8 minute read
A key communication principle
Richard Mast looks at cultural issues surrounding international schools in China
When a Chinese school decides to incorporate an international curriculum or begin to use international teaching methods, it tends to follow a particular pattern of decision making. The assumption is that foreign teachers and administrators need to be brought in to model the teaching, and to assist with training the Chinese teachers. When the foreign teachers and administrators arrive, they take on the role of ‘experts’. That is, they have the role of being the experts in international curriculum, teaching and assessment. As such, they come in to demonstrate their skills and to help the Chinese teachers to understand what to do. The Chinese teachers step back from being responsible for the teaching and learning of the students, because the curriculum, its pedagogy and assessment are unknown. They defer to the experts. As such, they keep silent. Part of this results from cultural deference shown to leaders. In this case the foreigners are the leaders; therefore, they are not challenged or questioned.
The problem is that this scenario, although logical and essentially appropriate, has a component that is not helpful. That is, there is a delineation of responsibility that is not helping the students. The students being exposed to the international curriculum are Chinese. Their perceptions, thinking processes, perspectives, values and responses are all based upon their cultural experience. When they are asked to learn according to the expectations of the international curriculum, it should not be a surprise that they are confused, stressed and not able to comprehend what is going on, let alone what they have to do. If a foreign teacher could speak fluent Chinese in teaching a class, the students would still not know what is going on. This issue is not about language; it is about two cultures coming together and trying to find a pathway for the benefit of the students. If the foreign teachers continue to teach in their way, as they think they ought to, then the students will not progress in the ways that anyone wants them to.
For this coming together of cultures, some things have to happen that are outside of the standard approach taken in these schools. The foreign teachers are the experts in international curriculum, international teaching methods and assessment processes. The Chinese teachers are the experts in the learning of Chinese students. They are the experts in Chinese culture. There are two approaches available. The first is to impose the model of international education and expect the Chinese students to fit into that model: the students have to do all the heavy lifting by changing to fit the expectations that were created for children from western cultures.
The second approach is to build a teaching and learning model based upon Chinese culture. If we accept that Chinese students will always think and act in ways that are consistent and built upon Chinese culture, then the path to success has
to take that into account. The foreign teachers have to adapt their teaching strategies to take into account the learning styles of the students. For this to happen, they have to learn from the Chinese teachers. There has to be open and confident dialogue between the Chinese teachers and the foreign teachers. This is very hard to achieve. The Chinese teachers do not believe that they can teach the foreign teachers anything in relation to the international curriculum. When this premise is presented to them, they become nervous and do not believe that they have a role to play.
The role of administrators is to bring this discussion into the open and ensure that there is an exchange of ideas. Again, this is difficult for all concerned. The foreign teachers have trouble accepting that they need to change their teaching and that they can learn from the Chinese teachers. The Chinese teachers do not believe that they can or should teach the foreign teachers. Part of the problem is that this type of conversation is not at all common in schools – but it must happen for the sake of the students. The Chinese teachers need to be able to tell the foreign teachers how the students will interpret their teaching method. Given that the Chinese teachers, at least initially, have real difficulty recognising that learning can happen with western pedagogy, this is not an easy conversation. When Chinese teachers first observe foreign teachers in their teaching, they are not at all convinced that learning is taking place. A long transition process of mutual understanding is needed for this to happen.
In the meantime, it is essential that the foreign teachers do not assume that what they say and do will transfer into a learning situation in the minds of the students. This is an example of ‘lost in translation’ beyond the linguistics. The students do not know what the teacher is expecting of them, and they do not know how and what to do. The Chinese teachers have to act as the conduits of communication. Without their input the foreign teacher is wasting time and effort, and the students are not going to get the benefit of that input. The Chinese teachers have to be able to tell the foreign teachers that there are situations where what they think is happening is not actually the reality. The Chinese teachers have to see themselves as equals. In fact their role is very important, because without them presenting the reality of the experience for the students, the foreign teachers will not be able to be the effective teachers they want to be. The foreign teachers have to probe and seek to understand what is happening in the minds of the students. The foreign teachers have to accept that they are also learners, as well as the students.
This situation goes beyond the classroom. A Chinese school may choose to take on an international curriculum without recruiting foreign teachers. This is just as fragile a situation. Even if the curriculum documentation is fully- and well-translated, the interpretation of that curriculum, the processes, the pedagogy, the expectations, the aims and the assessment is done in ways that are not intended by the curriculum designers. The teachers and administrators focus on the structure and do not fully recognise the educational values and processes that are implicit in the curriculum. The only things they can focus on are the structural components. For example, when a school decides to pursue a curriculum such as the IB Middle Years Programme (MYP), they focus on ideas such as ‘Inquiry’. The teachers are not experienced in the pedagogy that is foundational to western teaching and that is assumed within the MYP approach. The teachers and administrators miss the point of the curriculum. They do not recognise that the essential component of international pedagogy is students learning to think. This drives western education but is not made explicit. The teachers and administrators can only respond to what they read or experience in their training. This type of assumption means that the curriculum is not interpreted in the ways intended.
Just as the foreign teachers need to listen to the Chinese teachers, the foreign administrators need to recognise that Chinese teachers, administrators and parents will interact with the international curriculum in ways that are unrecognisable to them. Of course they will. They can only interpret the curriculum from the foundation of their culture. Almost all elements of the international curriculum and operational components common in international schools are alien in this environment. The school leaders need to get to the heart of the Chinese views of education and then use this understanding as the prism for interpretation of the curriculum and operations in the school. Any suggestion that the international curriculum and its supporting processes can be brought into a Chinese school and assumed to be the way forward for the school borders on imperialism and is not appropriate. The principle here is that there has to be extensive and deep discussions about what it means to bring an international curriculum into a Chinese learning environment. This is not so say that it should not happen. Rather, the argument is that a Chinese version of the international curriculum has to evolve if benefits are to be gained for the students in the medium and long term. That is, the students will be able to transition into a way of teaching and learning that is recognisable from a Chinese perspective and through which the students will have every chance of success in future international study.
For international organisations seeking to bring their services to China, the situation is exactly the same as described above. Whether it is an organisation seeking to offer accreditation services, training, curriculum materials or recruitment services, the Chinese way of thinking and operating is very different. The differences are much greater than the organisations may wish to face – but face the differences is what they have to do. If there is no adjustment, accommodation or flexibility of approach on a scale that is uncomfortable, then the chances of success are not high. Organisations seeking to offer services in China will present structures, but it is the assumptions and processes that underpin their offerings that will be the issue. These have to be explored with an open mind and with a great deal of probing. Not only is the range of components operating in this situation very wide; there are points of contradiction, confusion and sensitivity that have to be identified and addressed. None of this is easy, but it is critical. Without this level and form of communication, the journey for the students, teachers, parents and administrators will not be what it should be.
