA. 

Butler, Y. G. (2015). Parental factors in children’s motivation for learning English: A case in 

China. Research Papers in Education, 30(2), 164-191. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2014.891643  

 

227 

Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and 

international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 140-151. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12319  

Cao, Z., Anderson, V., Xu, F., & Caldwell, C. (2018). Understanding Chinese students’ values – 

Insights for tomorrow’s managers. International Journal of Public Leadership, 14(2), 
119-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpl-10-2016-0036  

Chao, C., Hegarty, N., Angelidis, J., & Lu, V. F. (2017). Chinese students’ motivations for 

studying in the United States. Journal of International Students, 7(2), 257-269.  

Chen, Z. (2000). International students’ preparation for and adaptation to the American higher 

education system: A study of cross-cultural communication. World Communication, 29, 
25-48.  

Chen, D., & Yang, X. (2017). Improving active classroom participation of ESL students: 

Applying culturally responsive teaching strategies. Theory and Practice in Language 
Studies, 7(1), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0701.10  

Cheng, R., & Erben, A. (2012). Language anxiety: Experiences of Chinese graduate students at 
U.S. higher institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5), 477-497. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311421841  

Cheung, A. C. K., & Xu, L. (2015). To return or not to return: Examining the return intentions of 

mainland Chinese students studying at elite universities in the United States. Studies in 
Higher Education, 40(9), 1605-1624. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.899337  

Chung, A. Y., Chen, K., Jung, G., & Li, M. (2018). Thinking outside the box: The National 

context for education preparation and adaptation among Chinese and Korean 
international students. Research in Comparative & International Education, 13(3), 418-
438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499918791364  

Clark-Gareca, B., & Gui, M. (2019). Chinese and American EFL teachers’ beliefs about 
curricular and pedagogical practices: Cross-cultural similarities and differences. 
Language and Intercultural Communication, 19(2), 137-151. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2018.1456546  

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for learning across cultures. In D. McNamara & 
R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas students in higher education: Issues in teaching and learning 
(pp. 76–90). New York, NY: Routledge. 

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (Eds.) (2013). Researching cultures of learning: International 

perspectives on language learning and education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.  

Dervin, F. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence in language learning and teaching: A 

critical view of current efforts. In F. Dervin and E. Suomela-Salmi (Eds.), New 
approaches to assessment in higher education (pp. 157-175). Bern: Peter Long.  

 

228 

Dervin, F. (2016a). Informal preparation of Chinese students for study abroad in Sweden. In S. 
Guo and Y. Guo (Eds.), Spotlight on China: Chinese education in the globalized world 
(pp. 151-166). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. 

Dervin, F. (2016b). Interculturality in Education. A Theoretical and Methodological Toolbox. 

London: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Dervin, F. (2017). “I find it odd that people have to highlight other people’s differences – even 

when there are none”: Experiential learning and interculturality in teacher education. 
International Review of Education, 63, 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9620-
y  

Dervin, F., & Byrd Clark, J. S. (2014). Reflexivity in research and practice: Moving on? In J. S. 

Byrd Clark & F. Dervin (Eds.), Reflexivity in language and intercultural education: 
Rethinking multilingualism and interculturality (pp. 234-239). New York, NY: 
Routledge.  

Dervin, F., & Machart, R. (Eds.) (2017). Intercultural communication with China: Beyond 

(reverse) essentialism and culturalism? Singapore: Springer and Higher Education Press.  

de Wit, H. (2015). Internationalization misconceptions. International Higher Education, 64, 

Summer 2011, 6-7. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.64.8556 

Dicke, T., Elling, J., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2015). Reducing reality shock: The effects of 

classroom management skills training on beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher 
Education, 48, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.013  

Du, X. (2015). Afterword: Rethinking the notion of Chinese students abroad: The need for a new 

research agenda. In F. Dervin (Ed.), Chinese educational migration and student-teacher 
mobilities: Experiencing otherness (pp. 215-226). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.  

