‘Teachers are just the ones who learned Dao before students’: exploring influences of culture on pedagogical partnership in Chinese universities

ABSTRACT

Everyday learner–teacher interactions are a key factor in student engagement and learning. There is thus growing scholarly attention on the relational practices of engaging students as partners (SaP) in higher education. In Chinese universities, there is an emerging literature exploring learner–teacher relationships as a partnership. To advance the global conversation on SaP as it expands in China, we designed an exploratory study to understand how broader context and culture influence the implementation of the learner–teacher pedagogical partnership in Chinese universities. To do so, we drew on interviews with 27 undergraduate students and 17 academics in three Chinese universities discussing learner–teacher interactions and relationships. Using thematic analysis, the study revealed nuanced understandings and complex tensions at play in how students and academics reflected on the collectivist relational orientation of China, the risks of stepping outside of top-down policy-driven mandates, and the external global influences shaping everyday pedagogical interactions. The study is timely given the emerging literature on SaP in China and contributes much needed insight into the role of culture shaping the context of learner–teacher relationships in China. By better surfacing cultural forces, forms of partnership can flourish in China that are culturally situated and responsive.

KEYWORDS:

• Students as partners
• pedagogical partnership
• culture
• Chinese higher education
• learner–teacher interactions

Introduction

Learner–teacher interactions and relational approaches that foster educative relationships have been identified as key factors in student engagement and learning (Coates et al., 2022; Felten & Lambert, 2020; Guo et al., 2022). The notion of engaging students as partners (SaP) with teachers (in a learner–teacher or pedagogical partnership) in higher education refers to ‘a collaborative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same ways, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualisation, decision making, implementation, or analysis’ (Cook-Sather et al., 2014, pp. 6–7). In practice, students work together with academic staff, as co-teachers, co-researchers, co-creators, and co-designers, to advance educational quality and develop a shared responsibility that grows learner autonomy (Cook-Sather et al., 2014; Healey et al., 2014). The ethos of learner–teacher partnership is thus fundamentally about reshaping taken-for-granted identities of learners and teachers by calling into question the assumed power dynamics in higher education (Cook-Sather et al., 2018; Dwyer, 2018).

There have been calls for research on SaP that extends beyond the Global North and anglophone contexts shaped by Anglo-American norms (Bindra et al., 2018; Green, 2019). A key thread in these calls is for increased recognition of possibilities and potential to understand and foster globally inclusive scholarly conversations about learner–teacher interactions that both respect and affirm cultural differences in SaP. In other words, limiting the scope of SaP by assuming a singular or dominant cultural lens diminishes scholarship and prompts ongoing colonisation by western value systems in research and practice. Our intent is to contribute to emerging research on SaP in China. In doing so, we build on recent research into understanding of SaP (Dai & Matthews, 2022; Dai et al., 2021; Liang & Matthews, 2021b) in China. We extend this line of inquiry, where culture has explicitly and implicitly been raised usually as a barrier, by exploring how 27 students and 17 academics from three differently tiered Chinese universities make sense of learner–teacher relationships through the lens of Chinese sociocultural norms.

Our findings demonstrate a nuanced and thoughtful understanding of the complexity of Chinese culture as a dynamic and evolving set of tensions that impact the everyday interactions of students and teachers across all three universities. The tension between Chinese collectivist relational orientation and western norms favouring individual autonomy were raised as students and academics grappled with existing and changing beliefs shaping how they engage and interact in their higher education roles. Far from over-simplifying, essentialising, or engaging in either/or thinking, participants in the study accepted the complexity of cultural influences and signalled the importance of situating pedagogical partnership as culturally informed practice. Beyond the tension, we argue that the relatedness between a more collective premise offered by SaP works, and the collectivist relational base in China is an anchor for the translation of SaP values and norms in the Chinese context. We start with an overview of SaP literature in China that leads into the contribution of this research. After presenting the study design, findings are shared and then discussed.

