Thai Menschenbild: A Study of Chinese, Thai, and International Students in a Private Thai University as measured by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

The study examines how Thai Higher Education (HE) interacts with increasing internationalization and whether a Thai Menschenbild (picture of the human being) embedded in nationalist, hierarchical educational culture shapes or assimilates diverse student populations. University A, Thailand’s first private university with a longstanding International College, provided a distinctive context with Thai, Chinese, and international students co-located yet often segregated by language, program, and schedule. The research explores student engagement differences and cultural integration using NSSE and interviews. Two hypotheses guided the work: (1) Thai HE has created a habitus rooted in a Thai Menschenbild that influences student engagement, including among international populations; (2) there will be variations in engagement reflecting prior national/cultural Menschenbild that may resist Thai norms. The study’s importance lies in informing policy and practice for cross-cultural inclusion within Thai HE amid demographic shifts, Thailand 4.0 initiatives, and growing international programs.

The paper situates Thai HE within a nationalist and hierarchical learning culture emphasizing harmony, authority, and rote learning (Winichakul, Wittayasin, Ziguras & Gribble, Zilli; Lao). It discusses tensions between aspirations to emulate Euro-American HE models and Thai state-centric practices, including accreditation centralized in Bangkok and top-down management (Ferguson; Lao). The concept of Menschenbild frames how national cultures shape educational expectations (Waters), intersecting with Bourdieu’s habitus. Internationalization in Thailand is emergent and complex, often treated as “everything not Thai” (Ferguson), with implications for cross-cultural inclusion and student support. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions provide a comparative backdrop (Hofstede 2001, 2010, 2011). Prior work notes policy ambiguity around international education in Thailand, issues of academic malpractice, and the need for holistic support and curricular clarity (Day & Skulsuthavong; Day et al.; Eppolite & Burford).

Design: Mixed-methods case study at University A (2017–2018), combining a modified US NSSE survey with qualitative interviews. Sampling and participants: Convenience sampling targeted three student groups: International College (n=89), Chinese-track/mixed Thai-English (n=54), and Thai-track (n=36), total N=179. Age means: Chinese 20.4, International 22.4, Thai 19.4. Gender: Overall 88 female, 90 male, 1 missing/other. Nationalities spanned 25+ countries; Chinese and Thai were largest cohorts. Majors varied by group (e.g., Chinese: Thai for Communication and Finance/Banking; International: Hospitality, International Business, English Communication; Thai: Communication Arts and Economics). Instrument: NSSE (American version) administered in English, with translations to Thai and Chinese. Culturally inappropriate US-centric items (e.g., “Greek life”) were removed/adjusted. Likert-scale items assessed engagement (participation, collaboration, faculty interaction), cognitive processes (memorization, integration of information), and diversity interactions (race/ethnicity, religion, economics, politics). Recognized limitation: NSSE reflects American Menschenbild. Qualitative component: Voluntary interviews conducted in English, Chinese, and Thai (Thai as a focus group; others individual), with translators as needed. Interviews explored language use, identity, friendships, residence, ambitions, and classroom experiences. Procedure and ethics: Internal university review and small grant (Payap University Office of Research). Informed oral consent obtained; data stored securely offline (Waters, 2019). Analysis used SPSS 3.23 for descriptive stats and Pearson Chi-square tests; qualitative data thematically analyzed to triangulate NSSE findings. Missing data reported per table.

- Participation in class: Chinese students reported the highest frequency of asking questions/contributing; International the least; Thai intermediate (Table 8: χ2=33.796, df=6, p<0.001). - Peer collaboration/help: Significant differences for asking another student for help (Table 5: χ2=25.464, df=6, p<0.001) and working with others on course projects (Table 7: χ2=19.569, df=6, p=0.03); explaining course material also differed (Table 6: χ2=32.954, df=6, p<0.001). - Memorization: No significant group differences (Table 9: χ2=10.436, df=6, p=0.107); all groups reported memorization often/sometimes. - Faculty interaction: Discussing academic performance with faculty showed no significant difference (Table 10: χ2=9.066, df=6, p=0.170). Narrative data indicated International students more likely to seek academic help outside class; Chinese least contact. - Cognitive integration: Forming new ideas from various information showed no significant difference (Table 11: χ2=5.175, df=6, p=0.522). - Inclusion of diverse perspectives in class: Significant differences (Table 12: χ2=12.775, df=6, p=0.047); Thai students rated diversity inclusion highest. - Empathy/perspective-taking: No significant difference; all groups often/very often tried to understand others’ views (Table 13: χ2=6.904, df=6, p=0.330). - Cross-cultural discussions: • Race/ethnicity: Significant (Table 14: χ2=13.664, df=6, p=0.034); International highest, Chinese next, Thai lowest; 16.7% of Thai reported “never.” • Economic background: Not significant (Table 15: χ2=9.930, df=6, p=0.128). • Political beliefs: Significant (Table 16: χ2=19.432, df=6, p=0.003); International reported “very often” most; combining very often+often, Thai were highest. • Religion: Significant (Table 17: χ2=12.820, df=6, p=0.046); International highest. - Social organization and language: International College students were socially isolated from Thai/Chinese cohorts due to scheduling and English-medium use; Chinese students clustered together in living/study arrangements, often using Chinese; Thai students primarily used Thai. Some Thai and Chinese students in the International College bridged groups through English proficiency or dual heritage. - Identity and ambitions: International students emphasized global identity and career direction; Thai students were less internationally oriented; Chinese students stressed national cultural heritage and group cohesion, with some reporting strong career/entrepreneurial ambitions. - Time use (aligned findings from related analyses): International students reported spending the most time preparing for class; Thai students the least, and were more likely to work jobs and have family/community commitments. - Overall pattern: Similarities across groups in memorization, empathy, and some faculty interactions; differences in participation, diversity exposure, and cross-cultural dialogues, reflecting persistent cultural identities.

