In December 2024, HEPI and Uoffer Global published How can UK universities improve their strategies for tackling integration challenges among Chinese students? by Pippa Ebel. In this blog, academics at the Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester give their thoughts on the report. Beneath that, Pippa Ebel has provided her response.
- By Dr Paul Vincent Smith, Lecturer in Education; Dr Alex Baratta, Reader in Language & Education; Dr Heather Cockayne, Lecturer in International Education; and Dr Rui He, Lecturer in Education, who are all at the Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester.
The HEPI and Uoffer Global report How can UK universities improve their strategies for tackling integration challenges among Chinese students?, by Pippa Ebel, provides a series of ideas for supporting Chinese students. This clear and succinct report left us wanting more detail on some of its conclusions. However, we also noted that the report’s focus on integration is one that has been problematised in recent publications. In this response, we suggest some contrasting perspectives on the support of Chinese students for the purposes of further discussion.
Generalising along national lines
The framing of the report along the lines of national identity unavoidably makes for a broad-brush approach. We suspect Ebel would agree with us when we suggest that we cannot assume Chinese students will have uniform ambitions and desires. Although the structural conditions under which students are recruited must be taken into account (see ‘Admissions’ below), there is an increasing recognition of students as independent agents, capable of making their own choices, rather than being passive vessels of their national culture.
Further, there are other student characteristics to bear in mind. For example, we suggest that the distinction between undergraduate and postgraduate student experiences should be reflected in how students are offered support. At the University of Manchester, international students comprise around one-third of the student body; at the taught postgraduate level, it is more than half. Many of these are students from China. When considering educational level alone, then, there are likely to be differences between students who will spend three years in a setting of student diversity, and those who will spend a calendar year in the UK, predominantly among compatriots.
What do students really need universities to do?
The report suggests that ‘Most Chinese students would like more digital support from their institutions’ (p. 41), with the report tending to focus on social media. Yet (p. 27) 60% of Chinese learners are nonetheless described as using Whatsapp and Instagram; they simply have a preference for the continued use of equivalent Chinese platforms.
We infer from the report the idea that Chinese students are missing out by not using ‘our’ platforms. It is suggested (p. 41) that Chinese students could be involved in marketing decisions on whether to use Western or Chinese platforms for social media messaging. This would have the advantage of directly involving Chinese students. It begs the question, though, of whether time is better spent on choosing the best platform for a given purpose, or on establishing a broad social media presence to maximise coverage.
Our experience suggests that students find their domestic digital ecosystem enabling in a UK context. It also suggests that there might be some question of validity when it comes to the report findings. Is this a case of higher education researchers asking: ‘Would you like more support?’, and the students understandably answering ‘yes’?
Admissions to UK universities
The report has much to say on how Chinese students are admitted to UK universities. The ‘ethnic clustering’ addressed in the report is an index of how the university sector is organised and how universities generate income. Several of UK universities recruit thousands of Chinese students annually. It is well documented that many students will base their choices on university standings, purposefully selecting universities that are in the top 100 of world rankings. In this context, there is a limit to what agents who are charged with ‘promoting under-subscribed courses’ (p. 40) could achieve.
The use of AI-supported interviews to further test applicants’ spoken English is again thought-provoking, but requires more discussion. This practice seems to be an invitation for universities to spend money on additional admissions arrangements, in order to reduce income by rejecting students who, while they may have otherwise met the formal language criteria for admission, fall foul of new spoken English tests, the requirements of which are in their formative stages.
Institutional responses to proficiency in English
The report takes a particular position on the English proficiency of Chinese students. We agree that universities and their staff must be able to invoke standards of language for purposes including admissions and assessment. As teaching staff, though, we find that there are many steps to traverse before we conclude that any particular student behaviour can be attributed to linguistic proficiency. Have we met the students on their own terms, and found out about them as learners? Before we insist on invoking linguistic standards, are we satisfied that there are no better explanations for (e.g.) classroom silence? The issue of classroom passivity is not one specific to international students, although it seems that the wider issue is being put to one side in favour of a focus on some international students.
Not least among these matters is that of how China English is manifested in student academic writing. In many cases, the language used in student texts is highly systematic and obeys the rules of a fully-fledged language. There is a need to raise awareness of these features. With regard to spoken language, perceived proficiency is not always about the grasp of the language itself, but can also be associated with the spaces students are working in. Lack of confidence (as noted on p. 16 of the report), mental health, sense of belonging, and divisive university-level language policies may all have an impact.
The discussion of IELTS in the report is notable for what it omits. Is it the case that universities are putting IELTS to a purpose it is not fit for; or that universities think of IELTS as a guarantee of proficiency rather than a time-and-space-constrained test result for which universities themselves, along with UKVI, have set the standards for success? We welcome the contribution of the report on this point, and we would be interested to read more on the author’s broader perspective and recommendations on IELTS.
Integrating or including?
Chinese students remain the largest international group on UK campuses, attracting ongoing attention from higher education policy-makers and practitioners. Nonetheless, where we see a focus on a single group, we need to ask how universities can manage their support without falling into the trap of re-hashing existing deficit narratives. Work on internationalisation in universities has suggested that ‘practice[s] with the most demonstrable impact on students’ include embedding internationalisation holistically across the institution, and encouraging inclusion – as opposed to integration, which is not always well-conceptualised. There is a balance to be struck between the economy of generalising according to background, and providing local, co-constructed spaces for students as independent agents to meet their own needs.