Engaging students as partners in Chinese higher education

The notion of learner–teacher partnership emphasises collaborative learner–teacher interactions through shared engagement that enhances the quality of higher education with an emphasis on student engagement. Thus, SaP is focused on the quality of interactions named ‘partnerships’ to signal student participation and agency, since they are seen as ‘more than students’ (Lubicz-Nawrocka, 2019) as they work with academics to enhance and take more ownership of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and knowledge generation (Healey et al., 2014). The practices of partnership are often theorised by a set of partnership values, including mutual respect, reciprocity, shared responsibility, authenticity, inclusivity, empowerment, and trust (Cook-Sather et al., 2014; Healey et al., 2014). As a values-based practice, SaP can be implemented in many forms, both in and outside of classrooms, that are defined by these specific values. It is through ongoing partnership interactions, usually described as a dialogic or relational process, that students and academics gain a new awareness that shifts perceived (and traditional) notions of identity and power dynamics (Bovill, 2020; Matthews, 2017; Matthews et al., 2018).

Research on SaP has demonstrated numerous beneficial outcomes in the realm of increased student and academic engagement, sense of belonging to a learning community, engagement and learning, and career-oriented skill building (Matthews et al., 2019). However, most research on SaP has been conducted in anglophone countries (Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017). Responding to calls for research that seeks to grow globally inclusive scholarship, there is an emerging literature on SaP in Malaysia (e.g. Singh, 2018), India (e.g. Rajiah et al., 2022), Mainland China (e.g. François et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2020; Vikhnevich et al., 2022), Hong Kong (e.g. Dai et al., 2023; Ho, 2017; Pounder et al., 2016), Singapore (e.g. Chng, 2019; Seow, 2019; Toh & Chng, 2022), and Iran (e.g. Weisi & Ahmadi, 2023), as well as on intercultural learner–teacher partnership practices (e.g. Zhang et al., 2022). Research in different countries spanning the Global North and South is vital because ‘cultural-historical understandings of terms and practices’ will and should inform how and why partnership is adopted and adapted (Cook-Sather et al., in press, p. 8).

In China, there is a small but growing body of research reporting on the implementation of explicitly named SaP practices (Liang & Matthews, 2021a). A recent scoping review identified several of these studies, where SaP was explicitly evoked, and practices adopted into Chinese universities with Confucianism identified as a barrier to realising the full benefits of SaP (Liang & Matthews, 2022). Given that the language of partnership and SaP is likely unfamiliar to many in China, scholars have investigated understandings of learner–teacher interactions there, including partnership-like relationships. For example, over 400 students and academics responded to a survey listing several SaP practices, with findings demonstrating both strong interest in such practices and evidence of existing practices (Liang & Matthews, 2021b). Interviews with Chinese postgraduate students found they struggled to imagine how SaP types of relationships could form at the undergraduate level given the importance of fundamental knowledge and large class sizes (Dai et al., 2021). On the other hand, interviews with Chinese academics revealed a general desire for more student participation and different pedagogical models, but cultural norms and academic pressure impeded learner–teacher interactions and relationships (Dai & Matthews, 2022).

This study thus advances the collective understanding of learner–teacher interactions and student engagement as pedagogical partnership in Chinese higher education, which contributes to the research and development of global SaP discourse.

Methodology

This is a qualitative exploratory study, conducted in accordance with ethical standards following Institutional Human Research Ethics Approval (Approval number: 2020001494). This method provides flexible and broad insight into a complex topic from the perspective of individuals who differ in their experiences of, and worldviews about, teaching and learning (Kember & Ginns, 2012; Merriam, 2009). The aim is to explore the factors within university and sociocultural contexts that influence the motivation and beliefs of students and teachers in shaping learner–teacher relationships in Chinese universities. In doing so, the study contributes to the collective understanding of pedagogical partnership in the context of Chinese higher education. The study design was shaped by the broad question, ‘How does the broader context and culture influence the shaping of learner–teacher pedagogical partnership in Chinese universities?’.

Research context

The Chinese higher education system is characterised by stratification featuring differentiations in access to educational resources and financial support (Liu & Wang, 2010), student enrolment, and academic recruitment (Luo et al., 2018) between differently tiered universities. In 2015, to further strengthen competitiveness in global higher education and academic research, the Chinese government announced the ‘Double First-Class Initiative’ to build world-class universities and first-class disciplines (Liu et al., 2019). Accordingly, the current Chinese higher education system comprises double first-class universities (first-class universities and universities that have first-class disciplines) and non-double first-class universities. In addition, nine top universities in China formed the ‘C9 League’ in 2009, which represents the highest tier of education and research in Chinese higher education (Yang & Xie, 2015). To gain a more comprehensive understanding for our research, this study was conducted in three differently tiered Chinese universities: a C9 university, a first-class university, and a non-double first-class university.

