scholarly journals British Universities: International Students’ Alleged Lack of Critical Thinking

2015 ◽  
Vol 215 ◽  
pp. 2-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena V. Fell ◽  
Natalia A. Lukianova
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Badger

The attention to fostering learners’ critical thinking and creativity skills in secondary school and college students is growing in Western and non-Western countries. This study investigated the integration of a creativity and critical thinking course in an Intensive English Programs (IEP) to determine how the same course may contribute to international students’ linguistic skills and analytic abilities in preparation for college. Perry’s (1970) conceptual framework was adopted to analyze Chinese students’ views of problems presented in a creativity and critical thinking course, and how the same knowledge related to the Chinese students’ prior educational experiences as well as connect to their future studies. IEP faculty and administrator’s perceptions provided an additional perspective into the purpose and learning outcomes of the same course. Findings from this research address a gap in the literature that seeks effective strategies and models for IEPs to foster international students’ analytic skills in preparation for college studies.


2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael W. O'Sullivan ◽  
Linyuan Guo

In the West, the teaching of critical thinking, albeit differentially defined, is seen as the core of work at a graduate level. Despite the fact that developing such critical skills is increasing as an expectation of schools in the West, the literature reflects concerns that Canadian educated students arrive at university unprepared to engage at the expected level of criticality. If this is true of domestic students, what is the situation facing those international students who were educated in intellectual traditions, such as China’s, where critical thinking, at least as understood in the West, is rarely encouraged, and often actually discouraged? Do such students arrive prepared to work at a post-secondary level that involves critical thinking? Do such students embrace or resist critical thinking when these skills are taught to them? Is teaching critical thinking to these students a legitimate scholarly pursuit or is it, in effect, a neocolonial conceit? Can the Asian notion of harmony be reconciled with the Western notion of often-times sharp engagement with ideas and debate with their classmates and instructors? The authors, one a Canadian born and raised professor of comparative and international education to Chinese students studying in Canada, the other, a Chinese scholar who recently completed her doctorate in Canada where she now teaches, engage in a dialogue on Western concepts of critical thinking and the reaction of one class of Chinese international students to this pedagogy.


Author(s):  
Lihong Wang

Student mobility or study abroad seems to have become a "new normal" in this ever increasingly connected world and highlights the cultural issues of teaching and learning in the educational "contact zones." The presence of large population of international students poses teaching and learning challenges to the host universities. This presentation is based on an ethnographic longitudinal study of a group of Confucian heritage culture (CHC) learners' perceptions of the required practice of critical thinking during their overseas study in an Western (Anglophone) learning culture. In view of the ambivalent and inconsistent findings on international—especially Asian students'—receptiveness of critical learning in Western educational institutions, this study is intended to demystify "critical thinking" by depicting a learning trajectory of how these students were grappling with this learning requirement in the new learning culture. This presentation focuses on an intercultural educational and additive approach and their related strategies that can be adopted by the faculty of western host universities in order to develop international students' understanding and practice of critical thinking by focusing on what the student does instead of what the student is or which culture they are from.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 527-541
Author(s):  
Danielle Geary

American colleges and universities consider diversity a way to foster personal growth and a healthy society, challenge stereotypes, encourage critical thinking, and help students communicate and feel comfortable with people they may perceive to be different. Quality interaction that has the potential to grow into authentic relationships between Americans and international students may be the bridge to affecting these outcomes, but how do we get people to interact? In this article, based on research as well as her own experience as an international student, the author explores some of the challenges international students face and suggests ideas for sparking interaction between international students and Americans.


