Cultural Flows and Pedagogical Dilemmas: Teaching with Collaborative Learning in the Chinese HE EFL Context

2.1 Social constructivist idea of collaborative learning

The theoretical stem of collaborative learning originates from Vygotsky’s social constructivist ideas which emphasize that an individual’s cognitive development is the result of interaction in social groups and is an indispensable part of social life (Vygotsky, 1978). From Vygotsky’s point of view, learning is essentially a social term where interaction constitutes the learning process (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). He claimed that working under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers is pertinent to one’s cognitive development. CL, in the Vygotskian tradition, aims for social interaction either among students or between students and teachers, who essentially assist students to develop through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). During this process, both teachers and more capable peers provide assistance to less capable students to develop their language use and socially interactive skills and therefore to expand their conceptual potentials (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).

2.2 Chinese culture of learning

Generally, the Chinese cultural context of learning bestows on CL a welcoming environment. This can be clearly demonstrated from two common sayings known by educated Chinese people: “If three of us are walking together, at least one of the other two is good enough to be my teacher” (The Analects),^[*] and “Studying without friends makes you ignorant and ill-formed” (The Books of Rites).^[**] The two sayings display the Chinese learning philosophy where students share knowledge and work under the principle of collaboration to establish a harmonious learning environment and expect mutual obligations. Brislin (1993) and Rao (2007) argued that the Chinese collectivist cultural orientation and socialization for achievement are the two most extraordinary factors that have impacted students’ learning. Rao (2007, p. 116) claimed that the collectivist cultural orientation had resulted in a “dependence-emphasizing society,” indicating a close-knit social framework where students are always part of a group. Nelson (1995, p. 9) found that the Chinese Confucian culture enables students to “learn through co-operation, by working for the common good, by supporting each other and by not elevating themselves above others.” Students working under this value system bear mutual obligation towards each other and hence perform better in CL contexts attributed to this collectivist orientation (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Salili, 1996). Besides, the desire for achievement is another supporting factor for CL as it is tightly associated with collectivistic rather than individualistic values (Brislin, 1993; Rao, 2007). This orientation enables students to work hard not only for the purpose of fulfilling their own learning goals, but also for goals set by groups they belong to (Rao, 2007).

2.3 The influence of sociocultural variables on collaborative learning application

2.3.3 Institutional variables

Although reform in language teaching has been initiated at the institutional level, students’ learning style and preferences may not conform to the collaborative style of learning. Hu (2002, pp. 100-101) highlighted the learning strategies practiced by Chinese students as the four “R’s” (reception, repetition, review, reproduction) and four “M’s” (meticulosity, memorization, mental activeness and mastery) and emphasized that memorization is the most valued strategy. Chan (1999) discovered that students are keen to produce notes during exams and other types of assessments, which are facts-based. Thus, it can be argued that CL practice can be potentially incompatible with traditional learning styles because CL emphasizes scaffolding, encourages interaction and downplays memorization (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995).

In addition, the role of exams perpetuates this in the Chinese students’ minds (Lin, 2015; Wang, 2001), which can be another resistance to CL. For instance, the Chinese Gaokao (the National Matriculation Examination) is the most important exam for high school students. For English majors and non-English ones, TEM (Test for English Majors) and CET (College English Test) are perhaps the two most valuable exams at university level. Both tend to assess students’ linguistic competence rather than communicative competence although reform of the test content is currently in progress. However, the conception of CL does not merely focus on grammatical features of language, but on functional and communicative meanings as well (Brown, 2007).

Other variables, among other things discussed above, include the focus of CL instruction. CL is more process-oriented as opposed to outcomes-oriented learning and emphasizes meaning rather than form (Ellis, 1996; Ohta, 2000). Other aspects include Chinese big class size, inadequate teaching hours and teachers’ lack of CL knowledge (Lin, 2015), which can all be constraints for CL adoption. As a result, there is still some growing skepticism about adopting CL without considering the social, cultural and institutional milieu. This study will therefore extend CL research to the Chinese HE context by focusing on students’ perspectives. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework that underpins the study. It also shows the major concepts and variables being investigated and how these variables are incorporated in the study.