Duan, W., Ho, S. M. Y., Siu, B. P. Y., Li, T., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Role of virtues and perceived 
life stress in affecting psychological symptoms among Chinese college students. Journal 
of American College Health, 63(1), 32-39. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2014.963109  

Duff, P. (2012). How to conduct case study research. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Research 

methodologies in second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell. 

Erichsen, E. A., & Bolliger, D. U. (2011). Towards understanding international graduate student 

isolation in traditional and online environments. Educational Technology Research and 
Development, 59, 309-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9161-6  

Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). The first term at university: Implications for EP. ELT Journal, 

65(4), 387-397. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq072  

 

229 

Falcone, S. (2017). International student recruitment: Trends and challenges. Journal of 

International Students, 7(2), 246-256.  

Farinde-Wu, A., Glover, C. P., & Williams, N. N. (2017). It’s not hard work; it’s heart work: 
Strategies of effective, award-winning culturally responsive teachers. Urban Rev, 49, 
279-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0401-5  

Fendler, L. (2019, May). Expansive Possibilities for Educational Research. Invited talk given at 

an event sponsored by SLS Applied Scholarship Interest Group. MSU, East Lansing, MI.  

Ferri, G. (2018). Intercultural communication: Critical approaches and future challenges. New 

York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.  

Forbush, E., & Foucault-Welles, B. (2016). Social media use and adaptation among Chinese 

students beginning to study in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural 
Relations, 50, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.10.007  

Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Durksen, T. L., Becker-Kurz, B., & 

Klassen, R. M. (2016). Measuring teachers’ enjoyment, anger, and anxiety: The Teacher 
Emotions Scales (TES). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 148-163. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.003  

Friedman, D. A. (2012). How to collect and analyze qualitative data. In A. Mackey and S. M. 
Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 
180-200). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 

Fu, Y., & Izuma, K. (2018). Social capital and Chinese international students’ use of social 

network site in the UK. International Journal of School and Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 
209. https://doi.org/10.4172/2469-9837.1000209  

Fu, Y., Machado, C., & Weng, Z. (2018). Factors influencing Chinese international students’ 

strategic language learning at ten universities in the U.S.: A mixed-method study. Journal 
of International Students, 8(4), 1891-1913.  

Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing Literature Reviews: A guide for students of the 

social and behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.  

Gao, G. (1998). “Don’t take my word for it” - Understanding Chinese speaking practices. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 163-186. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0147-1767(98)00003-0  

Garcia, O., Flores, N., & Chu, H. (2011). Extending bilingualism in U.S. secondary education 

new variations. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5, 1-18. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2011.539486  

Garrett-Rucks, P. (2016). Intercultural competence in instructed language learning: Bridging 

theory and practice. Charlotte, NC: IAP.  

 

230 

Gu, W. (2016). Chinese international students’ perceptions of their intercultural adaptability 

(Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno). Retrieved from 
https://scholarworks.unr.edu/bitstream/handle/11714/2136/Gu_unr_0139D_11996.pdf?se
quence=1 

Haarms, R., Holtzman, J., Xue, T., & Darbyshire, D. (2018). Chinese students’ cultural and 

behavioural differences among domestic and internationally oriented educational 
institutions. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 5(2), 30-38. 
https://doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2018.02.4  

He, X., & Niao, L. (2015). A probe into the negative writing transfer of Chinese college students. 

English Language Teaching, 8(10), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n10p21  

Heng, T. T. (2017). Voices of Chinese international students in USA colleges: “I want to tell 

them that…” Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 833-850. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293873  

Heng, T. T. (2018). Different is not deficient: Contradicting stereotypes of Chinese international 

students in U.S. higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 22-36. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1152466  

Heng, T. T. (2019). Understanding the heterogeneity of international students’ experiences: A 
case study of Chinese international students in U.S. universities. Journal of Studies in 
International Education, 23(5), 607-623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319829880  

Holdway, J., & Hitchcock, C. H. (2018). Exploring ideological becoming in professional 

development for teachers of multilingual learners: Perspectives on translanguaging in the 
classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 60-70. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.015  

Holliday, A., Kullman, J., & Hyde, M. (2017). Intercultural Communication: An advanced 

resource book for students. New York: Routledge. 

