Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Sino-foreign cooperative universities (SFCU) represent the advanced manifestation of transnational education in China and has profoundly shaped the country’s higher education landscape. Despite the tremendous development of SFCUs, there is limited research on the motivations and driving factors of students choosing to study at SFCUs. To bridge this research gap, this study employs the grounded theory approach to examine why Chinese high school graduates choose SFCUs as study destinations. This study reveals that Chinese students’ choice of SFCUs results from personal considerations, institution-level characteristics, and social contexts. A theoretical framework is further proposed to better understand Chinese students’ motivations behind their choice to SFCUs. We also draw theoretical contributions on students’ mobility and marketing strategies that attract Chinese students to study at SFCUs with the findings.

Keywords

Sino-foreign cooperative universities grounded theory student mobility transnational education

Introduction

In the evolving international education industry, four types of globalization have been identified: student mobility, the flow of academic staff, institutional collaboration across borders, and the global flow of ideas, knowledge, and scholarship (P.-Y. Chen, 2015; Scott, 1998). Transnational education (TNE) is defined as “all types of higher education study programs, or sets of courses of study, or educational services (including those of distance education) in which the learners are located in a country different from the one where the awarding institution is based” (UNESCO/Council of Europe, 2001), and TNE is growing in popularity since it delivers internationally recognized education services to students in their own country. Twinning programs and international branch campuses (IBCs) have become the most common type of TNE. The C-BERT database reports there were a total of 306 IBCs in operation by the end of 2022 in 37 source countries and 83 host countries (C-BERT, 2022). Transnational education has moved dramatically forward with the emergence of new delivery modes, providers, and partnerships in the past decades, shaping the globalized landscape of higher education (Healey & Michael, 2015; Knight, 2003). In addition, analyses and discussion of TNE trends and development have become a popular topic for policymakers and academic researchers (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2006; Paniagua et al., 2022)

To secure human capital and stem the “brain drain” to sustain high-spaced economic development, China is actively engaging in TNE to enhance competition and internalization of its higher education sector. As of early 2023, there are 82 active institutions (including Sino-foreign cooperative universities [SFCUs]) and nearly 800 programs offering bachelor and postgraduate degrees (MoE, 2023). Annual reports on Sino-foreign cooperation education in 2022 reported that approximately 392,000 students in TNE in Mainland China, account for about 1.8% of 21,753,964 enrolled bachelor and master’s degree students in higher education institutions (HEIs) (MoE, 2022). The smooth development of TNE in China caters to the domestic demand for quality education services and has attracted an increasing number of international students from developed economies. To date, China is the world’s largest host country and a non-negligible export country of TNE.

The exponent growth of TNE operations in China has resulted in a burgeoning literature on the topic (Yunyun & Te, 2016). Existing studies have addressed Chinese TNE from multiple dimensions, such as governance issues and organizational dilemmas (Mok, 2009, 2021; Mok & Han, 2016; Yunyun, 2021; Zhang & Kinser, 2016), significant features and characteristics (He, 2016; Hou et al., 2014; Hu & Willis, 2017), development patterns or preference (Ding, 2018; Fang, 2012; Zhao, 2021), student choice and motivation (Fang & Wang, 2014; Liu, DeWinter et al., 2023; Liu, Wimpenny et al., 2023), transition and intercultural engagements (K. Dai, 2020; Hang & Zhang, 2022; Ou, 2020; Qu, 2018; Xie, 2022), quality determinants or quality assurance (Hu et al., 2019; Lu, 2019), and student and staff perceptions and experiences (Cai & Hall, 2016; Dong, 2014; Ergenc, 2022; Liu, DeWinter et al., 2023; Liu, Wimpenny et al., 2023; Moufahim & Lim, 2015; Sablina et al., 2018; Wang, 2018). However, this literature has been overrepresented by Sino-foreign cooperative programs and colleges, giving sparse academic attention to SFCUs or exploring the factors shaping students’ choice of an SFCU. Influencing factors of student choice is highly dynamic and intertwined across varied situations of TNE (e.g., delivery mode, provider, and so forth.) (Fang & Wang, 2014; Hu & Willis, 2017; X. Li et al., 2021).

The present study addresses the motivations and driving factors of Chinese high school graduates’ choice of SFCU. In contrast to the quantitative approach adopted in previous literature, this study uses the qualitative approach to present a wide scope of factors behind students’ university choices and provides insightful evidence. This study contributes to the literature in two ways. On one hand, we corroborate that a push-pull model is a loose framework whose uncritical use with a presupposed strategy cannot precisely capture the factors behind students’ choices. On the other hand, the study reveals that Chinese high school graduates’ choice of SFCU results from the interplay and interaction among personal considerations, institution-level characteristics, and social contexts. The findings produced are significant to understand the TNE market in China, which is expected to benefit stakeholders in order to deliver tailored education services.

Background of This Study

Since the Reform and Opening up, China restored the higher education exchange by encouraging foreign HEIs or providers to establish institutions and programs in collaboration with Chinese counterparts. The initiative was prioritized to introduce advanced overseas-education resources to promote Chinese HEIs’ academic capacity and competitiveness (Huang, 2013). TNE operations in China have unique characteristics. First, they emphasize the nature of cooperation. Foreign HEIs and their Chinese counterparts must jointly offer operations in China to ensure education sovereignty. With regards to this point, TNE in China has generally named Sino-foreign cooperation in running schools (Zhongwai Hezuo Banxue in Chinese) in official documents. Second, TNE operations in China demonstrate the publicness. In essence, TNE in China belongs to public welfare undertakings that aim to deliver high-level education services. In this way, the public profits rather than private interests, which helps guarantees sustainable development of TNE and, in turn, promotes Chinese HEIs’ internalization.

In particular, TNE operations in China are classified into three categories: (a) Sino-foreign cooperative programs that offer international programs by partnering with overseas universities; (b) Sino-foreign cooperative colleges, which are second-tier schools affiliated with Chinese local universities (e.g., Surrey International Institute at Dongbei University of Finance and Economics and Joint International Tourism College at Hainan University) and offer at least three programs (Ding, 2018); and (c) Sino-foreign cooperative universities (SFCUs) that are co-founded by Chinese and foreign partners and have independent and legal person status. SFCUs are more like full-fledged branch campuses that selectively transplant and modify foreign partner universities. Currently, there are nine such universities (Table 1). They offer, but are not limited to, interdisciplinary, specialized programs, granting those qualified dual bachelor degrees and home institutions’ master’s or PhD degrees. SFCUs are regarded as the advanced manifestation of TNE activity in China. Implementing transnational education has promoted educational ideas and curricula arrangements, among other features, from high-ranked overseas universities in the Chinese higher education sector.

