Chinese Graduate Students' Adaptation to Learning in America: A Cultural Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IT HAS BEEN A COMMON PHENOMENON for large numbers of foreign students to study on campus in American universities. Chinese students from the People’s Republic of China make up one of the largest groups among these foreign students. In 2004/2005, there were 62,523 students from China1 who were the second largest group among the 565,039 foreign students in the US (Institute of International Education, NY 2005). Over the last five years, the number of Chinese students in the US has grown by 15 percent. In spring 2006, there were 1,211 foreign students from 106 countries studying at the University in Midwest America where this study took place.2 Of the 248 Chinese students who made up the largest group from any single country, 233 were graduate students and 15 were undergraduate students (International Affairs Office, the University 2006). Students from different cultures have come to the US with experiences of different teaching/learning systems in their home countries. Studies that have been carried out on foreign students suggest that their adaptation to teaching and learning in a host country tends to depend on the similarity between the foreign student’s cultural background and the culture of the host country. Several crosscultural studies have indicated that American culture and Chinese culture represent two extremes in the cultural continuum, in light of the identified dimensions of culture (Hofstede 1997; Hofstede and Bond 1999). Because of considerable cultural differences, the transition from learning in the Chinese academic setting to the American academic setting may present great difficulties for newly-arrived Chinese students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".