Findings indicate that distinct cultural identities (Menschenbilder) shape engagement and social patterns within an internationalized Thai HE setting. Contrary to expectations of assimilation within a Thai nationalist pedagogical habitus, Chinese students reported the highest in-class participation (challenging stereotypes of quietness), while International students demonstrated the most cross-cultural exchanges (race/ethnicity, religion) and political discourse. Thai students, though domestically situated, reported high rates of political discussions when aggregating frequent categories and perceived higher inclusion of diverse perspectives in courses. Non-significant differences in memorization, empathy, and integrating information suggest common academic experiences across groups, while significant differences in collaboration patterns, participation, and diversity interactions point to culturally grounded preferences and language-mediated social networks. Qualitative data corroborated that program structure and language of instruction foster social segregation: International students coalesced around English and a world-citizen orientation; Chinese students formed cohesive Chinese-speaking communities; Thai students engaged primarily within Thai-language contexts. These dynamics limited cross-group integration despite co-location on campus. In relation to the hypotheses: (1) Evidence does not support strong assimilation into a Thai Menschenbild across international and Chinese groups; instead, Thai HE’s nationalist framing exerted limited influence on these students’ engagement and identities. (2) Clear variations in engagement and identity align with students’ pre-existing cultural frameworks, indicating resistant or retained Menschenbilder that shape participation, peer networks, and diversity engagement. The results underscore the need for policies and pedagogies that deliberately facilitate intercultural interactions beyond structural and linguistic barriers.

The study shows that students largely retain their pre-existing cultural identities and engagement styles within an international Thai university, with limited assimilation into a Thai Menschenbild. Chinese, Thai, and International College students exhibited distinct patterns in class participation, collaboration, and cross-cultural dialogue, while sharing similarities in memorization, empathy, and some cognitive processes. Social organization was strongly mediated by program structure and language, leading to parallel communities with minimal overlap. International College students developed a world-citizen culture; Chinese students maintained cohesive Chinese-speaking networks; Thai students remained less internationally oriented. Contributions include demonstrating how NSSE, adapted for context and complemented by interviews, can detect meaningful cross-cultural differences in engagement within Thai HE. Implications point to the need for intentional intercultural integration strategies, student affairs support, and clearer curricular purposes for international programs under Thailand 4.0. Future research should: (a) design and evaluate interventions that bridge language and schedule barriers; (b) examine socio-technical, interdisciplinary curricula that cultivate global citizenship without erasing local identity; and (c) explore multi-site comparisons across Thai universities to generalize integration models.

- Instrument bias: NSSE reflects an American Menschenbild; although adapted (e.g., removing US-specific items), cultural assumptions remain. - Sampling: Convenience sampling within one university limits generalizability; group sizes were unequal (International n=89, Chinese n=54, Thai n=36). Some majors overrepresented (e.g., Thai Communication Arts; Chinese Thai for Communication/Finance). - Missing data: Several NSSE items reported missing data (MD ≈ 22–25), potentially affecting chi-square power. - Language/translation: Surveys and interviews in multiple languages may introduce translation and interpretation variability; Thai interviews were a focus group whereas others were individual. - Context specificity: Single institutional case (provincial, Christian-sponsored, Thai-managed) may not reflect other Thai HE contexts. - Cross-sectional timing: Data collected 2017–2018 during specific political constraints; findings may shift with evolving Thai socio-political conditions and post-2020 changes.