Table 1.

Nine Chinese SFCUs Profiles.

SFCU	Year est.	Location	Foreign university	Year est.	U.S. new ranking 2022	Sino university	Year est.	U.S. new ranking 2022
UNNC	2004	Ningbo, Zhejiang	University of Nottingham	1881	151	Zhejiang Wanli University	1950	NA
UIC	2005	Zhuhai, Gunagdong	Hong Kong Baptist University	1956	610	Beijing Normal University	1902	295
XJTLU	2006	Suzhou, Jiangsu	University of Liverpool	1881	155	Xi’an Jiaotong University	1896	255
NYU-Shanghai	2011	Shanghai	New York University	1,831	30	East China Normal University	1951	371
WKU	2011	Wenzhou, Jiangsu	Kean University	1,855	NA	Wenzhou University	1933	1,401
DKU	2013	Kunshan, Jiangsu	Duke University	1,838	23	Wuhan University	1,893	209
CUHK-Shenzhen	2014	Shenzhen, Guangdong	Chinese University of Hong Kong	1963	82	Shenzhen University	1983	327
GTIIT	2016	Shantou, Guangdong	Technion-Israel Institute of Technology	1,912	287	Shantou University	1981	1,390
SMBU	2017	Shenzhen, Guangdong	Lomonosov Moscow State University	1,755	324	Beijing Institute of Technology	1940	361

Note. UNNC = University of Nottingham Ningbo China; UIC = Beijing Normal University-Hong Kong Baptist University United International College; XJTLU = Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University; NYU-Shanghai = New York University Shanghai; WKU = Wenzhou-Kean University; DKU = Duke Kunshan University; CUHK-Shenzhen = The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen; GTIIT = Guangdong Technion - Israel Institute of Technology; SMBU = Shenzhen MSU-BIT University.

The accelerating growth of SFCUs in China has attracted increasing academic attention, with studies conducted from the macro-level and through different perspectives. For example, by adopting a comparative approach, two works explored the rationales and strategies of different SFCUs in implementing the internalization of Chinese higher education (Feng, 2013; Xiao, 2017). Taking survey data from 798 respondents, Yang and Wu depicted the characteristics of students studying at UNNC (Yang & Wu, 2021). Based on employment quality documents, Wu et al. reported that compared with peers, SFCU graduates possessed significant advantages in direct employment and further education (S. Wu et al., 2022). Following this trend, burgeoning studies have provided deep insights into student and staff experiences and perceptions from SFCUs in the transcultural context, with a particular focus on identity dilemmas and intercultural communication (Cai & Hall, 2016; Dong, 2014; Ergenc, 2022; Hang & Zhang, 2022; Ou, 2020; Qu, 2018). However, SFCU student narratives regarding their college choice have rarely been offered in the current literature with the exception of three recent studies (Che & He, 2015; J. Dai, 2018; Fang & Wang, 2014). However, these studies only used a specific SFCU as a case study and did not emphasize the indispensable role of institutional variation (characters) in the choice of SFCU. Therefore, drawing on interview data of respondents from eight SFCUs, the present study presents a panoramic view of the motivations and factors behind students’ university choices.

Literature Review

Strictly speaking, the motivations and factors behind students’ SFCU choices fall into the realm of international student mobility. Existing literature on global student mobility has been predominantly centered on international students’ choices from developing or newly industrialized countries to Western developed countries such as the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and so forth (Perez-Encinas et al., 2021; Rodríguez González et al., 2011; Zhai et al., 2019). Push-pull theory (Altbach, 1998), the three-layer framework (macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors) (Haas & Hadjar, 2020), and the three-stage decision-making model (L.-H. Chen, 2007) have been conceptualized and used to investigate students’ destination choice. The push-pull model is the mainstream framework, while the other two models have been constructed to revise or supplement the former.

Indeed, the push-pull model has been extensively used as the theoretical base to capture the mobility of international students and the motivation behind their school choice. The model contends that students choosing to study at overseas HEIs result from push factors related to the source country and pull factors associated with the receiving country (Altbach, 1998). In general, push factors relate to the limited access to and low quality of higher education programs, employer preference for abroad HE certificates, and the influence of parents, relatives, and friends (Ahmad & Hussain, 2017; Bodycott, 2009; L.-H. Chen, 2007; Wilkins et al., 2012; Zhai et al., 2019). Commonly confirmed pull factors include the reputation and quality of the host institute, employment and career prospects, mobility costs, financial aid, the English-speaking environment, and transcultural training and experience (Ahmad & Buchanan, 2016; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Wilkins et al., 2012; Zhai et al., 2019)

However, both push and pull factors are distal and contextual, and their impact depends on the role of students’ characteristics. The absence of individual features in the push-pull model has received much criticism (Fang & Wang, 2014; M. Li & Bray, 2007; Zheng, 2003). Moreover, this classic model fails to capture the variation in motivational factors of international students choosing economically medium- and less-developed countries (Jiani, 2017; Jon et al., 2014). The interaction of the push and pull factors of sending countries and hosting countries’ push and pull factors is instrumental in students’ choices. A call to absorb the reverse push and pull factors into an analytical perspective has ignited great discussion in the literature (Cheung & Yuen, 2016; M. Li & Bray, 2007; M.-Y. Wu et al., 2021). Considering these, a group of researchers used the revised analytical framework to systematically display the factors and motivations behind students’ transnational higher education options in China. For example, Fang & Wang modified the push-pull model by including individuals’ characteristics to explain students’ choice of Sino-foreign cooperative programs (Fang & Wang, 2014). Based on two Sino-U.K. collaborative programs, Liu et al. extended the Fang and Wang framework using personal situations and found that the motivational factors varied across programs (Liu, DeWinter et al., 2023; Liu, Wimpenny et al., 2023). However, these studies centered on the presupposed framework, which looks ideal and may neglect some specific factors. Unlike the abovementioned studies, the present research, underpinned by grounded theory, adopts an inductive strategy to identify the motivational factors of Chinese high school graduates studying at SFCUs.