Huang, Y. (2012). Transitioning challenges faced by Chinese graduate students. Adult Learning, 

23, 138-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159512452861  

Hui, L. (2005). Chinese cultural schema of education: implications for communication between 

Chinese students and Australian educators. Issues in Educational Research, 15(1), 17-35.  

Institute of International Education. (2019). Open Doors Report Highlights: Social Media 

Toolkit. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/en/Why-
IIE/Announcements/2019/11/Number-of-International-Students-in-the-United-States-
Hits-All-Time-High 

Jackson, J. (2018). Intervening in the intercultural learning of L2 study abroad students: From 

research to practice. Language Teaching, 51(3), 365-382. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444816000392  

 

231 

James, M. X., Miller, G. J., & Wyckoff, T. W. (2019). Comprehending the cultural causes of 

English writing plagiarism in Chinese students at a Western-style university. Journal of 
Business Ethics, 154, 631-642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3441-6  

Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design. In N. K. Denzin and Y. 

S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 379-399). Thousand Oaks: 
Sage Publications. 

Jiang, X., Yang, X., & Zhou, Y. (2017). Chinese international students’ perceptions of the 

language issues in U.S. universities: A comparative study. Journal of Interdisciplinary 
Studies in Education, 6(1), 63-80.  

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1993). Cultural orientation and academic language use. In D. Graddol, L. 

Thompson, & M. Byram (Eds.), Language and culture (pp. 84–97). Clevedon: 
Multilingual Matters. 

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2017). Practising cultures of learning in internationalising universities. 

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(3), 237-250. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1134548  

Lamberton, G., & Ashton-Hay, S. (2015). Preparing Chinese international business students for 

the transition to undergraduate study in Australia. Journal of Research in International 
Education, 14(2), 155-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240915591962  

Lee, E. J., Lee, L., & Jang, J. (2011). Internet for the internationals: Effects of Internet use and 
motivations on international students’ college adjustments. Cyberpsychology Behaviour 
and Social Networking, 14(7-8), 433-437. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0406  

Li, H. (2004). A million-yuan annual salary for professors. Chinese Education and Society, 

37(2), 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2004.11031623  

Lillyman, S., & Bennett, C. (2014). Providing a positive learning experience for international 

students studying at UK universities: A literature review. Journal of Research in 
International Education, 13(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240914529859  

Lin, L. (2020). The visible hand behind study-abroad waves: Cram schools, organizational  

framing and the international mobility of Chinese students. Higher Education, 79(2), 
259-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00408-1  

Lin, L., & Reinders, H. (2019). Students’ and teachers’ readiness for autonomy: Beliefs and 

practices in developing autonomy in the Chinese context. Asia Pacific Education Review, 
20, 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9564-3  

Liu, J., & Fang, F. (2017). Perceptions, awareness and perceived effects of home culture on 

intercultural communication: Perspectives of university students in China. System, 67, 
25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.04.003  

Loreman, T. (2011). Love as pedagogy. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.  

 

232 

Lu, Y., Chui, H., Zhu, R., Zhao, H., Zhang, Y., Liao, J., & Miller, M. J. (2018). What does “good 

adjustment” mean for Chinese international students? A qualitative investigation. The 
Counselling Psychologist, 46(8), 979-1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000018824283  

Luan, Z. (2012). Chinese International Students' Cultural Immersion and Academic Adaptation 

on an American Campus (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Arkansas, 
Department of Leadership Studies). 