Data collection

Employing a convenience sampling approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011), each selected university was assigned a gatekeeper to disseminate interview invitations and consent forms. In total, 44 participants (Tables 1 and 2) from a range of disciplines at the three universities engaged in this study. A one-hour semi-structured online (due to travel restrictions of the pandemic) interview was conducted for each participant. The interview questions centred on pedagogical learner–teacher interactions in Chinese universities, eliciting participants’ views and reflections on the roles and impacts of culture and broader contexts beyond teaching and learning in China. Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed manually. Because all the interviews were conducted in Chinese, they were first transcribed into Chinese. Then, the Chinese transcripts were translated into English, and two bilingual qualitative researchers from the field of Education were invited to cross-check the translations. The privacy of all participants was protected, and each participant was assigned a pseudonym.

Table 1. Student participants.

C9 university			First-class university			Non-double first-class university
Students	Gender	Disciplines	Students	Gender	Disciplines	Students	Gender	Disciplines
Cai Li Shi Sun Wang Wu Xue Ya Zhang Zhu	Female Male Male Female Male Female Male Female Female Female	Science Law Liberal arts Engineering Engineering Science Law Liberal arts Science Business	Guan He Liu Shen Wen Xu Zhao Zheng Zhou	Female Female Male Male Female Male Female Male Male	Liberal arts Engineering Law Liberal arts Engineering Philosophy Science Engineering Liberal arts	Han Jiang Lou Pang Tian Wan Wei Zhen	Male Female Female Male Male Female Female Male	Science Science Education Education Liberal arts Liberal arts Liberal arts Education
Number = 10			Number = 9			Number = 8
Total number = 27

Table 2. Academic participants.

C9 university			First-class university			Non-double first-class university
Teachers	Gender	Disciplines	Teachers	Gender	Disciplines	Teachers	Gender	Disciplines
Deng Du Wu Yan Zhang	Female Male Male Female Male	Engineering Business Education Engineering Liberal arts	Chen Gong Ji Tan Xu Zhong Zhou	Female Female Male Male Female Male Female	Liberal arts Engineering Science Engineering Liberal arts Science Liberal arts	Ding Gao Li Wang Xie	Male Female Male Female Male	Science Liberal arts Engineering Liberal arts Education
Number = 5			Number = 7			Number = 5
Total number = 17

Data analysis

The interview data were analysed by adopting Braun and Clarke’s (2012, 2019) reflexive thematic analysis approach and the analysis was facilitated by NVivo 12 software. We first familiarised ourselves with the data through transcription, translation, active reading, and note-taking. As suggested by Byrne (2022), in order to conduct sufficient coding processes, the data were coded semantically and latently, and the codes were revised in an iterative process. Potential themes were revised and finalised through the visualisation of conceptual mapping and thematic tables to best make sense of the relationships between themes and data in a reflexive process.

Findings

The analysis of how the broader context and culture influence the shaping of learner–teacher pedagogical partnership in Chinese universities resulted in three themes in the findings: (1) the university context influences the opportunities and extent of learner–teacher interactions; (2) the sociocultural context of collectivism shapes beliefs about educational change; and (3) the hybrid cultural context influences shared values. These three themes are interrelated and illustrate the influences of different external contexts in China, which surround the university teaching and learning process, on the shaping of learner–teacher relationships in Chinese universities. Each theme introduced the role of the context and included sub-themes that relate to the potential influence of factors related to the context, which are represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Final themes and sub-themes.

University context influences the opportunities and extent of learner – teacher interactions

The university context was perceived as the most direct influence on the shaping of learner–teacher relationships by both student and academic participants. Two subthemes were identified in the factors within the university context that bring both opportunities and limitations: (1) institutional policy; and (2) curriculum structure and arrangement.

National and institutional policy influence pedagogical practices, but not always as intended

The institutional policy of the university was explicitly described as playing a major role in motivating learner–teacher interactions and increasing student engagement, as the participants Wang and Zhang described:

Whether a pedagogy can be truly implemented mainly depends on whether the university leaders are willing to accept such an idea and whether the idea echoes the university’s institutional policy. In most cases, we [students] can see that teachers carefully select and implement pedagogies in accordance with the institutional requirements of the university or faculty. (Wang, student, C9 university)

If the university can emphasise that classroom teaching, curriculum design, and assessment design must have student engagement, and clearly indicate how many points students can get by engaging, then students will of course be actively engaged, and teachers will also put in more effort. (Zhang, teacher, C9 university)

Thus, university policy influences educational practices, which can encourage or restrict learner–teacher interactions and engagement.