Methodology

Research Questions

To further enrich the understanding of Chinese high school graduates’ choice of SFCUs, the present study employs a qualitative strategy to identify and present a comprehensive panorama of students’ choices and motivating factors. As mentioned in the literature review, although this study cannot fully disentangle from the shadow of the push-pull theory, we try to provide additional findings and driving mechanisms than previous studies with an inductive approach. Underpinned by the philosophy of social construction, this study conceptualizes an open-ended and semi-structured interview protocol, which is informed by the guidelines of interview questions (Patton, 2002) and related studies (Ahmad & Buchanan, 2015; Zhang, 2016). The interview outline was refined and modified after discussion with a researcher specializing in international student mobility. As such, the finalized outline steering the interview process included respondent profile/characteristics and five open-ended questions: “What was your experience in selecting universities when graduating from high school or after the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE)?”; “How do you learn about SFCUs?”; “How do you perceive SFCUs?”; “What are your feelings and experiences studying at SFCUs?”; and “Why did you choose to study at an SFCU?” All the interviews were conducted in Chinese to guarantee fluency and gain as much rich information from the interviewee as possible. Apart from the five main questions, follow-up and more detailed questions were adopted during the interview to probe potential key information not covered by the interview protocols (Dong, 2014).

Sampling and Participants

This research adopts a combination of snowball and purposive sampling, as we were expecting to recruit representative students from all SFCUs. To begin, the researcher probed and invited volunteer students studying at or graduating from SFCUs via social media platforms (Xiaohongshu, Sinablog, QQ group). When an interview was nearly completed, the researcher asked the interviewee to recommend potential candidates for further interviews. The researcher then tried to expand respondents from all SFCUs through purposive sampling, while also considering their representativeness in regards to gender and major course. Moreover, the researcher employed a focus group strategy with three respondents to obtain more helpful information during the interview. Finally, the researcher completed the interview with 26 respondents, of whom 25 are current/graduated students, and one is the mother of a student who just won an offer from UNNC (see Table 2). The 25 students’ participant ages range from 19 to 24, among which 10 are men (40%). Self-selected pseudonyms were used to protect respondents’ privacy. All of the interviewees come from nine SFCUs, except SMBU. The interview lasted nearly 5 months, from August 21, 2022 to December 7, 2022. Given the spread of Covid-19, all interviews were conducted via online Tecent meetings, each lasting 29 to 105 min. Before the interview, the researcher obtained consent from respondents and their agreement to record the interview. The interview was transcribed via a paid website (https://www.iflyrec.com/) and proofread by trained assistants.

Table 2.

Participants’ Profiles.

No.	Pseudonym	Gender	Age	Enroll since	SFCU	City	Higher school
1	Zhao	Female	NA	NA		Hefei	NA	Mother of a student from UNNC
2	Lu	Female	19	202209	GTIIT	Beijing	International	Transfer from KCL
3	Ye	Female	19	202109	UIC	Beijing	International	Transfer with overseas offer
4	Wang	Female	21	201909	XJTLU	NA	Local
5	Qian	Male	24	201609	XJTLU	Suzhou	Local
6	Jenny	Female	22	201809	UIC	Harbin	Local
7	Doris	Female	22	201809	XJTLU	Cangzhou	Local
8	Wang	Male	23	201809	UIC	NA	Local
9	Zeng	Male	21	201809	UIC	Dongguan	NA
10	Yang	Male	23	201709	UIC	Shenzhen	NA	Student ambassador
11	Li	Male	21	202009	UIC	Zhuhai	NA
12	Wang	Female	20	202209	XJTLU	NA	International	Transfer from Brandeis University
13	Shawn	Male	19	202109	DKU	Beijing	Local	Student ambassador
14	Sally	Female	22	201809	UNNC	Ningbo	Local
15	Liu	Female	22	201809	UNNC	Bangbu	Local
16	Mia	Female	22	201809	UNNC	Chongqing	Local
17	Liu	Female	20	202109	NYU-Shanghai	Zhengzhou	Local
18	Tao	Female	22	201709	UNNC	Guizhou	Local
19	Lin	Female	19	2021.08	DKU	Wuxi	Local
20	Zhu	Male	19	2021.08	WKU	Jiangxin	Local	Student ambassador
21	Davie	Male	22	2017.09	CUHK-Shenzhen	Chengdu	Local
22	Ye	Female	18	2022.08	WKU	Heihe	Local
23	Xu	Female	18	2022.08	WKU	Changsha	Local
24	Wang	Male	20	2021.09	NYU-Shanghai	Shanghai	Local
25	Tracy	Female	19	2021.09	NYU-Shanghai	Zhengzhou	Local
26	Pacey	Male	19	2021.09	NYU-Shanghai	Qingdao	Local

Data Analysis

Data analysis for this study followed three stages: opening coding, axial coding, and selective coding as suggested by Corbin (1990). Before the coding, all the authors read the interview transcripts several times to identify potential themes that emerged. To ensure the accuracy of the codes, the authors worked together to code all interview materials. The coding procedure was completed with Nvivo11.

Findings

Western Education Model

SFCUs transplant the education model of foreign partners’ universities that aim to cultivate students’ overall competence by promoting a liberal arts education. In contrast to the current Chinese spoon-fed education system, the SFCUs offer high school graduates the opportunity to experience a new educational philosophy (J. Dai, 2018). First, SFCUs aspire to prepare their students to discover, explore, and nurture their capacity for original and critical thinking.

I admire the advanced education model in the West as represented by personal student cultivation and development. In this model, students are provided enough space and time to develop their habits and abilities, and, in particular, learn to think critically (Zhu, male, 19, WKU).

When talking about the Western education model, some students emphasized that the negative experiences under the exam-oriented education system in China that propelled them to an SFCU.

Indeed, I was unhappy during the 3 years of senior high school in Hengshui because the education philosophy was very inconsistent with my character. You can hear from all aspects of society what it is like: you get good grades, and you’re the boss, which is very much against me (Doris, female, 22, XJTLU).

The reason I choose NYU-Shanghai is that I hated the education in China. During the years of compulsory education in China, I felt very dissatisfied, and I dreamed of a freer education system. (Pacey, male, 19, NYU-Shanghai).

Diverse and inclusive culture, another dimension of the Western education model, has a significantly positive effect on Chinese high school graduates. Some participants state that they are fascinated by the goal of mutual respect and understanding for all people advocated by the SFCUs. Each student can articulate their ideas freely. Wang exemplified that one point that attracts me most is that NYU-Shanghai is a very diverse and inclusive university with no ideology restriction and no discrimination across nationality and race (Wang, male, 20, NYU-Shanghai).