Figure 1

A culture-based model of collaborative learning

3.1 Participants

Based on the non-probability convenient sampling method (Byrman, 2015), participants involved were 60 undergraduate English majors (female = 56 and male = 4) from the School of English Studies at a language teaching university in the northwest part of China. They came from two classes, each with approximately 30 students (28 freshmen and 32 sophomores). Demographic information revealed that their average age was 20.31 years old. The study also inquired about the participants’ preferred learning style and pervious learning experience. More than 80% of them responded they prefer communicative activities in class (mean = 2.12 mode = 2.00, and SD = 0.94), and 80% had experienced some sort of CL activities in class. Before admission to the university, the participants had had at least 6 years of formal English learning from middle to high school, indicating that they were able to conduct the CL tasks in English in the main research.

3.2 The intervention

3.3 Data sources

3.4 Data processing

Interpretive analysis was applied to analyze the entire corpus due to its unobtrusive nature, allowing for comparisons of views expressed by each participant either in the written reflections or during interviews (Patton, 2015). It also provided a way to track the dynamics of continued engagement in CL. The whole analysis was conducted in a cyclical, recursive manner in which themes emerged from the data. The analysis began by returning to the objectives of the study, where the researcher listened to and read the data several times. Knowledge about CL together with previous literature provided the researcher with an awareness of issues likely to arise. Once the initial themes were identified, the researcher developed segments of the texts that illustrated the general theme, pooling segments across individuals and sources. The next stage was indexing, which involved sifting the data, highlighting quotations, making comparisons both within and between cases, and finally lifting the quotations from the original texts.

4.1 Formed learning styles and habits

Up to 70% of the students, 41 in total, asserted that their formed learning styles and habits restrained them from actively engaging in CL. An open comment provided by a very competent English learner in class pointed out, “…I was taught to listen to my teachers’ instructions since I was young…since this is my first year of university study, I need more time to shift my style of learning, especially, to adjust to working with my peers more” (S9). Another student added, “Middle school and high school learning were teacher-centered, it seems that I became used to it, I feel it is fine” (S33).

Clearly, before being admitted to university, students had been at school for at least 12 years, and may have become accustomed to the teacher-centered approach. The students’ remarks, on the other hand, reflect that their present learning behaviors were associated with their past learning experiences.

The above findings contradict students’ preference for a communicative learning style (80%). It seems what they have said does not reflect what they actually do. In explaining what they liked about the traditional teaching approach, they said: “The traditional approach can correct my mistakes in spelling, writing, grammar and punctuation” (S1), “… I can learn some concrete knowledge” (S10), “… My teacher corrects my mistakes, and I could understand my weaknesses in learning” (S11), “I like listen to my teacher and remember key points one by one and take some notes” (S28).

The students’ responses suggest the important use of the traditional language teaching approach. It also indicates that for CL to be more feasible and applicable, students should be imbued with various teaching methods at early stages of learning and achieve a balance between old and new approaches used.

4.2 Grammar-driven exams

It was found that the role of exams still prevailed in students’ learning. Twenty students, a total of 33.3% of the research participants, mentioned they would rather learn on their own because exams are not communication-based. Thus, CL was a waste of their time. S33 prioritized learning alone rather than with peers because “I want to get higher marks in the exams, which are grammar based” (S33). Her comment revealed the importance of grammar-oriented exams in their learning although the students recognized that the use of CL may promote their English learning. Similar responses were given by another 17 students. One of them said, “I am not able to see how useful it is to work with my peers. I would like to do some of my own work and get good exam scores” (S51). The findings clearly indicate that although students appreciated CL, many of them preferred grammar-based tasks so as to achieve higher exam scores.