National (macro) level policy changes towards student-centred teaching and learning, along with the recruitment of younger staff, was viewed as a significant driver, with change evident across the three universities. Students (i.e. Zheng, Xue, Pang) and academics (i.e. Yan, Ji, Ding) articulated this external influence on everyday educational practice.

I think partnership-like interactions are becoming more common in our university because the university policy is providing a more favourable environment for the implementation and development of innovative teaching and learning practices. In addition, the university is recruiting young teachers and management staff, which I think will bring more innovative ideas and timely policies. (Zheng, student, first-class university)

Participants provided examples of how national policy drivers were influencing local (micro) level change. For example, students from all three universities (i.e. Xue, Zhao, Lou) described mentor systems with academic staff guiding students. Zhang (student, C9 university) and Xie (teacher, non-double first-class university) emphasised the importance of ‘office hours’ to allow students to communicate with teachers outside of formal class time.

Conversely, the translation of national policy to practice was also discussed as an obstacle. On the one hand, excessive adherence to institutional policy (i.e. seeking to enforce national policy) introduced forms of competition. For example, Zhu (student, C9 university) found that certain inducements designed to engage students through bonus points and other approaches led to a ‘rat race’ model that discouraged and disengaged some students. Li (teacher, non-double first-class university) reflected that rewards systems based on research-focused evaluations meant that an academic could gain a new title and higher status without paying much attention to effective pedagogical practices or student learning. Furthermore, both students (i.e. Zhang, Jiang, Zhou) and academics (i.e. Deng, Li, Xu) noted that a lack of institutional incentives decreased students’ and teachers’ motivation to change. Li elaborates:

If we implement these learner–teacher interactions, the university needs to change the way teachers and students are evaluated, to encourage, reward, and recognise them. At present, the evaluation system for students and teachers is mainly based on [feedback] surveys and exam papers. (Li, teacher, non-double first-class university)

Curricular influences shape learner–teacher interactions

Many participants in this study pointed out that the curriculum structure and arrangements in their universities influenced the opportunities for learner–teacher interactions. In general, both student (i.e. Zhao, Wang, Lou) and academic (i.e. Zhang, Tan, Wang) participants indicated that students have heavy workloads, and this situation greatly reduced their enthusiasm for interacting with teachers and the amount of time they had to do so. As shared by Zhao:

The coursework pressure in one semester is very heavy … We have seven or eight courses in each semester and low single subject credits. Given this, if we wanted to engage in such learner–teacher interactions, we would have to squeeze our time hard, as every weekday is basically already full of course contact. And we also have to complete assessment tasks for every course. So, it’s difficult for us to interact with teachers. (Zhao, student, first-class university)

Along with workload, the topic of student–teacher ratios was raised. Most participants in the study experienced a lecture-dominated curriculum in large enrolment subjects, which led to a sense of powerlessness for both students and teachers, as Chen reflected:

The requirement of our interaction is to take care of every student, but if there is a big class size (many lectures have 200 to 300 students), there is no way to achieve that. The teaching and learning effect will not be as good as that of a small size class, and the interaction between me and students is not controllable. I could only take care of every student and provide more opportunities to each of them to interact with me in a small size class. (Chen, teacher, first-class university)

Moreover, academic participants identified institutional policy and procedures as a barrier to co-designing curricular materials with students. According to Wang:

It would be great if students could design course materials together with teachers, but materials used in the courses I teach are all uniformly provided by the Faculty Academic Affairs Office for the subjects I teach. (Wang, teacher, non-double first-class university)

Students were provided with more opportunities to engage in learner–teacher interactions in specialised subjects (i.e. students: Zhang, Wu; teachers: Xu, Xie), subjects without examinations (i.e. students: Tian, Zheng; teachers: Zhong, Ding), non-traditional subjects (i.e. students: Cai; teachers: Zhou), advanced subjects (i.e. students: Zheng, Lou; teachers: Ji, Xie), or practical subjects (i.e. teachers: Deng, Tan, Wang). In contrast, when the subject was generalist or foundational, had examinations, or was theoretical, then both students and teachers were less motivated to interact with one another.