Institutional Reputation

Participants attached importance to institutional reputation from three perspectives: university ranking, social recognition, and professional competence. First, Chinese high school graduates emphasized the importance of university rankings stemming from brand reputation in their decision-making processes of SFCUs. University rankings generally represent overall strength and competitiveness. The higher the ranking of Chinese and foreign partner institutes, the greater the possibility of attracting potential students. The words from Qian support our argument:

I want to speak highly of XJTLU because it is a megamerger of Xi’an Jiaotong University in China and Liverpool University in the U.K. The former is a 985 project university in China, and the latter ranks 189 ^thin the QS World University Rankings (Qian, male, 24, XJTLU).

Comparatively, the high ranks of foreign partners play a critical role in their choice. For example, Lu stated:

I am convinced that UNNC and CUHK-Shenzhen are better than GTIIT because the ranking of foreign partner universities is more important than their Chinese counterparts. I was very strange about the Technion-Israel University of Technology when I heard about it. My classmates have also yet to learn what kind of university it is, because it is not very well-known, certainly not as renowned as Liverpool University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Lu, female, 19, GTIIT).

Second, the SFCUs’ wide social recognition is positive stimulus for Chinese high school graduates. During the interview, a mother of a newly admitted student stated: SFCUs like UNNC gain wide social recognition. They grant the graduates double degrees with one from the cooperative institute and the other from the foreign partner university, which is very valuable (Zhao, female, the mother of a newly admitted student by UNNC).

Graduates from SFCUs are perceived as more capable and motivated than graduates from common Chinese universities or even some 211 Project universities. This suggests that graduates from SFCUs have a greater chance of receiving an employment offer and earning a comparatively higher salary. For example, Liu commented:

My aunt, a university counselor in Shanghai, said UNNC is the same with some 985 project and 211 Project universities and possesses an excellent reputation in the Yangtze River Delta. Graduates from UNNC have more job opportunities. A colleague from our firm’s human resource department highlighted that graduates of UNNC are regarded as equivalent candidates to graduates from a 985 project or 211 Project university at the resume-screening stage. However, students who graduated from Nanjing Forestry University, Yangzhou University, Jimei University, and others would have been excluded from the following recruiting procedures (Liu, female, 22, UNNC).

Some participants have argued that the teaching quality and professional faculty and staff facilitated their choice to go to an SFCU. For example, Jenny explained:

UIC is a joint venture of Beijing Normal University and Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU). Both of these two partner universities have strong teaching staffs in Media Communication. Some of the faculty who teach in this program come from HKBU (Jenny, female, 22, UIC).

Relaxed Program Transfers

SFCUs adhere to the philosophy of their foreign partners’ liberal arts education. Students are offered introductory and core courses in their first years to learn about themselves. Advocating a liberal arts education, SFCUs have established relatively flexible policies for program transfers. Indeed, KDU and NYU-Shanghai clarified that although students can choose core and optional courses to discover their interests and direction, they should choose their area of study no later than end of sophomore year. This relaxed policy gives students enough time to explore themselves. For instance, Tracy commented:

I chose here because I am given flexibility in my major choice rather than having my major decided before entering the university. Students at my university can determine their major before the end of the second semester of sophomore year. Thus, I can explore what I like in these two years (Tracy, male, 19, NYU-Shanghai).

The exam-oriented education system has deeply affected Chinese high school graduates and constrained their personalized growth and development. Those admitted by Chinese universities are fixed with a specific program. The school then pressures students to choose this program when applying to college even though they may not have a clear preference for it. In these universities, switching programs is difficult for students. In contrast to this rigid policy, the loose transfer policy of SFCUs wins recognition and support among Chinese high school graduates. As Lin mentioned:

I know that some students were not interested in their admitted programs or they had been interested but learned it was not what they initially thought. Those who successfully switched their program represent 1/15 of the total number of admitted students to a specific program. At DKU, students can use the first two years to learn their preferences. The loose program transfer can help students avoid the above drawbacks. (Lin, female, 19, DKU).

Fees and Scholarship

The comparatively low tuition fees and living expenses are vital factors in students’ choice to study at SFCUs. Students, in this case, learn at SFCUs via the enrollment offer exchange, or they had once expected to study abroad but chose an SFCU. SFCUs require less tuition and living expenses than studying abroad. As Mia commented:

The tuition fee for study at an SFCU is around half that of overseas study. Moreover, graduates can be granted a corresponding bachelor’s degree from the University of Nottingham apart from the UNNC diploma and degree. It is cost-effective (Mia, Female, 22, UNNC).

Furthermore, the outbreak of Covid-19 resulted in a sharp increase in living expenses abroad, which decreased the benefit-cost ratio of earning a degree abroad. Students then turned their attention to SFCUs. A Chinese student graduating from an international high school gained several overseas admissions offers but finally chose UNNC. His mother shared:

A friend’s child once studied at King’s College London. During the Covid-19 pandemic, water, electricity, gas, and accommodation expenses rose sharply. This elevated the already high living expenses in the U.K. One-way trip tickets from the UK to China rose in price from to 30,000-40,000, and even 60,000-70,000. A student’s full year costs reached around 700,000RMB. It’s too much. (Zhao, female, the mother of an admitted student from UNNC).

Indeed, some students were swayed by the generous and high-coverage scholarships offered by SFCUs. Yang, a student ambassador, mentioned:

As far as I know, about 30% of enrolled students of UIC in 2017 from Guangdong Province were granted a scholarship. Almost all enrolled students from Heilongjiang and Inner Mongolia can get full or partial scholarships. At this point, the SFCU scholarship policy is relatively generous, and its application qualifications are loose, which is attractive to potential students (Yang, male, 23, UIC).

Pursuing Graduate Study Abroad

One reason why Chinese high school graduates choose SFCUs is to increase personal competitiveness and the possibility of pursuing graduate study abroad via the SFCU platform. SFCUs gear their operations to well-known Western academic environments, teaching modes, and education philosophy. Also, SFCU students are provided regular exchanges with the foreign partner university, which can enrich their overseas study experiences. Thus, SFCU graduates have more of an advantage with admission offices of foreign universities than with Chinese state universities. Twenty-four out of 26 respondents insisted that SFCUs were the springboard in applying for graduate study abroad.

UIC graduates have more significant advantages than the first batch of Chinese state universities in applying to overseas universities. First, UIC is included on the enrollment list. Second, we have built solid English proficiency in the past years, which suggests that we have no language barriers in overseas study. Third, UIC is geared to the Western universities’ teaching modes, indicating that we can smoothly adapt to the transition. Finally, UIC students are inclined to work as interns in their spare time or on weekends to enrich their experiences, which helps on their applications (Zeng, male, 21, UIC).

