Intercultural chameleons or the Chinese way? Chinese students in Western art and design education

Abstract

Globalization is dramatically increasing numbers of international students in UK art and design institutions. Education as a primary source of enculturation can play an important part in bridging cultural differences; however, without awareness of the different learning cultures of Western and Confucian Heritage Cultures there is a danger of stereotype, prejudice and barriers to learning. There is a lack of research into intercultural communication in the creative fields; this article considers whether art and design institutions can adopt and adapt bestpractice from other fields of education in order to provide intercultural learning cultures that recognize both differences and common ideas of education and creativity.

How language limitations affect conceptual thresholds among Chinese design students in the United Kingdom

“…There has been a growing stream of published literature that seeks to understand Chinese student learning behaviour in terms of a culturally underpinned mechanism of some sort (Hall 1989;Zhu et al 2007;Radclyffe-Thomas 2007;Hofstede et al 2010;Ruble and Zhang 2013;Sit 2013). Much of the literature centres on Chinese students who are studying subjects such as mathematics and physics in secondary school (Watson and Biggs cited in Chan and Rao 2009).…”

Fashioning cross-cultural creativity: Investigating the situated pedagogy of creativity.

“…Educators’ roles in determining the content and delivery of creative education cannot be underestimated. They are in possession of symbolic capital; as Bourdieu’s (1989) nobiles they have the power to impose their values on students through explicit and implicit rules and customs (Burnes, 2004; Gudykunst, 1998; Radclyffe-Thomas, 2007). The literature on international student experience shows how cultural biases are often manifested across curriculum areas where sojourners and their learning styles may be subject to cultural stereotyping and generalizations (Biggs, 1996).…”

“…Educational institutions encompass and reinforce norms and values; institutions or individual teachers are gatekeepers for the designation of creativity. Domain and discipline-specific practices positively associated with creativity are likely to exist at institution and classroom level, and those who lack the cultural capital and symbolic literacy may be excluded from definitions of creativity and furthermore may suffer from academic culture shock (Gardner, 1989a; Radclyffe-Thomas, 2007, 2011: Sovic, 2008b). Creativity is generally viewed as a positive attribute (Kaufman, 2009; Lubart, 1999; Weiner, 2000), yet despite extensive literature on creativity published since Guilford’s seminal 1951 American Psychological Association address, ambiguity about its definition, especially across time and place in some domains, persists (Karpova, Marcketti, & Barker, 2011; Radclyffe-Thomas, 2011).…”

Cultural Translation and East Asia: Film, Literature and Art. Is Creativity Lost in Translation? A discussion of the cultural underpinnings of creativity

“…Maier's call for translation to be defined 'not as product but as… practice' (1995: 31) mirrors the intercultural communicators' desire that empathy and mindfulness be fostered (Radclyffe-Thomas 2007). By adopting a mindful attitude to the assessment of creativity across cultures, we can work towards more cross-cultural understanding and creative collaborations.…”