Thai Higher Education (Thai HE) is undergoing significant changes due to international reforms and decreasing student enrollment. This study focuses on a private international university in Northern Thailand that, in 2017, began recruiting Chinese students to address declining enrollment. The study aims to understand student engagement and cultural integration within this diverse university setting. The concept of *Menschenbild* (picture of a human being) is used to frame the study, examining how differing cultural perceptions shape student learning and engagement. The researchers hypothesized that Thai HE policy has created a habitus rooted in a Thai *Menschenbild* embedded in authoritative patron-client academic systems, and that variations in student engagement would exist between nationalities due to their prior *Menschenbild*. The study acknowledges the growing field of international education in Thailand, noting the complexities and challenges of developing international programs within a context of cultural isolationism and a focus on national identity and state service. The researchers highlight the need to understand how students from diverse cultures adapt and integrate within Thai HE, particularly given recent student-led protests and the changing landscape of Thai education due to factors like university ranking and increased surveillance. University A, the study site, is described as representative of a growing trend of Thai universities seeking to capitalize on market forces and demand for English-medium programs while maintaining Thai accreditation processes. The paper discusses how University A, though international, is still largely managed with a traditional Thai leadership approach, which may impact cross-cultural integration. The introduction highlights the research methodology, including use of the NSSE survey (translated into Chinese and Thai) and qualitative interviews, and emphasizes the study's focus on student experience and cross-cultural integration.

The literature review draws upon several key works to establish the context of the study. It cites studies illustrating the changing landscape of Thai HE, including the impact of demographic shifts and economic factors on university enrollment. Works by Jones and Pimdee (2017), Joungtrakul (2019), Kamnuansilpa (2018), Kanjananiyot et al. (2002), and the Global Wealth Report (2018) are referenced to support this. The review also explores the concept of *Menschenbild* and its relevance to understanding the cultural dynamics of learning and integration, referencing Waters (2012) and Chao and Moon (2005). The influence of Thai nationalism and the concept of 'Thainess' on educational culture are discussed, citing Winichakul (2015), Wittayasin (2017), Ziguras and Gribble (2015), and Zilli (2019). The literature review highlights the existing tension between emulating Western higher education models and maintaining Thai cultural autonomy, referencing Lao (2015). It also mentions studies examining the experiences of academic migrants and university experiences in Thailand, such as Ferguson (2021), Waters and Day (2022), and Eppolite and Burford (2021). The review concludes by referencing Hofstede's work on cultural dimensions and their application to understanding cultural differences in higher education.

The study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data was collected using the American version of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), translated into Chinese and Thai. The NSSE was administered to 179 students: 89 international students, 54 Chinese students, and 36 Thai students. Certain NSSE questions deemed culturally inappropriate for the Thai context were modified or omitted. The qualitative data was collected through interviews with students from the three groups, conducted in English, Chinese, and Thai. English and Chinese interviews were individual, while Thai interviews were conducted in a focus group setting. Convenience sampling was used for NSSE respondents. The study obtained ethical approval and informed consent from participants. The data was analyzed using SPSS 3.23. The methodology section details the demographic characteristics of the sample, including age, gender, nationality, and major (presented in Tables 1-4). It highlights the convenience sampling approach and the challenges of accessing various student groups due to practicalities of class schedules. The researchers explain their adaptations to the NSSE to account for cultural differences and biases, and the triangulation of data sources used in the study.

The key findings are presented across several tables (Tables 5-17), each showing NSSE responses for a particular question. Analysis of NSSE data revealed significant differences in student engagement and attitudes across the three groups. While there were no significant differences in memorization habits, there were significant differences in class participation, interaction with faculty, and formation of new ideas. International students reported more interactions with faculty outside of class for academic help, while Chinese students reported the least contact. Thai students, despite often being quiet in class, reported a surprisingly high level of exposure to diverse perspectives in their courses. While there was no significant difference in reported empathy between the groups, international students scored highest on having discussions with people of different races and ethnicities. Qualitative data from interviews revealed important insights into student identities, motivations, and social interactions. The findings indicated that language and cultural backgrounds significantly influenced the social groupings of students on campus. International college students, particularly those from Asia, tended to communicate in English among themselves. The Chinese students largely socialized within their own group, often maintaining their cultural practices and preferences. Thai students, particularly those in the International College, exhibited a complex interplay of Thai and international identities, often negotiating their cultural positioning within a predominantly Thai university environment. The findings highlighted the role of individual agency in shaping student experiences, even within a context of potential cultural assimilation pressures. For instance, interviews revealed how some students actively pursued their own international connections and community building efforts.

The findings suggest that the hypothesized influence of a Thai *Menschenbild* on shaping student engagement was not fully supported by the data. The significant differences in attitudes and behaviors across the three student groups indicate that cultural backgrounds and prior experiences strongly shaped their integration into the university. The researchers discuss the limitations of the NSSE survey in fully capturing the complexities of cross-cultural interactions. The qualitative data provides important context for interpreting the quantitative results, highlighting how language, shared cultural practices, and personal ambitions influenced student social structures and integration patterns. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the interplay between individual agency and socio-cultural forces in shaping student experiences. The researchers raise questions about the effectiveness of Thai HE curricula in promoting intercultural understanding and integration, given the observed separation and distinct social groupings of students. They note that the university's efforts at cultural integration may not be fully successful in overcoming the impact of cultural backgrounds and prior *Menschenbild*.

The study concludes that the Thai *Menschenbild* did not completely override the students' pre-existing cultural identities. The different groups retained distinct cultural identities and social patterns, influenced by language, shared cultural practices, and personal ambitions. The study demonstrates the importance of considering cultural factors in shaping student experiences within a Thai university context. Future research should focus on developing more effective policies for promoting intercultural dialogue and understanding in Thai HE. The study's findings offer insights into the complexities of cross-cultural integration in higher education, and underscore the need for institutions to create supportive environments that enable successful integration and foster intercultural competence. Further research is recommended to investigate how Thai HE can develop more holistic approaches to intercultural development.

The study's reliance on a convenience sample might limit the generalizability of the findings to other Thai universities. The NSSE survey, adapted for the Thai context, may still contain some inherent biases reflecting its American origins. The researchers acknowledge that the focus group approach for Thai interviews might have influenced the results. The relatively small sample size, especially in the Thai group, limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research could benefit from using larger, more representative samples and more diverse research instruments.