Machart, R. (2016). Asian students’ intercultural preparation for academic mobility: Getting 

ready for diversities or reproducing the expected? East Asia, 33, 59-72. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-015-9241-7  

Madge, C., Raghuram, P., & Noxolo, P. (2015). Conceptualizing international education: From 
international student to international study. Progress in Human Geography, 39(6), 681-
710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132514526442  

Magnet, S., Mason, C. L., & Trevenen, K. (2014). Feminism, pedagogy, and the politics of 

kindness. Feminist Teacher, 25(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.5406/femteacher.25.1.0001  

Mak, A. S., & Barker, M. C. (2006). Social integration: Strategies to foster migrants’ effective 

participation in a group. In S. Tse, M.E. Hoque, K. Rasanathan, M. Chatterji, R. Wee, S. 
Garg, & Y. Ratnasabapathy (Eds.), Prevention, protection and promotion. Proceedings of 
the Second International Asian Health and Wellbeing Conference, November 11, 13-14, 
(pp. 147-155). Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland. 

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. (Revised 

and Expanded). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods 

sourcebook (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 

Montgomery, K. A. (2017). Supporting Chinese undergraduate students in transition at U.S. 

colleges and universities. Journal of International Students, 7(4), 963-989.  

Mott-Smith, J. A. (2013). Viewing student behavior through the lenses of culture and 

globalization: Two narratives from a U.S. college writing class. Teaching in Higher 
Education, 18(3), 249-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.725222  

Mustaffa, C., & Ilias, M. (2013). Relationship between students adjustment factors and 

crosscultural adjustment: A survey at the Northern University of Malaysia. Intercultural 
Communication Studies, 22(1), 279-300. 

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2019). Current term enrollment estimates 

Spring 2019. Retrieved from 
https://nscresearchcenter.org/currenttermenrollmentestimate-spring2019/ 

 

233 

Ozgur, C., Li, Y., & Rogers, G. (2015). Trends in selecting undergraduate business majors and 

international enrollment and expected salaries. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(3), 
45-61. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v4n3p45  

Paldy, L. G. (2015). International undergraduates: The teaching challenge. Journal of College 

Science Teaching, 44(6), 5. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst15_044_06_5  

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.  

Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing. 

European Journal of Marketing, 32, 785–802. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810232237  

Pieterse, J. N. (2004). Globalization and culture: Global melange. Lanham: Rowman & 

Littlefield Publishers. 

Rancière, J. (1991). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual emancipation. (K. 

Ross, Trans.) Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.  

Rappleye, J., & Komatsu, H. (2018). Stereotypes as Anglo-American exam ritual? Comparisons 

of students’ exam anxiety in East Asia, America, Australia, and the United Kingdom. 
Oxford Review of Education, 44(6), 730-754. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1444598  

Rawlings, M., & Sue, E. (2013). Preparedness of Chinese students for American culture and 

communicating in English. Journal of International Students, 3(1), 29-40.  

Roy, S. R. (2013). Educating Chinese, Japanese, and Korean international students: 

Recommendations to American professors. Journal of International Students, 3(1), 10-
16.  

Ryan, J. (2010). “The Chinese Learner”: Misconceptions and realities. In J. Ryan and G. 

Slethaug (Eds.), International Education and the Chinese Learner (pp. 37-56). Hong 
Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage 

Publications. 

Schmidt, M. J., Berynets, K., Wu, E., & Scott, C. (2018). Theory, the Chinese student, and 

Western higher education. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 18(2), 39-
51. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v18i2.545  

Sercu, L. (2006). The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher: The acquisition of 

a new professional identity. Intercultural Education, 17(1), 55–72. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980500502321  

 

234 

Shi, L. (2006). The successors to Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnaire study on 

Chinese students’ culture of learning English. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 
122-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310608668758  

Simpson, A., & Dervin, F. (2019). Global and intercultural competences for whom? By whom? 

For what purpose?: An example from the Asia Society and the OECD. Compare: A 
Journal of Comparative and International Education, 49(4), 672-677. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1586194  

Smolcic, E., & Arends, J. (2017). Building teacher interculturality: Student partnerships in 

university classrooms. Teacher Education Quarterly, Fall 2017, 51-73. 