Given that around 60% of graduates continue their study abroad in highly regarded universities (S. Wu et al., 2022), SFCUs offer targeted IELTS training and application inquiry for those preparing to pursue such study (Wang, female, XJTLU). Furthermore, studying at SFCUs can imperceptibly stimulate a student to improve their personal performance in GPA scores and internships, which could benefit them on an overseas university application (Jenny, female, 22, UIC).

The students who graduate from SFCUs have significant language advantages and cultural adaptation, which could facilitate a smooth transition into further study.

The English environment, group assignments, and learning appraisals in my graduate study are no different from what I experienced in my undergraduate study. The learning environment and knowledge obtained in my undergraduate program increased my adaptability to my current graduate study in Hong Kong (Wang, male, 23, UIC).

Although SFCUs are new higher education providers in Mainland China, they have not won equivalent recognition in the employment market. This propels students to pursue graduate study overseas to enhance their personal competitiveness.

GTIIT is a newly founded SFCU that is unfamiliar to most people. Pursuing a master’s study abroad benefits us in the job market (Lu, female, 19, GTIIT).

National College Entrance Examination (NECC) Scores

NECC scores are the benchmark for students’ college applications. One of the critical reasons that Chinese high school graduates choose an SFCU is that their NECC scores are not high enough to be admitted into a desirable state university. In the interview, 19 respondents responded that they are more inclined to choose a hot 985 Project university or 211 Project university if their scores are high enough.

My NECC score was not exceptionally high. If I had gotten 650, I would not have selected XJTLU while headed to a 985 or 211 Project university (Wang, female, 21, XJTLU).

Most of the respondents’ NECC scores could afford them to be admitted by the first batch of state universities or even some inferior 211 project universities, which were not their desired initial choices. In such cases, some students turned their attention to SFCUs, which were unfamiliar to them before the NECC. As such, the choice of SFCU was not motivated by the pursuit of an international education experience, but rather a passive choice restricted by inadequate scores.

I didn’t do well on the NECC. The score cannot support my enrollment by any 985 universities, but some 211 project universities out of Guangdong Province, like Chang’an University and Nanjing Agricultural University. The admission possibility by a 211 project university in Guangdong is very low. I then changed my way of thinking and considered overseas study abroad, and finally turned my attention to SFCUs (Wang, male, 23, UIC).

Family Support

College applications in China are not only the applicant’s business, but also a decision made by the whole family. High school graduates are usually aged between 18 and 19 and have low rational decision-making capabilities; thus their parents are highly involved in their SFCU applications. Parents are embedded in wide social networking, which facilitates collecting information from multiple channels. After collecting information, they recommend an SFCU to their child. In the interview, some students recalled their plans to go abroad for their undergraduate studies, but their parents persuaded them to stay at home, considering they are still young and have low self-control ability. As such, they head to an SFCU and do not go abroad.

Compared with state universities in China, SFCUs charge high tuition fees. Students of SFCUs come from middle-class families with better living conditions, which suggests their families can afford higher tuition and living expenses. There are some different cases, as Liu has argued that some students come from working-class families, and the high tuition and living costs result in economic pressure on their parents:

Studying at an SFCU used up my parents’ savings, which puts a lot of pressure on them. I know many students become depressed about this and several have even quit without completing their first-year studies. They retake the NECC and apply and be admitted by state universities (Liu, 22, female, UNNC).

Proficiency in English

SFCUs are mediated by the English language. A student’s choice of SFCU must consider their proficiency in English. Some interviewees justify that their study at SFCUs offers great advantages to become proficient in English, as Ye stated: I have a sophisticated English ability and did well on the IELTS and TOEFL. I don’t want to go to a Chinese university in which my proficient English cannot be fully used (Ye, female, 19, UIC). Some other students insisted that studying at SFCUs provides opportunities and context to enhance their written and spoken English skills. For example, Tao reckoned thatÿɎAlthough obtaining good marks in English exams since childhood, I acknowledge that book learning and my performance reflected in the exam-oriented system does represent my overall English ability. I believe four years of study at SFCU via English will offer me an authentic English language surrounding, thus increasing my fluency and coherence (Tao, female, 22, UNNC).

Program Preference

Students’ program course preferences also drive their choice to study at an SFCU. Seven respondents suggested that the match of a specific program to their interests led them to decide to choose an SFCU. Two students stated:

When learning that UIC offers film and TV courses, I was thrilled. I then chose UIC because a program in film and TV is my preference (Ye, female, 19, UIC).

I had hesitated between KDU and NYU-Shanghai. After hearing that the programs at NYU-Shanghai are mostly science and engineering, while KDU offers liberal Arts courses, such as history, and digital media art, I choose the latter (Lin, female, 19, DKU).

In the college application process, the choice of university is first, followed a by specific program. Some of the above respondents’ NECC scores did not afford them admission to their preferred program or university. They then turned to SFCUs. For example, Qian expected to engage in nanotechnology, a sunrise industry, for his future career, and a program in biology. However, My NCEE scores are not competitive for this program at the ideal university, Schoow University. Thus, I chose to study biology courses at XJTLU (Qian, male, 24, XJTLU).

Broaden Personal Horizons

Faculty and students of SFCUs are scattered around the globe, and they enjoy diverse cultures and customs. From the Chinese high school graduates’ perspective, this can broaden horizons and enrich cultural knowledge and experiences. For example, at NYU-Shanghai, half of the students are from China and the other half are from over 70 countries, which allows us to exchange and communicate with those from different countries, experience multiple cultures, and broaden our horizons (Liu, female, 20, NYU-Shanghai). Students become immersed in the regional SFUC culture. For example, Xu (female, 18, WKU) commented: Most of the students are local Wenzhou residents, whose entrepreneurial dynamism and business plans may be insightful for me.

Comfortable Living Environment

The majority of students learning at SFCUs are from wealthy families, and they have a high-demand living environment. SFCUs have complete living facilities and provide students with a comfortable environment. Around half of the respondents (12/26) contended that such environments made SFCUs attractive. This logic could be justified with the comments:

On the school’s homepage, the student life introduction showing dorm rooms and the living environment made a deep impression on me. The dorm room is spacious and warm. The dorm is surrounded by various facilities, such as a supermarket, snack bar, and so forth, which is convenient for us (Wang, male, 20, NYU-Shanghai)

My application was approved by NYU-Shanghai, whose location is better than KDU. However, I chose the latter because the campus of NYU-Shanghai is compact, which made me feel bound and depressed (Shawn, male, 19, DKU).