The nature of the disciplinary curriculum was also discussed as an influencing factor on learner–teacher interactions. As Dou explained:

I don’t think everything can be presented and solved in just one way. There are differences between majors and disciplines. Similar practices may not necessarily be suitable in different faculties. The nature of each subject is different, the extent of student engagement is different, and then the types of practices that students can and want to engage in are also different. (Dou, teacher, C9 university)

Some student participants (i.e. He, Shi, Wei) compared their experiences with those of students from other disciplines, and they perceived a strong contrast between learner–teacher interactions in the disciplines of the Humanities and Social Sciences on the one hand, and Science and Engineering on the other, with less interaction in the former.

Sociocultural context of collectivism shape beliefs about educational change

According to participants’ reflections in this study, the specific social context in China informs the function of the higher education system and guides the formulation of institutional policies within the system. As Sun explained, regarding student cultivation in Chinese universities:

Because China has a huge population base, the pressure of competition in our country is very high. Based on the collectivist culture, the current mode of education in our country can enable students to quickly adapt to the fast-developing society. If we follow the western education model … those students who are not good at expressing themselves and thinking independently may not keep up with the developments, and may eventually be eliminated by society. But the majority of Chinese people are like that. If these types of people are eliminated, our country will not be able to develop quickly. (Sun, student, first-class university)

Zhen (student, non-double first-class university) also expressed a similar idea that the current academic qualification-oriented talent selection and cultivation mechanisms cannot be easily changed, due to the culture of collectivism among the population in China. Also, as Ya (student, C9 university) indicated, ‘the academic diploma is still the most important factor when we’re looking for jobs in China’. Therefore, the combination of a huge population and a collectivist ethos shapes the purpose of the Chinese higher education system. In such a social context, social realities and norms set the baseline of people’s beliefs, which shape people’s behaviours, and thus indirectly influence learner–teacher relationships.

Social realities and norms shape people’s behaviours

One of the most common social norms shared by the participants in this study was respecting the requirements of elders (who are often also superiors). Cai explained the importance of this norm by reflecting on her own and other’s experiences:

In the perception of most students, teachers and parents are the beacon of their future development and can provide an effective pathway for their success. This is an indisputable fact, because most of the winners in our experience of studying have basically been following teachers’ and parents’ sayings from childhood to adulthood. (Cai, student, C9 university)

By comparing international and domestic students in Chinese universities, Deng revealed a difference between western and Chinese ideologies that provides more insight into this norm:

International students from western countries have a strong desire to express themselves — even too strong. However, domestic students are more willing to listen and think carefully. This doesn’t mean that they only follow what the teachers say, but rather that they’re choosing useful information and expressing their thoughts after fully thinking things through, to avoid unnecessary disruption. These two ideologies are not the same. The former emphasises individualism and the latter emphasises collectivism, which brings differences in behaviour. (Deng, teacher, C9 university)

Meanwhile, many student participants (i.e. Zhang, Zhou, Wan) also shared another social norm that is widespread in Chinese society, related to accountability and the tolerance of people’s faults. Zhou explained this well:

There is a saying in China, ‘the gunshot hits the first flying bird’. In our university, if people want to make some changes to the existing teaching and learning system, even if there are some unreasonable things [they’re trying to change], these people will be regarded as troublemakers. If it goes well, then the benefits will be shared, but if you mess up, then you’ll be the only person responsible for it and that will influence your future because you may have harmed the interests of many people. (Zhou, student, first-class university)

Similar beliefs were also raised by teachers. For example, Tan indicated:

If our actions are not supported and guaranteed by the faculty or university, no teacher will be the first to try new and innovative ideas. Because if the expected effect is not achieved, the teacher is highly likely to be criticised by management and may also implicate colleagues. (Tan, teacher, first-class university)

As Xie (teacher, non-double first-class university) reflected, ‘these accountability mechanisms further consolidate the leadership role of institutional policy and teachers in universities, but at the same time, they safeguard the common interests of the majority of members’.

Hybrid cultural context influences shared values

Cultural context strongly influences social context, which shapes university context. In this study, participants reported the influence of both traditional and western cultures in the current Chinese context. In terms of traditional cultural influence, the majority of student and academic participants mentioned the strong influence of Confucian philosophy and educational values. In terms of western cultural influence, the neoliberal style of internationalisation has brought new opportunities but also tensions.