4.3 Non-harmony among peers

Previous literature has shown that the Chinese culture calls for group harmony. However, 20 out of the 60 participants mentioned that they disagreed or argued with peers during CL. Respondents described how disagreements interrupted students’ collaboration, hindered further discussions, and made the learning atmosphere tense.

S25 claimed, “We have different opinions and we don’t agree with each other. It makes unpleasantness among us.” S39 went on to say

during collaborative learning, the good students always talked, and poor students kept silent all the time. Some of my peers insisted on their own opinions, and rejected others. We are not happy. I felt that some students felt alone in the group. (S39)

The words of S39 implied that more competent language learners may possess more power over less competent ones due to better English. This was, however, countered by S58, a competent English learner, who was good at English speaking and did well in exams, saying that she avoided using English in order not to make herself alienated, but she tried to get more involved in the learning community. Further examination of participants’ learning journals by the researcher revealed that 3 students explained that individualistic behaviors contribute to disagreements, where students had strong personalities and did not accept other’s views. S2 claimed, “…Some of my classmates have strong individualism. They just listen to their own ideas and ignore others’ opinions and never discuss them.” Furthermore, one student commented during the interview that personal ego in learning dominated other students’ learning although it did not often clearly emerge. S40 reported, “…One student is very controlling in our group, she asked us to do this and that, and listen to her… It seems that she wants to control the group.”

The above findings indicated that CL makes students feel controlled especially when one member of the group takes power over everyone else; second, the role of peers may not be collaborative, but can be asymmetrical if the group is not well organized. These findings inform task-designers to find ways to minimize the non-harmonious atmosphere. A possible solution is through training, which enhances students’ skills in conflict management and interpersonal relations. Besides, norms for equal participation and cooperation skills can be developed through appropriate training. However, support may be needed from curriculum designers and universities in approving such training, which would require careful planning and execution on the part of teachers as well as policymakers.

4.4 Power differentials

From students’ written records, 30% (18 participants) mentioned they had at least once felt inequality during collaboration. This was in particular reported by the less competent learners in the class.

For instance, S6 commented that he felt inferior to competent learners, and that gave him feelings of disadvantaged status. He said, “I feel that I am not smart compared with others and I feel inferior.” Others made similar remarks: “I feel all my classmates are better than me, and I feel ashamed of myself” (S35); “I feel I am in a low position when I talk in the group, I mean, my words are very shallow” (S16); “…Working with my peers actually gives me a lot of pressure because sometimes when I cannot complete the task or speak good English, I feel very bad about me” (S43). Another student, however, viewed herself as less powerful due to her poor English pronunciation, saying, “My English pronunciation is poor, I cannot pronounce /n/ and /l/, and I feel I have little right to speak” (S52).

By contrast, reflections from competent English learners revealed that only one student showed some sense of superiority in the linguistic respect, saying, “I can speak English well when I talk to my peers” (S24). Other remarks suggested that even though students recognized deficiencies among peers, they would like to offer help to support their peers. For instance, S27 said, “He is still improving and learning, we can learn and help each other.”

Remarks from the competent English learners also showed that competent students may make conscious efforts to speak poorly in order to disperse power among the less competent ones. This special move may balance the power differentials in peer communication. For instance, one student remarked, “Sometimes, I tried not to speak too well because I don’t want to be considered as showing off. I feel if I speak too well, my peers will feel a lot pressure, and I don’t want to be so different” (S31). These findings suggested that power differentials in learning were perceived by both competent and less competent students, and were especially perceived by less competent ones. Students with higher linguistic competence endeavored to negotiate power differentials by adapting behaviors in learning (S31 for example) so as to make the power relations more symmetrical.