2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracey Bretag

As 2008 draws to a close, I am pleased to publish Volume 4(2) of the International Journal for Educational Integrity. Having attended the 3rd International Plagiarism Conference at Northumbria University in the UK in June, and recently joined the Advisory Board of the Center for Academic Integrity in the USA, I have gained the sense that there is increasing global interest in the broad field of educational integrity. In parallel with that interest has been an increased number of submissions to the IJEI, and an overall improvement in the quality of those submissions. I am delighted to report that the International Journal for Educational Integrity has been assessed by the European Science Foundation (Standing Committee for the Humanities) as a category 'B' in the ERIH Initial List for 'Pedagogical and Educational Research', and is currently being considered for a change of category to 'A', for confirmation in early 2009. The Asia-Pacific Forum on Educational Integrity (http://apfei.edu.au), the organisation which publishes the IJEI, is currently seeking members, both institutional and individual. Benefits of membership include: Access to the APFEI website and discussion list; Opportunities to contribute to the APFEI wiki/respository of resources; Discounted individual membership; Collaboration with the Center for Academic Integrity (Clemson University, USA, and plagarismadvice.org (Northumbria University, UK); 15% discount on bi-annual APFEI conference registration to all delegates with individual or institutional membership; Networking opportunities with key researchers in the field, including mentoring to publish in the IJEI; Reputational benefit in being associated with the first organisation in the region specifically devoted to issues of educational integrity; and Access to key researchers/speakers/professional developers to conduct seminars and training. The membership application form follows this Editorial. As in previous issues, Volume 4(2) brings together a range of scholars from around the world, each offering a unique perspective on the topic. Kay Fielden and Donald Joyce from Unitec in New Zealand, set the scene by offering an analysis of 125 papers on academic integrity by Australasian authors, published since 1998. Fielden and Joyce use a multi-stakeholder, multi-level theoretical framework to demonstrate that there was a dominant positivist mindset adopted by the authors in the sample, and that academic staff researchers provide the dominant stakeholder view, most often about student behaviour. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that the other three papers in the issue are all written by academic researchers and all deal with student behaviour. Amanda Maxwell, Guy Curtis and Lucia Vardanega from the University of Western Sydney in Australia, investigate the perceived seriousness and understanding of plagiarism by local and Asian international students studying at two Australian universities. Based on a sample of 267 undergraduate students from varying disciplinary backgrounds, and using self-report questionnaires, the study challenges commonly held assumptions about cultural differences. No distinction was found between the two groups in terms of perceived seriousness and understanding of plagiarism. This study confirms the findings from other research which indicates that most students demonstrate some difficulty understanding what constitutes plagiarism, and that an educative framework is needed for all students, regardless of cultural or linguistic background. Vidar Gynnild, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and Patricia Gotschalk, from Michigan Technological University in Houghton, report on an institutional study of academic integrity based on reported incidents from 2001-2006, and a campus-wide survey administered in 2008. Although the findings demonstrated that academic dishonesty was widespread, 40% of the academic staff who responded to the survey stated that they had taken no steps to address a suspected breach of academic integrity, due to insufficient proof. Other key findings relating to student breaches of academic integrity indicated that there are cultural and gender differences, as well as differences between schools (disciplines) and levels of study. International students were over-represented in integrity charges, and the most frequent offence generally was collusion. Like many other researchers in the field, Gynnild and Gotschalk conclude that a holistic approach which balances the “punitive and educational aspects of policies” is both the challenge and the goal. The issue concludes with an insightful piece by Sarah Roberts-Cady from Fort Lewis College in Colorado. Roberts-Cady makes the case that while most colleges and universities have adopted two main strategies to address academic integrity – behaviour modification and character development – what is also needed is a program of instruction which teaches students to think critically about values. Roberts - Cady asserts that critical thinking is not only an important element of rationality, but integral to being a morally responsible person. Given the emphasis on critical thinking in higher education, Roberts-Cady concludes that "critical thinking about honesty" is where we need to direct our attention in our daily efforts to address issues of academic integrity. I trust you enjoy the current issue of the International Journal for Educational Integrity and encourage you to submit a paper for review, either through the automatic tracking system, or directly to me at [email protected]. The next issue is scheduled to be published in April/May 2009. Tracey Bretag, Editor Reviewers for this issue: Patrick Baughan, City University, UK Mark Brimble, Griffith University, Australia Kate Chanock, La Trobe University, Australia Kathleen Gray, University of Melbourne, Australia Margaret Green, University of South Australia Heather Hancock, University of South Australia Sue Knight, University of South Australia Martin Lipscombe, University of the West of England, UK Helen Marsden, University of Canberra, Australia Stephen Marshall, Victorian University of Wellington, NZ


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document