Influential but changing Confucian educational philosophy

Although there are several influential cultures in China, Confucianism and its huge influence on Chinese education were the only ones mentioned by the participants in this study. Stereotypes of Confucianism’s authoritarian teaching style were deeply rooted in many students’ minds. Such stereotypes are not inevitable, but rather a result of teachers’ careless utilisation of Confucian values in students’ learning careers, from primary school. As Xue reflected:

The authority of teachers in China is very different from the image of teachers in the west. Western teachers usually create a Platonic or Aristotelian teaching and learning environment for students, but many Chinese teachers are trying to create a teacher-as-superior, Confucian-authoritative, educational environment of unconditional obedience. I admit that currently many teachers in China, especially in universities, are moving away from this stereotype. However, our school experiences ingrain this stereotype of Confucianism in our minds. (Xue, student, C9 university)

For this reason, the interactions between students and teachers in China have generated unique features, namely the dominance of teachers and the lower status of students, who are there to be instructed, which creates hierarchy. Ji explained this situation:

Even during these interactions [partnership-like interactions], teachers still play the role of an overall planner. In Chinese universities, it is obvious that the status of teachers and students is not equal. It must be teacher-dominated, and students are used to that. So, it has to do with the way teachers and students think about things, and students seem to always be in a position of being instructed. When interaction is encouraged, it is actually that the teachers are telling students that you need to engage, and then students will engage out of respect for teachers. (Ji, teacher, first-class university)

However, as Xue mentioned, many teachers are currently moving away from the stereotypes of Confucianism. This is partly due to the promotion of the idea of ‘removing the dross and keeping the essence’ of traditional culture, as Wu (student, first-class university) mentioned: ‘in this way, people feeling the negative influence of stereotypical Confucian culture will gradually decrease’. Indeed, some academic participants of this study shared how Confucian educational traditions beneficially influence their teaching. The tradition mentioned most often was ‘因材施教’ (choosing different teaching methods according to students’ backgrounds). Tan said:

A very useful teaching concept conveyed in the Analects of Confucius is ‘因材施教’. Inspired by this in terms of the process of teaching and learning, we hope that students can learn more efficiently. Although we adjust our student cultivation plan every year, the current situation has not yet reached a particularly ideal state. We are thus studying cultivation plans for different student learning paths for promoting student learning. (Tan, teacher, first-class university)

Meanwhile, student participants shared Confucian educational norms that have benefited them. For example:

We always say ‘闻道有先后, 术业有专攻’ [some people acquire knowledge earlier, while others do so later; some people specialise in some professions, and others in other professions]. So, teachers are just the ones who learned the Dao [the way] earlier than students, and they can be friends with students. (Shi, student, C9 university)

Of course, we students agree with and even advocate for freedom of thought, but the existence of freedom of thought is also based on inclusivity from both students and teachers. Sometimes, when forming your views, you shouldn’t easily make a decision to agree or disagree with something before you fully understand it — like Confucius said, ‘三思而后行’ [think three times before you act]. (Li, student, C9 university)

Although teachers may hold the primary role in the learner–teacher partnership, students should not underestimate their abilities and worth. This reminds me of a sentence in the Analects: ‘弟子不必不如师, 师不必贤与弟子’ [a student is not necessarily inferior to the teachers, nor is a teacher necessarily more virtuous and talented than students]. (Jiang, student, non-double first-class university)

Internationalisation brings new norms and tensions

The move away from stereotypical understandings of Confucianism is partly due to the changing perceptions of people in China, but it is also due to the integration of traditional and global cultures brought about by internationalisation. Many student participants (i.e. Lou, Xue, Wu) indicated that current students are able to access more new things, such as more emerging cultures, which makes them more open minded. Xue summed up his view with a quote from Aristotle, ‘I love my teacher; I love the truth more’. He said:

The influx of neoliberalism is definitely impacting Chinese traditional culture and merging with it to produce new ideologies. The influence of neoliberalism in China is there, but it won’t shake the foundation of the entire traditional culture. I approve of some aspects of neoliberalism, but I believe that some aspects of it are only applicable to specific historical stages in the west, and it is not feasible to bring them to China. In the teaching and learning process, the most obvious manifestation of neoliberalism is to enhance the standing of students, which in turn involves changing the power dynamics between students and teachers. I now think that teachers are my guides and good friends — I identify with them academically and morally, and actively learn from them, but I don’t regard them as a supreme authority. If a teacher holds a different view from mine, I will question or ask the teacher for a detailed explanation after carefully thinking about it, instead of blindly following it. There’s a saying that’s very good: ‘I love my teacher, but I love the truth more’. (Xue, student, C9 university)