4.5 Chinese culture of guanxi as a communicative tie

Guanxi is an indigenous Chinese sociocultural construct used to understand Chinese social behaviors and interactions. At the conceptual level, it refers to the interpersonal relationships of connections, which are denoted by the English equivalents “relations” or “connections” (Huang, 2008). The study found that Chinese guanxi extends its role to the EFL classroom, as was evident from 10 students, 16.7% of the total, who claimed that the degree of intimacy among students may well affect the degree of collaboration and communication with peers. It seems that closer student-student relationships may enhance the effectiveness of CL.

The students said: “…If she is my close friend, then we work better” (S60); “…We are not familiar with each other, and I feel a kind of screen is between us” (S9); “Yes, if we are close, I have the responsibility to help her” (S37); “I am not inclined to talk unless the peers are my good friends” (S28); “If we are not familiar with each other, it is very wired and embarrassed when we use English to communicate” (S47).

The students’ reported “intimacy” among peers, in essence, is a set of interpersonal connections that facilitate communication and working efficiency. These remarks suggested that good peer relationships provide unique opportunities for students to become acquainted with the process involved in interpersonal relationships and lead to more effective peer collaboration. Further, peer relationships are associated with feelings of belonging and may directly affect students’ psychological adjustment as well as the effectiveness of CL. This kind of relationship is important for individual members in the CL groups to attain their communicative goals.

5.1 Power differentials and collaborative learning

The study introduced the concept of power distance (PD) into CL research. It argues that the influence of PD, particularly at individual-level, is ignored in instructional communication among students themselves. Evidence reveals that Chinese high PD cultures create distance and hierarchy among peers during CL. The result makes sense based on the rationale that, in CL classrooms, a large power distance between high- and low-level English learners can create a greater hierarchy, and this engenders less interaction but creates more distance. Evidently, students who are better at English learning hold more power over the less competent peers. In this study, the competent students are perceived as superior and elite, and usually lead the CL group while completing the CL tasks. By contrast, less competent students with less power tend to feel inferior, and usually accept their low places and defer judgments to them during the CL. This finding corresponds with Hofstede’s (2001) claim that in higher PD cultures, individuals with power are superior and paternalistic. By contrast, those with less power are generally submissive and obedient (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). This finding largely confirms the results of previous studies such as Bochner and Hesketch (1994) and Kirkman et al. (2009), who have explored the nature of PD among individuals, groups and organizations because power is fundamental to all relations (Daniels & Greguras, 2014).

Findings concerning the phenomenon of disagreements during CL concurred with Walkinshaw’s (2007) investigation into power and disagreement. This study found that Chinese students do and can made disagreements rather than accepting everything without making any critical comments, a finding that is discrepant with previous claims that students are keen to be receptive in order to save others’ face (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Flowerdew, 1998). The present study further corroborated Walkinshaw’s (2007) finding that disagreements occurred more in a power-equal talk, where two students were more or less at the same level of learning. In this situation, students seem able to express disagreements, opinions and critical comments without considering face or saving face. By contrast, in power-unequal circumstances, students tend to avoid direct or explicit disagreements. Given these findings, it is possible to speculate that the Chinese students normally avoid disagreements with their teachers because their teachers are higher in power than they are.

These findings have several practical implications. First, previous studies have treated power as a negative factor that inhibits learning (for example, Eisen & Tisdell, 2000) and in most cases, power is understood as domination and competition (see Brookfield, 2000). Confronted with the aforementioned problems, there is a need for language teachers to study power and make it discussible with students. In addition, there needs to be a conversion of understanding from the negative connotation of PD as controlling, governing and ruling into a positive source of capability such as managing. This might be an option to reduce the negative meaning and effects of power and a new way to facilitate equality. However, the study did not further investigate the extent to which individual level PD affects students’ participation in CL. Thus, the present study opens up a potential avenue of inquiry into to what extent PD predominantly at the individual-level affects students’ collaboration and learning outcomes.