City Effect

The effect of the SFCU city location can be classified into three types: city characteristics, geographic proximity, and city affection. All nine SFCUs in Mainland China are concentrated along the Southeast coastal area or in the frontier areas of Reform and Opening up, in which the economy is highly developed and infrastructure and public services are well equipped. These areas are superior in attracting resources such as investments and talent. Respondents from the Inland, and even the Northeast, and Southwest have emphasized the advanced economy and multiple employment and development opportunities in a specific city. For example:

My high school was in Hengshui, Hebei Province, an isolated municipality. I preferred to apply to universities in big cities where I can obtain opportunities for internships and jobs. Thus, I put UNNC and XJTLU first in my college application (Wang, female, 21, XJTLU).

Shanghai is the most prosperous city in China, pooling abundant resources such as talent, capital, and technology. It is appealing to those in youth concerning future career development. (Liu, female, 20, NYU-Shanghai)

Moreover, the geographic distance from home is another crucial factor in determining the choice of SFCU. Eight of the respondents pointed out that the geographic proximity to home facilitated their choice. Yang, once a student ambassador to UIC, comments: Sixty to seventy percent of UIC students come from Guangdong. For example, the planned enrollment of UIC was nearly 2,000 in 2022, and around half of the registered students are from Guangdong, indirectly confirming that geographic closeness is a factor in SFCU choices.

Another facet of the city effect is residents’ affection for the city. One participant is a native of Zhuhai, where UIC is located. He stated: Like others, I am a second-generation immigrant. The trajectory of my growth is synchronized with the development history of Zhuhai. Thus, I have an emotional attachment to the city. The settlement of UIC in Zhuhai make me feel excited. This makes me continue to stay in this city and learn more about it. Moreover, Zhuhai is one of the cities with excellent development potential in Guangdong (Li, male, 21, UIC).

Social Safety

Social safety refers to uncertain situations of popular overseas educational destinations that push Chinese high school graduates to choose SFCUs. The social safety concept is two-fold: threats to personal safety and Covid-19. Indeed, many Chinese parents want to send their children to study abroad. However, the occurrence of campus violence in popular destinations forces parents to persuade their children to attend an inbound university. At SFCUs in Mainland China students can enjoy high-quality foreign higher education and eliminate concerns about personal safety. For example, Ye said:

My parents wanted me to study abroad, but they worried about violence. I was admitted to Emerson College in Boston. After it was reported that there had been a shooting in Boston, my father made me give up the offer, so I applied to an SFCU (Ye, female, 19, UIC).

Since February 2020, most countries and regions have banned foreigners from entering the country and prohibited foreigners from leaving the country due to the outbreak of COVID-19. Herd immunity, a strategy commonly adopted in Western countries, has not been effective in curbing the spread of the novel coronavirus, thus increasing the likelihood of infection for overseas Chinese students. Given the country blockade and infected threat, some students were reluctant to continue studying abroad. Lu commented:

For me, the foremost factor is Covid-19. If there is no Covid-19, there would be no offer transfer policy, and I would be unlikely to return. Faced with the spread of virus, governments of the West laid around like couch potatoes. The U.K. authority even regarded it as ordinary influenza (Lu, female, 19, GTIIT).

Furthermore, the outbreak of Covid-19 resulted in a sharp increase in living expenses abroad, which decreased the cost-benefit analysis of earning a degree from a foreign university and indirectly drove students inward.

Discussion and Conclusion

SFCUs have conditioned the introduction of overseas quality education resources, representing an advanced form of Sino-foreign education cooperation and has shaped the fabric of Chinese higher education. Given the peculiarities of SFCUs, the present study does not indiscriminately copy the widely employed previous analytical frameworks, such as the push-pull theory and the staged decision-making process. Underpinned by the grounded theory and based on semi-structured interviews with 26 students from eight SFCUs, this study addresses the motivations and driving factors of Chinese high school graduates’ choice of a specific SFCU. Altogether, Chinese high school graduates’ study choice at SFCUs is shaped by 13 factors, which fall into three categories: institutional characteristics, social contexts, and personal considerations (Figure 1). These findings significantly contribute to the existing TNE literature and offers insightful management implications.

Figure 1.

A theoretical framework for Chinese students’ SFCU choice.

The present research reveals that Chinese high school graduates’ choice of SFCUs results from push factors originating from both domestic and overseas higher education and pull factors of SFCU. The pull factors, such as university reputation and flexible program transfer of SFCUs, and the pushing factors, such as social safety and Covid-19, relating to overseas higher education, propel Chinese high school graduates to head to SFCU. This fully demonstrates the great explanatory power of the standard push-pull model in explaining various forms of student mobility (M. Li & Bray, 2007). The current research further corroborates the justification of two recent studies in employing this theoretical framework to decode motivations behind students’ choice of Sino-foreign cooperative programs (Fang & Wang, 2014; Liu, DeWinter et al., 2023; Liu, Wimpenny et al., 2023).

Indeed, the push-pull theoretical base is a loose framework with presupposed strategy that cannot precisely capture the factors behind students’ choices and facilitate the construction of a tailored analytical framework for such cooperative programs. Moreover, the findings suggest Chinese high school graduates pay more attention to the pull factors that draw them to learn at an SFCU rather than the push factors to Chinese state university or an overseas option. This provides evidence that push factors have considerably less effect on students’ mobility choice than pull factors (Wilkins & Huisman, 2011).

In line with previous studies (Jiani, 2017; M. Li & Bray, 2007), this research indicates that the traditional pull-push model cannot provide a panorama of a student’s choice of SFCU. Student characteristics, including personal preferences and individual profiles, are indispensable for choosing a specific SFCU. The abovementioned push/pull factors closely relate to the institutional features or social context, which belong to external, or rather, distal forces in shaping students’ perceptions and choices. The actual effects of the factors heavily depend on students’ individual-level characteristics.