Internationalisation also provides the opportunity for teachers to have experiences abroad, which may influence their teaching later. This path may broaden teachers’ vision and beliefs and enhance their ability to embrace more meaningful global pedagogical ideas, especially for young teachers. However, this does not mean fully adopting these ideas, but rather applying them elastically, as Ji shared:

There is a young teacher in our department who’s just completed a PhD in the US and returned to teach English writing. I’ve attended several of his classes, and I found that the interactions between the teacher and students in his class are diverse, such as poster presentations and debating teaching on a topic between the teachers and students. In his class, the enthusiasm of young people is fully engaged, but the active classroom also comes with good discipline. This shows that he’s combined some foreign teaching concepts with the characteristics of Chinese students. We have an idiom in China, ‘学以致用’ [learn in order to practice], but also ‘活学活用’ [apply elastically]. (Ji, teacher, first-class university)

However, the influx of a global culture and ethos has also brought tension to the Chinese higher education system. The most common example mentioned by the participants was the tension between the quality of education and increasing individualism. As Zhang explained:

Due to the increasing competition among countries brought about by globalisation and internationalisation, our country’s major policies have been changing. In particular, there has been an increasing emphasis on the importance of high-level research outcomes in various fields. This situation exacerbates the impact of individualism on people. Nowadays, professors are more inclined to do their research, in order to get recognition for their research achievements and improve their professional titles and academic reputations, rather than focusing on teaching and learning processes. Because of this, they don’t have much energy to pay attention to, or get in touch with, students. (Zhang, student, C9 university)

Some academic participants (i.e. Gong, Chen, Xu) also expressed their frustration that workplace competition forced them to prioritise and focus on their own affairs. As Gong (first-class university) explained, ‘if I don’t work hard on my research, I’ll be eliminated from the competition with others. The elimination will likely mean that I lose my current job and be replaced by someone else with higher academic achievements’.

Discussion and conclusion

Over the past two decades, national education policy (i.e. the 13th Five-Year Plan and the National Higher Education Quality and Teaching Reform Project) in China has consistently positioned student engagement, through a focus on student-centred and teaching quality discourse, as a policy driver (Guo, 2018). Chinese student engagement data have consistently demonstrated the strong link between engagement and positive learner–teacher interactions (Guo et al., 2022). The growing trend of engaging students as partners (SaP) has appeal in Chinese universities, given the policy drivers and growing evidence base for such practices. Yet, the values and beliefs that shape everyday educational relationships are shaped by cultural norms and scripts, with scholars arguing that ‘the next steps of SaP scholars in China is investigating the plurality of cultural influences’ (Liang & Matthews, 2022, p. 9). Given the intersubjective nature of learner–teacher partnerships, in this study we interviewed both students and academics to explore the macro level influences of culture on everyday pedagogical interactions.

Our findings reveal the nested and entangled influences of immediate university policies and processes, and local and global cultural forces, shaping how students and teachers in the study interact. For many in the study, the university and political contexts had an explicit role in determining the extent of their learner–teacher interactions. This involved navigating the tensions of changing Chinese cultural norms informed by western educational practices and experiences in an increasingly globalised world. Further nested within this cultural plurality was the impact on students and teachers of a competitive educational landscape at odds with collectivist orientation. The findings indicate that the landscape of learner–teacher interactions is complex in Chinese higher education and that learners and teachers are well aware of this complexity.