I have been pleasantly surprised by the degree and depth of feedback received in response to my report published at the end of last year. It is always better to have engagement of any kind than none at all. Two threads of response have been most striking: the first by management teams of universities and education organisations wanting to better understand the report and how to apply it to their own strategies. Secondly, by Chinese students themselves on platforms like Little Red Book, with whom the report has thankfully resonated and prompted further discussion and exchange. Both are incredibly heartening. Yet as expected, responses have not all been glowing, and I am particularly grateful for the response issued by academics at the University of Manchester which critically addresses several points. It reflects in a nuanced way on my arguments and contributes valuable questions.
I hope to add the following reflections in order to continue the dialogue on the report, as well as acknowledge the time and effort they put into forming a response.
The value of identifying patterns & trends within a single ethnic group
As suggested, I recognise that Chinese students do not have ‘uniform ambitions or desires’. My extensive conversations with Chinese students from a range of backgrounds have shown me how personal and individual every university experience is. However, in a report focusing exclusively on one group – partly chosen for the fact it represents the second largest international student group in the UK – a principle aim is to extract trends and patterns which can be useful in promoting better understanding and empathy. My report does not make statements such as ‘the Chinese student experience is X’ or ‘all Chinese students think…’, instead it focuses on which challenges were most consistent among a diverse group of Chinese respondents. It is important, for instance, for universities to understand that probably their entire Chinese student body uses WeChat, and how this cultural phenomenon might shape their digital behaviour on campus.
A more detailed explanation of divergent social media usage
My report is in fact entirely in agreement with the respondents in finding that China’s own social media platforms – such as Little Red Book – are enabling when transposed to a UK context, providing key information about the locality (for instance, hospital services and banks).
The report does not ask whether Chinese students should continue to use their own software, or switch to a local one. Rather, it investigates the habits and preferences of Chinese students in the UK, in order to raise awareness of differences with other local and international students. How universities choose to engage with this information is an open question, but it raises the point that if universities wish to improve communication channels with Chinese students they must first understand which platforms are being used, and how.
Promoting undersubscribed courses, not institutions
The respondents rightly observed that the preference of UK institutions among Chinese students is the result of an emphasis on rankings, leading to a preference for the top 100 institutions. However, the respondents misunderstood my assertion that agents should promote ‘less well-known courses’ to mean they should promote a broader range of universities. Since agents often work on behalf of universities, this would clearly not be a realistic suggestion, as they would not be incentivised to promote an institution that was not their client.
My suggestion was to help agents promote different courses which are less well-known and undersubscribed among international students. Furthermore, it was to encourage universities to maintain closer dialogue with their agents to better communicate their needs (and gaps), as well as to receive useful information from agents who are in daily conversation with prospective students. During a conversation with a senior faculty member from a UK institution with a meaningful agent network in China, the complaint was raised that the more niche or newer courses in science have surprisingly few Chinese students. Whilst this is a single anecdote, it was consistent with prior findings. Chinese students veer towards courses which are actively promoted, or undertaken by fellow students in their network: Business, Engineering, Marketing… This means that more niche, but perhaps highly suitable courses are overlooked. Do prospective students, for instance, know that Bristol has 16 courses related to Economics, or might they presume quite reasonably that there is just one?
Language challenges, explained
The respondents thoughtfully add to my point on language challenges of Chinese students by highlighting the differences in the education systems of China and the UK. These are indeed pertinent and have been written about at length (one reason why I chose not to focus on this area). My interviews with students indeed reflected surprise with the academic environment at UK institutions, which promoted a form of debate and discussion they were unused to. This aspect, however, doesn’t contradict the argument of Chinese students being underconfident in expressing themselves in English, but adds another dimension in explaining their underconfidence within a classroom setting.
The response asks for further clarity on my assessment of IELTS as a suitable language evaluation tool. As stated, I believe that IELTS is too heavily relied on as a tool for understanding a student’s overall language ability and their suitability to enrol in a course. Whilst IELTS provides an indication of level, it is incomplete and as Manchester points out ‘a time-and-space constrained test’. The report suggests that universities consider additional methods of evaluation, for instance online or pre-recorded interviews, in order to gain a more holistic and accurate perspective. In a world where AI is proving increasingly central to our lives, universities might benefit from investment into AI tools which could elevate and enhance their recruitment processes.
(Hopefully not) a final word
My report does not assume that students should or must integrate. Rather it questions assumptions around the degree to which Chinese students wish to engage with their institution (particularly socially), and highlights distinct facets of the Chinese experience which may be less well known by institutions and non-Chinese students.
I do not personally see the term ‘integration’ as problematic. I interpret it to mean engaging with and understanding a local context, not compromising one’s own unique identity and background to fit in. I commend the respondents’ use of the term ‘inclusion’ and agree we should all be aspiring towards a more inclusive environment on campuses. However, I assert that in order to make an environment more inclusive, it is first necessary to raise awareness and understanding of the individuals we are attempting to include. Without this understanding, how do we know what inclusive looks like?
Awareness of the unique and precise challenges international students face – Chinese or otherwise – is the first step to actually making them feel included. It is not showcasing a range of faces on the front page of a brochure, or hosting Chinese calligraphy workshops on campus. It is creating structural opportunities in which students can give feedback and embedding representative voices of these different groups within the institution at diverse levels, be it the students’ union, alumni office or governing board.
I welcome any additional points, and again reiterate my thanks for a thoughtful response to my original report.