For example, the majority of students who learn at SFCUs plan to pursue further study abroad. SFCUs allow them to adapt to the teaching arrangements, language environment, and so forth, in advance. The interaction of macro or meso factors on the one hand and individual-level characteristics on the other hand leads to Chinese high school students’ SFCU choice. The refined three-factor framework presented in Figure 1 is very similar to the three-layer (macro-, meso-, and micro-level) framework (Haas & Hadjar, 2020) that has proved useful in decoding students’ mobility choice to Sino-foreign cooperative programs (X. Li et al., 2021). Due to SFCUs’ peculiarities, this framework needs to be modified when applied to other contexts, situations, and populations. We acknowledge that student choice of transnational education results from the interplay of individual considerations, institutional-level characteristics, and social contexts. Specifically, the addition or deletion of some ingredient within each of the three factors could be applicable given differentiating contexts.

Some practical management implications can be gleaned from these findings. First, on the premise of equity and justice, it is recommended to give full play to the role of the market in the allocation of educational resources. Higher education authorities should pay attention to the diversified needs of students by providing necessary support to the development of SFCUs and promoting their sustainable development. Second, SFCUs should enhance their marketing strategy to increase publicity and influence in the fabric of higher education in China. For example, they can use the Chinese version of the school’s official homepage to reasonably promote enrollment propaganda by displaying registered students’ colorful campus life and experiences. SFCUs could consecutively promote their enrollment policy in various forms to senior high school students, not only after gaokao. Third, SFCUs should always offer quality education services by using the two partner schools’ resources to raise their reputation.

This research is not without limitations. To begin, the respondents’ recruitment was designed as reasonably as possible, although it was not evenly distributed among all the SFCUs. However, it does cover all nine SFCUs, with the exception of the SMBU. Education and university choice in China is not only a personal matter and decision for students, but also for students’ families (Tsang, 2013). Future work should incorporate representative respondents from all SFCUs students, and students’ parents to guarantee the reliability and generalizability of the findings. Several respondents emphasized that their choice of SFCU resulted from multiple factors. Future research could identify the configurational conditions that leads to students’ choices by employing the qualitative comparative analysis strategy to deepen the understanding of choice motivations (Cilesiz & Greckhamer, 2020). Sino-foreign cooperation education falls into three categories, which may represent a distinct picture of student choice factors. Researchers can reveal the similarities and differences in students’ perceptions and motivations with a comparative case strategy to extend the growing TNE literature in regards to Mainland China.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The present study is funded by Humanities and Social Science Research Project of Hebei Education Department( BJS2023036)

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee at School of Public Policy and Management, China University of Mining and Technology.

Informed Consent

The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

ORCID iD

Yanbo Zhang

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Ahmad

S. Z.

Buchanan

F. R.

(2015). Motivation factors in students decision to study at international branch campuses in Malaysia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 1–18.

Ahmad

S. Z.

Buchanan

F. R.

(2016). Choices of destination for transnational higher education: “Pull” factors in an Asia Pacific market. Educational Studies, 42(2), 163–180.

Ahmad

S. Z.

Hussain

(2017). An investigation of the factors determining student destination choice for higher education in the United Arab Emirates. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7), 1324–1343.

Altbach

P. G.

(1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university, and development. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Bodycott

(2009). Choosing a higher education study abroad destination: What mainland Chinese parents and students rate as important. Journal of Research in International Education, 8(3), 349–373.

Cai

Hall

(2016). Motivations, expectations, and experiences of expatriate academic staff on an international branch campus in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(3), 207–222.

C-BERT. (2022). C-BERT international campus listing (0335202446). https://www.cbert.org/intl-campus.

Che

(2015). Empirical research on student choice of Chinese-foreign Cooperative University in Mainland China from the perspective of information stratgies. Fudan Education Forum, 13(3), 71–76.

Chen

L.-H.

(2007). East-Asian students’ choice of Canadian graduate schools. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 7, 271–306.

10.

Chen

P.-Y.

(2015). Transnational education: Trend, modes of practices and development. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(8), 634–637.

11.

Cheung

A. C. K.

Yuen

T. W. W.

(2016). Examining the motives and the future career intentions of mainland Chinese pre-service teachers in Hong Kong. Higher Education, 71, 209–229.

12.

Cilesiz

Greckhamer

(2020). Qualitative comparative analysis in education research: Its current status and future potential. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 332–369.

13.

Corbin

J. M.

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.

14.

Dai

(2018). A study on the students’ choice in the Sino-foreign Cooperative Universities. Master Thesis, East China Normal University.

15.

Dai

(2020). Learning between two systems: A Chinese student’s reflexive narrative in a China-Australia articulation programme. Compare, 50(3), 371–390.

16.

Ding

(2018). Capacity building or market demand? Transnational teaching in China. Higher Education Policy, 31(2), 267–287.

17.

Dong

(2014). A qualitative exploration of how host Chinese staff make sense of their intercultural experiences in a Sino-foreign cooperative university. Durham University.

18.

Ergenc

(2022). An action research on teaching in multicultural classrooms at joint-venture universities in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(4), 730–743.

19.

Fang

(2012). The development of transnational higher education in China: A comparative study of research universities and teaching universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(1), 5–23.

20.

Fang

Wang

(2014). Chinese students’ choice of transnational higher education in a globalized higher education market: A case study of W University. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(5), 475–494.

21.

Feng

(2013). University of Nottingham Ningbo China and xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University: Globalization of higher education in China. Higher Education, 65(4), 471–485.

22.

Haas

Hadjar

(2020). Students’ trajectories through higher education: A review of quantitative research. Higher Education, 79, 1099–1118.

23.

Hang

Zhang

(2022). How Chinese students manage their transition to higher education effectively: Student initiative at Sino-Foreign cooperative universities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42, 1–15.

24.

Healey

Michael

(2015). Towards a new framework for analysing transnational education. Higher Education Policy, 28, 369–391.

25.

(2016). Transnational higher education institutions in China: A comparison of policy orientation and reality. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 79–95.

26.

Hou

Montgomery

McDowell

(2014). Exploring the diverse motivations of transnational higher education in China: Complexities and contradictions. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(3), 300–318.

27.

Huang

(2013). Regulation and practice of transnational higher education in China. In Dunn

Wallace

(Eds.), Teaching in transnational higher education (pp. 23–33). Routledge.

28.

Eisenchlas

S. A.

Trevaskes

(2019). Factors affecting the quality of transnational higher education in China: A qualitative content analysis on Chinese host universities’ self-appraisal reports. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 306–321.

29.

Willis

L.-D.

(2017). Towards a common transnational education framework: Peculiarities in China matter. Higher Education Policy, 30, 245–261.

30.

Jiani

M. A.

(2017). Why and how international students choose Mainland China as a higher education study abroad destination. Higher Education, 74, 563–579.

