This study addresses the increasing presence of international students in non-Western educational settings, specifically focusing on Thai students in Chinese universities. China's rise as a significant player in the international higher education market, coupled with its initiative to promote the Chinese language, creates a unique context for investigation. The prevailing 'Englishisation' of higher education in non-Anglophone countries is challenged by this shift. The study aims to understand the language-related experiences of Thai students in a CMI university, acknowledging that existing scholarship often overlooks the diversity of experiences within a single national or cultural group. Previous research has highlighted the challenges faced by international students due to language barriers, acculturative stress, and the lack of local support. Furthermore, the existing literature often focuses on English-medium instruction (EMI) settings and overlooks the experiences in contexts where the medium of instruction is not English. By focusing on Thai students, who comprise a significant portion of international students in China, this study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and provide insights into their adaptation to the CMI context.

The study critiques existing research on international student mobilities (ISM), noting its tendency to homogenize experiences based on nationality or ethnicity. It highlights the need to explore both shared and divergent experiences among students from the same cultural background. The concept of language ideologies is introduced as a crucial tool to understand the complex relationship between the ideal and actual language practices of students. While there are varying definitions of language ideologies, the study adopts a perspective that acknowledges the variation within cultural groups due to factors like age, gender, class, race, and ethnicity. The dominance of native-speakerism and monolingual ideologies in EMI settings is discussed, along with criticisms of EMI's potential for perpetuating linguistic imperialism and educational inequality. The study emphasizes the scarcity of research on language ideologies and practices of international students in non-EMI contexts, highlighting the importance of investigating this particular context in China given the government's promotion of the Chinese language.

This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews with seven female Thai undergraduate students enrolled in a 2+2 program at a prestigious university in Shanghai. All participants had a relatively high level of Chinese proficiency, having passed the HSK 5 or HSK 6, and some were heritage speakers. Convenience sampling was used, with the researchers acting as the students' teachers providing easy access. Walking interviews were conducted on campus to foster a relaxed and interactive atmosphere. Interviews, conducted in Chinese and then translated, focused on various aspects of the students' academic and social experiences, including language use in and out of classrooms, interactions with faculty and peers, and challenges faced in adjusting to the new environment. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data, integrating both inductive and deductive coding. Two researchers independently coded the data and regularly met to ensure inter-rater reliability.

The study identified three main themes regarding the students' language-related experiences: the roles of Chinese, native-speakerism ideology, and monolingual/multilingual ideologies. Chinese was viewed as a default lingua franca for communication on campus and beyond, used for daily interactions with teachers, classmates, and local community members. While the CMI policy mandates the use of Chinese for academic purposes, most students prioritized its role as a lingua franca. However, a 'standard language ideology' was also evident, with students valuing native-like pronunciation and formal language styles. This revealed a preference for a 'standard' form of Chinese associated with native speakers, showcasing a subconscious creation of a power imbalance between native and non-native speakers. While most participants favored multilingual practices due to perceived benefits for communication, two students held a monolingual ideology, revealing a heterogeneity of viewpoints. However, even these students employed multilingual strategies when their limited Chinese vocabulary proved inadequate, showcasing a discrepancy between their stated ideologies and actual practices. The study found evidence of translanguaging in both the classroom and social settings, where students and teachers employed multiple languages, challenging the CMI policy and demonstrating the naturalness of multilingual communication.

The study's findings reveal the complex and sometimes conflicting language ideologies held by Thai international students in a CMI context. Chinese serves dual functions—as a medium of instruction and lingua franca—but the students often prioritized the latter. The pervasive native-speakerism ideology contributes to a perceived power imbalance, and although most students embrace multilingual practices, some still adhere to a monolingual ideal, creating incongruence between their stated ideologies and actual language use. This heterogeneity of language ideologies and practices within the same national group challenges assumptions about shared student experiences. The mismatch between stated ideologies and actual practices is explained by the practical need to use multiple languages for effective communication and access to resources.

This study emphasizes the need for CMI universities to foster a more inclusive language environment. Teachers should develop critical language awareness and incorporate students' multilingual repertoires in their teaching. ‘Respectability’ pedagogies that validate all forms of language use can challenge the standard language ideology and promote linguistic justice. Furthermore, cultivating a multilingual mindset and embracing translanguaging practices are crucial for successful learning and communication. The experiences of Thai international students highlight the need for a broader sociolinguistic understanding in the context of language planning and global educational practices.

The study's limitations include the small sample size (seven participants) and use of convenience sampling, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings. The focus on a single university in Shanghai might also limit the transferability to other contexts. While the researchers tried to minimize bias through careful methodology, researcher positionality may have influenced data collection and interpretation.