As a context-dependent (Healey & Healey, 2018) and culturally informed (Cook-Sather et al., in press) practice, SaP demands understanding and interpretation, underpinned by the values and norms that are embedded in the specific context and culture. What emerged in this study is a macro conception of partnership in Chinese universities shaped by cultural plurality and hybridity. On the one hand, this macro conception varies qualitatively from the dominant body of SaP literature. In other words, there is a push-pull tension between traditional notions of Confucianism, more critical readings of Confucianism, and understandings of the western educational orientation towards individualism, which is at odds with the collectivist relational base. This tension highlights the porous cultural boundaries of the Chinese education system today. For example, in this study, participants reported that Confucian educational concepts occupy a privileged position of influence, even though exactly what these concepts are is contested, as seen in the interviews – the saying ‘take the essence and get rid of the dross’ was evoked by several participants in this study. The melding or mix-and-match of cultures shown by both students and academics in the interviews speaks to globalised culture, accelerated by the Chinese educational policy of internationalisation over the past few decades (Yin, 2022). The adoption and adaption of SaP and similar pedagogies – that have firm roots in Anglo-American values and practices – in Chinese universities is an outcome of Chinese national educational policies.

On the other hand, this macro conception also informs the potential of ‘perpetual translation’ (Cook-Sather, 2018) for SaP in the context of Chinese higher education. Specifically, while Western values and norms tend towards individualism, the ethos of SaP offers a more collective premise that echoes the collectivist relational base in China. This relatedness suggests the possibility that Chinese sociocultural values and norms could be an ‘anchoring innovation’ for the ‘perpetual translation’ of SaP in Chinese universities (Cook-Sather, 2022). In studying the interplay between internationalisation and westernisation in a Chinese university, Guo et al. (2021) reported an ambivalence of students towards western culture when it is framed as weakening Chinese culture. This is similar to both student and academic participants in this study that expressed an openness to, and observed some benefits of, an integration rather than replacement of Chinese and global cultures. Therefore, the views of students and teachers in this study are conducive to the realisation of ‘anchoring innovation’ and ‘perpetual translation’ of SaP.

Combining these two aspects, we offer implications for nurturing the understanding of partnership within the complex macro influence of Chinese context drawing on examples from existing SaP literature. In a recent study, Cook-Sather (2022) discussed that the premises of partnership are often perceived to be at odds with traditional Eastern beliefs and values, such as when Confucianism is perceived to emphasise rigid hierarchy and the absolute authority of teachers. However, when partnership can be perceived as the related and further developed translation of what are well-known and accepted values and norms by Confucian-influenced people, these values and norms can become the ‘anchoring innovation’ of partnership, for example, the statements from The Analects, ‘anyone can actually be the teacher of others’ Cook-Sather (2022) mentioned, and ‘teachers are just the ones who learned the Dao [the way] earlier than students’ which the student participant Shi (C9 university) reflected. Similarly, beyond Confucianism, such anchors may also emerge from other influential Chinese traditional cultures and school of thoughts (e.g. Taoism and Buddhism). Moreover, in another way, in a Singapore study, Seow (2019) argued that narrowing the sense of distance between students and teachers can be achieved by conveying to students that omitting teachers’ formal titles and directly addressing their names does not imply a lack of traditional respect. Therefore, while there are increasing SaP practices in teaching and learning in Chinese universities, it is essential to enable students and teachers to be clear about the understandable translations of SaP values from a sense-making process in the Chinese context. It is similar to the consideration of shared meaning-making across cultural difference argued by Zhang et al. (2022) in navigating learner–teacher power dynamics of cross-cultural partnership. In doing so, future research is encouraged to explore such translations in China that could be understandable, acceptable, and reasonable in the entangled macro influences of collectivist relational orientation and top-down policy-driven mandates shaped by cultural values and norms.

In conclusion, we argue that everyday learner–teacher interactions in China are shaped by a plurality of cultural influence, and that seeking cultural translations for interpreting and naming SaP in China can anchor pedagogical partnerships in Chinese universities. The findings contribute new collective insight into the nuanced ways students and academics in China are navigating the cultural hybridity that impacts the shaping of their pedagogical relationships. New vistas of SaP research and practice are opened up by re-examining and imagining the possibilities for learner–teacher relationships in Chinese culture, and the ways in which new formations of learner–teacher relationships might shape Chinese culture into the future.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Yifei Liang

Yifei Liang is from the School of Education, University of Queensland. His research focuses on the role of culture on learner-teacher partnerships, student engagement, and relational pedagogy in higher education teaching and learning. As an emerging scholar, Yifei has published peer-reviewed articles in several international journals, gaining growing attention.

Kelly E. Matthews

Kelly E. Matthews is an Associate Professor of Higher Education at the University of Queensland, Australia. Her influential scholarship on student voice and partnership has shaped practice and policy across countries and been applied in numerous disciplines.