Rethinking Methodologies: Implications for Research on International Students

IF 4.3 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
D. Neupane
{"title":"Rethinking Methodologies: Implications for Research on International Students","authors":"D. Neupane","doi":"10.22329/jtl.v16i2.7002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research in international student success, satisfaction, and challenges seems still to be constructed around the colonial, imperial paradigm. Informed by deficit models of language, culture, and literacy teaching, such research portrays international students’ challenges in terms of deficiency; discounts other languages, cultures, and literacy education; and reinstitutes the progressive and paternalistic role of the West, reifying its linguistic and cultural superiority. This essay interrupts the still dominant narrative that recreates the old binaries in two ways: (a) It frontloads the need to adopt strength-based approaches to counter dominant methodological paradigms from which much of knowledge about culturally and linguistically different/disadvantaged (CLDI) students is derived, and (b) based on my own ethnographic study on a South Asian immigrant population in Canada, it demonstrates that what the old paradigm views as deficits can and should be the very measures from which to appraise student success and satisfaction. Accordingly, the article’s main objectives are twofold: (a) expose the weaknesses of the deficit models of language, culture, and competence and (b) stress the need to reshape international student studies in higher education as a field of inquiry by foregrounding appreciative models and methodologies.","PeriodicalId":41980,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Teaching and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Teaching and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v16i2.7002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research in international student success, satisfaction, and challenges seems still to be constructed around the colonial, imperial paradigm. Informed by deficit models of language, culture, and literacy teaching, such research portrays international students’ challenges in terms of deficiency; discounts other languages, cultures, and literacy education; and reinstitutes the progressive and paternalistic role of the West, reifying its linguistic and cultural superiority. This essay interrupts the still dominant narrative that recreates the old binaries in two ways: (a) It frontloads the need to adopt strength-based approaches to counter dominant methodological paradigms from which much of knowledge about culturally and linguistically different/disadvantaged (CLDI) students is derived, and (b) based on my own ethnographic study on a South Asian immigrant population in Canada, it demonstrates that what the old paradigm views as deficits can and should be the very measures from which to appraise student success and satisfaction. Accordingly, the article’s main objectives are twofold: (a) expose the weaknesses of the deficit models of language, culture, and competence and (b) stress the need to reshape international student studies in higher education as a field of inquiry by foregrounding appreciative models and methodologies.
方法论反思:对国际学生研究的启示
关于国际学生成功、满意度和挑战的研究似乎仍然是围绕着殖民、帝国的范式构建的。根据语言、文化和识字教学的缺陷模型,这些研究描绘了国际学生在缺陷方面的挑战;折扣其他语言、文化和扫盲教育;并重新确立了西方的进步和家长式角色,将其语言和文化优势具体化。这篇文章以两种方式打断了仍然占主导地位的叙事,即重新创造了旧的二元:(a)它首先提出了采用基于优势的方法来对抗主流方法范式的需要,而主流方法范式中关于文化和语言差异/弱势(CLDI)学生的许多知识都是从这些方法中衍生出来的。(b)基于我自己对加拿大南亚移民人口的民族志研究,它表明,旧范式中被视为缺陷的东西可以而且应该成为评估学生成功和满意度的标准。因此,本文的主要目标有两个:(a)揭示语言、文化和能力缺陷模型的弱点;(b)强调需要通过展望欣赏模型和方法来重塑高等教育中的国际学生研究作为一个研究领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Teaching and Learning
Journal of Teaching and Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
2.20%
发文量
18
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信