31.

Jon

J.-E.

Lee

J. J.

Byun

(2014). The emergence of a regional hub: Comparing international student choices and experiences in South Korea. Higher Education, 67, 691–710.

32.

Knight

(2003). GATS, trade and higher education perspective 2003-where are we?The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

33.

Bray

(2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push–pull factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education, 53, 791–818.

34.

Liu

DeWinter

Harrison

Wimpenny

(2023). Motivation factors in student decisions to study Transnational Higher Education in China: A comparative study of two Anglo-Sino programmes. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 33, 161–181.

35.

Liu

Wimpenny

DeWinter

Harrison

(2023). Students’ perceptions and experiences of teaching and learning in transnational higher education in China: Implications of the intercultural dialogue framework. Teaching in Higher Education, 28, 1465–1483.

36.

Haupt

Lee

(2021). Student mobility choices in transnational education: Impact of macro-, meso- and micro-level factors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43(6), 639–653.

37.

(2019). Creating a ‘new shared space’ for quality: A case study of quality assurance in a Sino-UK partnership institute. University of Glasgow.

38.

Mazzarol

Soutar

G. N.

(2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 82–90.

39.

McBurnie

Ziguras

(2006). Transnational education: Issues and trends in offshore higher education. Routledge.

40.

MoE. (2022). Number of students of formal education by type and level. Author. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/moe_560/2021/quanguo/202301/t20230104_1038061.html

41.

MoE. (2023). 2023.教育部审批和复核的机构及项目名单[List of approved and renewed Sino-foreign cooperation in running schools and programs]. Author. https://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/aproval/orglists

42.

Mok

K. H.

(2009). The growing importance of the privateness in education: Challenges for higher education governance in China. Compare, 39(1), 35–49.

43.

Mok

K. H.

(2021). Education market with the Chinese characteristics: The rise of minban and transnational higher education in China. Higher Education Quarterly, 75(3), 398–417.

44.

Mok

K. H.

Han

(2016). The rise of transnational higher education and changing educational governance in China. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 18, 19–39.

45.

Moufahim

Lim

(2015). The other voices of international higher education: An empirical study of students’ perceptions of British university education in China. Globalisation Societies and Education, 13(4), 437–454.

46.

(2020). Intercultural communication in an English-medium international university in China: A critical sociolinguistic ethnography. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

47.

Paniagua

Villó

Escrivà-Beltran

(2022). Cross-border higher education: The expansion of international branch campuses. Research in Higher Education, 63(6), 1037–1057.

48.

Patton

M. Q.

(Ed.). (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, inc.

49.

Perez-Encinas

Rodriguez-Pomeda

de Wit

(2021). Factors influencing student mobility: A comparative European study. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2528–2541.

50.

(2018). Student intercultural engagement in transnational higher education: A single site sample of a transnational institution located in China. University of Minnesota.

51.

Rodríguez González

Bustillo Mesanza

Mariel

(2011). The determinants of international student mobility flows: An empirical study on the Erasmus programme. Higher Education, 62, 413–430.

52.

Sablina

Soong

Pechurina

(2018). Exploring expectations, experiences and long-term plans of Chinese international students studying in the joint Sino-Russian degree. Higher Education, 76, 973–988.

53.

Scott

(1998). The globalization of higher education. Society for Research Into Higher Education & Open University Press.

54.

Tsang

E. Y.-H.

(2013). The quest for higher education by the Chinese middle class: Retrenching social mobility? Higher Education, 66, 653–668.

55.

UNESCO/Council of Europe. (2001). Code of good practice in the provision of transnational education. Author.

56.

Wang

(2018). An exploration of students’ experiences and interpretations of an internationalisation policy implemented in a Chinese university: A case study. Durham University.

57.

Wilkins

Balakrishnan

M. S.

Huisman

(2012). Student choice in higher education: Motivations for choosing to study at an international branch campus. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5), 413–433.

58.

Wilkins

Huisman

(2011). Student recruitment at international branch campuses: Can they compete in the global market? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3), 299–316.

59.

M.-Y.

Zhai

Wall

Q.-C.

(2021). Understanding international students’ motivations to pursue higher education in mainland China. Educational Review, 73(5), 580–596.

60.

Zhou

Huang

Chen

(2022). Employment prospects of graduates from sino-foreign cooperative universities in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 26(1), 21–43.

61.

Xiao

(2017). Internationalization of higher education in China: A case study of international branch campuses, PhD thesis, University of Alberta.

62.

Xie

(2022). Transnational higher education partnerships in China: exploring the impact of Chinese students’ intercultural communicative competence on their motivation to study abroad. Educational Research and Evaluation, 27(3–4), 280–308.

63.

Yang

(2021). Who are studying at International Branch campuses in China? A case study. International Journal of Chinese Education, 10(3), 1–12.

64.

Yunyun

(2021). Building cross-border joint universities in China: A study of organizational dilemma. Routledge.

65.

Yunyun

A. Y. C.

(2016). Cross-border higher education in China: How the field of research has developed. Chinese Education & Society, 49(4–5), 303–323.

66.

Zhai

Gao

Wang

(2019). Factors for Chinese students choosing Australian higher education and motivation for returning: A systematic review. Sage Open, 9(2), 1–11.

67.

Zhang

(2016). International branch campuses in China: Quest for legitimacy. State University of New York at Albany.

68.

Zhang

Kinser

(2016). Independent Chinese-foreign collaborative universities and their quest for legitimacy. Chinese Education & Society, 49(4–5), 324–342.

69.

Zhao

(2021). Internationalization of regional higher education in China: A critical policy case study of a transnational double-degree program. The University of Western Ontario.

70.

Zheng

(2003). An analysis on study abroad of graduate and undergraduate in Tsinghua University. In Tian

(Ed.), Research on China’s foreign cultural exchange in higher education (pp. 199–237). Beijing, China: Minzu Press.

Why do Chinese High School Graduates Choose Sino-Foreign Cooperative Universities? A Grounded Theory Approach

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background of This Study

Literature Review

Methodology

Research Questions

Sampling and Participants

Data Analysis

Findings

Western Education Model

Institutional Reputation

Relaxed Program Transfers

Fees and Scholarship

Pursuing Graduate Study Abroad

National College Entrance Examination (NECC) Scores

Family Support

Proficiency in English

Program Preference

Broaden Personal Horizons

Comfortable Living Environment

City Effect

Social Safety

Discussion and Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethics Statement

Informed Consent

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References