Spencer-Oatey, H., Dauber, D., Jing, J., & Lifei, W. (2017). Chinese students’ social integration 
into the university community: Hearing the students’ voices. Higher Education, 74, 739-
756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0074-0  

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. 

Swagler, M. A., & Ellis, M. V. (2003). Crossing the distance: Adjustment of Taiwanese graduate 

students in the United States. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 50(4), 420-437. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.4.420  

Tange, H., & Jensen, I. (2012). Good teachers and deviant learners? The meeting of practices in 
university level international education. Journal of Research in International Education 
11(2), 181-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240912447849  

Tolosa, C., Biebricher, C., East, M., & Howard, J. (2018). Intercultural language teaching as a 

catalyst for teacher inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 227-235. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.027  

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative 

research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121  

Uzum, B. (2013). Foreign language teacher socialization: A multiple case study of foreign 

language teachers in an American higher education institution. (Doctoral dissertation, 
Michigan State University). 

van der Zanden, P. J. A. C., Denessen, E., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Meijer, P. C. (2018). Domains 
and predictors of first-year student success: A systematic review. Educational Research 
Review, 23, 57-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.01.001  

van Lier, L. (2005). Case study. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language 

Teaching and Learning (pp. 195–208). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge. 

 

235 

Wang, J. (2012). Culturally inclusive practice: A case study of an international student support 

initiative at an Australian university. Asian Social Science, 8(4), 68-76. 
https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n4p68  

Wang, X.-L. (1992). Chinese students in the United States: A cultural and geographical 

perspective (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University).  

Wang, I-C., Ahn, J. N., Kim, H. J., & Lin-Siegler, X. (2017). Why do international students 

avoid communicating with Americans? Journal of International Students, 7(3), 555-582.  

Wang, W., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2019). Translanguaging in a Chinese-English bilingual 

education programme: A university-classroom ethnography. International Journal of 
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(3), 322-337. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1526254  

Wihlborg, M., & Robson, S. (2018). Internationalisation of higher education: Drivers, rationales, 

priorities, values and impacts. European Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 8-18. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1376696 

Will, N. L. (2016). From isolation to inclusion: Learning of the experiences of Chinese 

international students in U.S. Journal of International Students, 6(4), 1069-1075.  

Yan, K., & Berliner, D. C. (2009). Chinese international students’ academic stressors in the U.S. 

College Student Journal, 43(3), 939-960.  

Yan, K., & Berliner, D. C. (2016). The unique features of Chinese international students in the 

United States: Possibilities and challenges. In S. Guo and Y. Guo (Eds.), Spotlight on 
China: Chinese education in the globalized world (pp. 129-150). Rotterdam, The 
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.  

Yazdanpanah, R. (2017). Intercultural teacher education through cultural synergy: 

Understanding pre-service English language teachers’ developing intercultural 
competence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). 

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage 

Publications. 

Yu, Y., & Moskal, M. (2018). Missing intercultural engagements in the university experiences of 

Chinese international students in the UK. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and 
International Education, 49(4), 654-671. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1448259  

Yuan, Y., & Xie, Q. (2013). Cultures of learning: An evolving concept and an expanding field. 

In M. Cortazzi and L. Jin (Eds.), Researching cultures of learning: International 
perspectives on language learning and education (pp. 21-40). New York: Palgrave 
Macmillan.  

 

 

236 

Zhang, X. (2018). Teaching citations/referencing: How do Chinese student writers respond? 

Publishing Research Quarterly, 34, 580-594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-018-9615-y 

Zhang, Y., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2011). College application with or without assistance of an 

education agent: Experience of international Chinese undergraduates in the U.S. Journal 
of College Admission, 212, 7.  

Zhang-Wu, Q. (2018). Chinese international students’ experiences in American higher education 

institutes: A critical review of the literature. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 
1173-1197. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v8i2.139  

 

237