Second, the occurrence of disagreements during CL does not mean CL is ineffective because by nature CL welcomes diverse opinions that lead to more chances for negotiation of meaning, more turns taken in communication and more opportunities to speak out, which promotes both qualitative and quantity of students’ talk (Ohta, 1995, 2000). This, on the other hand, reflects the contention that the nature of CL is for students to engage in a mutually constructed atmosphere to solve learning problems (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995).

5.2 Guanxi in the EFL classrooms

The study found that guanxi has a significant influence on students’ collaboration, a finding which has not been formally discussed in previous collaborative learning research. A relevant term used by Kutnick (1994, p. 27) is “friendship,” referring to the kind of interpersonal relationships of personal connections, which indicates a similar meaning presented in the study. Kutnick (1994) emphasizes the importance of friendship as the fundamental unit of small groups and seating arrangement. Despite this common use of guanxi in daily life, evidence from the present study reveals its significant role in the EFL classrooms, especially when students engaged in CL. Students’ remarks imply that the closer the relationship among peers, the higher degree of collaboration they have, and therefore the better learning effectiveness they may produce. This finding is associated with the claim that the effectiveness of CL is influenced by group cohesiveness, a statement made by Johnson et al. (1994), where group cohesiveness in this study is mediated by students’ guanxi. It also indirectly echoes the assertion by Bakar and Sheer (2013) and Mortenson (2009) that positive interpersonal relationships are conducive to group achievement and efficiency. Thus, it is argued that CL learning based on friendship associations can facilitate the degree of CL group cohesiveness vital to group learning success. In addition, guanxi as a social construct prevails in students’ collaboration, indicating that CL is more than just a kind of teaching instruction, but a social construct involving students’ intimate and pervasive relational network. Through guanxi networks, students not only have a kind of psychological belonging but also feel more secure. Hence, the meaning of guanxi should be extended to an instrumental tie other than a type of relationship, where teachers can use students’ guanxi as a strategic approach when grouping students during CL.

Evidence also shows that students’ associates and connections outside the language classrooms may affect their relationships inside the classrooms, and vice versa. This implies that a positive classroom learning atmosphere can influence the strength of associations among peers. In fact, Lin (2015) stated that students engaged in CL can build and rebuild their relations to a higher level. However, it should be noted that the effectiveness of guanxi is relative and underpinned by Chinese culture. The scope and depth of guanxi that impacts CL learning is less known. It could be a further research task to examine the extent to which guanxi impacts students’ learning both inside and outside the language classrooms, or how guanxi shapes students’ interpersonal relationships, or if there are different dimensions of guanxi that affect the efficacy of CL. All deserve further investigation.

Nonetheless, a CL experience based on guanxi might lead to two dangerous situations. One possible problem with guanxi is the high dependence on relationships among individuals (Chan, 2008). Students may become sluggish owing to the good guanxi, and this could result in limited group achievement and development of CL skills. Another problem relates to those who are less close or welcomed by members in CL groups because they may be from “outside.” Kutnick (1994, p. 27) remarked that “friendship groups may characteristically polarize the group members.” From this perspective, guanxi threatens the ultimate purposes of learning. A key issue that needs to be further addressed is to develop guanxi-based strategies while incorporating CL.

5.3 Formed learning behaviors and beliefs

More than 60% of the students responded that a teacher using the traditional teaching approach gives them immediate corrective feedback on the spot and is more reliable. This continues to supports Rao’s (2007) finding that Chinese students tend to believe more in knowledge from an authority or an expert. This study also revealed that students prefer individual learning as the predominate style because it is more efficient than wasting time with peers in CL groups, a finding which is inconsistent with Lin’s (2015) findings that CL is generally positive and more efficient. Students’ own remarks indicated that they learn better on their own when confronting a task involving traditional language drill activities. Despite pedagogical reasons, the use of CL and traditional language learning styles are in potential conflict in students’ beliefs about roles and responsibilities of their teachers in class, that is, the teacher as a facilitator versus the teacher as a knowledge transmitter, teacher dominance versus learner centeredness (Ellis, 1996).